One thing I've been noticing a lot of, in both Beyond the Rim and Long Arm of the Hutt, are skill checks where the outcome is predetermined to be a success, but the success or failure of the check determines how well it works.

In making Astrogation checks, a success means the trip is quiet and uneventful, where a failure means the party is attacked by bounty hunters on the way or has technical troubles they need to deal with.

It's not always that you succeed or fail at what you're rolling a skill check for, it can be more about HOW the outcome is produced based on the results of the check.

Good point there. Failure can be the most anticlimactic thing if the GM says, "Okay you failed...so, uh, nothing happens. Who's next?"

Rather, have failure mean something and push the story forward, even a little bit, to give all the players (even the one that just failed) the chance to play off that thing that just happened, both in the narrative and with skill checks.

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.

oh oh, I just want to address the ramming the door down.

Why does the roll represent 1 shoulder check. What if the roll in fact represented a series of shoulder slams. With the resulting failure the GM reporting "Jib heads up to the door and shoulder slams against it. Not budgeting much he braces and tries to leverage kicks. After a number of pounding against the door. Jib realizes that the door isn't going to budge from continues shoulder slams or any other straight forward brute force of such a nature."

I think the mentality that "a roll" represents "a motion". In both cases representing singular. Where in fact the action is a series of attempts, trials and working at achieving the task at hand. In that respect. Is say in a blaster fight. A single roll a single shot of the blaster? not likely. Instead it's better to represent a series of shots for the dramatic elements of narration.

So when addressing from the view of a narration and that a roll is not a action, but the attempt at a task as a whole. Then it would seem the example "should the player roll again" to smash the door be allowed. Not really, because Jib already tried a dozen times and was represented in the roll.

I think what is more important. is that the player should be selling to the GM every factor that could get the player more Boost dice. The player can make up information that would fit the area. Is there a large heavy object to use as a ram? is the door hinges fragile. This is by far a better method for players to interact with the dice system; rather than to ask if they can have a re-roll.

And finally if the GM and Player really want to do the re-roll. The cost should be time, tools and resources. Why does the player need to ram the door? ramming a door makes loud sounds. All sorts of reasons that if any re-roll should occur should penalize or complicate the matter.

However. If the door needs to be brought down for the story to continue. Then the door comes down no matter what the roll. The results should only determine the beneficial outcome. As an example

The players were going to a planet to recover some mechandice. I had the pilot roll astrogation. If they rolled well they could get the mechandise before the bad guys showed up. With the confrontation being in the players favour. If the roll was so so, then the clash over the goods. and if the roll was poor or failed. Then the badguys could have scooped it up making the players chase them down and being at a disadvantage.

Anyways just wanted to chime in I will go into torpor for a week again now but it was an engaging read of a thread.

Thanks for your insights, I am inclined to agree with a lot of what you said.

Just to be clear, I did not, in any of my posts anywhere , intimate that "1 roll of the dice = 1 shoulder bash to the door." I recognize and embrace that aspect of the Core game. In fact, I'm not trying to veer away from any RAW or RAI aspect of the game. What we're discussing basically comes down to a difference of opinion on narration and GM styles. It's interesting, because it's not even a difference of opinion on what the dice mean. It's basically one GM saying "I think X skill check would take about X amount of time, and sure they can try again if they want to spent more time and possibly inflict more bodily harm on themselves" and another GM disagreeing on principle. I won't be summarizing Doc's arguments here because I don't feel like typing and I don't feel like I'd do them justice. But both approaches are fine.

You'll note that I said an Athletics check to break down the door would be "about a minute." This includes probably multiple attempts at shoulder-ramming/kicking/biting/huffing-and-puffing/blowing-the-door-down. Whatever "about a minute" looks like to you, that's what it is. A SMART character would realize that maybe the door is more than a match for him, and go get help. Definition of insanity and all.

EDIT: I'll also interject that a SMART GM will know how to keep the game running so the player isn't trying, and failing, 5 Athletics checks in a row before giving up on the game altogether (true story, but the names have been changed to protect the innocent).

Last night, I led my group through Escape from Mos Shuuta. Experienced gamers, but first time EOTE players. In Vorn's Scrapyard, the Smuggler wanted to distract Vorn while the Technician looked around the shop trying to spot the needed Part for the Krayt Fang. Each time the Technican failed, the Smuggler had to try to keep Vorn occupied while he looked. Not only that, the distraction was asking Vorn to find a successive and rarer piece of equipment. Starting with extra ammo clips for a blaster, and ultimately a multi-optic sight. He rolled a triumph on the last fast talk, so Vorn produced the piece he was looking for at a reduced price. Granted, if installed, it won't be as reliable as a new one. In addition, while searching, the technician rolled a triumph, but lots of advantage and a triumph whose success was cancelled... So he was able to find and shoplift a blaster modification.

Maybe I was giving too much away, but it fit so well. Ultimately they found the part on the shelf behind Vorn and convinced him that they were there to pick it up to do the installation on Trex's ship.

So in this case, the failure meant that the other player had to keep trying to come up with stuff to distract the shop owner with" great role playing opportunity on this one.

I'd say the failed once permanent should only be an all-or-nothing kind of check. Jumping across a chasm is a good example of this. On the other hand, one can keep trying to pick a lock, but threat could make for problems,from an increased risk of being discovered or incur enough strain that ultimately they have to give up and trying some thing else later.

I'd say the failed once permanent should only be an all-or-nothing kind of check. Jumping across a chasm is a good example of this. On the other hand, one can keep trying to pick a lock, but threat could make for problems,from an increased risk of being discovered or incur enough strain that ultimately they have to give up and trying some thing else later.

You know, I agree with this completely.

I've also been noticing in the various adventures where sometimes a difficult task involves multiple checks of a similar kind.

Navigating a ship through a dangerous asteroid field or ion cloud could require multiple Piloting checks, or shimmying up the side of a tall building could require multiple Athletics checks.

But if you want the players to achieve it no matter what, the rolls can be for a bit of color--if they make the Athletics roll, they hop up very gracefully onto the second floor balcony, but if they fail it, they clamber up noisily.

There are so many different ways to play it that are so based on the narrative nature of what's going on...

Last night, I led my group through Escape from Mos Shuuta. Experienced gamers, but first time EOTE players. In Vorn's Scrapyard, the Smuggler wanted to distract Vorn while the Technician looked around the shop trying to spot the needed Part for the Krayt Fang.

I recalled when my son ran that for me and his freinds. I drew my blaster pistol and stunned the guy, we stole the part and even talked his droid into joining our merry band of outlaws by removing his restraining bolt. FIgured since none of us had mechanics skill we needed all the help we could get. I figured since the goal was to steal a ship why worry about paying for the part.

My son was using the adventure for a bunch of semi-trained force sensatives and I was playing a clone trooper who felt guilty for Order 66 so he had taken one of them under his wing.