Honestly, I think the whole topic of Probabilities and how the dice may or may not be practically balanced is sort of counter-intuitive to why the designers chose to design them the way they did. I may be the only one here... but I am sick to death of crunching numbers. I'm tired of maximizing the potential of character versus the dice. I'm tired of playing against the dice.

I just want a cool story with adventure. I don't want to look at spreadsheets. As a GM, I want to focus on the narrative and the relationship I'm building with my players. I don't care about the challenge, so long as it is represented in the dice. If it's at least represented, then I'm okay with that.

My point is, maybe the designers really did just go on feeling. And so what if they did? You roll the dice, most of the time you achieve your goal. Sometimes you don't. Sometimes things go really well in your favor. Sometimes, things go really bad against you.

I think contemplating the dice pool frequency of failures, threats, successes, etc. is simply not conducive with this game for the specific reason that... it really doesn't matter. It's a mentality carried over from D&D and other RPG's where people are trying to game the system, rather than playing the narrative and being the character. It's drama, folks. You're the hero. Most of the time, you advance in plot. Sometimes you get your hand chopped off and fall down garbage chute. Those are rare occurrances, but they do happen.

If you're focusing on the right things, these other issues simply don't matter. I think this is exactly why my player had a hard time with my decisions to upgrade to a Challenge. He was looking at the numbers and not the narrative possibilities.

In short, these negatives are not in the game to stop you from doing what you want to do. Sure, that is a possible side-effect. But really, they're just there to make your actions interesting.

And if the system is so immaculate, then I pose the question: why do these articles keep appearing!?

They don't. They're both from 2014.

I sometimes upgrade a check to include a red die without using a destiny point, if the check has a possibility of having disastrous consequences. I guess I ought to use the DP more in these cases.

Honestly, I think the whole topic of Probabilities and how the dice may or may not be practically balanced is sort of counter-intuitive to why the designers chose to design them the way they did. I may be the only one here... but I am sick to death of crunching numbers. I'm tired of maximizing the potential of character versus the dice. I'm tired of playing against the dice.

I just want a cool story with adventure. I don't want to look at spreadsheets. As a GM, I want to focus on the narrative and the relationship I'm building with my players. I don't care about the challenge, so long as it is represented in the dice. If it's at least represented, then I'm okay with that.

My point is, maybe the designers really did just go on feeling. And so what if they did? You roll the dice, most of the time you achieve your goal. Sometimes you don't. Sometimes things go really well in your favor. Sometimes, things go really bad against you.

I think contemplating the dice pool frequency of failures, threats, successes, etc. is simply not conducive with this game for the specific reason that... it really doesn't matter. It's a mentality carried over from D&D and other RPG's where people are trying to game the system, rather than playing the narrative and being the character. It's drama, folks. You're the hero. Most of the time, you advance in plot. Sometimes you get your hand chopped off and fall down garbage chute. Those are rare occurrances, but they do happen.

If you're focusing on the right things, these other issues simply don't matter. I think this is exactly why my player had a hard time with my decisions to upgrade to a Challenge. He was looking at the numbers and not the narrative possibilities.

In short, these negatives are not in the game to stop you from doing what you want to do. Sure, that is a possible side-effect. But really, they're just there to make your actions interesting.

In order to make any tabletop RPG work correctly and well, someone had to have "looked at the spreadsheets".

The game has to be, or at least feel, fair and balanced. In a game loaded with so many special talents, a lot of work needs to go into making sure they're balanced in availability, cost, effectiveness, etc.

Results cannot be wonky, cannot constantly push people out of character, out of gaming "mode", and into "What the hell was that?" mode.

The system needs the map the territory you're trying to represent. A high-lethality system with strict limits on character success does not do a good job of mapping for a game/setting that is supposed to be, for example, comedy-action. If all your flavor text and artwork for the setting makes it clear that characters are "supposed to be" using swords, and your system makes swords worthless or tedious to use, then you've failed to map the territory.

Etc.

There's a sort of stereotypical "artsy" disdain for the technical, mathematical side of game design and GMing -- and it has gone well past its expiration date, and stinks. This whole "but I want an interesting story" thing falls kinda flat when people have been doing interesting stories using all sorts of RPG systems for decades now -- no system will force "good story", it has to come from the gamers themselves, no matter what.

And frankly, I find that too much "you succeed but..." gets tedious, and is frustrating for players. Too many "wow you really blew that one" results gets old after a while.

As an example, the WoD system has 1s cancel successes, and used to have ANY roll in which more 1s came up than successes result in a "botch", a very bad result. Long before WW did it officially, many groups house-ruled this so that only a roll with 1s and no successes at all resulted in a botch, because they were coming up too often otherwise.

And that's "in the math" of game design -- how often do you want these different sorts of results to come up? What rate of success vs failure are you looking for in the outcomes, when people are actually playing the game?

Boring article, summed up best as, until you've gotten decent xp and are rolling a good dice pool, mod your weapons, and stack your talents you won't get the results consistently you want. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, no sh*t.

Boring and inaccurate. Seriously, skipping over the awesomeness of the triumph and despair in favor of "here is the best way to succeed" is missing the whole point of the system.

And frankly, I find that too much "you succeed but..." gets tedious, and is frustrating for players. Too many "wow you really blew that one" results gets old after a while.

Boring article, summed up best as, until you've gotten decent xp and are rolling a good dice pool, mod your weapons, and stack your talents you won't get the results consistently you want. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, no sh*t.

Boring and inaccurate. Seriously, skipping over the awesomeness of the triumph and despair in favor of "here is the best way to succeed" is missing the whole point of the system.

And frankly, I find that too much "you succeed but..." gets tedious, and is frustrating for players. Too many "wow you really blew that one" results gets old after a while.

Now, this isn't an attack, so don't take it the wrong way - but I'm still confused about why you're playing? You don't like the skill trees, you don't like the Sig Abilities, and apparently now you don't like the story telling aspect of the dice. What about the game DO you like? Is the artwork in the books that compelling?

Aside from the boring factor of the article, I find critiquing the dice while the game really is unfinished kind of like bitching about how lousy a cake is that's still in the oven. I know I've certainly noticed a steady stream of weapons/attachments/talents since this article that are all bending the dice curve in the direction this article whines about.

Almost like the devs knew exactly how the dice were going to work and came up with ways to push the ability to influence the dice to 'higher levels'.

Now, this isn't an attack, so don't take it the wrong way - but I'm still confused about why you're playing? You don't like the skill trees, you don't like the Sig Abilities, and apparently now you don't like the story telling aspect of the dice. What about the game DO you like? Is the artwork in the books that compelling?

I'm here for the Star Wars, not the system... I refrain from making about 90% of the system comments I might make, to the point of getting some half-typed and then saying "nah, there's no need for that".

However, when we get into these theoretical discussions on game design, I don't think I'm pissing in anyone's pool to post the sort of observations I made above. It wasn't an attack on FFG's system, it was a refutation of the idea that "math doesn't matter" for a "narrative" RPG that still uses dice-driven resolution.

If I'm being 100% honest and open about the whole "yes but / no but" thing... I get what they're trying to do, I like a lot of description and story and character in my gaming, but they appear to be overdoing it by an order of magnitude. Most attempts to shoot that Imperial trooper chasing you should either just succeed, or just fail.

One of the reasons I posted that article was because I found it while trying to look up just how often these "yes but / no but" results actually come up -- at least according to the article's author, they come up more than anything else. And if that's true... it's going to get contrived fairly quick. If missing your target still has a good side effect 1/2 or even 1/4 of the time, it's going to feel like the characters are "failing upward" or that they're living in a bad action-comedy. If hitting your target has some drawback 1/2 or even 1/4 of the time, that's a fast-track to frustration or the feeling that they're living in a crapsack world.

Aside from the boring factor of the article, I find critiquing the dice while the game really is unfinished kind of like bitching about how lousy a cake is that's still in the oven. I know I've certainly noticed a steady stream of weapons/attachments/talents since this article that are all bending the dice curve in the direction this article whines about.

Almost like the devs knew exactly how the dice were going to work and came up with ways to push the ability to influence the dice to 'higher levels'.

See, I hate that approach to game design. The mechanics of a game should work, completely and without issue, from the core book alone, right out of the gate. It should never take a multitude of special splat talents and years of publishing for the system to be fully realized. The fully working framework and all aspects of the system should exist from the start.

We see other systems do things like put all the counter-spell and meta-magic rules in a special "let's expand on magic" book that's published 2 years after the core rules... when that sort of thing should have been in the rules from the start, as part of the balance and taken into consideration in designing and balancing everything else. Or they completely forget any sort of specific crating/artisan rules until some obscure book, and it blows up all the crafting-related published material from before when they finally do.

I sometimes upgrade a check to include a red die without using a destiny point, if the check has a possibility of having disastrous consequences. I guess I ought to use the DP more in these cases.

I salute you for trying to move this thread back on topic.

Honestly, I think the whole topic of Probabilities and how the dice may or may not be practically balanced is sort of counter-intuitive to why the designers chose to design them the way they did. I may be the only one here... but I am sick to death of crunching numbers. I'm tired of maximizing the potential of character versus the dice. I'm tired of playing against the dice.

I just want a cool story with adventure. I don't want to look at spreadsheets. As a GM, I want to focus on the narrative and the relationship I'm building with my players. I don't care about the challenge, so long as it is represented in the dice. If it's at least represented, then I'm okay with that.

My point is, maybe the designers really did just go on feeling. And so what if they did? You roll the dice, most of the time you achieve your goal. Sometimes you don't. Sometimes things go really well in your favor. Sometimes, things go really bad against you.

I think contemplating the dice pool frequency of failures, threats, successes, etc. is simply not conducive with this game for the specific reason that... it really doesn't matter. It's a mentality carried over from D&D and other RPG's where people are trying to game the system, rather than playing the narrative and being the character. It's drama, folks. You're the hero. Most of the time, you advance in plot. Sometimes you get your hand chopped off and fall down garbage chute. Those are rare occurrances, but they do happen.

If you're focusing on the right things, these other issues simply don't matter. I think this is exactly why my player had a hard time with my decisions to upgrade to a Challenge. He was looking at the numbers and not the narrative possibilities.

In short, these negatives are not in the game to stop you from doing what you want to do. Sure, that is a possible side-effect. But really, they're just there to make your actions interesting.

I agree with your overall point that the most important thing is fun at the table creating a good/fun/interesting/whatever story.

I do also think there is value in understanding the underlying math.

I agree with LethalDose that the probablilities underyling the core mechanic (dice pool system) don't quite match up with the expectations set out in the book. I'm not as convinced as he is that this generally produces an uneven or jarring gaming experience when dice hit the table (if LethalDose says that's his experience I believe it and that's certainly valid, others don't seem to experience it the same way which is valid too).

Upgrading in the book seems to feature as a premier way of becoming better at something. But upgrading has very little effect on success but does open up the possibility of Triumphs. Triumphs are powerful and throwing out 4 yellow dice with 4 chances to get Triumph is potent BUT players and GMs should also understand that this does *not* come with much increase in likelihood to succeed.

Also, understanding that Boost dice contribute more to success/failure than upgrading makes aid actions and other effects (whether Talents, spending Advantage or whatever) that add Boost that much more appealing to characters because it's a significant contribution.

As a GM or player I want to know (especially as a GM) what mechanical choices I'm making. Adding a Setback die more dramatically affects the success/failure probability of a dice pool than upgrading to a Challenge die. But the Challenge die opens up the possibility for Despair. And adding Setback and Challenge dice are not mutually exclusive but each has a distinct probabilistic affect on the dice pool.

Does it seem like the players are failing too often? If you try to adjust to fix this by not upgrading difficulty as much that won't work too well.

Now, this isn't an attack, so don't take it the wrong way - but I'm still confused about why you're playing? You don't like the skill trees, you don't like the Sig Abilities, and apparently now you don't like the story telling aspect of the dice. What about the game DO you like? Is the artwork in the books that compelling?

I'm here for the Star Wars, not the system... I refrain from making about 90% of the system comments I might make, to the point of getting some half-typed and then saying "nah, there's no need for that".

However, when we get into these theoretical discussions on game design, I don't think I'm pissing in anyone's pool to post the sort of observations I made above. It wasn't an attack on FFG's system, it was a refutation of the idea that "math doesn't matter" for a "narrative" RPG that still uses dice-driven resolution.

If I'm being 100% honest and open about the whole "yes but / no but" thing... I get what they're trying to do, I like a lot of description and story and character in my gaming, but they appear to be overdoing it by an order of magnitude. Most attempts to shoot that Imperial trooper chasing you should either just succeed, or just fail.

One of the reasons I posted that article was because I found it while trying to look up just how often these "yes but / no but" results actually come up -- at least according to the article's author, they come up more than anything else. And if that's true... it's going to get contrived fairly quick. If missing your target still has a good side effect 1/2 or even 1/4 of the time, it's going to feel like the characters are "failing upward" or that they're living in a bad action-comedy. If hitting your target has some drawback 1/2 or even 1/4 of the time, that's a fast-track to frustration or the feeling that they're living in a crapsack world.

Aside from the boring factor of the article, I find critiquing the dice while the game really is unfinished kind of like bitching about how lousy a cake is that's still in the oven. I know I've certainly noticed a steady stream of weapons/attachments/talents since this article that are all bending the dice curve in the direction this article whines about.

Almost like the devs knew exactly how the dice were going to work and came up with ways to push the ability to influence the dice to 'higher levels'.

See, I hate that approach to game design. The mechanics of a game should work, completely and without issue, from the core book alone, right out of the gate. It should never take a multitude of special splat talents and years of publishing for the system to be fully realized. The fully working framework and all aspects of the system should exist from the start.

We see other systems do things like put all the counter-spell and meta-magic rules in a special "let's expand on magic" book that's published 2 years after the core rules... when that sort of thing should have been in the rules from the start, as part of the balance and taken into consideration in designing and balancing everything else. Or they completely forget any sort of specific crating/artisan rules until some obscure book, and it blows up all the crafting-related published material from before when they finally do.

I've seen others, including a player in my regular group, who've expressed concern about the mixed results for the exact reasons you stated. The game was designed to have a dramtic back and forth incorporated into the core dice mechanics.

Also, a lot of the "negative" effects are typically things like "You had to leave cover briefly to take the shot, giving the next opponent a Boost to hit you" or "You're brilliant rhetoric has convinced them, your efforts have strained you a bit so take 2 Strain", etc. In other words with a good group the "negative" results add narrative action or add small costs to things. Yes, this can include things like your weapon running out of ammo or being disarmed or such things but it goes both ways too - the adversaries are also working in the same system.

But it is a bit of an adjustment to play a game where "bad" things happen on your turn because of your own roll.

Also, not every mixed result roll has to be "fully" interpreted - simple success or failure

Honestly, I think the whole topic of Probabilities and how the dice may or may not be practically balanced is sort of counter-intuitive to why the designers chose to design them the way they did. I may be the only one here... but I am sick to death of crunching numbers. I'm tired of maximizing the potential of character versus the dice. I'm tired of playing against the dice.

I just want a cool story with adventure. I don't want to look at spreadsheets. As a GM, I want to focus on the narrative and the relationship I'm building with my players. I don't care about the challenge, so long as it is represented in the dice. If it's at least represented, then I'm okay with that.

My point is, maybe the designers really did just go on feeling. And so what if they did? You roll the dice, most of the time you achieve your goal. Sometimes you don't. Sometimes things go really well in your favor. Sometimes, things go really bad against you.

I think contemplating the dice pool frequency of failures, threats, successes, etc. is simply not conducive with this game for the specific reason that... it really doesn't matter. It's a mentality carried over from D&D and other RPG's where people are trying to game the system, rather than playing the narrative and being the character. It's drama, folks. You're the hero. Most of the time, you advance in plot. Sometimes you get your hand chopped off and fall down garbage chute. Those are rare occurrances, but they do happen.

If you're focusing on the right things, these other issues simply don't matter. I think this is exactly why my player had a hard time with my decisions to upgrade to a Challenge. He was looking at the numbers and not the narrative possibilities.

In short, these negatives are not in the game to stop you from doing what you want to do. Sure, that is a possible side-effect. But really, they're just there to make your actions interesting.

I agree with your overall point that the most important thing is fun at the table creating a good/fun/interesting/whatever story.

I do also think there is value in understanding the underlying math.

I agree with LethalDose that the probablilities underyling the core mechanic (dice pool system) don't quite match up with the expectations set out in the book. I'm not as convinced as he is that this generally produces an uneven or jarring gaming experience when dice hit the table (if LethalDose says that's his experience I believe it and that's certainly valid, others don't seem to experience it the same way which is valid too).

Upgrading in the book seems to feature as a premier way of becoming better at something. But upgrading has very little effect on success but does open up the possibility of Triumphs. Triumphs are powerful and throwing out 4 yellow dice with 4 chances to get Triumph is potent BUT players and GMs should also understand that this does *not* come with much increase in likelihood to succeed.

Also, understanding that Boost dice contribute more to success/failure than upgrading makes aid actions and other effects (whether Talents, spending Advantage or whatever) that add Boost that much more appealing to characters because it's a significant contribution.

As a GM or player I want to know (especially as a GM) what mechanical choices I'm making. Adding a Setback die more dramatically affects the success/failure probability of a dice pool than upgrading to a Challenge die. But the Challenge die opens up the possibility for Despair. And adding Setback and Challenge dice are not mutually exclusive but each has a distinct probabilistic affect on the dice pool.

Does it seem like the players are failing too often? If you try to adjust to fix this by not upgrading difficulty as much that won't work too well.

Well put, JR. Simiarly kudos to Max for pointing out that the point is that the math actually *does* matter.

@whafrog: Just an FYI the rabid anti-math, anti-intellectual backlash above is exactly what I was talking about on the last page. It doesn't matter if I let it go, it's still here.

I'm not sure the guy who wrote the 2014 article even understood what the system was trying to achieve...

And saying something like 'two yellows is worse than three greens' is simply incorrect.

I don't think the FFG SW system is perfect (it has a lot of 'old school' design like tables for a 'new school' system for me) but I've found the dice work very well and have never seen a need to tamper with them. In fact, the system tends to get weaker when it moves away from using them.

I agree with your overall point that the most important thing is fun at the table creating a good/fun/interesting/whatever story.

I do also think there is value in understanding the underlying math.

I agree with LethalDose that the probabilities underlying the core mechanic (dice pool system) don't quite match up with the expectations set out in the book. I'm not as convinced as he is that this generally produces an uneven or jarring gaming experience when dice hit the table (if LethalDose says that's his experience I believe it and that's certainly valid, others don't seem to experience it the same way which is valid too).

Upgrading in the book seems to feature as a premier way of becoming better at something. But upgrading has very little effect on success but does open up the possibility of Triumphs. Triumphs are powerful and throwing out 4 yellow dice with 4 chances to get Triumph is potent BUT players and GMs should also understand that this does *not* come with much increase in likelihood to succeed.

Also, understanding that Boost dice contribute more to success/failure than upgrading makes aid actions and other effects (whether Talents, spending Advantage or whatever) that add Boost that much more appealing to characters because it's a significant contribution.

As a GM or player I want to know (especially as a GM) what mechanical choices I'm making. Adding a Setback die more dramatically affects the success/failure probability of a dice pool than upgrading to a Challenge die. But the Challenge die opens up the possibility for Despair. And adding Setback and Challenge dice are not mutually exclusive but each has a distinct probabilistic affect on the dice pool.

Does it seem like the players are failing too often? If you try to adjust to fix this by not upgrading difficulty as much that won't work too well.

And the thing is, as a player, I'd be looking to maximize my chances of a vanilla success while minimizing my chances of Despair and largely ignoring any attempt for a Triumph.

I also think the mixed results can help players feel less sucky if interpreted well.

Did your expert fail their check? Well you likely produced a bunch of advantage (and perhaps even Triumph) so instead of a flat failure you get to narrtate something good coming from your failed check.

"I swung my vibro-ax at his face, but to avoid it he is knocked off balance and exposed himself"

Yes, you missed. But you still contributed to the story in an interesting way and even threw some mechanical benefit to the other players. Win win.

In short - I think understanding the basic countours of the dice probabilities helps to manage expectations.

If a player throws a whole bunch of XP to turn 3 green into 3 yellows they haven't dramatically increased their chances of success - which is counter-intuitive. BUT they have 3 chances now for a Triumph.

And - speaking of the challenge die - putting a challenge die in the pool doesn't have much impact on the pool in terms of success/failure but it does add the possibility of Despair - meaning GMs can feel more confident doing an automatic upgrade of difficulty if the situation warrants it because the task isn't really that more difficult but there are dire consequences.

And as 2P51 points out, you're not necessarily looking to get a lot of excess successes.

So, I agree that it's not correct to say that "2 yellows is worse than 3 green" because it depends on what you're trying to achieve.

There's a sort of stereotypical "artsy" disdain for the technical, mathematical side of game design and GMing -- and it has gone well past its expiration date, and stinks. This whole "but I want an interesting story" thing falls kinda flat when people have been doing interesting stories using all sorts of RPG systems for decades now -- no system will force "good story", it has to come from the gamers themselves, no matter what.

I think you and LethalDose are projecting about this "disdain for the technical" commentary. Not to speak for Raice, but I think maybe he just meant you guys emphasize it way too much. I think most people appreciate the thought and math that goes into good game design, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the experience. At some point, real world results take over, and the proof is in the pudding there.

Frankly, at this point, I could give two carps about the math. It's long been settled. It was settled three years ago. The math is good, and the system is working as intended. Just because you don't like the "you succeed but..." dual-axis mechanics doesn't mean it need tampering with...

...

...actually, let me revise that: if you want to tamper with it, produce an alternative for critique. Otherwise all your complaints are just hot air.

There's a sort of stereotypical "artsy" disdain for the technical, mathematical side of game design and GMing -- and it has gone well past its expiration date, and stinks. This whole "but I want an interesting story" thing falls kinda flat when people have been doing interesting stories using all sorts of RPG systems for decades now -- no system will force "good story", it has to come from the gamers themselves, no matter what.

I think you and LethalDose are projecting about this "disdain for the technical" commentary. Not to speak for Raice, but I think maybe he just meant you guys emphasize it way too much. I think most people appreciate the thought and math that goes into good game design, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the experience. At some point, real world results take over, and the proof is in the pudding there.

Frankly, at this point, I could give two carps about the math. It's long been settled. It was settled three years ago. The math is good, and the system is working as intended. Just because you don't like the "you succeed but..." dual-axis mechanics doesn't mean it need tampering with...

...

...actually, let me revise that: if you want to tamper with it, produce an alternative for critique. Otherwise all your complaints are just hot air.

or don't play...

@whafrog: Just an FYI the rabid anti-math, anti-intellectual backlash above is exactly what I was talking about on the last page. It doesn't matter if I let it go, it's still here.

I think it's more a reaction to your "rabid"...(your term)...pro math-at-all-costs. You seem to forget that in the end it's the gaming experience that matters...and my experience has been most excellent with this system, far more useful to me than any other system I've played in the last 30+ years. If that's not been your experience, if the math isn't accurately enough reflected in the fluff text for your liking, then the game is not for you.

And...I wouldn't call that "letting go".

There's a sort of stereotypical "artsy" disdain for the technical, mathematical side of game design and GMing -- and it has gone well past its expiration date, and stinks. This whole "but I want an interesting story" thing falls kinda flat when people have been doing interesting stories using all sorts of RPG systems for decades now -- no system will force "good story", it has to come from the gamers themselves, no matter what.

I think you and LethalDose are projecting about this "disdain for the technical" commentary. Not to speak for Raice, but I think maybe he just meant you guys emphasize it way too much. I think most people appreciate the thought and math that goes into good game design, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the experience. At some point, real world results take over, and the proof is in the pudding there.

Frankly, at this point, I could give two carps about the math. It's long been settled. It was settled three years ago. The math is good, and the system is working as intended. Just because you don't like the "you succeed but..." dual-axis mechanics doesn't mean it need tampering with...

...

...actually, let me revise that: if you want to tamper with it, produce an alternative for critique. Otherwise all your complaints are just hot air.

The "Let's see you do better" argument? Really?

The post I was responding to there certainly read like a dismissal of the analytical side, exemplified by the comments "My point is, maybe the designers really did just go on feeling. And so what if they did?" and "If you're focusing on the right things, these other issues simply don't matter."

Frankly, before I try something, I need to know the relative chances of success and failure. I'm not going to waste my time on falling down over and over. And in the case of a "story driven" game where the PCs are the "protagonists"... should a PC be falling on their face all the time because they kept trying things that were "dramatic" and "heroic", but not something they were mechanically likely to succeed at?

It's interesting to read how people use the challenge dies.

Pet peeve, but the plural is "dice" (first definition, OED).

I try not use red dice unless I'm flipping a black destiny point or if it's an opposed roll. I've been thinking that it's a bit contradicting when social situations have opposed rolls but combat situations don't. Because it makes social situations much harder to accomplish. Negotiating against a merchant with 3 skill usually means 3 red dice. ouch.

There's an important statistical difference between the two situations. A social encounter can [frequently] be resolved with a single check, while combat is typically resolved with multiple checks (though there are rules for single roll checks, I think?). Since combat requires multiple successful checks, the comparing a success rate of a *single* combat check to the success rate of a *single* competitive social encounter check is misleading. Though, on the flip side of the coin, failure on a single combat roll typically won't lead to failure of the entire encounter.

Sorry, not my first languange. I recall someone complaining about it when I did use the dice word instead of die. So I never remember which way around it was.

In any system you (as the GM) need to have at least a basic understanding of the underlying math. You need to at least have a general idea what an appropriate level of challenge is to make a "good story" for you and your players.

For example, in D&D you would never even think about throwing the PCs against a monster that has an AC of 30, when the highest bonus to hit in the party is +12 and the average is +10 (having only 5 to 15% chance of success) unless you wanted the PCs captured, the mage to shine, or to reset the campaign with new PCs.

The same applies is this system, you need to know how adding a red, purple, or black will alter the odds of the player succeeding, getting advantages, and so on.

For my group, some of the most memorable sessions we've had have been when we've made creative use of triumphs and despairs. The really cool part is that it can take the adventure to places that nobody ever planned, including me, the GM. This is especially true for despairs which, despite how the players may view them, are great story-telling devices and really enrich the fun of the game. None of this would be possible without proficiency and challenge dice, so crunchy math aside, it can be rather short-sighted to dismiss them.

This is similar to the view that obligation is a negative mechanic that's there to screw the players. Nothing can be farther from the truth! Like triumphs and despairs, obligation can be great for adding opportunities for fun and excitement in the game, as well as inserting a lot of twists and turns to the story.

For my group, some of the most memorable sessions we've had have been when we've made creative use of triumphs and despairs. The really cool part is that it can take the adventure to places that nobody ever planned, including me, the GM. This is especially true for despairs which, despite how the players may view them, are great story-telling devices and really enrich the fun of the game. None of this would be possible without proficiency and challenge dice, so crunchy math aside, it can be rather short-sighted to dismiss them.

This is similar to the view that obligation is a negative mechanic that's there to screw the players. Nothing can be farther from the truth! Like triumphs and despairs, obligation can be great for adding opportunities for fun and excitement in the game, as well as inserting a lot of twists and turns to the story.

Obligation is fantastic.

The "Let's see you do better" argument? Really?

Yes. I don't see anything constructive in your criticisms. Unless all you're here to do is convince people to play something else, I don't see the point. If you want to make this game better for you...then just get busy doing it.

Frankly, before I try something, I need to know the relative chances of success and failure. I'm not going to waste my time on falling down over and over. And in the case of a "story driven" game where the PCs are the "protagonists"... should a PC be falling on their face all the time because they kept trying things that were "dramatic" and "heroic", but not something they were mechanically likely to succeed at?

Well, now you're completely misrepresenting the system. I think if you don't know by now what the relative chances of success and failure are, and how to scale an encounter accordingly, then all the math isn't going to help you. But plenty of people are using it successfully and happily.

Anyway, we're way OT...

I'm here for the Star Wars, not the system... I refrain from making about 90% of the system comments I might make, to the point of getting some half-typed and then saying "nah, there's no need for that".

It just seems that if the system is such an ill fit for you that either D6, D20, Saga or something generic like HERO would be a better choice for you.

The mechanics of a game should work, completely and without issue, from the core book alone, right out of the gate.