Hi folks,

I am wondering about the design reasons for using different tiebreakers in competetive skill checks vs. initiative checks (which can be seen as a variant of competetive checks, after all). I.e., why are advantage results compared before triumph for initiative tiebreakers, whereas triumph is compared before advantage in other competetive checks?

In my opinion, ties in both checks could have been resolved the same way, thus reducing the amount of different rules cases/exceptions to remember. Or am I missing something important here?

Cheers,

Colgrevance

You missed: Triumph aren't a factor in determining Initiative.

It's only Success and Advantages, with a double tie going to the player. Triumph may be spent to do other things like take a pre-battle maneuver, deploy an environmental effect, or modify the encounter setting. Within the existing constraints of course; you can add a lift pit to a space stations hanger bay, but a river of lava might be a little harder to explain.. though I supposed against the right adversary merely screaming "The floor is LAVA" and leaping onto a chair might work.....

Of course, depending on your GM, you could probably say "I want to use my triumph to get a better initiative slot." I'd allow that, and then use triumph above success for determining slots. But as Ghost said, in general, triumphs rolled in initiative are used as triumphs (ie, they count as one success and can be used like any other triumph for causing appropriate effects), rather than for trumping successes.

As a GM, I'd also allow a player to "spend" advantages to cause other appropriate effects as well. If you spend advantages in this way, then they can't be used as tie breakers for your initiative roll. Whether this is RAW or not is a little tricky. I don't think the rules explicitly say you can do this, but the roll is still considered a skill check (albeit a simple one without difficulty), so normal application of advantages should still apply.

Thanks, I definitely misremembered the part about triumph not being used as tiebreaker in initiative.

But as neither triumph nor advantage are "used up" when consulted as a tiebreaker (at least there is nothing in the rules as written), the triumph can be used for additional effect in both cases. So I still do not see a reason why both situations could not be handled by the same regulations.

Probably because NPCs typically don't have Vigilance/Cool ranks, so having Triumphs be the tie breaker means giving the players even more of a leg up. Keeping it Advantage based gives better odds to the NPCs so the players aren't always going first.

And in competitive checks (outside of Initiative) a draw can be perfectly natural. If two starships are involved in a chase and they roll an equal number of successes, it means neither ship can open or close the distance that round. The tiebreaker in Initiative checks is almost certainly introduced because it's not possible (or at least, severely inconvenient) to have two characters acting at precisely the same time.

And in competitive checks (outside of Initiative) a draw can be perfectly natural. If two starships are involved in a chase and they roll an equal number of successes, it means neither ship can open or close the distance that round. The tiebreaker in Initiative checks is almost certainly introduced because it's not possible (or at least, severely inconvenient) to have two characters acting at precisely the same time.

But there is a tiebreaker in competetive checks outside initiative, and it actually is more involved (because it uses advantage and triumph, not only advantage), so ties are less likely in this case.

I am just wondering why the otherwise rather elegant (i.e., few rules with litte exceptions) core mechanic of FFG Star Wars is somewhat complicated by using two different tiebraker systems, where one mechanic would have sufficed (in my opinion). I find Ghostofman's suggestion that minion NPCs often do not have skill ranks in Cool or Vigilance and therefore are disadvantaged by using triumph plausible, but it begs the question why using advantage as a tiebreaker is not used in other competetive checks, too. I sincerely wish RPGs would include designer commentaries more often.

Send a message to D20Radio. Sam Stewart appears on the Order 66 podcast regularly, and will likely be one again once FaD hits shelves. If you want a peek behind the curtain, that's a way.

You could also just try e-mailing FFG. Sam usually answers...

But as neither triumph nor advantage are "used up" when consulted as a tiebreaker (at least there is nothing in the rules as written), the triumph can be used for additional effect in both cases. So I still do not see a reason why both situations could not be handled by the same regulations.

Actually they are used up.

Think about it from a narrative standpoint what is happening. You are determining who is acting in what order. It is through your amazing prep/thinking/awesomeness (aka the success+advantages) that cause you to be higher or lower. Thus it is used up 100% gone/poof/outta here.

Of course, depending on your GM, you could probably say "I want to use my triumph to get a better initiative slot." I'd allow that, and then use triumph above success for determining slots.

I am of the mindset that doing that would hurt the intent of the initiative check.

I am all for having a Triumph make something happen for the first round, but adding it to a determining factor seems to take the narrative part out and put MORE number crunchiness in. The initiative check is already very crunchy no need to add more to it.

But as neither triumph nor advantage are "used up" when consulted as a tiebreaker (at least there is nothing in the rules as written), the triumph can be used for additional effect in both cases. So I still do not see a reason why both situations could not be handled by the same regulations.

Actually they are used up.

Think about it from a narrative standpoint what is happening. You are determining who is acting in what order. It is through your amazing prep/thinking/awesomeness (aka the success+advantages) that cause you to be higher or lower. Thus it is used up 100% gone/poof/outta here.

Could you please provide a rule reference or f.a.q. entry for this?

For breaking ties in competetive checks, on p. 25 the Edge of the Empire core rules state "Although [advantage] and [triumph] still provide their customary benefits in these situations, they also provide one additional benefit [namely, breaking ties]." (emphasis mine). This explicitly states that advantage/triumph are not "spent" as tiebreakers, but can still be used for other effects.

The initiative rules are less explicit, but to me the wording ("If two checks are tied, the check with more [advantage] is ranked higher", p. 198) sounds like advantage is only compared, not used up/spent here, either. And if it is, then my question concerning the reasons for two different mechanisms is even more valid.

Deleted.

OP too rude to listen to others

Could you please provide a rule reference or f.a.q. entry for this?

I've got this: http://ia801901.us.archive.org/23/items/Episode14_20130724/episode14.mp3

Sam Stewart at minute marker 2:38:24 talks about using Advantage on Initiative checks. The jist for the purposes of the discussion here is that Advantage generated by initiative checks can be spent as normal, but since Advantage is used as a tie-breaker (and often in a very valuable way), he'd be tempted to leave Advantage simply as tie-breakers unless you roll a ton of Advantage.

You could go further and ask why advantages occurring when recovering strain via Cool/Discipline don't recover strain as well... but that debate is forced to come up too often.

I do not see why this should not work, but this definitely belongs to another thread...

Maybe my method is an interpretation I accidentally House Ruled, but I prefer it to having those advantages/triumphs being spent TWICE.

Actually, I think it is. And while you may have good reasons for using it, I still prefer to play a game RAW when I first try it (I played three sessions so far, and the tiebreaking issue came up in the last one).

When you get down to the nitty gritty about ALL the rules in this game if you actually take time to think about what the check is trying to accomplish rather than just doing a check to do a check "because the book says to" you see the explanations are baked in

Of course I can go your way and just use a method that works for our group. But I always assume that there are specific reasons for a rule to be implemented the way it is, and I do not like to change it without good reason. And that's all I am asking for, a reason why the competetive vs. initiative difference exists - I do not doubt that it works the way it is now, and I can houserule/interpret it any way I like, but still: our group stumbled over this last session (because two players remembered the different approaches and we were unsure which one should apply), and the way it is now means we have to remember two tiebreakers instead of one.

If the Advantages are not "spent" in the lining up of who goes first, they shouldn't be allowed to be counted for breaking ties either. You can't spend it twice anywhere else, why can you here?

Good point, but resolving primary effects of checks (who won/has initiative) is different from spending advantage/triumph/etc. for secondary considerations, in my opinion.

Could you please provide a rule reference or f.a.q. entry for this?

I've got this: http://ia801901.us.archive.org/23/items/Episode14_20130724/episode14.mp3

Sam Stewart at minute marker 2:38:24 talks about using Advantage on Initiative checks. The jist for the purposes of the discussion here is that Advantage generated by initiative checks can be spent as normal, but since Advantage is used as a tie-breaker (and often in a very valuable way), he'd be tempted to leave Advantage simply as tie-breakers unless you roll a ton of Advantage.

Sorry, I cannot find the relevant statement on the fly. Does this mean that you actually have to spend advantage to use it as tiebreaker (like awayputurwpn posted)?

I think this would definitely need to be listed in the f.a.q., then. And as this means tiebreakers in initiative and competetive checks are even more different than I thought, it makes the whole resolution even more inelegant. I think I will have to follow Ghostofman's advice and ask Sam directly for the reasons behind this design decision.

Before I forget: thanks to all who chimed in on this discussion so far!

Deleted.

OP too rude to listen to others

Deleted.

OP too rude to listen to others

Sorry, I cannot find the relevant statement on the fly. Does this mean that you actually have to spend advantage to use it as tiebreaker (like awayputurwpn posted)?

I think this would definitely need to be listed in the f.a.q., then. And as this means tiebreakers in initiative and competetive checks are even more different than I thought, it makes the whole resolution even more inelegant. I think I will have to follow Ghostofman's advice and ask Sam directly for the reasons behind this design decision.

Sounds like he is saying to use it exactly as I am using it in my groups. Spent once (for tie breaking) and it is spent.

No, not exactly: sorry if I muddled things up. Sam is saying that Advantage generated by initiative checks may be spent as normal (as on AoR page 20, "taking the Advantage," spending them on special side effects), but we would add a caveat: unless there's a ton of Advantage rolled, he himself would be more inclined to leave the Advantage solely as a tie-breaker, again, even though the rules don't go so far as to disallow other uses even when they are used as a tie breaker.

The reasons for this are as follows (extrapolated):

Since Threat is rare on an initiative check, and

Since it's used as a tie-breaker, and

Since the tie-breaker is often very important.

I would infer from this that Advantage should be considered spent as a tie-breaking element when it's needed. If it isn't needed for a tie-breaker (for example my PC rolls 7 Advantage and 0 Success, and every NPC rolls at least 1 Success on initiative), then I as a GM am inclined to say, "Well that sucks, but you can use that Advantage to give yourself a leg up in other ways if you like: you can apply setbacks, remove strain, or grant boost dice as normal to your allies."

That's how I have always run it. Usually, I simply use the Success & Advantage for initiative placement. This is quicker, simpler, and easier. And really, it's against a Simple (-) Difficulty, so of course you're gonna get some Advantage. But once in a while, when there's a bunch of Advantage just sitting there doing nothing, I am inclined to let the PCs use it for other stuff.

EDIT: I dislike parsing words for roleplaying game rulings, especially words given via an informal interview, but I am merely trying to get at the heart of what was being said there, from an experienced GM commenting on a game he helped create. I hope it's helpful in making your own rulings on the matter, and that it leads to more fun, immersion, and greater collaborative storytelling.

Nevermind you don't want an explanation you just want someone to agree with you.

No, I just want to know the reasons behind the rules differences between initiative and competetive skill checks (which, either way, clearly exist), because understanding them might help me to better remember those differences. And then it turned out there is disagreement on the way the tiebreaker works (at least for initiative), so I asked for clarification on basis of the RAW + errata.

But you are right in that I am not interested in discussing personal play styles in this thread, and for me house rules and how to apply the 'rule of cool' fall under this heading. I will thus ignore your posts from now on.

Anyway, I have sent a message to FFG asking for clarification about how to use advantage in initiative checks and the reasons behind their design.

Deleted.

OP too rude to listen to others

Of course, depending on your GM, you could probably say "I want to use my triumph to get a better initiative slot." I'd allow that, and then use triumph above success for determining slots.

I am of the mindset that doing that would hurt the intent of the initiative check.

I am all for having a Triumph make something happen for the first round, but adding it to a determining factor seems to take the narrative part out and put MORE number crunchiness in. The initiative check is already very crunchy no need to add more to it.

When we first started our campaign a year and a half ago, we just took it like a normal skill check and used triumphs as being higher than success. By the time I discovered that's not how it worked, everyone was already used to it. So, I just gave them the option of doing it like we did before, or using triumph and advantage to do something else. It doesn't come up too often, though, so it doesn't affect the game much. Even without using triumphs that way, my players tend to get at least the first 2 or 3 slots, unless I sic a big baddie against them

Ok, got an answer from Sam Stewart at FFG today. According to him, the initiative check is its own type of check - so it is not comparable to an opposed check, I gather. And because of this, you cannot use Advantage for anything at all (besides it being a tiebreaker, of course - or as a houserule).

As there is no pre-determined role for Triumph, it is up to the GM to decide if it has any effects besides acting as an additional success (Sam uses it to allow an extra manoeuver before combat).

Sadly, no rationale for this design decision was given (and thus my original question only partially answered). While it makes the system slightly less elegant (adding another kind of check, with its own rules...), I can certainly live with the results, but think this should be spelled out more explicitly in the core rules.

Anyway, a big thank you to Sam/FFG for officially answering my question!

Ok, got an answer from Sam Stewart at FFG today.

Have you cut-n-pasted his answer into the thread “FFG Developer Answered Questions” at https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/108101-ffg-developer-answered-questions/? If not, please do so.