Quote from: Bren;876727* Yes I am aware that the rules don't seem to clearly state that Triumph and Despair cancel. But the rules say that Success and Failure cancel and that Triumph counts as Success and Despair Counts as Failure so I'm just going to go with cancelling. Both for consistency and because the difference between Triumph+Threat and Triumph+Despair or Failure+Advantage and Failure+Triumph seem pretty vague and arbitrary if not just plain stupid.

The success part of a Triumph can be cancelled but not the Advantage part. It's needlessly confusing as they could just have put a Success symbol on the face with a Triumph and they wouldn't have needed all those special rules.

As you said, a Triumph is exactly the same as several Advantage except for the following:

-A Triumph can't be cancelled
-A Triumph can't be split apart to do multiple things
-A Triumph can be used to do anything (such as activate weapon abilities) that can be done with Advantage regardless of cost.
-Some Talents specifically require Triumphs [I see this as a flaw in the game BTW].  

So, it really isn't a three axis resolution system.

Quote from: Omega;876739Marketing ploy is how they parcelled out the rules into the expansion books. As of last count they had 6 expansion books out at around 30$ each. Each adding a few new races, class options, equipment, or ships. Most of it you do not need and the core game is perfectly fine to run far with.

So kinda like D&D then.

Quote from: rawma;876698Has it been established that this one is?

Creating a required add-on product that amounts to 20% of a total start up cost of using it (approximately based on USSRP) is a marketing gimmick.

Quote from: Bren;876727The complexity you mention is a subjective opinion. I can easily program a lookup table and that's no more complicated that creating an algorithm for symbol cancellation and counting. So in the sense of automating the dice process the methods seem equally complicated (or equally easy)

Sure, but you've also added a new 'add-on' to the game - a device to run the program that negates the need of the paper table. If we require its availability as a part of playing a game, then that would change everything.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876773So kinda like D&D then.

Not quite till 3e.

BX and to a degree BECMI were meant to ease the player into ever more complex ideas. They are starters after all.

AD&D had stuff come out as it accumulated in the magazines. It wasnt created at the same time as the core 3 books then parcelled out. Or were world books like OA and DL.

2e Seems much the same pattern. Core books then write new stuff expanding on it rather them pre-planning the whole deal. Or sidelining out of the core books stuff that was perceived as not fitting or unpopular. Like Psionics.

3 and 4e though is anyones guess what went on there before or after the cores came out. But they cranked out quite a volume of stuff. And from what I 've read here and elsewhere seems they did withhold some things for expansions.

5e is back to putting out stuff as its written and is once more self contained. So far its the least supported of any edition short of B. for some that is a good sign. For others its not.

FFG on the other hand tends to have things plotted out and done first. Then section up rules into parts and dole those out.  They obviously dont do this with every game. But they do it enough that some are wary.

I would though lay good odds that by now they are down to writing new stuff as they go.

Quote from: Lynn;876781Creating a required add-on product that amounts to 20% of a total start up cost of using it (approximately based on USSRP) is a marketing gimmick.

The boxed starter set comes with dice. But this was my argument too about the FFG dice. That is another 14$ added onto the cost if you go with the core book. Or 14 per player.

Some will argue that normal polyhedral sets of 4/6/6/6/8/10/10/12/20 or 4/6/8/10/10/12/20 can cost 12$ or more too. But standard polyhedrals can be used for many different games. FFG dice cant even be used with Imperial Assault it seems.

That may actually be a good thing for years later. Since the dice cant be used for other RPGs. They will end up selling possibly cheap since FFG is mass producing them it seems.

Quote from: Omega;876800The boxed starter set comes with dice. But this was my argument too about the FFG dice. That is another 14$ added onto the cost if you go with the core book. Or 14 per player.

It should be noted that a single set of these dice frequently aren't sufficient for building a dice pool for beginning characters. You need at least two sets, and even then you're still likely to occasionally need to kludge the pool.

Quote from: Omega;876752Not really. You would not even need a chart. Normal polyhedrals of different colours and knowing what  each X/Y/Z range means. The tradeoff being youd have to learn what the results mean.

So your argument is that it won't be a chart look-up because you can memorize the chart? Please. That's pure sophistry.

And if you actually believe that to be true, then the FFG Star Wars mechanic already satisfies your requirement: Just memorize the chart they include for using normal polyhedrals.

Quote from: Bren;876727The complexity you mention is a subjective opinion. I can easily program a lookup table and that's no more complicated that creating an algorithm for symbol cancellation and counting. So in the sense of automating the dice process the methods seem equally complicated (or equally easy).

Unless you're suggesting that the computer itself is playing the game, all you've done there is introduce a third variant: Symbols, chart look-up, or push a button on an app. And I would tend to agree that pushing a button on an app in this situation would be easier than either alternative.

Quote from: Bren;876727In saying that a table is more complicated your are assuming that the three axis multi-dice cancellation and counting that FFG requires delivers a meaningful result compared to some simpler system (whether table lookup or otherwise.)

The entire topic of conversation was about whether or not a system using normal dice could deliver the same three axes of information that the FFG system does without being more complicated to use than counting symbols.

In the context of that discussion, arguing that you don't really need three axes of information is meaningless. It's like arguing that you can drive from Manhattan to Los Angeles on a single tank of gas because you don't really need to drive to Los Angeles and you should be happy just popping over to Queens.

QuoteCritical Hit, Special Hit, Normal Hit, Missed Hit, and Fumbled Hit.

It's been awhile since I played Runequest, but I don't recall RQ generating results like Critical Hit + Missed Hit + Fumbled Hit all on the same die roll. So it's unclear to me how you're claiming that this mechanic is delivering three axes of information.

QuoteWhat Runequest includes, which FFG does not, is a table for Critical Hits and Critical Parries in combat to mechanize the process of adding unusual outcomes.

Actually, the Star Wars games do, in fact, have such tables. (Although it's not really relevant to a discussion of the information provided by the core mechanic.)

Quote* Yes I am aware that the rules don't seem to clearly state that Triumph and Despair cancel. But the rules say that Success and Failure cancel and that Triumph counts as Success and Despair Counts as Failure so I'm just going to go with cancelling.

I agree that if we're talking about some completely different mechanic than the one found in the FFG Star Wars games, that such a mechanic could be trivially replicated with normal dice.

I'm just not entirely clear what you think that has to do with the topic at hand.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;876771The success part of a Triumph can be cancelled but not the Advantage part. It's needlessly confusing as they could just have put a Success symbol on the face with a Triumph and they wouldn't have needed all those special rules.

Agreed. That would be a good way to have simplified some of the unnecessary complexity out of the mechanic.

Quote-Some Talents specifically require Triumphs [I see this as a flaw in the game BTW].  

So, it really isn't a three axis resolution system.

I agree that it's a flaw, but you can't just argue that the third axis doesn't exist because you don't like it.

Upon reflection, though, it would actually be more accurate to describe it as a four-axis system:

Axis 1: Success or failure?
Axis 2: Advantage, threat, or neither?
Axis 3: Triumph or no Triumph?
Axis 4: Despair or no Despair?

There's some slight muddling since Triumph/Despair can be used to replicate some of the effects of Advantage/Threat. But since (a) the reverse isn't true and (b) you can get Triumph and Threat at the same time (whereas you can't get Advantage and Threat at the same time), it's clear that you're dealing with separate axes of information. And you can, in fact, generate results that have information in all four axes: Success + Advantage + Triumph + Despair.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876815It should be noted that a single set of these dice frequently aren't sufficient for building a dice pool for beginning characters. You need at least two sets, and even then you're still likely to occasionally need to kludge the pool.

So kinda like the 5e starter?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876815So your argument is that it won't be a chart look-up because you can memorize the chart? Please. That's pure sophistry.

And if you actually believe that to be true, then the FFG Star Wars mechanic already satisfies your requirement: Just memorize the chart they include for using normal polyhedrals.

No. My argument is that all you need to do is know the ranges. Much like how in 5e you just need to know what consitutes a hit or a miss. Once you know the ranges it eventually becomes second nature if you play enough. Same with the symbols really. For most players after a while gets easy to tell at a glance.

Good example is various thread over on BGG about the symbols used for Race for the Galaxy. Most state that after a few plays, sometimes more than a few, the symbols clicked. Others though struggle long and hard to grasp it.

Do the dice work for you?
Yes? Great! Game on!
No? Not great. Either find an alternative like the chart, or find a different game. No different from any other RPG with a system you dont like some element of.

Here's my entry into the possible standard dice replacement. Not fully thought out on odds, just a spitball/idea.

Need: 15d6; 3 dice of one color (the Chance Roll). 6 positive dice of a different color (preferably light). 6 negative dice of yet another color (preferably dark). (yes, 3 different colors of D6's)

Determine base difficulty. This sets the number of positive or negative dice initially added to the pool. (from adding 1 - 3 negative or positive dice)

• Add a positive die to the "pool" for any bonus.
• Add a negative die to the "pool" for any penalties.

Roll all dice together in a pool.

Chance Roll:
Set aside chance roll and note result (add 3d6 together).

Attribute Bonus and Skill Ranks add/subtract from "chance" roll. These are the only numbers that impact the actual result of the chance roll.

First, cancel each positive die with a negative die. You will be left with either one or more of one die type. If one or more positive dice are left over, add the result to the chance roll. If one or more negative dice are left over, subtract the result from the chance roll.

TN is always 13 (at or above).

• The higher you roll over 13, the better the success.
• The lower you roll below 13, the worse the failure.

Advantage or Threat:

• Rolling doubles on chance roll that matches a negative die = Threat for each negative die that matches.
• Rolling doubles on chance roll that matches a positive die = Advantage for each positive die that matches.

Threat cancels out Advantage (or vice versa) so you end up with only Threat or Advantage. These impact the situation separately from the success/failure of the chance roll. Spend A/T on bonus/penalty dice going forward or buy "special effects".

Despair and/or Triumph:

• Rolling triples on chance roll that matches a negative die = Despair
• Rolling triples on chance roll that matches a positive die = Triumph

These impact the situation separately from the success/failure of the chance roll. Despair and Triumph do not cancel each other out. The results should be determined by current circumstances or spent on "special events". You can have both Triumph and Despair in the same roll.

Quote from: Omega;876820So kinda like the 5e starter?

I don't actually own that. I'm guessing that they forgot that their mechanics frequently require rolling 2d20 now?

Quote from: Omega;876821No. My argument is that all you need to do is know the ranges. Much like how in 5e you just need to know what consitutes a hit or a miss. Once you know the ranges it eventually becomes second nature if you play enough.

Possibly I'm just not understanding the system you're proposing. Could you be more specific?

Quote from: trechriron;876824Here's my entry into the possible standard dice replacement. Not fully thought out on odds, just a spitball/idea.

I'm not too concerned about matching probability.

Your system doesn't quite work because you can't roll distinct doubles and triples on 3d6 at the same time (so, for example, you can generate either Advantage or Triumph, but you can't generate both at the same time). But I can see several ways you could modify it to remove that problem and give you three axes.

Quote from: Omega;876800The boxed starter set comes with dice. But this was my argument too about the FFG dice. That is another 14$ added onto the cost if you go with the core book. Or 14 per player.

Some will argue that normal polyhedral sets of 4/6/6/6/8/10/10/12/20 or 4/6/8/10/10/12/20 can cost 12$ or more too. But standard polyhedrals can be used for many different games. FFG dice cant even be used with Imperial Assault it seems.

Right, and you don't have to buy them from FFG (though I don't think Ive spent $12 on a dice set, with the nice Chessex ones at $6 on Amazon).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876815Unless you're suggesting that the computer itself is playing the game, all you've done there is introduce a third variant: Symbols, chart look-up, or push a button on an app. And I would tend to agree that pushing a button on an app in this situation would be easier than either alternative.

I was suggesting the level of complexity was not significantly greater for a table than dice. And using a dice app is certainly not out of the question nor unheard of.

QuoteThe entire topic of conversation was about whether or not a system using normal dice could deliver the same three axes of information that the FFG system does without being more complicated to use than counting symbols.

But is that really the case that this is the entire topic of conversation in this thread? Have we all agreed that the FFG system delivers something useful with its different types of information and the only question of interest is how to implement a system that delivers the exact same information as does the FFG system?

Well let's see what you said elsewhere.

QuoteIn my review of Star Wars: Force and Destiny, I explained how the game's core mechanic uses three inconsistent pairs of symbols in order to generate a huge mess of meaningless results that even the game's designers can't figure out how to interpret or use consistently.

So how can you claim here that we ought to replicate exactly the results of FFG as written or restrict the discussion to the system as written when you have already concluded that the results are meaningless. We could adopt any one of a host of dice systems already in existence that deliver meaningful results and any of those systems would be superior to a system that generates mess.

Your analogy about driving on tanks of gas misses that point. A better analogy would specify that the car, like the FFG system, was undrivable. At which point how much gas it would use if it were drivable is hardly the point. Because it isn't drivable. So you aren't going to Los Angeles or Queens until you get a car that is drivable. Before you worry about gas mileage, or driving destination, you should worry about having a car you can actually drive.

QuoteIt's been awhile since I played Runequest, but I don't recall RQ generating results like Critical Hit + Missed Hit + Fumbled Hit all on the same die roll. So it's unclear to me how you're claiming that this mechanic is delivering three axes of information.

Apparently it has been while since you played Runequest. I already covered this in the post you quoted, but to refresh your memory, both combatants make separate rolls to hit, and to parry. That is a total of four dice being rolled. Not one dice roll. (Technically it would usually require rolling eight dice since most people use 2 dice for each D100 roll.)

On each of those four rolls we may have any of five results: Critical Success, Special Success, Success, Failure, and Fumble.  So a critical hit with an attack, a missed hit for a parry, a fumbled hit for the opponent's parry, and a normal hit for the opponent's attack is just one of many possible results. This gives a total of 20 possible results.

In passing I note that your analysis of the FFG system listed a total of only 18 possible results. If we eliminated the redundant or nonsensical results we'd have even fewer.  Perhaps as few as the five results you proposed in your follow up article.

As a parenthetical note, I guess I also need to remind you that in Runequest a missed hit and a fumbled hit is redundant as a result since a fumble subsumes that a miss has occurred similar to the way that in FFG a Despair includes a Failure but without including the "meaningless results" that FFG generates.

QuoteActually, the Star Wars games do, in fact, have such tables. (Although it's not really relevant to a discussion of the information provided by the core mechanic.)

Than why bring it up since according to you we are supposedly discussing the core mechanic?

QuoteI agree that if we're talking about some completely different mechanic than the one found in the FFG Star Wars games, that such a mechanic could be trivially replicated with normal dice.

Since the mechanic in FFG does, by your own analysis, generate "a huge mess of meaningless results" maybe we should be discussing a completely different mechanic. Certainly before you claim that the results can't be duplicated more simply you should first lay out what the results are that the system does generate. But since you say those results are meaningless that's kind of difficult to do isn't it?

QuoteI'm just not entirely clear what you think that has to do with the topic at hand.

I'm unclear why your are posting anything here at all. You've said the FFG system delivers "a huge mess of meaningless results" yet you seem unwilling to consider here any alternative that doesn't give identical (hence also meaningless) results as does the FFG system.

Quote from: Bren;876850I'm unclear why your are posting anything here at all. You've said the FFG system delivers "a huge mess of meaningless results" yet you seem unwilling to consider here any alternative that doesn't give identical (hence also meaningless) results as does the FFG system.

First, I never said anything about "identical results". The word I used was "similar", and I've reiterated that several times.

Second, I've been perfectly clear about what the meaningless results are that I'm talking about. If we go back to my original post on this topic of discussion, in fact, we can see that I wrote in direct response to you: "Where the system falls apart is that it uses three inconsistent matching/cancellation rules for each set of symbols and then renders the whole thing into nonsense by filling the book with a mountain of rules and guidelines which are inconsistent in their use of the core mechanic. The core concept of reporting three axes of information isn't horrible, though, despite the specific execution. And most of the people who are reporting success with the system (a) house rule out the inconsistent matching/cancellation rules and (b) ignore most of the badly designed rules built on top of it while focusing on the useful improv tool the core mechanic provides." (emphasis added)

Attempting to quote me out of context in order to deliberately distort what I'm saying is, of course, completely dishonest.

Furthermore, let's be clear here: I am not attempting to defend the FFG Star Wars system here. I've been perfectly clear about my poor opinion of the game in both my posts in this thread and in the blog posts I've linked to.

What we are discussing here is whether or not the special dice are delivering a meaningful advantage over the use of traditional dice. My contention is they specifically deliver the following information:

- Success/failure.
- Advantage/threat.
- Triumph or no Triumph.
- Despair or no Despair.

Including quantitative measurements of all four categories (except failures; although the dice can deliver that information, the system ignores it). In addition, the probability of results in each of these categories is independently varied based on skill, difficulty, and circumstantial modifiers.

I then made two statements:

(1) I don't know of any other game that does this.

(2) I could not think of any way to do it with normal dice that wouldn't be considerably more complicated than than the FFG Star Wars core mechanic.

I continue to stand by my first statement. It's certainly possible that there's a game out there delivering information like this, but no one's proffered an example of it yet. (Your blather that opposed rolls with margins of success are doing the same thing is just that: Blather.)

For the latter, as I've already noted, Trentin has demonstrated a pretty good example of how it could be done with normal dice.