I am a vet to RPGs but new to FFG RPGs and I was wondering how big of a deal are haveing a player for every role is in the game

IE is it ok for a group not to have a face-talker spot filled or can you get by without

also anyone know some good resources for new players I see a real lack in YouTube videos compared to D&D or pathfinder

3 hours ago, Oldmike1 said:

I was wondering how big of a deal are haveing a player for every role is in the game

IE is it ok for a group not to have a face-talker spot filled or can you get by without

It's not a big deal, and yes it's OK.

For obvious reasons you do want a more diverse group is possible, but this system isn't like D20 games where party composition is a major component. As a narrative heavy system based on the Star Wars films it factored in things like how the party will split and you won't be able to just have all mechanics checks rolled by the party Mechanic (assuming you even have one). So, assuming the GM isn't overstating difficulty numbers, most parties should be able to handle most things, one way or another.

Obviously a party lacking a face will have trouble talking it's way out of things, but no, it won't be like D&D where if the party doesn't have 4 specific slots filled you're probably toast eventually.

Honestly dying in this system is pretty hard to begin with.

4 hours ago, Oldmike1 said:

also anyone know some good resources for new players I see a real lack in YouTube videos compared to D&D or pathfinder

Not off the top of my head. There's a crazy number of podcasts, and Sam Witwer ran a game on Twitch with cast members form Rebels that's not bad. Between the two you should be ok.

Big thing is just unlearning everything you've learned from D20 and getting into the narrative flow of things.

The Dice for Brains podcast is pretty fantastic and does a great job displaying the system, included introducing a few brand new players to RPGs through the system. It's definitely my favorite. You may also want to look at Heroes of the Hydian Way.

4 hours ago, Oldmike1 said:

I am a vet to RPGs but new to FFG RPGs and I was wondering how big of a deal are haveing a player for every role is in the game

IE is it ok for a group not to have a face-talker spot filled or can you get by without

also anyone know some good resources for new players I see a real lack in YouTube videos compared to D&D or pathfinder

No it's not required, but it does mean that situations that revolve around skill sets the group the lacking it, will obviously be more difficult for them.

One of the nice things about the FFG system is that there is a comfortable amount of overlap with a lot of the skills, allowing for people to "muddle their way through". Nobody might have the Knowledge: Warfare skill, but someone might have enough ranks in Knowledge: Lore, or Knowledge: Core Worlds, to be able to also know the historical battle in question during the scene. What skill is used would color what information they glean from the roll. A Warfare check, for example, would likely provide knowledge about actual troop deployments, and significant engagements, whereas the Core Worlds roll would likely reflect how that battle effected the Republic long term. Stuff like that.

Thanks for the fast feedback

One fast rule question is there a penalty for skill checks for untrained characters?

12 minutes ago, Oldmike1 said:

Thanks for the fast feedback

One fast rule question is there a penalty for skill checks for untrained characters?

The main penalty is the inability to get a Triumph on a roll without using a Force point to upgrade a die.

13 minutes ago, Oldmike1 said:

Thanks for the fast feedback

One fast rule question is there a penalty for skill checks for untrained characters?

No real penalties. But you could slap some setbacks in if it feels like they're trying to do something rather complex that they're not trained for.

15 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

N ot off the top of my head. There's a crazy number of podcasts, and Sam Witwer  ran a game on Twitch with cast members form Rebels that's not bad. Between the two you should be ok.

Big thing is just unlearning everything you've learned from D20 and getting into the narrative flow of things.

Do you have a link to this? I can find some postings where it was going to happen and one that looked like it once had the video but it's not working now.

15 hours ago, Oldmike1 said:

Thanks for the fast feedback

One fast rule question is there a penalty for skill checks for untrained characters?

In addition to what DarkHorse said, you can also assign Setback (Black) Dice to the check due to being untrained. This may not be a requirement for a Charm or Negotiation check but if you have someone untrained in Mechanics trying to get the engine back online because your mechanic is unconscious, 1-2 setback would be appropriate for that situation.

Delete this as Nightwing beat me to this by 14 hour. So much for not reading through the entire post

20 minutes ago, Varlie said:

In addition to what DarkHorse said, you can also assign Setback (Black) Dice to the check due to being untrained. This may not be a requirement for a Charm or Negotiation check but if you have someone untrained in Mechanics trying to get the engine back online because your mechanic is unconscious, 1-2 setback would be appropriate for that situation.

Delete this as Nightwing beat me to this by 14 hour. So much for not reading through the entire post

I would suggest shying away from applying dice penalties directly because of being untrained in something, as that could make players reluctant to try things outside of their wheelhouse.

Now you can add the dice penalties, that's fine by itself, just don't say "these 2 setback dice are because you are doing something you're not good at."

Say the penalty is for something like "Your ship is plummeting into atmosphere, the entire vessel is shaking like a dryer in tumble. Your best friend is currently unconscious, and that **** shipboard system keeps telling you the cargo bay door is ajar!! You have to get the engines back online or bad things will happen. ....so you're kind of stressed about that....2 setback dice."

End result is the same, but it doesn't establish a precedent for penalizing trying things your not good at.

Attempting a skill check you aren't good at, is already difficult for most PCs as is, without applying another layer of difficulty for the lack of skill in the first place. The lack of skill is reflected in the small dice pool itself, meaning their odds are already less than ideal for that type of challenge.

I agree on some parts and this is truly the GM's call based on knowledge of their players. As I mentioned in my post, I wouldn't add setback to untrained social checks just for not having a rank in it. But for Mechanics and Medicine (like bracing a broken leg), I would prefer to add a setback rather than increase the difficulty.

GM: " There's a defect in the multi-spacial resonance matrix"

untrained Player: "The multi-spacihuh whatsit?"
GM: "Add 1 setback"

The reason I asked about untrained skills is a magus has no combat skills other then force powers and I am debating taking a blaster or something as a way to fight and not show that I have the force

23 minutes ago, Varlie said:

I agree on some parts and this is truly the GM's call based on knowledge of their players. As I mentioned in my post, I wouldn't add setback to untrained social checks just for not having a rank in it. But for Mechanics and Medicine (like bracing a broken leg), I would prefer to add a setback rather than increase the difficulty.

GM: " There's a defect in the multi-spacial resonance matrix"

untrained Player: "The multi-spacihuh whatsit?"
GM: "Add 1 setback"

I didn't say not add setback dice, I said don't add them because someone is untrained. To me, that sets a bad precedent of always applying setback to untrained things, and as the GM, the person designing the challenges (and knowing they aren't trained at them), it seems a bit unfair. Again, add the setback dice if the situation merits it, like environmental and stress related reasons. But if you give setback for not being skilled in Mechanics, will you do the same for every Athletics check they make? Coordination? Perception? The list of things they likely don't have ranks in is far higher than those they do, and if the simple fact of "you don't really know how to do this" warrants setback dice, that's probably going to make the players never want to try things they aren't good at. If they are specifically told "this is even harder now because you are trying something new." They'll likely become more intent on trying to solve everything with the handful of skills they are good at, as that has been demonstrated to have a much higher success rate.

Sure they might decide to buy a rank in stuff, but if the only reason they are buying the rank is to remove a penalty you implemented, then you have created a layer of problem and forcing the player to spend resources to remove it. And that's not a very fun reason to buy a rank in a skill in my book, "well I might have to do that later, and the GM will give me setback if I don't have a rank, so even though it doesn't really make sense thematically for my character to buy ranks in *insert skill*, I'm going to, just to play it safe."

And I just don't think that's necessary. There are already plenty of reasons to add dice that don't have to be "because this isn't something you know."

Would give a trained mechanic a setback on a device/machine they'd never seen before, just as much as an untrained one.

The trained one would probably have "Gearhead" talent and get rid of it, though.

3 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I didn't say not add setback dice, I said don't add them because someone is untrained. To me, that sets a bad precedent of always applying setback to untrained things, and as the GM, the person designing the challenges (and knowing they aren't trained at them), it seems a bit unfair. Again, add the setback dice if the situation merits it, like environmental and stress related reasons. But if you give setback for not being skilled in Mechanics, will you do the same for every Athletics check they make? Coordination? Perception? The list of things they likely don't have ranks in is far higher than those they do, and if the simple fact of "you don't really know how to do this" warrants setback dice, that's probably going to make the players never want to try things they aren't good at. If they are specifically told "this is even harder now because you are trying something new." They'll likely become more intent on trying to solve everything with the handful of skills they are good at, as that has been demonstrated to have a much higher success rate.

Sure they might decide to buy a rank in stuff, but if the only reason they are buying the rank is to remove a penalty you implemented, then you have created a layer of problem and forcing the player to spend resources to remove it. And that's not a very fun reason to buy a rank in a skill in my book, "well I might have to do that later, and the GM will give me setback if I don't have a rank, so even though it doesn't really make sense thematically for my character to buy ranks in *insert skill*, I'm going to, just to play it safe."

And I just don't think that's necessary. There are already plenty of reasons to add dice that don't have to be "because this isn't something you know."

Other systems have skills that are "Trained" and "Untrained". I would not go that far in this system but I see that as a perfect reason to use a setback. In my gaming group, the players don't view that as reason as not to try the skill. I can see where some people might so I guess it's left to GM's preference. I fully agree with your narrative description on adding boosts or setbacks.

No, I would not add that to Coordination and Perception if they had no ranks in them. It may cause some disparity on when it's added but I look at what is being done. If the only experience you have with engine maintenance is watching the Jiffy Lube guys change your oil, when you have to change it yourself, you are going to have setbacks. If the only medical training you have is watching House MD, you will have a setback dice when digging a slug out of your friend's arm (if he even lets you). Most people will have used Computers or driven a speeder, I probably would not add one for those. Piloting a Starship, that's a bit different and I would probably add one for that if they didn't have ranks.

At least in my group, it pushes the players to think about where they want to spend future XP.

I wouldn't consider adding penalties for being "untrained". There's already an in-built penalty: you have no yellow dice.

If a task is hard, it should be Hard, Daunting or Formidable - 3, 4, or 5 purples as applicable. If it's made worse by complicating factors (shaky ground, lack of proper tools, in low-light, in freezing cold, etc) that's when setback dice are called for. Not having the right tools may well be a consequence of not having training (as per Varlie's Jiffy Lube example) - but that setback should be overcome if you do in fact have the tools (or the talent that allows you to remove setbacks for not having tools).

10 hours ago, sarg01 said:

I wouldn't consider adding penalties for being "untrained". There's already an in-built penalty: you have no yellow dice.

Another built-in penalty is to upgrade one or more difficulty dice because...

...making an unskilled Medicine check to heal your buddy's Critical Injury is extra dangerous.

...making an unskilled Astrogation check to plot the course to, well, anywhere, is extra risky.

And so forth as deemed necessary.

It's also worth bearing in mind that PCs in the setting are themed as action movie heroes and are thus generally presumed to be broadly competent, even if they only have specific expertise in one or two areas. In short, they're rarely 'untrained' in the d20 sense.

Going back to original post. If your group was to miss a role the best one would be face.

Simply because of this from shadowrun. If the face is able to accomplish what they are intended too it takes away from the rest of the group has to do and vice versa