How many times does someone get to attempt a non combat skill check. For example trying to slice a computer, or a negotiation check against rarity for gear. You get my drift.
How Many Skill Checks
It depends. Sometimes Threat and/or Despair will prevent repeat checks.
I usually allow for failure with advantage to give the player an extra opportunity or two. Anything else I take to mean that the character is incapable of doing it in that situation. In a system like D&D, you might have a take-20/10 mechanic to represent this, in something like Edge, just toss the player a boost or two (or start to remove setbacks) to represent time/external pressures being off them.
I sometimes let a player try again, but this game has so many mechanics to apply: setback dice to subsequent checks, upgraded difficulty, results of threats and despairs. Of course it's all dependent upon how much time the player has but if the player has ALL the time in the world, the GM probably shouldn't be calling for roll after roll until the player succeeds.
Say the challenge called for an average failure, but if the character had ample time, I'd reduce the dice to easy. Failing that, I'd add a setback die in, but keep it easy. I'd then give the option to " BLAST IT!" but that will have a negative side effect.
Keep the action moving, boys!
Say the challenge called for an average failure, but if the character had ample time, I'd reduce the dice to easy. Failing that, I'd add a setback die in, but keep it easy. I'd then give the option to " BLAST IT!" but that will have a negative side effect.
Keep the action moving, boys!
I just added extra difficulty levels per additional attempt if there were uncancelled threat to represent the system going into lock-down, more uncancelled threat meant more difficulty/setback dice. On an uncancelled dispair then no further attempts, system locks you out and trips alarms.
It really depends on the task being attempted.
First, throw your d20 "Taking 10/Taking 20" concept out the window. It's a different ball game now, with different rules and a different playing field.
- If the task is trivial or unimportant, just have the character narrate how he goes about doing it. This can be anything from calculating a hyperspace jump from Corellia to Nar Shaddaa to cooking a meal in the ship's galley to jumping across a meter-wide pit. Unless there's a reasonable chance of failure or the results of failure/success could have interesting complications (e.g. it could matter to the narrative of the scene), just leave the dice alone.
Second, let them re-attempt the task as long as it makes sense that they could. If they are attempting something that couldn't really be tried again after failing (e.g. lying to a guard about why you're in a restricted area or negotiating a price on a used speeder), don't let them try again unless their reason is really, really good. Alternatively, if they roll enough threat on a check that could possibly be re-attempted, you could use that Threat to break whatever they're using so that they can't attempt the check again. It's just important to remember that 1 Check = 1 Action = about a minute, so if they're in a time crunch or in combat, they might only get so many tries before time just runs out for whatever reason.
Just be sensible about it, and take your player's suggestions into consideration, and you should be fine.
Generally, once. Rolls should have consequences (good and bad), and allowing a do-over both eliminates the bad consequences and reduces the significance of success. If failure doesn't matter, then why bother rolling?
One place I break this rule, though, is in combat where it's time that matters. If you are trying to hack open a door (either way I suppose), failure means you have to endure another round of fighting. In those cases, I go for a "keep trying until you succeed" task.
Generally, once. Rolls should have consequences (good and bad), and allowing a do-over both eliminates the bad consequences and reduces the significance of success. If failure doesn't matter, then why bother rolling?
"If at first you don't succeed," and all that.
Edited by awayputurwpnGenerally, once. Rolls should have consequences (good and bad), and allowing a do-over both eliminates the bad consequences and reduces the significance of success. If failure doesn't matter, then why bother rolling?
One place I break this rule, though, is in combat where it's time that matters. If you are trying to hack open a door (either way I suppose), failure means you have to endure another round of fighting. In those cases, I go for a "keep trying until you succeed" task.
This. But, I'll put a finer point on it. Skill checks, especially in EotE are comprehensive resolutions to the player's attempt to solve a specific problem in a particular fashion. Your character either can or cannot slice that particular computer at that time; the rare goods are either avilable to you, or they aren't, and a single check tells you this.
In combat, which is turn-by-turn, feel free to narrow the scope down to exact applications, just like you do with attacks. If slicing a door* is the only obvious alternative to killing all the thugs, then it's okay to slice at the door round-to-round until it's open or everyone is dead. That's a great way to ratchet-up the tension.
(*For extra fun, reveal it to be the janitor's closet. )
Edited by Lorne
I would agree with the sentiment, but disagree with your conclusion. The "bad consequence" of failing in this system is that you fail, not that you fail and other bad stuff happens (beyond the natural, sensible consequences for failing at your attempt). Threat is for other bad consequences. It's not that "failure doesn't matter," but rather that failure doesn't necessarily preclude trying again.Generally, once. Rolls should have consequences (good and bad), and allowing a do-over both eliminates the bad consequences and reduces the significance of success. If failure doesn't matter, then why bother rolling?
"If at first you don't succeed," and all that.
I don't quite agree. Failure alone is a great consequence. There doesn't always have to be some extra whammie involved. Try to search the room to find the mcguffin. Fail the roll, and you don't find anything. Good roll with substantive consequences.
That all goes away, though, when you can keep checking until you succeed. If you can search that room until you get the success you needed, then it makes the test pointless. There is no real failure in this case, just more die rolls.
At that stage, you may as well just say, "keep rolling this d20 until a 16 or higher appears, then we can continue with the story," because that is what is really happening.
By the very nature of the dice, failure equals failure, and success equals success. Nothing more. It doesn't necessarily mean bad things happen to you or good things happen, that is where your advantage and threat come into play, as others have mentioned. If someone fails an attempt but has advantage left over, I would likely allow a reattempt. If there were no advantages left over, I might add in a setback, but if there were threats, I might not allow a reroll at all.
Your mileage will vary depending on the scenario, situation, task being performed, and players.
Try to search the room to find the mcguffin. Fail the roll, and you don't find anything.
Can I keep rolling my Quantum (Mechanics) skill until the mcguffin appears?
("Look, we found the egg!"
"Mmm...Egg McGuffins..../drool")
Edited by LorneThanks guys for all your feed back. Very good ideas. Oh and another thing is how would you calculate encumbrance for a vehicle. The reason I ask is my group wants to put their speeder in the cargo hold of their YT-1300. But I can't seem to find the encumbrance of vehicles. It tells how much encumbrance vehicles hold, but not their actual encumbrance. Or do you think a YT-1300 could even hold a speeder?
I would agree with the sentiment, but disagree with your conclusion. The "bad consequence" of failing in this system is that you fail, not that you fail and other bad stuff happens (beyond the natural, sensible consequences for failing at your attempt). Threat is for other bad consequences. It's not that "failure doesn't matter," but rather that failure doesn't necessarily preclude trying again.Generally, once. Rolls should have consequences (good and bad), and allowing a do-over both eliminates the bad consequences and reduces the significance of success. If failure doesn't matter, then why bother rolling?
"If at first you don't succeed," and all that.
I don't quite agree. Failure alone is a great consequence. There doesn't always have to be some extra whammie involved. Try to search the room to find the mcguffin. Fail the roll, and you don't find anything. Good roll with substantive consequences.
That all goes away, though, when you can keep checking until you succeed. If you can search that room until you get the success you needed, then it makes the test pointless. There is no real failure in this case, just more die rolls.
At that stage, you may as well just say, "keep rolling this d20 until a 16 or higher appears, then we can continue with the story," because that is what is really happening.
I'd encourage you to think up a real-game instance where a skill check should actually be required, and failure means you can't retry.
Edited by awayputurwpn" I'd encourage you to think up a real-game instance where a skill check should actually be required, and failure means you can't retry.
"
Some checks, like Medicine checks, can be made "once per Encounter", right? So that you don't just sit there and keep rolling medicine checks until you heal the person completely.
That's more or less how I view many skills checks like searching a room for treasure, or something. If there's a secret compartment in a room and the players roll a Perception check to find it, I'm not sure I would let them keep rolling until they succeeded. I'd say further searching doesn't reveal anything new.
If they needed what's in the compartment to proceed with the plot, that is different and I wouldn't just leave it up to a Perception check, but in most cases I'd try to limit the players to being able to make the exact same check no more than once per Encounter.
I'd encourage you to think up a real-game instance where a skill check should actually be required, and failure means you can't retry.
A Vigilance check to notice the ambush.
When you say "failure means you can't retry" the thing stopping the retry is the GM, not a rule that states it can't.
I think the difference in thinking here is that you seem to be coming from a place where die rolls are a right that players can exercise whenever they want. I don't subscribe to that way of thinking. For me, the player states their intended action, and the GM determines what happens or if a die roll is needed to resolve it.
You mistake my "encouragement" as a "challenge." I wasn't trying to test your gaming knowledge to see if you could come up with a check that, per RAW, can only be made once (initiative, medicine, modding attachments, etc). These are obvious examples that have game-balance reasons for being limited to one check.
I meant, come up with an in-game scenario where you would require a check but not allow a retry, based on the narrative. It's hard for me to do (possibly a check to leap from one moving speeder to another, or something along those lines), so I wanted to see where the minds of others went. Is there a narrative reason why the PC can't take X action again when they fail a check without generating Threat?
I recognize that a skill check represents a contract between the GM and player, both agreeing to honor the outcome, so of course it's not a right of the player to just roll whatever skill checks he wants. But at the same time, failure isn't what breaks stuff; Threat is what breaks stuff. Threat gets you locked out of a computer system so you can't try slicing it again with a Computers check. Threat makes you run out of ammo so you can't use your heavy blaster pistol anymore. Threat breaks your makeshift club, so no more Melee checks for you. Threat means you go ahead with a failed astrogation check, not realizing the errors you made in calculation. Threat makes it so that there is absolutely no demand for the shimmer silk you are trying to hock on Sernpidal.
The only limiting factors to a player's retrying a skill check (sans Threat), IMO, should be dIfficulty, time required, and perhaps cash. "Yes, you can try the check again, but it will take another hour...and your team is already on a tight schedule." "Yes, you can try again, but the difficulty is now increased because X situation has changed." "Yeah, you can try to win back your Sabaac loss, but can you really afford to lose another 500 credits?" (The last one should probably only be in an actual casino scene with all the players present, not as a side roll to try and generate some fast credits...I usually make those "once per day"-type checks, as in it takes the whole day of gambling to make one check, and that's what you've got to show for your "hard work."
Forgive me for saying so, but having a general rule of denying a player a skill check simply because they failed at first (and not because of rules limitations or narrative considerations) smacks of bad gaming experiences that I've had in the past. But maybe if you could give more concrete gaming examples I would understand better where you're coming from.
You mistake my "encouragement" as a "challenge." I wasn't trying to test your gaming knowledge to see if you could come up with a check that, per RAW, can only be made once (initiative, medicine, modding attachments, etc). These are obvious examples that have game-balance reasons for being limited to one check.
I meant, come up with an in-game scenario where you would require a check but not allow a retry, based on the narrative. It's hard for me to do (possibly a check to leap from one moving speeder to another, or something along those lines), so I wanted to see where the minds of others went. Is there a narrative reason why the PC can't take X action again when they fail a check without generating Threat?
I recognize that a skill check represents a contract between the GM and player, both agreeing to honor the outcome, so of course it's not a right of the player to just roll whatever skill checks he wants. But at the same time, failure isn't what breaks stuff; Threat is what breaks stuff. Threat gets you locked out of a computer system so you can't try slicing it again with a Computers check. Threat makes you run out of ammo so you can't use your heavy blaster pistol anymore. Threat breaks your makeshift club, so no more Melee checks for you. Threat means you go ahead with a failed astrogation check, not realizing the errors you made in calculation. Threat makes it so that there is absolutely no demand for the shimmer silk you are trying to hock on Sernpidal.
The only limiting factors to a player's retrying a skill check (sans Threat), IMO, should be dIfficulty, time required, and perhaps cash. "Yes, you can try the check again, but it will take another hour...and your team is already on a tight schedule." "Yes, you can try again, but the difficulty is now increased because X situation has changed." "Yeah, you can try to win back your Sabaac loss, but can you really afford to lose another 500 credits?" (The last one should probably only be in an actual casino scene with all the players present, not as a side roll to try and generate some fast credits...I usually make those "once per day"-type checks, as in it takes the whole day of gambling to make one check, and that's what you've got to show for your "hard work."
Forgive me for saying so, but having a general rule of denying a player a skill check simply because they failed at first (and not because of rules limitations or narrative considerations) smacks of bad gaming experiences that I've had in the past. But maybe if you could give more concrete gaming examples I would understand better where you're coming from.
I think I got an example for you:
In a previous game (WFRP 3rd, so also narrative dice), one of the players tried to break down a door. They made a roll and failed, and that was that. They couldn't break it down.
Now, that roll wasn't just one hit. It was the entire series of slamming into, shouldering, kicking, etc the door until finally, giving up. The question for the roll was "can I break down this door" and the answer was "no."
So, you may say that given enough time the character would be able to eventually break it down. That's fine, but then why roll? The outcome is (eventually) certain. Just say it happens. Instead, you could roll to see how fast it was broken down, or if it could be done quietly.
If a decision has to be made by the dice, then roll them and live with it.This isn't a new idea, and a few games (I'm looking at you Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard/Torchbearer) have it codified in the rules. I think it's a good way to play because the alternative (allowing endless retries) is just rule by fiat with dice.
Edited by Doc, the Weasel
You mistake my "encouragement" as a "challenge." I wasn't trying to test your gaming knowledge to see if you could come up with a check that, per RAW, can only be made once (initiative, medicine, modding attachments, etc). These are obvious examples that have game-balance reasons for being limited to one check.
I meant, come up with an in-game scenario where you would require a check but not allow a retry, based on the narrative. It's hard for me to do (possibly a check to leap from one moving speeder to another, or something along those lines), so I wanted to see where the minds of others went. Is there a narrative reason why the PC can't take X action again when they fail a check without generating Threat?
I recognize that a skill check represents a contract between the GM and player, both agreeing to honor the outcome, so of course it's not a right of the player to just roll whatever skill checks he wants. But at the same time, failure isn't what breaks stuff; Threat is what breaks stuff. Threat gets you locked out of a computer system so you can't try slicing it again with a Computers check. Threat makes you run out of ammo so you can't use your heavy blaster pistol anymore. Threat breaks your makeshift club, so no more Melee checks for you. Threat means you go ahead with a failed astrogation check, not realizing the errors you made in calculation. Threat makes it so that there is absolutely no demand for the shimmer silk you are trying to hock on Sernpidal.
The only limiting factors to a player's retrying a skill check (sans Threat), IMO, should be dIfficulty, time required, and perhaps cash. "Yes, you can try the check again, but it will take another hour...and your team is already on a tight schedule." "Yes, you can try again, but the difficulty is now increased because X situation has changed." "Yeah, you can try to win back your Sabaac loss, but can you really afford to lose another 500 credits?" (The last one should probably only be in an actual casino scene with all the players present, not as a side roll to try and generate some fast credits...I usually make those "once per day"-type checks, as in it takes the whole day of gambling to make one check, and that's what you've got to show for your "hard work."
Forgive me for saying so, but having a general rule of denying a player a skill check simply because they failed at first (and not because of rules limitations or narrative considerations) smacks of bad gaming experiences that I've had in the past. But maybe if you could give more concrete gaming examples I would understand better where you're coming from.
I think I got an example for you:
In a previous game (WFRP 3rd, so also narrative dice), one of the players tried to break down a door. They made a roll and failed, and that was that. They couldn't break it down.
Now, that roll wasn't just one hit. It was the entire series of slamming into, shouldering, kicking, etc the door until finally, giving up. The question for the roll was "can I break down this door" and the answer was "no."
So, you may say that given enough time the character would be able to eventually break it down. That's fine, but then why roll? The outcome is (eventually) certain. Just say it happens. Instead, you could roll to see how fast it was broken down, or if it could be done quietly.
If a decision has to be made by the dice, then roll them and live with it.This isn't a new idea, and a few games (I'm looking at you Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard/Torchbearer) have it codified in the rules. I think it's a good way to play because the alternative (allowing endless retries) is just rule by fiat with dice.
If we use your door example, then consider Astrogation. Does a failed check mean that one simply "can't get there (directly) from here" and instead must go somewhere else before trying to set course for the original destination?
If we use your door example, then consider Astrogation. Does a failed check mean that one simply "can't get there (directly) from here" and instead must go somewhere else before trying to set course for the original destination?
It all depends on how you frame the roll, and what you are willing to live with in terms of failure.
I generally don't make players roll Astrogation to get to their destination, because I don't want to stop the story with a bad roll.
Instead, if I make them roll, it's to determine some other thing such as can they get a course set quickly (because they are in combat) or maybe they need to arrive at a very specific location in space or near a planet (to avoid patrols or something). In those cases what is on the line is that other thing rather than getting to the location itself.
I see where you're coming from.
I agree with you on a lot of stuff, Doc, but in this instance I think you're putting something into this system that doesn't belong there. In some circumstances, it makes sense that a character can't retry a skill check. But it shouldn't be the default ruling, causing you to come up with an excuse as to why they can't try again. Let's look at the door-breaking scenario. The dude fails. No threat. He says, "can I try again?" Instead of shutting him down, why not say, "You're not sure you can take another beating like that. Why not ask a friend to help, or find a big log to bash it down with?" And then whatever steps he takes, have him build his dice pool. And then ask what other players are doing before he re-attempts his check. So in the meantime, while he tries again to bash the door down, another PC deftly scale the wall and opens the door from the inside.
I would let the players try what they wanna do. It's not a matter of, "we'll you're going to succeed, so go ahead and keep trying," it's, "I could see something interesting come of your attempts to break this door down. Go ahead and roll; the check should take you about a minute to perform, and we'll see what happens on the flip side."
In structured gameplay (turn-based), it becomes even more of a problem if you say "you can't make another check like that because you failed." If there are extenuating circumstance, again, that's fine, but IMO that shouldn't be a default rule.
Edited by awayputurwpnI see where you're coming from.
I agree with you on a lot of stuff, Doc, but in this instance I think you're putting something into this system that doesn't belong there.
Yeah, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
In the end, the table is big enough for all play-styles.
Agreed not trying to knock your GM skill; you are obviously a very experienced GM and I have no doubt you run some entertaining games.
I don't think there really should be any sort of hard and fast rule about which skills can and cannot be retried. Some obviously lead themselves to further attempts while others don't.
That said, I'm thinking that for those instances where the PCs failed but could still make another attempt (such as bashing down a door), having them suffer a setback die for each prior failed attempt is a fair trade-off.
But in instances of "we search the room," one check is all you get. After all, there are plenty of cinematic instances of characters in a film searching a room/car/area and coming up with nothing, when the audience knows that the item is hidden in that area. It'd be the same as "we need to successfully navigate our way through this asteroid field," where if the PCs fail, they manage to get out, but their ship is very badly banged up in the process; no retries on that Piloting (Space) check, so better stack up as many Boost dice and upgrades as you can squeeze out of your crew before you roll
Ostensibly, for stuff like failing to bash down the door, that particular PC can only make a new attempt if the circumstances change in a significant way. Couldn't break down that heavy wooden door with just your shoulder and a running start? How about with a battering ram and a running start instead? Or, just get your big giant friend to knock the door down for you (worked for Inigo Montoya).