Hit is cancelled by Miss.

Advantage is cancelled by Threat.

Triumph is canc...nope, it coexists with Despair.

I'm curious how often both occur on the same roll, and I can see it will happen a great deal more as skills progress and Adversary talents bring on the reds.

The most blatant potential problem is the combat check when shooting into an engagement. A Despair automatically hits a friendly target instead of the intended target (page 210). That's a pretty **** big problem if the same roll produced a Triumph and normally would have meant a crit or something equally exciting. Now it practically must be spent in the service of countering the Despair in some small way because you flat out MISSED despite "hitting" very very well with your other symbols.

It seems like some narrative situations would warrant the outcomes coexisting to simultaneously yield epic successes and epic fails, but I wonder if some player or GM weariness will set in with this as the number of these symbols being rolled starts increasing.

So, after a very long preamble, I'll ask: should the symbols cancel each other out?

Well, you could have shot your ally, but the shot actually punched THROUGH them, and also hit the target. You see this happen in action movies from time to time. Non-lethal shot on the ally, kills the attacker.

No, I don't think the symbols should cancel. Obviously, as a GM, there might be situations where things are easier or make more sense if they do cancel. Especially as you get into the higher levels of the game, where triumphs and despairs start becoming likely on rolls. But in general, no, the fun is in finding a creative way to resolve both.

It can happen.

As for both while shooting an enemy engaged with a fellow PC? Crits him, right through the head, the baddie goes down, and the blaster bolt keeps going, right into the control panel for the airlock! or that stack of fuel cells! or the ammo crates!

I'd always allow the Triumph to happen first, then, for the narrative, I'd make something pretty bad happen afterwards, most likely tied to the great success.

I say don't let them cancel each other out. It will ultimately come down to you or the GM and weariness or fatigue, but if you fight through that, I think you'll see some pretty exciting stories come of it.

E

lots of fun to be had here.... you crit (triumph) but your weapon also jams or runs out of ammo (despair).

**** your awesome luck.

I quite enjoy that both symbols can (though very rarely) show up together. I have had a fun try to narrate the outcome of both, to much amusement to my group. As an example:

Once, while fighting in a massive warehouse, the group of PCs found themselves in a fire-fight with 2 groups of Minions and a Rival. The fight worked out as I assumed during the fight vs. the Minions. Then they took on the Rival. Once during the fight with the Rival, the Hired Gun rolled both the Triumph and Despair symbols,

I ruled that, he missed the Rival and hit the large stack of crates. The crates fell over, covering (and wounding) both the Rival and the PC ally that was in melee battle with the Rival. Worked GREAT and had even better effect on the over all story...digging their friend out, trying to do it faster than the Rival could do it!

The important thing is that Triumph never causes a bad thing to happen for the group, and the player gets to choose how they use their Triumph (GM only gets to offer suggestions). So if you roll despair and the GM says that makes the player hit an ally (if the check was overall a success, it still hits the enemy), then like other people say, you crit the enemy and then hit your ally. Or you crit the enemy... and then find out your blaster is out of power.

As a GM, you are never FORCED to spend threat or despair on any one thing, the book can offer strong suggestions, but you spend them however you think would make things the most interesting and dramatic.

My personal example I've used when explaining the system to players is: You're in an epic fight on a catwalk against some massive badass. Things are getting rough, but you line up your shots, squeeze your trigger twice...*TRIUMPH!* you shoot your opponent and he goes falling off. *DESPAIR!* Before you have a moment to cheer, hear the sound of metal creaking ominously... your other shot went right through one of the braces holding up the catwalk and now it's coming down... with you still on top of it.

That's totally a moment players will remember, and it's exactly the sort of scene people would love in a movie.

Rolls where Triumph and Despair happen simultaneously are often the most entertaining in the entire game.

As was said above, Triumph never results in something bad for the PCs; the GM can't force you to hit an ally and then have you crit him (it would hardly be a 'Triumph' in that case). There have been some great suggestions up above as to how to mix effects from the same roll, but the general idea is that you get something good, something bad, and not something bad, something worse.

this would be the first thing that comes to my mind but you could get even crazier with it.. your triumph means you obliterate the enemy but in turn your despair causes the enemies body to literally explode under the intnsity of your fire, splashing hot gore all over you and your band of adventurers, the blood has a smell so putrid that any coordination checks suffer a setback die for all players till they get a quiet moment to wipe down...

lots of fun to be had here.... you crit (triumph) but your weapon also jams or runs out of ammo (despair).

**** your awesome luck.

this would be the first thing that comes to my mind but you could get even crazier with it.. your triumph means you obliterate the enemy but in turn your despair causes the enemies body to literally explode under the intnsity of your fire, splashing hot gore all over you and your band of adventurers, the blood has a smell so putrid that any coordination checks suffer a setback die for all players till they get a quiet moment to wipe down...

That's well out of the tone for almost every Star Wars game. People do die in Star Wars, but it's pretty much always clean (no blood) because people are fighting with weapons that cauterize the wounds that they create. Obviously if your group wants things that violent, the GM can make that sort of thing happen, but Star Wars isn't an R rated 80's action movie.

Remember you always let the players choose the outcome of success, advantage and triumph first. So let them choose first!

I have this situation happen to me twice. Once, in a successful player roll, and the other one on a failure.

In the case the player failed his attack he used the Triumph to get to cover. I just told him that as he rushed to cover he lost control of his blaster and fell from his hands.

In the case where the player succeeded it was an astrogation check to escape some Tie. He succeeded and used the triumph to get to a very specific location in the destination he entered. The despair? An imperial sympathizer happened to be near the arrival point and identify the ship. That means that eventually the Empire will know where he jumped to.

pg.217 table 6-10 actually lists ''bleeding out'' as a critical injury result so saying that showing a little blood would be out of tone for most star wars games may be true just not with this one. but hey to each his own

Thanks for the replies. I think in general it sounds pretty good to keep both. I guess part of my confusion is the book seems unequivocal about a Despair rolled when shooting into an engagement--you hit your ally INSTEAD OF your target. That might be the source of some of my discomfort given how triumphant Triumph seems to be for many of the campaigns I'm reading about. Yeah, you can spend it first, but not really to crit since you're going to pop your friend with that crit. Having the shot go through the target and then hitting a friend makes good sense from a narrative perspective, but that's not how the rule is worded. Normally there's some wiggle room, but this one's flat both in the hit your ally and in the instead of aspects.

Thanks for the replies. I think in general it sounds pretty good to keep both. I guess part of my confusion is the book seems unequivocal about a Despair rolled when shooting into an engagement--you hit your ally INSTEAD OF your target. That might be the source of some of my discomfort given how triumphant Triumph seems to be for many of the campaigns I'm reading about. Yeah, you can spend it first, but not really to crit since you're going to pop your friend with that crit. Having the shot go through the target and then hitting a friend makes good sense from a narrative perspective, but that's not how the rule is worded. Normally there's some wiggle room, but this one's flat both in the hit your ally and in the instead of aspects.

Honestly, it should probably say that the Despair only causes you to hit your ally if your attack isn't successful. Despair never cancels a success and Triumph never cancels a failure. If a PC rolls a Triumph, but all the successes get cancelled, it's not still a crit, something else happens. The book really shouldn't ever say that you MUST spend Threat or Despair a specific way, only offer suggestions and make certain you know they're suggestions.

Thanks for the replies. I think in general it sounds pretty good to keep both. I guess part of my confusion is the book seems unequivocal about a Despair rolled when shooting into an engagement--you hit your ally INSTEAD OF your target. That might be the source of some of my discomfort given how triumphant Triumph seems to be for many of the campaigns I'm reading about. Yeah, you can spend it first, but not really to crit since you're going to pop your friend with that crit. Having the shot go through the target and then hitting a friend makes good sense from a narrative perspective, but that's not how the rule is worded. Normally there's some wiggle room, but this one's flat both in the hit your ally and in the instead of aspects.

Honestly, it should probably say that the Despair only causes you to hit your ally if your attack isn't successful. Despair never cancels a success and Triumph never cancels a failure. If a PC rolls a Triumph, but all the successes get cancelled, it's not still a crit, something else happens. The book really shouldn't ever say that you MUST spend Threat or Despair a specific way, only offer suggestions and make certain you know they're suggestions.

Actually, the success that comes as part of the Triumph can cancel a failure, and a failure that comes as part of a Despair can cancel out a success.

If you only rolled a Triumph and a Despair, the success/failure parts of them would cancel each other out, resulting overall in a failure, but one where you can apply a Triumph result and a Despair result.

Actually, the success that comes as part of the Triumph can cancel a failure, and a failure that comes as part of a Despair can cancel out a success.

If you only rolled a Triumph and a Despair, the success/failure parts of them would cancel each other out, resulting overall in a failure, but one where you can apply a Triumph result and a Despair result.

I misspoke, I meant that a Despair symbol doesn't cancel a Successful check and a Triumph doesn't cancel a Failed check. As in once everything is added up and you've determined the base outcome (IE, roll 2 success, 1 despair, still a success). I didn't use precise enough language with game terms.

Actually, the success that comes as part of the Triumph can cancel a failure, and a failure that comes as part of a Despair can cancel out a success.

If you only rolled a Triumph and a Despair, the success/failure parts of them would cancel each other out, resulting overall in a failure, but one where you can apply a Triumph result and a Despair result.

I misspoke, I meant that a Despair symbol doesn't cancel a Successful check and a Triumph doesn't cancel a Failed check. As in once everything is added up and you've determined the base outcome (IE, roll 2 success, 1 despair, still a success). I didn't use precise enough language with game terms.

Ahh, I get you. Yea, you have it right there.

Literally my favorite rolls ever come with at least one of each. An enemy assassin droid that was disguised as a senator's Protocol droid attacked the senator we were hired by. I was a super pro-republic bodyguard droid, and I used the Bodyguard talent maneuver to upgrade attacks going towards him by two.

The droid shrugged off the damage we put on him that turn, he rushed up and attacked the senator. Because of my maneuver, he rolled a despair. However, he also rolled a triumph. I immediately offered to spend his despair to hit me instead of the senator, since it came up because I was interposing myself and trying to protect him. My GM okayed it, and then spent his triumph to crit me - I rolled a Bleeding Out, and proceeded to leak my vital oils all over the place. But **** if I didn't protect that god **** senator!

The general swing of this conversation seems to be that rolling a Triumph and scoring enough Successes after Despair is applied to still result in a hit essentially bypasses Despair's automatic retargetting to an ally. That works for me. So the example of having the blaster bolt critically shoot through the original target and then hit an ally makes sense as one way to use both symbols. The attacker did, in fact, hit their target.

Also, there seems to be consensus not to be shackled to a forced result in a system that focuses on creative interpretation. Frankly, I would think there's often a worse thing to do than redirect the shot to an ally, like, say, redirect it to something that can explode or collapse that hits multiple allies. Heh heh heh.

Thanks for the replies. I think in general it sounds pretty good to keep both. I guess part of my confusion is the book seems unequivocal about a Despair rolled when shooting into an engagement--you hit your ally INSTEAD OF your target. That might be the source of some of my discomfort given how triumphant Triumph seems to be for many of the campaigns I'm reading about. Yeah, you can spend it first, but not really to crit since you're going to pop your friend with that crit. Having the shot go through the target and then hitting a friend makes good sense from a narrative perspective, but that's not how the rule is worded. Normally there's some wiggle room, but this one's flat both in the hit your ally and in the instead of aspects.

For Reference the passage indicated lists:

In addition, if the attackers check succeeds but he generated at least one Despair, that Despair is automatically spent to make the attacker hit one of the individuals engaged with the target (of the GM's choice), instead of the target.

So, technically, if the only other eligable target is an ally then there you go. Personally I don't have too much of a problem with this, shooting into a melee is very dangerous. If you feel it is innapropriate for the character to be hit, nothing saying you are not allowed to target the melee guys equipment. Imagine the looks on their faces when the deadshot assassin shoots the head off of the wookies virboaxe.

If a player is looking for another option, reference the aid another action. An angry wookie in melee with the nemesis that suddenly has 2~4 (depending on party size) extra boost die is really gonna hurt someone. Be sure to get them to describe how they are aiding him however, which may be firing for effect, timing shots to distract the opponent rather than wound.

Above all, never let the rules get in the way of a positive game experience.

I'm still inclined to not ever let a Successful check be used against the party. Yes, the Despair or Threat might make it so something bad happens, but whenever a player succeeds, they are successful at what they were doing... it's just that something horrible might have happened along with that.

In fact, in the spirit of how the game portrays the wide range of results, that written passage (if it involved hitting an ally instead of, say, another enemy that happens to be there) goes absolutely at odds with the rest of the game. If there was a big melee, I might make a success with a despair hit another enemy, but a failure with a despair hit an ally (for base damage). I don't remember if it's actually in there, but I was also pretty sure that shooting into melee increased the difficulty, if it's not there, I'd definitely make that one of the house rules.

I spent a handfull of threats to make the Twi'lek Dancer hologram that a character was fixing switch over to a Houk Dancer stripper module.

They suffered a little bit of strain for that.