Jump to content



Photo

Destiny Points: When both sides use, over and over and over


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 KommissarK

KommissarK

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,499 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:04 AM

LethalDose said:

KommissarK said:

 

I think it boils down to that even if you attempt to downgrade a roll, the one initiating the roll is still at an advantage because the proficiency dice are slightly better than the red dice.

 

 

Little thing: Be careful with your terminology.  DP's [still sounds dirty] never downgrade, only upgrade.

And Doc, that was hilarious.

-WJL

EDIT: there MAY be a talent that lets you downgrade something, but I don't think so.

Sorry, yes, you're right. I'll admit, I'ts been sometime since I've actually played the game. Got in only a few small sessions in the early days of beta, but my gaming group had a rough time with die conversions so it got dropped.



#22 Doc, the Weasel

Doc, the Weasel

    Pretending to be many, many things.

  • Members
  • 1,610 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:48 AM

creature feature said:

When a DP is used, it flips and sits in the center of the table until the action is resolved and at that point becomes available to the other side for use in a different action. Would that help the situation?

Not if both sides have a single point available. So the GM has a big hit coming, and spends a DP (I'm committing to it Lethal). He puts it aside for the action. If there is still a Light Side point in there, the Player can spend it (putting it aside for the action). The two are added back after the action.

 

The solutions I'm seeing so far are:

1. Put DPs aside when used for the scene, adding them back into the pool at the beginning of the next scene (or at an appropriate pause in a long scene).

2. Only one side can play a DP on a roll (First pick being either the character taking the action, or whichever side has the most DPs, light or dark)

3. It costs 2 DPs to upgrade a die when the other side has already upgraded one (First pick as above)

4. Only use DPs on unimportant actions where the other side doesn't care about success or failure enough to spend a point

I feel that only #1 and #2 work well, with #1 being the easiest to implement.


Listen to my actual play podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.

 

Take a look at my Talent Trees (Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion), YT-2400 deck plans for the Lazy Bantha, as well as my other handouts.


#23 creature feature

creature feature

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:30 PM

This may be going too far for a house rule but perhaps a bidding system would work. Each side bids DP and the most gets the use. You could even do it secretely and then have the bidded amount flipped anyway, even as the loser. Sorry if this is out there. I like house rules.



#24 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:12 PM

creature feature said:

This may be going too far for a house rule but perhaps a bidding system would work. Each side bids DP and the most gets the use. You could even do it secretely and then have the bidded amount flipped anyway, even as the loser. Sorry if this is out there. I like house rules.

Huh.  That interesting.  I don't think I'd use it, for two reasons.

  1. They make a point of stating the players and GM aren't opponents, but I worry the bidding would create too much of a adversarial back and forth.  Also, the GMs could block players out of using DPs when the players felt it would be appropriate.
  2. This 'zero sum' bidding could create situations where, after a single big bid, the other side would have free run with a bunch of DPs that the opposing side couldn't respond to.

But I do kind of like the idea.  I just don't think it'd be a good match for my game.

-WJL


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#25 Lord Dynel

Lord Dynel

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:53 PM

I pretty much use it the way it's written up:

  • You can use one Destiny Point per action.
  • Both sides get a chance to use one.
  • The Destiny Point(s) is/are flipped the other way (light/dark) and is/are available for use after said action is resolved.

The only thing I've had an issue with so far - and it's really a minor one - is that I have to break in before the players roll dice to add a Destiny Point.  My players are eager to throw the dice and I've had to stop them so I could modify the check. 



#26 creature feature

creature feature

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 04:55 PM

LethalDose said:

creature feature said:

 

This may be going too far for a house rule but perhaps a bidding system would work. Each side bids DP and the most gets the use. You could even do it secretely and then have the bidded amount flipped anyway, even as the loser. Sorry if this is out there. I like house rules.

 

 

Huh.  That interesting.  I don't think I'd use it, for two reasons.

  1. They make a point of stating the players and GM aren't opponents, but I worry the bidding would create too much of a adversarial back and forth.  Also, the GMs could block players out of using DPs when the players felt it would be appropriate.
  2. This 'zero sum' bidding could create situations where, after a single big bid, the other side would have free run with a bunch of DPs that the opposing side couldn't respond to.

But I do kind of like the idea.  I just don't think it'd be a good match for my game.

-WJL

Yeah, i'll probably stick with RAW in the meantime.

 



#27 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:56 PM

So, subitted for consideration, a house rule: 

The players and the GM can only use the DPs faces showing at the start of an action.  For example, if the pool has all Dark points showing when someone takes an action (player or GM, doesn't matter), A DM could flip one to a light side for whatever appropriate use he desires, but the players would be unable to respond because there were no point showing whent the action was declared.

So now when the players have decided to use all their DPs, they can no longer respond one for one when the GM plays a DP when fate is entirely in his favor.

This is the simplest variation, others include a free opposing upgrde on the same roll, or a free upgrade to be spent by the opposing side within one turn.  The general idea is to keep the destiny pool out of 'extreme configurations' where the whole pool is one color, or only one color except for one point.  There's a more severe penalty for "that last" DP, since it represents pushing so destiny/karma/fate/the force/the FSM so far out of balance.

So if one side games the system, where everytime the other side plays a DP, they do too.  But, presumably, the DPs are a bonus resource for them as well, so, in my games, the both sides want to use them proactively.  If one side is matching their use one-for-one reactively as well as proactive use, it's a simple matter of NOT going responding when they boost their rolls and the 'abusive' party will back themselves into corner quickly.  

Yes, the 'abusive party' may still just shift their preferred position one bead away from the most extreme configuration, but it takes lesst time to get there and each DP becomes more valuable.

Just a thought.

-WJL

 

 


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#28 Donovan Morningfire

Donovan Morningfire

    Looking for a saint? Look elsewhere.

  • Members
  • 4,029 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:03 AM

Lord Dynel said:

I pretty much use it the way it's written up:

  • You can use one Destiny Point per action.
  • Both sides get a chance to use one.
  • The Destiny Point(s) is/are flipped the other way (light/dark) and is/are available for use after said action is resolved.

The only thing I've had an issue with so far - and it's really a minor one - is that I have to break in before the players roll dice to add a Destiny Point.  My players are eager to throw the dice and I've had to stop them so I could modify the check. 

Yeah, those crazy players, ready to throw those bones before the GM is even done talking reir

I think the RAW works pretty well, both from the perspective of a player (when I remember to make use of them) and as a GM.  That said, I think that last bullet point might the issue, not because it exists, but more to the fact that players and GMs forget to that tidbit.

The only time I ran into an issue was when running Escape from Mos Shutta for my Wednesday group, and running the adventure pretty much as written, where Destiny Points didn't get included until almost the end, and my players kept forgetting they were there to spend, even when the pool was nothing but Light Side Destiny Points.  Could just have been that they were too used to Destiny Points being something big and cool in Saga Edition, but as that group has little interest in pursuing an EotE campaign, I'll probably never really know.


Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog - http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/

"You worry about those drink vouchers, I'll worry about that bar tab!"


#29 Lord Dynel

Lord Dynel

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:19 AM

Donovan Morningfire said:

I think the RAW works pretty well, both from the perspective of a player (when I remember to make use of them) and as a GM.  That said, I think that last bullet point might the issue, not because it exists, but more to the fact that players and GMs forget to that tidbit.

 

And I don't mean to sound better than anyone on this thread, but that was the headsratcher for me.  I wasn't understanding what the big discussion was about.  I'm thinking to myself, "Gee, it seems to be spelled out in the rules right there in black and white."  But maybe it just clicked for me, I don't know.  



#30 Doc, the Weasel

Doc, the Weasel

    Pretending to be many, many things.

  • Members
  • 1,610 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 05:30 AM

LethalDose said:

, the 'abusive party' may still just shift their preferred position one bead away from the most extreme configuration, but it takes lesst time to get there and each DP becomes more valuable.

See, I don't think this is an abusive party issue. I think this can come from using DPs as intended.

Here's a few examples:

  1. The party runs into a fallen Jedi, who rushes them with a lightsaber. The GM wants this to be a scary fight and spends a DP on the attack roll. The defending player doesn't want to get hit with a lightsaber, and spends a DP in response. The GM wants this fight to be brutal, so he spends a DP whenever the Jedi attacks. The party doesn't want to be hit with a lightsaber, so they save their DP for defense.
  2. The party is ending an adventure and facing off against the mastermind behind thier troubles. They have been waiting for this moment and want to take him down, so they use DPs on their attacks. The GM doesn't want the fight to be over so quickly, so he spends DPs on defense.

Who is abusing the system in the above examples? Everyone? I don't think this is a "blame the players" issue. 

In any other game where fate points are limited, both of these scenarios would be fine, because both sides could run out of points. In addition, since DPs are unlimited, there is less incentive to hoard them and more to spend them (for both sides). 

 

And to those saying "refresh DPs at the end of an action" aren't seeing the issue. If there are 4Light and 3 Dark DPs at the start of an action, there will be the same if each spends a point. That's part of the problem, it can be done forever.

 

The more I think about it, the more I like refreshing DPs at the end of a scene. If you do it this way, when you start a scene with only one or two DPs (or none), you know things aren't going to go well for you. It heightens an existing feature of DPs. 


Listen to my actual play podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.

 

Take a look at my Talent Trees (Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion), YT-2400 deck plans for the Lazy Bantha, as well as my other handouts.


#31 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:25 PM

Doc, the Weasel said:

LethalDose said:

 

, the 'abusive party' may still just shift their preferred position one bead away from the most extreme configuration, but it takes lesst time to get there and each DP becomes more valuable.

 

 

See, I don't think this is an abusive party issue. I think this can come from using DPs as intended.

Here's a few examples:

  1. The party runs into a fallen Jedi, who rushes them with a lightsaber. The GM wants this to be a scary fight and spends a DP on the attack roll. The defending player doesn't want to get hit with a lightsaber, and spends a DP in response. The GM wants this fight to be brutal, so he spends a DP whenever the Jedi attacks. The party doesn't want to be hit with a lightsaber, so they save their DP for defense.
  2. The party is ending an adventure and facing off against the mastermind behind thier troubles. They have been waiting for this moment and want to take him down, so they use DPs on their attacks. The GM doesn't want the fight to be over so quickly, so he spends DPs on defense.

Who is abusing the system in the above examples? Everyone? I don't think this is a "blame the players" issue. 

In any other game where fate points are limited, both of these scenarios would be fine, because both sides could run out of points. In addition, since DPs are unlimited, there is less incentive to hoard them and more to spend them (for both sides). 

 

And to those saying "refresh DPs at the end of an action" aren't seeing the issue. If there are 4Light and 3 Dark DPs at the start of an action, there will be the same if each spends a point. That's part of the problem, it can be done forever.

 

The more I think about it, the more I like refreshing DPs at the end of a scene. If you do it this way, when you start a scene with only one or two DPs (or none), you know things aren't going to go well for you. It heightens an existing feature of DPs. 

So, when I said "Abusive Party" I didn't explicitly mean the players, I was trying to imply it could be either  the players or the GM hoarding the DPs.  And when I said 'abusive', i mean that someone routinely wasn't using the DP rules in the nature they were intended.  This actually IS a place where we get Jay's (or at least some designers) thoughts on the topic, in Destiny Point Economy in Gameplay (pg 24, Beta Text).

My point was you could use house rules if it was a consistent problem because the players routinely played in a particular way.  So citing particular examples doesn't really address what I was talking about.

I'm also not blaming anyone, I was just trying to address the concern of the OP.  My group doesn't seem to have this issue because they don't do the one-for-one DP use and they don't hoard, so I haven't needed to implement a rule like this.  Though, they are pretty separate problems.

I think the intended the 'solution' to the one-for-one exchange is for the other side not to respond when a side is proactively uses their own DPs.  This shifts the The problem is it leads to an "all but one" configuration of the pool, which someone above I think mentioned "As long as a side has at least one DP of a certain color, they're 'safe'", so the problem isn't really solved, and its not really a solution.  It's the players finding their 'preferred equilibrium' point.  If that point is undesirable because of either the 'spirit' or the 'mechanics' of the game, then it should be disincentivized.  

And really, what I posted only the variants changed the rule, since theres already a line in the book about the DPs flipping after the action, which I had never noticed.  So, mea culpa.  Feel free to ignore the ever loving crap out of that part of the post.

Personally, I don't like the pool refreshing every encounter, because I don't think it would solve the problem, but actually increase the intensity of the problem.  Under these rules, the players (PCs or GM) not playing in the spirit of the rules could move to a "all but one" configuration every encounter.   If a side knows the pool will be refreshed to a random state at the end of every encounter (or beginning of every encounter, not much difference), if their DPs are depelted, the worst case scenario is that you still have zero DP at the start of the next, and more likely, you get some back.  Also, you have to define "encounter" or at least when the pool is refreshed. I feel like this could cause problems with encounters that had a small number of rolls, like social encounters.  The parties would have no incentive to not blow all the DPs they could because they come back later.  In short, I think each the DP pool for each encounter should have memory of the earlier ones in that 

I think the actual solution is to do it in a way that both sides declare DP use simulataneously.  Like, everyone takes 2 cards from a deck, a red card and black card.  Every roll, the GM and player each choose one of their two cards, and put them face down on the table.  Whoever chose a red card spends a DP, black means no DP for that side.  

Or to prevent this from slowing down the game, either side can simply say "DP check" when they want to either spend a DP or have a chance get a DP back.  There are essentially 2 reasons to call DP check: Get a bonus, or to increase your pool (and therby decrease their pool) .  Looking at this like the Prisoner's Dillema, we get:

  GM Choice  
Player Choice DP No DP
DP

Both sides get bonus, 

No chance in pool, 

Player gets upgrade,

GM gets a DP refreshed

No DP

GM gets an upgrade,

Player gets a DP refreshed

No bonus,

No Change in pool

Except for the "No bonus, no pool change" outcome (Which has no utility value), The utility value of all the outcomes is situational (depends on what a party is trying to accomplish), so no equilibrium point exists.

Actually, I think I may try this next time we're playing to see if it slows things down or leads to any other issues.

-WJL


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#32 Doc, the Weasel

Doc, the Weasel

    Pretending to be many, many things.

  • Members
  • 1,610 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:51 PM

LethalDose said:

Personally, I don't like the pool refreshing every encounter, because I don't think it would solve the problem, but actually increase the intensity of the problem.  Under these rules, the players (PCs or GM) not playing in the spirit of the rules could move to a "all but one" configuration every encounter.   If a side knows the pool will be refreshed to a random state at the end of every encounter (or beginning of every encounter, not much difference), if their DPs are depelted, the worst case scenario is that you still have zero DP at the start of the next, and more likely, you get some back.  Also, you have to define "encounter" or at least when the pool is refreshed. I feel like this could cause problems with encounters that had a small number of rolls, like social encounters.  The parties would have no incentive to not blow all the DPs they could because they come back later.  In short, I think each the DP pool for each encounter should have memory of the earlier ones in that 

When I say refresh at the end of the encounter, I don't mean randomly. What I am saying is when you use a DP, it is flipped to the other side and then returned to the pool at the end of the scene (or suitable "breather" moment if it's a long and dice-heavy scene). You would still have the flow from one side to another, and still have a reason not to use them in a scene.


Listen to my actual play podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.

 

Take a look at my Talent Trees (Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion), YT-2400 deck plans for the Lazy Bantha, as well as my other handouts.


#33 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:31 PM

Doc, the Weasel said:

When I say refresh at the end of the encounter, I don't mean randomly. What I am saying is when you use a DP, it is flipped to the other side and then returned to the pool at the end of the scene (or suitable "breather" moment if it's a long and dice-heavy scene). You would still have the flow from one side to another, and still have a reason not to use them in a scene.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.  I had presumed that "refreshing the pool" meant removing all the DPs in the current pool and re-rolling a force die per player like you did at the beginning of a session.  

For clairifcation, under the house rule you described, a DP spent by the PC's would be flipped from light to dark, but that dark point would be unavailable to the GM until the encounter was over, correct?

-WJL


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#34 Doc, the Weasel

Doc, the Weasel

    Pretending to be many, many things.

  • Members
  • 1,610 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:50 PM

LethalDose said:

For clairifcation, under the house rule you described, a DP spent by the PC's would be flipped from light to dark, but that dark point would be unavailable to the GM until the encounter was over, correct?

-WJL

Yes.


Listen to my actual play podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.

 

Take a look at my Talent Trees (Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion), YT-2400 deck plans for the Lazy Bantha, as well as my other handouts.


#35 lupex

lupex

    Member

  • Members
  • 328 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:54 AM

I have been thinking along the lines of it being up to the gm to control the flow of DPs by spending the dark side DPs sparingly.  I would encourage players to use light side points as often as they want to accomplish what they need but as a GM I would not start spending dark side points until near the end of an encounter, the caveat being that I would try to have a minimum of 1 light side point on the able at all times.

For example, the players walk in on a group of bounty hunters and a fight ensues, the players are likely to want to succeed and start spending light side points.  They watch the number of dark side points rise with a growing sense of dread until there is only one light side point left in play, I then introduce the big bad bounty hunter to harass the group, and he starts using the dark side points on his action.  The players now have a decision to make, which player spends the remaining light side point on their turn, as there are no longer enough to go around.

So used this way the spending of destiny points starts to affect the narrative and increase the fear factor.

Just my thoughts, I will try it out during my next session.


"Given a choice between calling upon a bounty hunter or a Jedi, folks turned
to the Jedi because we worked for free and are concerned about collateral
damage." - Jedi Master Luke Skywalker

#36 Yepesnopes

Yepesnopes

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:44 AM

A pity this issue was rised post beta testing! These kind of "bugs" anoy me infinitely!

I think I would adopt the house rules proposed by Doc, they make a lot of sense.

Have anyone there tested them? Works?

Cheers,

Yepes


The Book of the Asur - High Elf fan supplement

The Dark Side - Witches, Warlocks, Dark Magic and more

Secrets of the Anvil - Advanced Dwarf careers and runes

Dice statistics calculator for SW EotE


#37 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 12:10 PM

Yepesnopes said:

A pity this issue was rised post beta testing! These kind of "bugs" anoy me infinitely!

I think I would adopt the house rules proposed by Doc, they make a lot of sense.

Have anyone there tested them? Works?

Cheers,

Yepes

I don't think designers consider it as a "bug", either during beta or now.  There's a few passages in the book and some statements from the designers that indicate it's on the players and the GM to stick to the nature/intent/spirit of the rules.  The one I can easily point to is in the GM section at the end of the "Rules Adjutication" subsection (p188):

"However, rules lawyering-using the minutiae of the rules to gain an unfair, unexpected, or unintended advantage in the game-should be avoided by both players and GMs."

Basically, instead of writing rules of greater volume and complexity to explictly close loopholes, they chose to write rules of reduced volume and complexity, and expect the GMs & players to not exploit the rules.

And I'm NOT saying one way is right, and the other is wrong.  Its JUST PREFERENCE.  So lets get that $h!t out of the way to start with.

You do, however, have to acknowledge the consequence of either choice.  And the consequence of this particular choice is that there are rules as printed, e.g. the DP rules, that allow exploitative behavior (what you would refer to as the "bug").  The GM and players are expected to not adopt these play styles, because such actions and their results would be "unfair, unexpected, or unintended".

This does cause a problem because different GMs and players may have extremely different views on what is fair, expected, and intended.  Just look around at these forums.  Though it has been remarkably civil lately.  The solution ends up creating a myriad interpretations and house-rules that grow up separately around every table.

Coming back around to where we started, yeah, it can be annoying, but its the price to be paid for a 'lighter', narrative rule set.

-WJL


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#38 Doc, the Weasel

Doc, the Weasel

    Pretending to be many, many things.

  • Members
  • 1,610 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 12:50 PM

LethalDose said:

"However, rules lawyering-using the minutiae of the rules to gain an unfair, unexpected, or unintended advantage in the game-should be avoided by both players and GMs."

See, this is one of those places where stating "don't be a ****" actually doesn't solve the problem. This is a rare instance where playing the narrative and playing the rules both end up with the same action: spend destiny points on important rolls.

For this problem not to come up, both the GM and players have to not spend DP on important rolls, which is counter-intuitive. It's not clear what playing "properly" is in this case. 

 

My group made the switch, and it works great, btw. 


Listen to my actual play podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.

 

Take a look at my Talent Trees (Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion), YT-2400 deck plans for the Lazy Bantha, as well as my other handouts.


#39 Yepesnopes

Yepesnopes

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:31 PM

Doc, the Weasel said:

My group made the switch, and it works great, btw. 

Sorry, I am still with my morning coffee. Does this mean that your group uses the house rule of refreshing at the end of an encounter /scene and that it works fine?

 

Cheers,

Yepes


The Book of the Asur - High Elf fan supplement

The Dark Side - Witches, Warlocks, Dark Magic and more

Secrets of the Anvil - Advanced Dwarf careers and runes

Dice statistics calculator for SW EotE


#40 Diggles

Diggles

    Member

  • Members
  • 324 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 10:51 PM

We already houseruled only 1 DP per action and that the active player (this can include GM playing NPC's) gets first dibs on whether or not he/she is going to use a DP or not for that action.  If they choose not to when assembling dice pool, other side can use one.

I think this is really the intent they had when making the DP system.  It does make it much more epic when you do decide to use them and if the other side does sit on theirs for awhile things get tense.  Players have to ration/pace themselves to make sure the dark side doesnt loom over them.

 

Its kinda fun as GM to be constantly asking/reminding/proding the players, are you going to spend a DP? And they sit there and sweat, because I might use one against them if they dont..which could make their challenge even tougher.  Its almost akin to a game of POKER.  I might be bluffing, I might not.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS