When looking through the talent trees today I noticed only inventor listed either option or adding boost or removing setback. This allows it to be used all of the time to help out. All of the others I saw would either only add boost or only remove setbacks.

How bad do you think it would be to allow all of the talents to work either way. That way the player always gains a benefit for the talent? Would it be too powerful for the players?

Thanks for your thoughts!

I think it would be good if a GM isn't adding much for setbacks in games. I played in a game and there were rarely setbacks to anything that wasn't defense in combat. Many players had talents that removed setbacks that were never or very rarely of use.

That being said if your GM is running things correctly (IMO) and there are environmental effects and setbacks fairly regularly then it would not be necessary to have them do either.

I've played in games where the house rule was that "if there's no setback, you add a boost." It works as a way to make those talents useful when the GM isn't imposing a lot of setbacks, and it's not game breaking.

A talent that adds a boost is always going to be useful, so there's no issue there.

Setback-removal talents really depend on whether setbacks come up with any frequency. This is somewhat playstyle related and somewhat situational, but some option to provide a boost is feasible. I'd suggest requiring 2+ setback removals to get a boost since a single setback removal is much less valuable than a boost die.

9 hours ago, Jawa4thewin said:

I think it would be good if a GM isn't adding much for setbacks in games. I played in a game and there were rarely setbacks to anything that wasn't defense in combat. Many players had talents that removed setbacks that were never or very rarely of use.

That being said if your GM is running things correctly (IMO) and there are environmental effects and setbacks fairly regularly then it would not be necessary to have them do either.

Correct use of Setbacks is one of the things I find hardest to do. My GM brain tends to think in terms of adjusting difficulty, adding purples and reds, rather than using Setbacks.

1 hour ago, Dafydd said:

Correct use of Setbacks is one of the things I find hardest to do. My GM brain tends to think in terms of adjusting difficulty, adding purples and reds, rather than using Setbacks.

I had the same problem at first. I now try to think of it as "What is the difficulty in a vacuum?" On a sunny day on Naboo with a gentle cool breeze the difficulty would be XXX if the PCs attempted this. Then I drop em into wherever they are and anything that makes it more challenging is setbacks.

The order 66 podcast recently had an episode about setting the difficulty properly. While I don't agree with them in every point, they are making a good argument, I'd definitely recommend it.

I have noticed players seem to like kicking back Setback dice to me and I make sure to add it as often is feasible. I find it easy to remember to add Setback and a reason to add them when designing encounters by asking what's going on in the environment that's interesting or complicating to what's going on. It adds flavor to the scene and elements the PCs often play off. I'd keep to the text of talents - removing setback is something only those talents can do, while adding a boost can be done with standard maneuvers like Aim (or assisting).