Just got done with a Skype session of EotE. Quite a lot of fun was had, and other than converting regular dice results to EotE effects, I have to say the entire thing moved pretty smoothly.

However, we did have one statistical oddity crop up, and I'm thinking this should be addressed in some way.

While making a ranged attack at a Tusken Raider that was engaged in melee with our group's Trandoshan Marauder, my character rolled both a Triumph and a Despair on the same roll.

Going strictly by the rules, the Despair in this situation makes the rest of the roll nearly worthless, as you automatically hit an allied character in the melee.

Personally, I think Triumph and Despair should follow the same rules as Advantage and Threat, in that they cancel each other out. To keep the game from completely stalling, the GM (Cyril) and I agreed to just have the whole attack be a wash with no damage being dealt.

Thoughts by others? Should Triumph and Despair cancel each other out?

Why would you have made the attack a wash? There's a ton you could have done with that.

So, yeah, you shoot your ally, but the Triumph could still be used to upgrade the Difficulty of the Raider's next check due to him being surprised by what just happened. Or you could make the Raider drop his weapon as your shot grazed his hand, because you just baaarely missed.

Making them cancel takes away a whole layer of the narrative, which would be an awful shame.

I agree with Ink that it was a waste to have "washed" the attack. Having both a Triumph and Despair on the same roll is prime to make something incredible happen.

The book even states(p. 20) that in the case that both are rolled, you should interpret both the Triumph and the Despair.

Having them wash out is fine I suppose…but rather boring. What's so bad about a classic "I have some good news and some bad news" type situations. Triumphs and Dispairs are supposed to be feared and cheered. When they show up together, the two effects should be as closely related as possible but they don't have to work at the exact hit of a blaster bolt causing an effect singularity. Combat is abstract…let it be abstract and cinematic.

• You could spend your Triumph to critically hit your oponent (assuming an overall success) and then the GM could return by spending the Dispair to have your weapon jam badly
• If you failed to hit you could hone in on the target for next round granting you a free die upgrade on your next combat action check…and leave yourself wide open to exploitation suffering -1 difficulty to hit you until your next action.

Now that I've had some time to think about it, I think part of the problem I had was the GM seemed to be inferring that because the Despair, I'd shoot the fellow PC and that was the end of my action, with the Triumph tossed to the wayside as though it had never happened.

Of course, the Tuskens ended up running away immediately after (I was the last PC to act, and there was only two left of the original eight), so not like it would have done much anyway *shrugs*

I guess the bigger issue is that I've never liked rules, official or otherwise, that force you to attack your own party just because of a random die roll, which is exactly what the "Despair when shooting into a melee" does. Maybe it could be re-worded into something like "in addition to the typical results of a Despair, the attack automatically misses" instead of "shoot your ally in the ass."

Donovan Morningfire said:

Except that it isn't forcing you to shoot your ally. You have the choice to not shoot at the Engaged opponent. You made that choice, when you could have run up and pistol whipped the Tusken Raider in the back of the head with your blaster instead.

Inksplat said:

No, I made the choice to shoot at one of the enemy, and was forced by a fluke of a die roll to shoot an ally instead. As I said above, I think it could be handled better than what's currently listed, but hey, that's just my opinion based upon 20+ years of playing a huge variety of RPGs.

Frankly, we're probably not going to come to an agreement, so probably best to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I missed that bit of minutiae previously Donovan. I think that rewording the "is" to "can be" on the Ranged Attack into an Engagement description for Despair use would solve the issue for the most part. That way a GM could have you shoot another target in the engagement but it wouldn't be compulsory. I don't like effects that have to occur when any one of the four modifier symbols pop up. Otherwise it should be baked into the success/failure effects.

Callidon said:

I had *just* reread the rule myself, else I would have missed it.

The more important thing is - does the allied character hit by the attack become the "target" of the attack. That's largely where my concern was. Because then there comes the issue of spending that Triumph in ways that will obviously hinder the PC (though in retrospect, we probably could have said - this happens and you gain a light side Destiny Point for it).

But being that I knew the Tuskens were going to break and run on their very next action (that happened next in the Initiative order), we agreed that the easiest was to call it a wash and discuss it afterwards.

I think part of the overall thing is that people are coming at Triumph and Despair as a "critical effect/critical fumble" mentality, which, while serving as a decent analogue to introduce the concept, does tend to break down when it comes to combat and how they're used in that area of play. Also, the compulsory aspect definitely rubbed me the wrong way, as there is no way to get around shooting into an engagement beyond not shooting into it. Maybe a talent such as Precise Shot, or a nonstandard benefit of aiming?

*shrug*

Couple of thoughts off the top of my head.

I'm pretty sure an attack roll represents several shots. A turn is around a minute. I think your attack roll is an abstraction of several shots. A hit can mean you hit someone a few times. And you can hit your target and still hit your ally. That's just the way I read it.

usgrandprix said:

It works from a narrative standpoint, but it falls apart when you get to the (necessarily) tighter mechanics of combat. Yeah, you can represent several shots fired, but you can't use that as a justification to spend a Triumph to affect every enemy near your target. They affect your target and your target alone. So who's the target? The guy you started shooting at or the guy that wound up hitting because of the Despair?

Cyril said:

Target is very clearly the target. You targeted an enemy. The fact that you miss doesn't change who you targeted.

Inksplat said:

I see that now after rereading the section again.

The blaster shot could have passed through your ally or grazed the ally and then struck the tusken. I've no experience of this game but have played a lot of WFRP3. i wouldn't get too hung up on the specific example shown for despair or triumph for any given situation. i would use them as an example of what could happen. you want a cinematic experience with consequences.

ultimately you rolled 2 disparately rare results. it is a shame to ignore either. so i would encourage any interpretation that let something cinematic but beneficial AND cinematic but detrimental occur. i bet that is was the designers would want you to do too.

if you succeeded with the shot then i'd apply the damage to the tusken and have both your ally and yourself gain strain and apply setback dice to both you and your trandoshan mates rolls to reflect shaking hands i'd also have the tusken be knocked prone by the shot.

if you failed with the shot then i'd have your ally take the damage both of you would gain strain but the tuskens weapon is knocked from his grasp and crushed by a bantha.

i wouldn't even worry about consistency if a similar dice roll occurred later. just make sure something cinematic occurs.