But, as one of my players pointed out, how can you narratively describe giving a boost die to the next player to act when you don't know who it is and you don't know what they are going to do?

lupex said:

Depends on the action that caused the boost die to be handed out.  A blaster shot that missed could still leave the target off-balance and thus an easier mark for the next person to shoot at them, whoever it might be.

Or while the fake sob story (Deceit) may not have won over the local Imperial prefect, but the prefect's reaction gives the next person the inspiration for a slighlty more plausiable story that makes it clear that ISB is paying attention to how the prefect runs things, and any "deviations from Imperial doctrine" will be noted and forwarded to the higher-ups back on Imperial Center (likely a Coerce check)

Then again, in the games I've run and played in, the players openly discussed who'd go next, and pick up the narrative there to explain how their action incoporated that boost die.

I guess it depends on the imagination of your players.  Sadly, not all gamers are good at on-the-spot improv, and I think EotE's dice system is the type of game that is more rewarding for those players that can do on-the-spot improv.

Even if you discuss who goes next, then that only partially solves the uncertainty inherent in "Boost die for the next guy".  There is still the possibility that NPCs take action in between and the party is forced to abandon the plan.  Do you take away the Boost die in that case?

Example:

Player 1: Ooh, an Advantage!  Who's next?
Player 2: I'd like to try and hack the door controls.
Player 1: Then I'll help you at the console.  +1 Boost die!
GM: A stormtrooper shoots the console. *rolls dice*  Yep, blown to smithereens.
Player 2: Erm… guess I'll draw my blaster and shoot.

Does he get the Boost die?

Perhaps we can make a sample list of narratives for those completely generic "+1 Boost die to I dunno who doing I dunno what next" situations.

1. "I speak encouraging words to the party to raise morale.  Onwards, brave companions!  To victory!"
2. "I focus my inner calm and beseech the Force to aid us in this hour of need."
3. Uhm… anyone?

Xyx said:

Sure he does.  The narrative reason may need to be adjusted to account for the change in action, but the mechanics behind why that boost die was granted (Advantage spent) remains intact.

As I've said plenty of times before on these boards, this game requires a paradigm shift for those players and GM's who are coming from a primarily d20/D&D gaming background.  Evil Hat's FATE system is also a narrative-style game, and my Saturday gaming group (most of whom had really only played d20 games prior to that) had trouble adapting from a tactical, hard-coded rules mindset to a more open & freeform mindset.

To be honest, I really do think you're overthinking the matter.  To quote a certain Jedi Master, you must unlearn what you have learned.  And to quote another Jedi Master, let go your conscious self and act on instinct ;)

Such platitudes only ignore the problem.  This a beta product.  Now is the time to be critical and constructive.  That the game can still be made to work does not absolve the designers of any responsibility to improve upon their design.  A good playgroup can work with even the worst games.  I've had fun with some pretty attrocious systems, but that still doesn't mean they shouldn't have been improved.

I find it preposterous that players cannot even explain their own characters' intentions until after the fact.  Retconning is an admission of failure on the part of the storytellers, and forcing players or GMs into such a position is undesirable.  It's a problem, it can still be fixed, so it should be fixed.

If this "paradigm shift" is indeed the intention of the designers, then it has been poorly implemented.  The book should offer some support for bringing that shift about.  How else are people new to the game going to understand this?  If the game should work as you claim, then the product stands at risk of being misinterpreted right out of the box by a rather significant part of its target audience.  That is a Very Bad Thing™ that should be addressed before release.

Xyx said:

Xyx said:

That presumes there even is a problem.  It's only been a rather small yet overly vocal minority that's been saying the dice math is all wrong.  A lot of folks that I've talked to, listened to via podcasts or Skype games, or read during forum posts are quite happy with EotE's dice pool system.

Also, as aramis noted, the Beta has been closed for two months now.  And given the design team have not remarked at all upon the dice math concerns/complaints, be it "not enough successes" or "rolling too many advantages," I'd say that's a pretty clear sign that as far as they are concerned, the dice mechanics are doing exactly what the design team wanted them to do.  The Beginner Box uses the exact same dice system as found in the Beta, which also says pretty clearly that FFG is happy with the dice system and how it operates.

So if you're hoping to get the design team to change their minds on how the dice work, you missed the boat by a wide margin.  Heck, I'd be surprised if any of the design team are actually paying attention to the Beta forum these days.

aramis said:

It's not a done deal until the final product is in the stores.  Nothing is set in stone, and even if the beta is officially closed, the forum is still open.  And while I never expected something as fundamental as the dice to get changed on such short notice anyway, there might be an EotE 2.0 some day.  This error does not have to be repeated.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it's not there.  Several playgroups have reported a negative experience with this aspect of the dice in their very first playsession.  A game only gets one chance at a first impression.  I were developing this game, I would be concerned about this.

You could argue that it is not a pervasive problem and/or that it is a necessary evil because it cannot be solved gracefully or in time, if you like.  I'd be interested in your arguments, provided they're more concrete than "paradigm shift".

Donovan Morningfire said:

Only a subset of people will even stop to think about it, and of those only a small subset will sign up here to vocalize their thoughts.  It's not unusual for there to be a silent majority behind a vocal minority.  We'll never know for sure, but that's no reason to dismiss a problem.

Strangely, this didn't come up on the most recent session after I allowed the players to  rebuild thier characters as they spent most of the XP on characteristics.  Rolling more good dice definately helps!!!

Xyx said:

And obviously you have no clue how the production cycle in the RPG industry works.

It's a "done deal" because by now, the material has been sent to lay-out and the files sent to the printer, with time accounted for the actual printing and overseas shipping.  There's a damn good reason why companies like WotC, FFG, Green Ronin, Mongoose, and many others work several months in advance of when a book is slated to be releaed, and even most companies tend to keep the release date flexible to try and account for unforseen delays.  Green Ronin, which is pretty well known for releasing the PDFs at least a few months in advance of the print copies are pretty much limited to fixing typos and minor bits of grammer by that point.

And remember that per the terms of the contract that FFG signed with LucasFilm, there are no PDF products permitted.  The books are dead-tree format only.

So yes, it's a done deal.  And again, the design crew have not commented even once on all the remarks that people have made about issues such as too many advantages or dice math doesn't give enough successes.  Nothing from Jay "Ynnen" Little, nothing from FFG_Sam_Stewart, nothing from anyone attached to FFG.

That alone should speak volumes as to how FFG feels about that specific category of complaints.

So like it, love it, or hate it, the dice system that's in the Beta and the Beginner Box is the dice system that is going to be in the EotE core rulebook.  And no amount of forum posts is going to change that fact.

But if you really do feel there are too many advantages, then I suggest a very simple house rule… change what the current success and advantage symbols mean.  Have the explosions = Advantages, and the Alliance firebirds = Successes, and see if that doesn't solve the issue for you.  It's something that I've suggested to a lot of different people that had the same complaint as you, but oddly, nobody ever seemed to consider that maybe they could change that one little tidbit for their games instead of whining to FFG.  I'd love to be surprised and hear that somebody actually tried it, with some feedback on whether it worked or not to resolve the "too many Advantages" issue.

I did mention a possible EotE 2.0 somewhere in my post, but you can keep knocking down strawmen if it makes you feel better.  I haven't seen a whole lot of feedback from the developers either way, though, so if their silence "speaks volumes", then they sure speak volumes on a lot of subjects.

The quality of a game is inversely proportional to the amount of house rules.  I don't buy books to rewrite them.  I don't buy them to speculate on the designers' intent either.

Well, I have had a light bulb moment about the passing of boost dice to the next active player;

the difficulty for me was that the active player had to explain the narrative for how his action resulted in an as yet unknown player getting a boost and this didn't make any kind of sense ( this has nothing to do with unlearning but more to do with the narrative flowing in a logical fashion).

However, if we take out the mechanics of the boost die and concentrate on what happens to the narative when the boost die is handed over then things start to fall into place.   The boost dice is the physical representation of the narrative being passed to the next active player, so it isn't necessarily down to the current player to describe how his action aided the next action, as the next player can describe how he took advantage of what had gone before.

for example; player A fires at a group of Mercs, missing but getting an advantage, he opts to give a boost die to the next active player without knowing who it is or what they are going to do.  Player C then decides to act describing how the missed shots ricochet across the hanger and forcing everyone to keep their heads down, making it easier for him to sneak towards the unattended speader, thus describing how he got the extra boost from player A.

to me this not only keeps the narrative flowing in a logical way but also keeps everyone invested in the actions of all party members, because if you can't describe how you got a boost die, I won't be allowing you to use it.

lupex said:

Thank you for this. This is a perfect explanation in my opinion. It can keep the non-active players concentrating on the action since they need to be thinking of how they may need to use the advantages that the other player rolled, not flipping through their Iphone bored waiting for their turn.

Glad my musings help.