I've noticed something that kind of bothers me about the rules. I listen to Order 66 and have heard all the podcasts with the designers and one of the things they talked about was that when someone rolls a Triumph that it is a scene changer. Something really good happens for the side that rolls it.

So why are there Talents in the game that use Triumphs for things of mediocrity?

Knockdown Talent - a very High point cost Talent that lets you spend a Triumph to knock someone over. Wow. This 25 point talent lets you make the opponent have to spend a maneuver to get back up.

Pin - another 25 point talent that lets you wrassle someone and if you spend a Triumph you get to immobilize them for a whole extra turn. Again, this is something I would allow without the use of a Talent and I would let anyone try to pin an opponent if they wanted without spending 25 points. It would be a nice change for them to try to capture someone without stunning them over and over (I'm sure that causes cancer).

Not only do these talents seem mediocre but they make me think that RAW that Triumphs are no where near as cool as I was lead to believe. My group has used Triumphs to destroy a blaster, or wipe out a ships shields. I heard of people using Triumphs to blast the controls on a door so the bad guy can't use it to escape. These uses are way more powerful than knocking someone down so why does it seem like the rulebooks are saying that I'm playing the game wrong?

So one might say, this is prerogative of the GM. I agree. But then it means there are very high level talents in the game that are pretty much useless. Anyway, I just wonder why this discrepancy happened in the first place.

First of all, Triumph are NOT the EotE equivalent to a natural 20 in a d20 game. They occur way more often than that, and in fact a single skill check can result in several. So yes, while they are in fact pretty awesome, their scene changing capabilities come to the forefront during narrative gameplay rather than structured gameplay.

Secondly, regarding Knockdown, this one has been discussed a lot. The first thing you need to know is that in order to knock someone down with Triumph, you must do so in lieu of dealing damage to them. The Knockdown talent, meanwhile, allows for you to deal damage and knock your opponent prone. Check the "Spending Advantages and Triumphs" table under 3 Advantage/1 Triumph results, it's all there. Now, one might argue that when it says "Do something vital, such as shooting the controls to the nearby blast doors to seal them shut" under the 1 Triumph section, that might cover knocking someone over. I would argue, however, that since knocking someone over is already covered under 3 Advantages, the 1 Triumph description is there to cover narrative-based effects specific to the situation. It should also be noted that unarmed attacks can cause Knockdown with just 2 Advantage results, also whilst simultaneously dealing damage; this is because unarmed attacks cover grappling, which should necessarily be easier unarmed.

Thirdly, regarding Pin, having covered everything above you should also know that all grappling is covered with the Brawl skill unless you have the Pin talent, which allows you to use Athletics for the purposes of pinning your opponent. That said, nowhere in the RAW does it state that a standard Brawl attacks can be used to immobilize opponents instead of dealing damage... although nowhere does it state that Brawl can't be used for this purpose either. With that in mind, I would say that a successful Brawl check to immobilize opponent would work until the end of your next turn, and even then the opponent would have a chance to make an opposed Brawl check to break the grab; if you rolled a Triumph on the initial Brawl check, the difficulty of your opponent's check might be upgraded once. Meanwhile, if you had the Pin talent and used Athletics to make the grab and rolled a Triumph, your opponent is simply disallowed from even attempting to break a grab.

Overall I definitely see the point you're making, because without seeing these talents I might have allowed these things as well. However, keep in mind the following three points predominantly;

1. It is necessary to be more strict about regulating Triumphs during structured gameplay than it is narrative gameplay.

2. Check all the talents and rules you can find regarding Advantages, Triumphs, Threats, and Despairs. It can be cumbersome at times, but it'll help keep things under control.

3. As always, check the "Spending Advantages and Triumphs in Combat" and "Spending Threat and Despair in Combat" tables and see if you can find an equivalent or even just a "close enough" on said table. I'm still surprised at how much those tabled can potentially cover, particularly if you add some narrative flair to Boost dice, Setback dice, and ability upgrades/downgrades.

Jonah, regarding knockdown, the three advantage is a less effect than spending a triumph. The entry states:

'This should be agreed upon by the player and the GM, and the effects are up to the GM (although the Critical Injury table is a good resource to consult for possible effects). The effect should be temporary, and not too excessive.' (p206)

Looking at the Critical Injury table, entry 16-20 is 'Distracted: The target cannot perform a free maneuver during his next turn.' and the first two diff entry is entry 41-45 'Bowled Over: The target is knocked prone and suffers one strain'

So the rule you cite, which is a lesser effect than Zar is talking about proves Zar's point. Distracted is actually effectively worse, since it means no maneuver unless you get a second for some reason, and Bowled over is the effect we are talking about.

So why do I want to buy a talent that does the same thing? Especially since we are spending a Triumph, not just advantage.

To maybe augment what JonahHex has already covered, we've been toning down certain aspects of Triumph (and Despair) because the player's characters are getting to a point where they come up a lot. Ironically, the game-rule descriptions of Triumph and Despair is a lot more enthusiastic than the mechanical descriptions in the Talents...which kind of parallels how they play out in our game. I also wag a slight finger at the SkillMonkey podcast, because even though it is excellent, the Triumph and Despair descriptions are somewhat over the top.

I view it as more of a narrative trigger than anything, something to have fun with. It's when you're out of ideas that it should default to a fairly important, but not overwhelming, mechanical advantage. Example: my son's explorer was racing across the Coruscant skies to the den of some crime lord scum, trying to save his Zeltron accomplice. He's on the comm trying to negotiate a good deal and a release of the Zeltron, when he fails with a Despair. Since he was in sight of the tower, the crime lord said "I hate to throw away beautiful things, but garbage is garbage..." and he throws the Zeltron off the tower. This turns into a piloting chase as the explorer desperately tries to catch the falling Zeltron. Meanwhile, thugs on the tower are laughing and taking pot shots. As he swoops in he finally catches the falling Zeltron and saves her, but he's in a steep dive and has to make one last piloting roll to pull out. Simple success is all that's required, but he gets a Triumph. He says: "I think the thugs are so amazed, one of them leans too far over and falls. I toot the horn as he passes me." Well, I couldn't say no to that

Because the talent allows you to knock someone over while dealing damage to them. Normally, you can't do that no matter how many Advantages you roll.

To maybe augment what JonahHex has already covered, we've been toning down certain aspects of Triumph (and Despair) because the player's characters are getting to a point where they come up a lot. Ironically, the game-rule descriptions of Triumph and Despair is a lot more enthusiastic than the mechanical descriptions in the Talents...which kind of parallels how they play out in our game. I also wag a slight finger at the SkillMonkey podcast, because even though it is excellent, the Triumph and Despair descriptions are somewhat over the top.

I view it as more of a narrative trigger than anything, something to have fun with. It's when you're out of ideas that it should default to a fairly important, but not overwhelming, mechanical advantage. Example: my son's explorer was racing across the Coruscant skies to the den of some crime lord scum, trying to save his Zeltron accomplice. He's on the comm trying to negotiate a good deal and a release of the Zeltron, when he fails with a Despair. Since he was in sight of the tower, the crime lord said "I hate to throw away beautiful things, but garbage is garbage..." and he throws the Zeltron off the tower. This turns into a piloting chase as the explorer desperately tries to catch the falling Zeltron. Meanwhile, thugs on the tower are laughing and taking pot shots. As he swoops in he finally catches the falling Zeltron and saves her, but he's in a steep dive and has to make one last piloting roll to pull out. Simple success is all that's required, but he gets a Triumph. He says: "I think the thugs are so amazed, one of them leans too far over and falls. I toot the horn as he passes me." Well, I couldn't say no to that

The example you just cited sounds like narrative rather than structured gameplay to me. In other words, a perfect time to use the die results to drive the story forward. During structured gameplay, things are more streamlined and solidly defined to keep Triumphs from becoming "I win" buttons.

If someone gets knocked down and they've used all their maneuvers they aren't getting up until next turn. Not a super game changer but it could be helpful.

There are uses for advantages and triumphs for temporarily immobilizing/disabling a target, but no where near as good as what Pin allows. I'm not saying I think it's great, or that it is necessarily worth 25 pts, but it is very handy for capturing someone alive single handedly.

Ok so the PC doctor punches a guy. She only has 1 skill rank in Brawl. She rolls a 1 Triumph, 1 Success, No Failures, and 3 Advantages. Wow lucky roll. She spends the 3 advantage on a crit. The GM says "What would you like to do with the Triumph? " Would the player really be out of lines to say "The punch is powerful that I knock him over?"

I don't think it would.

So the GM says "Sure that's a great use of a Triumph! "

The Wookiee Marauder with 3 Ranks of Athletics wants to then sit on the guy so they question him. Why wouldn't the GM allow an opposed Athletics roll for that to happen?

In my opinion, neither one of these situations merits needing a Talent. Sure if it was a Unarmed expert with 4 ranks of skill in the first place they would be more likely to get Triumphs. But then it would be more likely for them to be able to knock someone over as well.

If someone gets knocked down and they've used all their maneuvers they aren't getting up until next turn. Not a super game changer but it could be helpful.

There are uses for advantages and triumphs for temporarily immobilizing/disabling a target, but no where near as good as what Pin allows. I'm not saying I think it's great, or that it is necessarily worth 25 pts, but it is very handy for capturing someone alive single handedly.

Archaeologists aren't exactly a combat specialization. More like a "tough-as-nails Scholar who likes ancient history" tree. If Pin were 25 points on, say, a Martial Artist tree that'd be a little different.

Ok so the PC doctor punches a guy. She only has 1 skill rank in Brawl. She rolls a 1 Triumph, 1 Success, No Failures, and 3 Advantages. Wow lucky roll. She spends the 3 advantage on a crit. The GM says "What would you like to do with the Triumph? " Would the player really be out of lines to say "The punch is powerful that I knock him over?"

I don't think it would.

So the GM says "Sure that's a great use of a Triumph! "

The Wookiee Marauder with 3 Ranks of Athletics wants to then sit on the guy so they question him. Why wouldn't the GM allow an opposed Athletics roll for that to happen?

In my opinion, neither one of these situations merits needing a Talent. Sure if it was a Unarmed expert with 4 ranks of skill in the first place they would be more likely to get Triumphs. But then it would be more likely for them to be able to knock someone over as well.

First off, getting a crit with an unarmed attack takes 5 Advantages; even brass knuckles only bring it down to 4. Secondly, all unarmed attacks have the Knockdown quality, so two of those Advantages could have done what the Triumph did in this situation, leaving one Advantage and a Triumph leftover. The Knockdown talent is for Melee weapons that lack the quality; Brawl weapons already have Knockdown by their very nature.

Questioning a prisoner is an example of narrative gameplay rather than structured gameplay. If the same Wookiee wanted to sit on somebody during a battle -- which is an example of structured gameplay -- it would take an opposed Brawl check to keep the guy down. If the player wanted to use his ranks in Athletics instead, I'd personally allow it with an extra difficulty die added to the pool since Athletics isn't quite the right the skill for the job.

Ok so the PC doctor punches a guy. She only has 1 skill rank in Brawl. She rolls a 1 Triumph, 1 Success, No Failures, and 3 Advantages. Wow lucky roll. She spends the 3 advantage on a crit. The GM says "What would you like to do with the Triumph? " Would the player really be out of lines to say "The punch is powerful that I knock him over?"

I don't think it would.

So the GM says "Sure that's a great use of a Triumph! "

The Wookiee Marauder with 3 Ranks of Athletics wants to then sit on the guy so they question him. Why wouldn't the GM allow an opposed Athletics roll for that to happen?

In my opinion, neither one of these situations merits needing a Talent. Sure if it was a Unarmed expert with 4 ranks of skill in the first place they would be more likely to get Triumphs. But then it would be more likely for them to be able to knock someone over as well.

You're assigning a very quantitative value to the roll the Dr. made. Based on her stats and skills that's probably the best punch she's ever thrown in her life, so from a narrative standpoint why wouldn't you let her knock someone loopy?

I think the GM in the wookie example should allow that. Sufficient advantages/triumphs allow a player to do that. Pin only allows that kind of tactic to work better. Like the knockdown talent allows damage to be done as well.

To maybe augment what JonahHex has already covered, we've been toning down certain aspects of Triumph (and Despair) because the player's characters are getting to a point where they come up a lot. Ironically, the game-rule descriptions of Triumph and Despair is a lot more enthusiastic than the mechanical descriptions in the Talents...which kind of parallels how they play out in our game. I also wag a slight finger at the SkillMonkey podcast, because even though it is excellent, the Triumph and Despair descriptions are somewhat over the top.

I view it as more of a narrative trigger than anything, something to have fun with. It's when you're out of ideas that it should default to a fairly important, but not overwhelming, mechanical advantage. Example: my son's explorer was racing across the Coruscant skies to the den of some crime lord scum, trying to save his Zeltron accomplice. He's on the comm trying to negotiate a good deal and a release of the Zeltron, when he fails with a Despair. Since he was in sight of the tower, the crime lord said "I hate to throw away beautiful things, but garbage is garbage..." and he throws the Zeltron off the tower. This turns into a piloting chase as the explorer desperately tries to catch the falling Zeltron. Meanwhile, thugs on the tower are laughing and taking pot shots. As he swoops in he finally catches the falling Zeltron and saves her, but he's in a steep dive and has to make one last piloting roll to pull out. Simple success is all that's required, but he gets a Triumph. He says: "I think the thugs are so amazed, one of them leans too far over and falls. I toot the horn as he passes me." Well, I couldn't say no to that

The example you just cited sounds like narrative rather than structured gameplay to me. In other words, a perfect time to use the die results to drive the story forward. During structured gameplay, things are more streamlined and solidly defined to keep Triumphs from becoming "I win" buttons.

I thought the whole game was supposed to be Narrative gameplay. Those examples are there for those who can't think of what to do with their results. So it becomes "What can I convince my GM into letting me do?" I'm just saying that these Talents narrow the range way too much. When we reduce game down to "You can only do these things unless you have talents" , the combats become just a mechanical as other games.

But I will cease arguing. I'll just have to House rule those talents in my game. I promise not to come change the rules for everyone else's.

To maybe augment what JonahHex has already covered, we've been toning down certain aspects of Triumph (and Despair) because the player's characters are getting to a point where they come up a lot. Ironically, the game-rule descriptions of Triumph and Despair is a lot more enthusiastic than the mechanical descriptions in the Talents...which kind of parallels how they play out in our game. I also wag a slight finger at the SkillMonkey podcast, because even though it is excellent, the Triumph and Despair descriptions are somewhat over the top.

I view it as more of a narrative trigger than anything, something to have fun with. It's when you're out of ideas that it should default to a fairly important, but not overwhelming, mechanical advantage. Example: my son's explorer was racing across the Coruscant skies to the den of some crime lord scum, trying to save his Zeltron accomplice. He's on the comm trying to negotiate a good deal and a release of the Zeltron, when he fails with a Despair. Since he was in sight of the tower, the crime lord said "I hate to throw away beautiful things, but garbage is garbage..." and he throws the Zeltron off the tower. This turns into a piloting chase as the explorer desperately tries to catch the falling Zeltron. Meanwhile, thugs on the tower are laughing and taking pot shots. As he swoops in he finally catches the falling Zeltron and saves her, but he's in a steep dive and has to make one last piloting roll to pull out. Simple success is all that's required, but he gets a Triumph. He says: "I think the thugs are so amazed, one of them leans too far over and falls. I toot the horn as he passes me." Well, I couldn't say no to that

The example you just cited sounds like narrative rather than structured gameplay to me. In other words, a perfect time to use the die results to drive the story forward. During structured gameplay, things are more streamlined and solidly defined to keep Triumphs from becoming "I win" buttons.

I thought the whole game was supposed to be Narrative gameplay. Those examples are there for those who can't think of what to do with their results. So it becomes "What can I convince my GM into letting me do?" I'm just saying that these Talents narrow the range way too much. When we reduce game down to "You can only do these things unless you have talents" , the combats become just a mechanical as other games.

But I will cease arguing. I'll just have to House rule those talents in my game. I promise not to come change the rules for everyone else's.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you. I think everyone is pointing out that you can still do the house rules the way you like and that these talents only enhance those actions. Just because there is a Pin talent now doesn't mean there was no way to pin before. The talent just makes it better for those that spend the points to get the talent. Kind of like True Aim, anyone can Aim, those that spend the points on True Aim get more out of the same maneuver.

Ok so the PC doctor punches a guy. She only has 1 skill rank in Brawl. She rolls a 1 Triumph, 1 Success, No Failures, and 3 Advantages. Wow lucky roll. She spends the 3 advantage on a crit. The GM says "What would you like to do with the Triumph? " Would the player really be out of lines to say "The punch is powerful that I knock him over?"

I don't think it would.

So the GM says "Sure that's a great use of a Triumph! "

The Wookiee Marauder with 3 Ranks of Athletics wants to then sit on the guy so they question him. Why wouldn't the GM allow an opposed Athletics roll for that to happen?

In my opinion, neither one of these situations merits needing a Talent. Sure if it was a Unarmed expert with 4 ranks of skill in the first place they would be more likely to get Triumphs. But then it would be more likely for them to be able to knock someone over as well.

First off, getting a crit with an unarmed attack takes 5 Advantages; even brass knuckles only bring it down to 4. Secondly, all unarmed attacks have the Knockdown quality, so two of those Advantages could have done what the Triumph did in this situation, leaving one Advantage and a Triumph leftover. The Knockdown talent is for Melee weapons that lack the quality; Brawl weapons already have Knockdown by their very nature.

Questioning a prisoner is an example of narrative gameplay rather than structured gameplay. If the same Wookiee wanted to sit on somebody during a battle -- which is an example of structured gameplay -- it would take an opposed Brawl check to keep the guy down. If the player wanted to use his ranks in Athletics instead, I'd personally allow it with an extra difficulty die added to the pool since Athletics isn't quite the right the skill for the job.

Yeah yeah, my example is flawed but it doesn't change what I'm saying. Knockdown being for Melee Weapons only makes it even worse to me. If she had taken a pipe and rolled a Triumph I would still allow her to use it to knock someone over whether she hit them or not.

I thought the whole game was supposed to be Narrative gameplay.

Generally yes, but the game rules do make a distinction between "narrative" and "structured". The mechanical benefits of a Triumph in structured play aren't as potent, nor should they be IMHO.

Knockdown being for Melee Weapons only makes it even worse to me. If she had taken a pipe and rolled a Triumph I would still allow her to use it to knock someone over whether she hit them or not.

You can do that, there's just no damage. If you want to house rule keeping that damage then fine, you can always tweak the Knockdown talent to say it gives the Knockdown *quality* to melee weapons (meaning it triggers on 2A, instead of 1T). I think that's overpowered, but I'm not going to come change your rules