Hear good things about Edge of an Empire

>I think, however, that OP found that picture of Han and thought "oh I just need to come up with a shitpost to accompany this".
Pretty sure we all think that, user. OP isn't even trying.

A certain website sums up my views on the dice system FFG came up with better than I can, so I'm just going to copy/paste

thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37670/roleplaying-games/review-star-wars-force-and-destiny

1/?

>After you’ve rolled the dice, you have:

>(1) Success vs. Failure (these cancel, multiples successes accumulate but failures don’t)

>(2) Advantage vs. Threat (these cancel, multiples of both accumulate)

>(3) Triumph vs. Despair (these don’t cancel)

>Ignoring quantitative differences, these give you 18 qualitative results:

>Success
>Failure
>Success-Advantage
>Success-Advantage-Triumph
>Success-Advantage-Despair
>Success-Advantage-Triumph-Despair
>Success-Threat
>Success-Threat-Triumph
>Success-Threat-Despair
>Success-Threat-Triumph-Despair
>Failure-Advantage
>Failure-Advantage-Triumph
>Failure-Advantage-Despair
>Failure-Advantage-Triumph-Despair
>Failure-Threat
>Failure-Threat-Triumph
>Failure-Threat-Despair
>Failure-Threat-Triumph-Despair

>I’m a huge fan of systems that characterize the quality of success or failure (instead of just treating those as binary qualities). But why do we need to count each tier of dice symbols in a slightly different way? And why do we need three separate tiers of symbols? This system literally generates outcomes like, “Moderate success with something vaguely good, but also something vaguely better than vaguely good, but also something seriously bad in a vague way.”

>Okay. So you flip over to the skill guidelines hoping for a little guidance… and that’s when you discover that even the designers have no idea how to use their convoluted dice system.

>For example, advantage can’t turn failure into success… unless it’s a Knowledge skill, because then advantage can grant you “minor but possibly relevant information about the subject” even on a failure. (Except… if you’re gaining access to relevant information, that sounds like a success, right?)

2/?

>It goes on and on like that.

>So you have a system that’s supposedly feeding you “useful” information, but the designers can’t even figure out how to interpret the results consistently despite multiple years of development and nine different products featuring the core mechanics. Why should we believe that this system is going to do anything useful at the table?

>Based on my experiences running the game, it doesn’t. A system that says “success-but-complicated” or “success-but-extra-awesome” is giving you valuable guidance in adjudicating the outcome of a check. What FFG’s Star Wars gives you, on the other hand, is a tangled morass.

>But maybe I was still missing something. So I talked to people who were playing the game. And what I discovered is that people who were enjoying the system were almost universally not playing it according to the rules.

>Many of them weren’t even aware they were doing it. (Subconsciously house ruling away the inconsistencies in how symbols of different tiers are tallied is apparently very common, for example.) It’s as if we were talking about a car, I mentioned the gas pedal, and multiple people talking about how great the car is to drive said, “What’s a gas pedal?”

>Even among those who were aware they were changing the game, it would lead to some really weird conversations where I would criticize the dice system; someone would reply to say that they loved it; I would ask what they loved about it; and then they would reply by basically saying, “I love the fact that we changed it!”

>Which is, I suppose, the ultimate condemnation of the system.

>autism in written form

3/?

>What about the rest of the system?

>Actually, there’s some really interesting stuff in there. The way mooks are handled is really elegant, allowing the GM to rapidly group their actions together (all the mooks using suppressive fire on one guy) or split them apart on the fly (as the mooks pursue PCs who split up while running through the corridors of the Death Star).

>Also of note are the starship combat rules, which do a really nice job of creating a simple structure that (a) captures the dynamics of the dogfighting we see in the Star Wars films and (b) allows all of the PCs on a ship to take meaningful actions during the fight.

>But there are two problems.

>First, you can’t escape the core mechanic. It is, after all, the core mechanic. It touches everything. So, yes, the starship combat system’s mixture of starship maneuvers and starship actions creates what looks likely a really dynamic structure… but the core mechanic you’re rolling multiple times every turn is still a clunky, time-sucking disaster.

>Second, the system is frankly riddled with inconsistencies.

>For example, combat initiative works in all ways exactly like a competitive check… except for how ties are broken. Why?! Why would you do that?

4/5

>Another example: The difficulty of a check to heal someone is dependent on how injured they are. Similarly, the difficulty of repairing your ship is dependent on how damaged it is. If you take those rules and you put them on a table, you end up with [pic]

>Oh! That’s nice! They’ve unified the difficulties so that you can easily memorize and use… Wait a minute.

>What the hell?!

>I honestly can’t tell if that’s just incredibly sloppy design or if it’s actually a revelation of Machiavellian evil. (I literally keep looking back at the rulebooks because my brain refuses to accept that this is true. But it is.)

>The whole game is like this. (We’ve already talked about how the skill guidelines seem to take an almost perverse glee in never doing something the same way twice.) It’s almost as if the designers said, “This system is pretty slick and elegant… let’s go ahead and randomly change half the mechanics for no reason.”

But is it wrong? Why are there eighteen qualitative results to the dice system? Why is it literally possible to get a result that reads "moderate success with something vaguely good, but also something vaguely better than vaguely good, but also something seriously bad in a vague way."

5/5

>CONCLUSION

>Somewhere inside the nine core rulebooks that FFG has published, I feel like there’s a pretty good Star Wars game screaming to get out. And if you’re the type of roleplayer who’s comfortable just kind of playing vaguely in the vicinity of the actual rules, you might even be able to find it in here occasionally.

>But all the clunkiness adds up.

>I designed a short little scenario for the game: A few modest combats. A little investigation. Some cool set pieces.

>It’s the kind of scenario that, if I was running it in most systems, would take one or two sessions to play through. As we wrapped up our fourth session, we still hadn’t finished it. The mechanics superficially lend themselves to dramatic, swashbuckling action, but the system is so sluggish in pace that even simple combat encounters drag out. The result is that the system takes narrative material and stretches it out until it has long since been drained of interest. It’s bloated, unfocused, and…

>Ah. I know what this reminds me of.

>FFG’s game is the Special Edition of Star Wars roleplaying games.

Just because you and the reviewer are too autistic and creatively bankrupt to understand the dice system doesn't mean it is a bad system

>Hey, guys. Here's my review of FFG's Star wars games!
>I have no improv skills.
>alright thanks for reading

as somebody who's not played the game, what is a triumph or a despair?
successes and failures are simple - whether you do the task or not, and advantages and threats sound pretty intuitive by just adding benefits or complications to a situation whether you succeed or fail, but what the hell could a triumph or despair mean? what do they do?

A triumph is just a super good success and a despair is a super bad failure

It's a pretty bad system. Mostly because it has two many axes. If it was just, say, success/failure and advantage/threat, that would be good. You'd have one thing telling you whether or not you succeeded or failed, and another thing telling you by how much you did either. Adding a third axis of dice just needlessly complicates things.

Hell, World of Darkness (both iterations) manages a non-binary success/failure system with just ONE type of die. And even the d20 System could handle it better if it was of a mind to, even without a wonky "Nat 20/Nat 1" rule:

Fail the DC by 10 or more: Utter disaster
Fail the DC by 5-9: Critical failure
Fail the DC by 1-4: Failure
Pass the DC by 0-4: Success
Pass the DC by 5-9: Critical success
Pass the DC by 10 or more: Complete triumph

Nat 20/1 equivalent.

Okay, let's give an example. I'm some Han Solo-type motherfucker and I just leaned around a corner to shoot a Stormtrooper and rolled Failure-Advantage-Triumph-Despair. What happens?

what
so what do successes and failures involving them look like?
how do you fail but also succeed really well? how do you succeed, fail really well, but also succeed really well? why do they not cancel out?

how do you even interpret all that?

Failure: You miss the stormtrooper.
Advantage: He's scared (or at least surprised)
Despair: You hit a plasma reactor behind him!
Triumph: Hey this is a big bad destroyer, right? So blowing it up is a good thing. Also you forgot to turn off your engine so if you manage to get back to your ship it should be a quick take off.

You failed to hit the storm trooper and your gun jams it's not rocket science dumbass
Read the fucking book I am not going to spoonfeed you common sense and creativity

That said, despair and triumph is a stupid mechanic. Usually they can be represented by additional advantages / disadvantages.

In all honesty, every time I hear the game described in action or have seen it played in action, it comes across as actually just being one of two things:

1) Only the Success/Failure dice really matter; the GM just uses the rest for flavoring.

2) It's actually a freeform game, the GM just uses the dice for advice and could probably get the same results by consulting a Magic 8-ball, or a horoscope.

>You failed to hit the storm trooper and your gun jams it's not rocket science dumbass

So what the fuck did the Triumph even mean then, jackass? That doesn't feel really triumphant.

I see. And what does him being scared/surprised actually do? And why is there a plasma reactor behind him? And what do you mean I forgot to turn off my engine? That's standard docking procedure. Even if I didn't turn it off, the Empire surely would have shut it down themselves.

First to establish some things:

1) You have one Success (from the Triumph) and two Failures (from the Failure and Despair). Success/Failure is the binary "did you do the thing. Thus you do not hit the Stormtrooper with your shot.

2) However the "super good" part of a Triumph can never be canceled, nor can the "super bad" part of the Despair. So regardless of success or failure of The Thing (shooting the stormtrooper) these will happen.

If I'm the DM I am looking at the battlefield for context on the Advantage, Triumph, and Despair. And here your hypothetical has not given me much help, unfortunately, because by definition Advantages/Threat and Triumph/Despair are contextual.

But supposing it is not pure fiat (that is, supposing the fiction has already established the necessary context for it) I can imagine you missing the stormtrooper and hitting a nearby and conveniently red explosive barrel.

Net Failure: You miss the stormtrooper
Triumph: But you hit a nearby explosive barrel, which damages him.
Despair: But you are also caught in the explosion.
Advantage: But your cover ablates some of that incoming damage (cover grants one Setback to attackers, so I'd let you roll a Boost and negate that much incoming damage).

It was canceled by the despair dumbass

Triumph doesn't cancel out Despair or vice versa.

If you're going to defend this system, please actually know the system. You make us look bad.

No system can compensate for a shit GM.

that makes it sound like every triumph/despair result is going to just warp the game, if the consequences are that severe.

sorry but i'm not going to download your game purely to figure out how you can fail but also succeed really well and also fail really badly at the same time on a basic skill check.
if i like the sound of it i might try it out, but it's not a good impression so far.

>Only the Success/Failure dice really matter; the GM just uses the rest for flavoring.
yeah that's the impression i'm getting. advantage/threat could be pretty useful but this triumph/despair shit looks like an absolute clusterfuck and everybody in the thread has vastly different ideas on how it should go.

I'd have said that you miss, your gun jams but you manage to stay hidden and have a bonus die to your next action

The user immediately above you, and the rules of the game themselves at least as quoted by The Alexandrian, assert that Triumph and Despair do not cancel. So, looks like The Alexandrian was right: some people like the dice mechanics because they're not using the dice mechanics right.

I feel that this could have been reached with just two-axis "Success/failure" "triumph/despair" system, without needing the third axis.

1) I failed, so I missed the Stormtrooper
2) But I got a Triumph, which means I hit the wall behind him and blow up some barrel or something.
3) But I also got a Despair, which means I'm caught in the explosion.

Scared: He'll have a penalty next round.
Reactor: He was guarding the reactor room, which you entered a moment ago.
Engine: You forgot the standard docking procedure. The empire hasn't noticed yet for some reason. Maybe they are busy elsewhere?

I don't give a fuck whether you play the game or not. But considering how advanced your autism is I would suggest staying with DnD.

I don't even really play the game, but reading all your posts, I still have no idea what issue you have with the system.

Miss the point of the dice system, if not of RPG entirely. The point is precisely to leave place to interpretations.
> if you’re gaining access to relevant information, that sounds like a success, right?
Wrong. To take OP example, say you want to find a mafia boss. You could succeed and know where to find him, or fail with advantage(s) and learn something about him that may help you to find him: for example that he works in illegal weapon dealings so you may have to ask shady gunsmiths to continue your investigation.

A whole post only to say "it's bad". No arguments here.

A little praise then back to no argument, except for the initiative thing maybe.

Is that your issue? Two different skills use slightly different tables and you lose your shit?

My only experience with the system is a one shot with 9 players and 2 DM separated in two teams working together from afar until they reunited for the final.
It worked pretty well and the dice system was never an issue, so let say I didn't have the same experience?

Are you the same user who was sperging about "go read the book"? If so, I hope you're imploding in embarrassment right now.

>Is that your issue? Two different skills use slightly different tables and you lose your shit?

WHY do they use different tables? Why would you not unify them? Why would you make them so similar only to make them different in the tiniest detail, easily missed?

What is the point or purpose in making everything so similar and yet subtly different? I cannot conceive of an actual benefit.

>or fail with advantage(s) and learn something about him that may help you to find him

That still sounds like a success, just not a complete success.

>autism
i suppose somebody who doesn't want to download an entire gamebook just to figure out how a three-way success system is supposed to work is autistic, yes.
oh well, i hope you at least have fun with the system, user.

>That still sounds like a success, just not a complete success.
This
I never understood the need for a two-axis or in this case three-axis success system.
Name on case where separating a situation where success is easy but getting negative consequences is easy as well (2 axis) is meaningfully different from a situation where getting a total success is hard but reaching a compromising success is easy (1 axis)

Oh I am. My party captured Luke Skywalker. Leia is now Darth Vader's apprentice and one of my player's ex is a spiteful genderbent Boba Fett

If you're the same person who thinks that Triumph and Despair cancel out (protip: they don't), then I'd love to know how differently your game would have been gone had you actually been playing it right this entire time.

Sounds like a shit GM.

Let's say you're searching for this guy. You roll 0 successes and 6 advantage.

"OK, I find no info because they don't know, but WILL give me a message if the guy shows up AND they tell me about any weaknesses or fears this guy has, like being terrified of force ghosts. Also the barman gives free drinks for advising him on a deal that was going to go bad. "

No I am not that idiot

> WHY do they use different tables?
Because they are different things doing different things?
Medicine/mechanic heal/repairs wounds, Damage Control remove strains.
It's like complaining that you don't gain life points and mana points the same way.

>That still sounds like a success, just not a complete success.
Have you done what you wanted to do? Have you found the guy you're looking for? No? Then you didn't succeed.
The cop doesn't catch the robber when he know he's operating in the port district, he's just closing in.
It's look like you're stuck in a very binary way on thinking.

I will say, while I like the FFG Star Wars system, holy fuck they could have done better editing with explaining how the goddamn system works. They take way too long explaining how the mechanics work and have it scattered over too much of the book/

>Name on case where separating a situation where success is easy but getting negative consequences is easy as well (2 axis) is meaningfully different from a situation where getting a total success is hard but reaching a compromising success is easy (1 axis)

There isn't; which is why I greatly prefer systems with simple Degree of Success / Degree of Failure systems.

One thing that the greentext essay above didn't even get into is how many different ways there are to modify a die roll. "Hmmm... does that gizmo on my blaster increase my die pool, upgrade my die pool, reduce my difficulty, downgrade my difficulty, give me a boost, or cancel a setback??

>Because they are different things doing different things?

This immediately invites the question, then, "if they're so different, then why are their tables so similar except with regards to literally a single line?"

That is, what is it about Medicine/Mechanics that necessitates a Difficulty 1 when wounds are less than or equal to 1/2 wound threshold, and a Difficulty 2 when wounds are greater than 1/2 wound threshold; while Damage Control necessitates Difficulty 1 when system strain is less than 1/2 strain threshold, and Difficulty 2 when system strain is greater than or equal to 1/2 strain threshold?

>Then you didn't succeed.

But I didn't fail either, despite what the dice are supposedly saying and despite the fact that Advantage can't turn a Failure into a Success.

I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong-- and I don't think it'd be particularly gamebreaking to simply treat Triumph as a combination of success/advantage rolled into one. At most you'd have to accomodate the idea that Triumphs can be spent as an auto-crit (and thus, an automatically dead Minion),

The clockwork mechanisms of the game are not so tightly wound that removing or modifying one will cause it all to fall apart. Some will see that as a strength, others a weakness.

>But I didn't fail either, despite what the dice are supposedly saying and despite the fact that Advantage can't turn a Failure into a Success
you just said that you didn't succeed or fail, so the advantage dice didn't turn a failure into a success, they turned in a failure into something in-between, which is the entire point of advantage

Or here's an idea, remove the Triumph/Despair dice entirely and instead give players a pool of "Triumph" points similar to action dice in the d20 System or Willpower in World of Darkness, that they can spend to gain automatic successes.

Then give the GM "Despair" points that he can spend to make situations harder.

>Because they are different things doing different things?
>Medicine/mechanic heal/repairs wounds, Damage Control remove strains.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT

REREAD THE TABLE
1 success: wounds equal to or less than 1/2 wound threshold
2 successes: wounds greater than 1/2 wound threshold

COMPARE WITH

1 success: system strain less than (BUT NOT EQUAL TO) strain threshold
2 successes: system strain equal OR LESS than strain threshold

Why??? Why would you make medicine be 1/2 and equal for success 1, and then in the system strain need to be less than 1/2 for 1 damage success?

That's just making things different just to dick people for thinking they're the same and then big arguments happening when some autist rereads the actual rules and tells the GM they're doing it wrong.

>But I didn't fail either, despite what the dice are supposedly saying and despite the fact that Advantage can't turn a Failure into a Success.

It bears saying that the word "failure" here is not colloquially applied--though the colloquial understanding of the word is relevant.

In EotE the Success/Failure metric determines whether or not you Did or Did Not as to your intended action.

It is, colloquially, a success that you found a new (if more complicated/dangerous/difficult) lead in your investigation. But if your intended action was "make this guy tell me where the crime boss is" then you have Failed. He did not tell you where the crime boss was. Those Advantage mean that he told you where a gang connected to the crime boss is.

That may be the part you're missing. Or the part you aren't missing but dislike. And that's okay! But I think if we're discussing a systems merits (or not) we should have some common understanding as to what these different things are.

So you'd add another pool of meta-currency that does something similar to what the Light Side/Dark Side points do? That seems... odd.

My homebrew wouldn't necessitate changing the actual die-facings, just their mechanical implications. You're suggesting something a lot more work intensive for a gain I'm not convinced is worth it.

But if that works for you, run with it and let us know how it goes.

I don't get it.

One says system strain the other says wounds, because it's presumed that you can't repair actual structural damage without spare metal.

I'm gaining access to relevant information. That's a success. It's just not total success.

How is that not a partial success rather than a failure, but with good stuff?
Isn't this just a hairsplitting justification for proprietary dice?

You miss but you shoot the door controls, sealing the badguy reinforcement out.

Or the enemy misses but his the door/turbolift controls, splitting the party.

Read the first line, and note for medicine
"wounds less or equal to 1/2 wound threshold"

Compare to damage control
"system strain less than (NOT EQUAL) to 1/2 strain threshold"

It's fucking horrible. Why would you make it two different ways?

Well, first, what information did you ask for?

You fail in finding that specific bit of info, but you find tangential information that may also be useful.

Like, "I want to know anything - anything at all about imperial officer Joe"
You don't get any info, but you do find out the local base has spent a lot of money on tie fighters, meaning that air traffic in the area is watched a lot, but the imperials aren't watching ground traffic due to lack of stormtroopers, so getting around on foot is easier."

Or, "I want to find out where Lieutenant Imperial Officer Joe is hiding"
You fail to find where he is but you DO find out his commlink details and who he trusts to send him supplies.

Oh, right, there's a Light/Dark system already...yeah, then just ditch Triumph/Despair and give some of its effects to the Light/Dark system.

Look at the tables themselves Or read

progress towards a goal is not the same as succeeding at said goal

>No failure or threat
>Get assaulted
Bad GM, bad bait

It is an important distinction, I think, and I'll try to explain why I think so.

The best example of "partial success" is PbtA games; regardless how you feel about the system's merits, it is nonetheless the most influential and most overtly invested in the concept of a "partial success".

Consider the granddaddy of it all, Apocalypse World, and one of its most fundamental moves "Do Something Under Fire". Though we've since generalized the '6 or less, 7-9, 10+' shtick as '7-9 is a partial success' that isn't what it says.

"7-9: you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the MC can offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or an ugly choice"

The partial success inherently ties the partialness/incompleteness to the task. This is not a bad thing. It means that, when run correctly, every consequence is tied to a player-side prompt.

Turning to EotE this is not the case. Consequences need not be tied directly to the prompting action; this is both a good thing and a bad thing.

It CAN be:
>The criminal does not reveal his boss' location (Failure) but does tell you where to find less tight-lipped cronies (Advantage)
OR it can be:
>The criminal refuses to reveal his boss' location (Failure) but he is intimidated enough not to stop you from robbing his spice-money (Advantage).

That first situation fits very well in AW's "partial success" philosophy; you are getting less than what you want, but not nothing. The second is not as good a fit because a fistful of cash is just a good thing all around.

This speaks to each games' relative theme: Apocalypse World is about making do, about a hardscrabble world, about gritting your teeth through the awfulness. By contrast, EotE wants you to be a devil-may-care freebooting hero. It invests players with more agency in resolution and, by allowing disconnect of Advantage from Success, allows unqualified good things outside the immediate Did/Did Not metric.

I am not suggesting you abandon your criticism of EotE: I love the game but it is not unimpeachable. It annoys me that more Green are better than upgraded Yellow (unless you want Crits). Its proprietary dice are not intuitive to everyone, nor universally useful to all situations. As often as I DM there are still times I sigh and wonder what to do about that hanging Advantage or Threat-- but at the same time the double-metric has prompted some of my better moments of DM improv.

Hope this was remotely helpful, though.

Hang on, I want to try something. Pic is probably a good example of how to handle the dice mechanics of EotE and so on when you state that:

"I want to find out where on Tatooine Greedo is right now."

The thing is that in any other system, you could get the same damn results with less dice rolled.

>d20
>Fail by 10 or more: "Greedo is in Anchorhead, but he's learned that you're looking for him."
>Fail by 5-9: "Greedo is in Anchorhead."
>Fail by 1-4: "You can't figure out where he is."
>Suceed by 0-4: "Greedo is in Mos Eisley."
>Succeed by 5-9: "Greedo is in Mos Eisley at the cantina."
>Succeed by 10 or more: "Greedo is in Mos Eisley at the cantina, and the ship he was going to leave on has been grounded."

>World of Darkness:
>Botch: "Greedo is in Anchorhead."
>Failure: "You can't figure out where he is."
>1 Success: "Greedo is in Mos Eisley."
>2-4 Successes: "Greedo is in Mos Eisley, at the cantina."
>5 Successes: "Greedo is in Mos Eisley, at the Cantina, and his ship has been grounded."

In any other system, all the additional stuff I made up - like the inclusion of Dengar - wouldn't need or be imposed by the dice rolls, but rahter be something the GM give to the players as the story requires. The Triumph/Despair dice force the GM to include unnecessary and possibly unwanted details, to no real benefit.

who the fuck even goes to anchorhead

Where else do you go to pick up some power converters?

Mos Eisley, for one. If you've got someone to watch your back you can get a damn good deal from the port. Anchorhead will rip you off on the best of days.

That's totally fair. But by the same token including it as a second metric to which the players have equal access/control is also a really good improv prompt.

My buddy does improv, and one of their things is to rope in material from past skits. A secondary metric which is not necessarily dependent on the first means both player and DM can rope in that outside stuff.

I would argue that having routine prompts to add texture to a game-world (the world does not respond to only what you care about) is a good thing. Not for everyone, certainly, but a good thing for some.

Advantage/Threat as a separate metric means you can make those good/bad things EITHER connected to or wholly unconnected to the operative event (Success/Failure).

Some people are willing to pay a premium for a safe environment staffed by locals instead of offworld criminals.

FFG has really figured out how to part fools and their money in an expert fashion.

Fuck FFG and their shitty re-hashed rules and gimmick dice.

>Haha! These FFG fanboy fools! They spend so much money on a game of make-believe that I don't like
>I am so much cleverer than those fools
>I spend my money on a different more better make-believe game
>Because I am clever
>What fools

But... but... muh 'Narrative Dice'! You're just an old D&D grognard who likes ebil 'muh binary pass/fail' just because you don't like new things. New things are automatically better! FFG has totally revolutionized RPG's; and now with their new universal system, they're going to take it out of Star Wars and EVERYONE will be playing with the superior Narrative Dice folded three thousand times!

samefagging this bad

Nope, but if that's what it takes for you to feel less butthurt about other people not liking something that you like (how dare they), then I'm not going to argue. Wouldn't want you getting permanent rectal damage or anything.

...Aren't you yourself butthurt that some other people like EotE?

>FFG’s game is the Special Edition of Star Wars roleplaying games.

You ever worry sometimes that someone wrote a whole article in service of one joke that popped into their head one fine afternoon?

>Take your "(OP)" and go
Are you literally retarded or just pretending?
Either way kill yourself.

This is an insane rule system and this example is a perfect illustration of that.

game2.ca/eote/ for rolling if you're all around a table

community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/243744-discord-dice-roller-bot/ if you want to do it on discord

wow they do it for *free*

It doesn't bother me that anyone likes it, but it's kind of annoying that certain people act like it's the RPG equivalent of the second coming. I find it to be a serviceable, adequate system for running Star Wars.

I had the same problem with the GMC revision of New World of Darkness. If you went into the Onyx Path forums and dared to suggest that beats and tilts were the greatest innovations in RPG history, fanboys would come out of the woodworks and start sperging their heads off.

>beats and tilts were the greatest innovations

Sorry, that shouldn't have read "WEREN'T"

>Completely master an obtuse-as-fuck system before your first game of it or you have no fucking right to complain
Is there anything that Veeky Forums isn't terrible at?

To be clear, the hypothetical OP-player was fine. It was the equally hypothetical GM that was a piece of shit.

The D&D equivalent is rolling less than a target's AC to hit and the DM has you fall on your own sword for damage despite it not being a critical fail*.

*Entirely aside, "hurt yourself on a crit-fail" is bullshit but I doubt that me saying so is some revolutionary act.

bad gm m8

... There are people that like those systems? What weird bizarro universe do the OPP forums exist in. I've yet to hear anything better then "they're ok but needlessly complex compared to the old system" with "They're shit and you're shit for using them" being the most common.

This is a triumph! I'm making a note here, huge success! XD

Congratulations, you made yourself look retarded. What's the next step in your master plan?

It's really easy to port in degrees of success into a single die roll game.

Hell, that's what the 40k roleplays did. ... Also developed by FFG

How would you handle "you succeed with advantage and also triumph but also despair"? Let's say it's a medical roll to treat a gaping head wound.

also, it's really clunky that triumph and despair don't cancel out. They really should, and it just makes them weirdly different from the other two pairs. I feel like this system could be made better by either flat removing triumph and despair and replacing them with doubles of something else(success and failure?) or else by just making the damn things cancel out so you don't get "succeed with something nice and something excellent and something terrible", which is... what?

Like, seriously, it's really easy to imagine succeed with advantage and disaster. "you were able to close the wound easily without using as many materials as you expected, however over the next hour you start to notice a swelling, it looks like it might have started to become infected", but it's so hard to then add a triumph to that.

>but it's so hard to then add a triumph to that
"luckily, you know a better doctor nearby who has the materials to treat the infection"

>Like, seriously, it's really easy to imagine succeed with advantage and disaster. "you were able to close the wound easily without using as many materials as you expected, however over the next hour you start to notice a swelling, it looks like it might have started to become infected", but it's so hard to then add a triumph to that.
"he becomes force sensitive but it's the dark side only"

"he's forgotten his memories of your face, but will live without other complications"

"You installed a robotics chip to allow him to keep moving, which has the side effect of increasing his piloting skills but he's going to be treated with prejudice because he's a cyborg"

"He's made a full recovery and with no physical effects, but he had to be awake through the whole surgery. He wants to punch you and is traumatised by the site of your medical kit."

Well, I guess 2 and 4 don't really have a triumph, shit.

Quick, someone add one in.