Players can spend their advantage recovering strain, and the GM can spend threat to impose it, and it's like an arms race. The dice are weighted toward success with threat, and I wonder if something as simple as handing out maximum strain and attacking with the stun setting is...GM asshatery.

We GMs want our players to do cinematic things and narrate high action, but with mountains of strain piling on it's a no-brainer to recover strain with advantage. No critical, no boost, no free maneuvers, just recover strain.

My question is: who spends what first?

"I recover three strain and take a free maneuver."

"You suffer five strain."

Or...

"You suffer five strain."

(sigh) "I recover it."

What is a good way to handle the timing? Alternating narrative, maybe? Might make combat crawl.

Any suggestions?

Firstly, since Threat and Advantage cancel each other out, you won't have a situation where you need to be concerned with timing of those two. There might be an issue if you had both a Triumph and a Despair but that should be rare (and I'd let the PC's go first and use the Despair in some other way).

Secondly, as to the generation of Threat/Advantage on the dice, Proficiency and Challenge are even, Difficulty has one more Threat than Ability has Advantage but the Setback has two less Threat then a Boost has Advantage. So, it's not entirely true that the system favors success plus threat.

http://maxmahem.net/wp/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire-die-probabilities/

%s for those interested.

In recent games we've had quite a few net pool results like 0 success, 2 advantage, and 7 threat. Now I'm not an asshat, so I don't just pile on the strain unless an encounter is intended to have a possibility of TPI (Total Party Incapacitation) for plot reasons. And I'm more about Flynning it like Erol. But still, there are times when poo hits the fan, because, you know, dice, and I'd appreciate some deeper reflection on this. If no one else considers this is an issue, then that's fine. But what if the players turn it around on GMs?

Threat and Advantage cancel just as Success and Failure do.

The Success from a Triumph can be canceled by any failure symbol, but the "Cool" part of Triumph can never be canceled.

The Failure from a Despair can be canceled by any success symbol, but the "Face Palm" part of a Despair can never be canceled.

So the possible successful combinations you can have are:

1. Success

2. Success with Advantage

3. Success with Advantage & Triumph

4. Success with Advantage & Despair

5. Success with Advantage & Triumph & Despair

6. Success with Threat

7. Success with Threat & Triumph

8. Success with Threat & Despair

9. Success with Threat & Triumph & Despair

The Failure possibilities are:

1. Failure, also "A Wash" or nothing

2. Failure with Advantage

3. Failure with Advantage & Triumph

4. Failure with Advantage & Despair

5. Failure with Advantage & Triumph & Despair

6. Failure with Threat

7. Failure with Threat & Triumph

8. Failure with Threat & Despair

9. Failure with Threat & Triumph & Despair

Turn what around?

Just stop for a moment and think about it. Dice, man. Dice. They don't remember what they rolled, so percentages and possible result combinations aren't what I'm asking about.

Like I said, if no one else thinks it's an issue, fine. No need then to consider players dropping rivals and nemeses with threat-generated strain-and-stun combos.

Giving strain from threat is probably one of the weaker/less interesting outcomes. I'd say its fine if you have nothing better to do and it makes sense for the matter at hand, but generally I'd much rather see things where boost die are given out, enemies get free maneuvers, that sorta thing.

I definitely think intentionally handing out strain and intentionally using stun weapons to intentionally wreck the party is being a bad GM. The adjudication of advantage/threat should be divorced from the weapons and tactics used by opponents.

And again OP, you haven't indicated that you understand that advantage and threat cancel. You cannot have a dice pool result that has net advantages and threat. They cancel. It will either be net threat or net advantage. Thus, as the title, "timing" doesn't matter. The only place timing comes up really is arguably the use destiny points on the front end (where both GM and player have an option to spend a destiny point to respond to the other) and triumph/despair. I should also point out that arguably (at least, I'm pretty sure as I think the system does have "rule 0") the GM has -final- say on how all threat/advantages/despair/triumphs are spent. If you -really- don't want the players to spend that triumph for that one result, in theory you can prevent it. But it really goes against the cooperative nature of the storytelling. This RPG is more about group storytelling than other games. Its encouraged to take advice from players; generally all players should be invited to provide a suggestion for how threat/advantage should be spent, and then the coolest most cinematic of those potential results be taken. Your job as GM to oversee that process and have final say in it. Not to compete against the players.

You want to challenge, not win.

Just stop for a moment and think about it. Dice, man. Dice. They don't remember what they rolled, so percentages and possible result combinations aren't what I'm asking about.

Like I said, if no one else thinks it's an issue, fine. No need then to consider players dropping rivals are nemeses with threat-generated strain-and-stun combos.

Uhhhh, the GM by default is in charge of spending Threat and Despairs, PCs can only spend them if a GM allows it, which is why I am not concerned with it.

And again OP, you haven't indicated that you understand that advantage and threat cancel.

You're correct. My OP my misworded. It should simply have been 5 net threat. Apologies.

With that taken care of...

What I've gotten so far is cooperative rp, the GM can so no, the GM spends threat by default unless otherwise allowed, et al. However, I propose we engage in the "what if" exercise. The GM does allow.

So, timing. Player gets a triumph and 5 threat. Who goes first?

Advantages and Triumphs are resolved before Threats and Despairs.

Advantages and Triumphs are resolved before Threats and Despairs.

Got a page and heading reference on that?

And again OP, you haven't indicated that you understand that advantage and threat cancel.

You're correct. My OP my misworded. It should simply have been 5 net threat. Apologies.

With that taken care of...

What I've gotten so far is cooperative rp, the Gm can so no, et al. However, I propose we engage in the "what if" exercise.

So, timing. Player gets a triumph and 5 threat. Who goes first?

Triumph should go first, because the Triumph should not be used to counter the Threat. It would be easy to use the Threat to inflict Strain, or some other circumstance, only to have the Triumph be used as an effect to counter the Threat. If this were possible, it would have done so already.

Basically, if you allow the Triumph to go second, it would negate the Threat from even being in the resulting dice pool in the first place.

Advantages and Triumphs are resolved before Threats and Despairs.

Got a page and heading reference on that?

It is in the perform a combat section of all three CRBs. Step 4. Resolve Advantages and Triumphs. Step 5. Resolve Threats and Despairs.

As to what to use Threat for when you have 5 of them? Lots of cool stuff, this is not a GM vs PC dungeon crawl (thats called Imperial Assault!)

I like to make changes to the environment, lights go out, a tree falls, or the roof collapses, a water tank ruptures flooding the area, grav plate system fails, an asteroid explodes creating a massive debris field.

Reinforcements are always an option, or an entirely different threat like opening the containment for some incredibly dangerous monsters stored onboard your Freighter...

I definitely think intentionally handing out strain and intentionally using stun weapons to intentionally wreck the party is being a bad GM. The adjudication of advantage/threat should be divorced from the weapons and tactics used by opponents.

I see it as a valid GM tool, to be used sparingly. PC capture becomes a valid story element, use it.

Triumph should go first, because the Triumph should not be used to counter the Threat.

I don't think it matters much, because the opposite is also true: Threat shouldn't be used to counter Triumph.

But it's kind of academic anyway. The example in the OP would never happen in the same turn. In the revised example, they don't conflict. Basically, once the dice results are resolved, any effects are cumulative, not cancelling.

It's possible in subsequent turns that a single target will be affected e.g.:

Player 1 gets 2A: he passes a boost die to player 2.

NPC1 gets 2A: he imposes a setback die on player 2.

Player 2 now gets to roll, with both a boost and a setback added to his pool. It's likely they will cancel, but by adding dice you increase the range of outcomes, which is kind of nifty.

As for who goes first, by RAW the pirate has it, but I often defer to the player, or I will offer to spend Threat first so they can do something with their Triumph.

Advantages and Triumphs are resolved before Threats and Despairs.

Thank you, good forumite. My questions have been answered.

Got a page and heading reference on that?

It is in the perform a combat section of all three CRBs. Step 4. Resolve Advantages and Triumphs. Step 5. Resolve Threats and Despairs.

I have crap internet access. Posting is frustrating. I try to make my efforts brief, which results in even more frustration through misunderstandings. From now on if the forum might just consider that the word "question" in a topic heading means the poster needs definitive answers, that AFB replies are not helpful, that might be better all around. Like code.

For my part I'll TRY to be less brief.

Crap internet... the first-world struggle is real.

Sorry for ticking anyone off.

I'm certainly not angry. You don't need to worry about PCs using Threat to stun opponents unconscious as the GM is by default in charge of their expenditure. The combat sections of the CRBs spells out the steps by which a dice pool is evaluated. I think that addresses your two primary concerns.

I'm certainly not angry. You don't need to worry about PCs using Threat to stun opponents unconscious as the GM is by default in charge of their expenditure. The combat sections of the CRBs spells out the steps by which a dice pool is evaluated. I think that addresses your two primary concerns.

Again, thank you.

Also some times taking an NPC/PC down with strain is very cinematic, if that target needs to be taken alive but is set on running away then hamstringing them is a great way to capture. Also if this is a FaD game or involves the Morality system then some PC's may prefer non lethal methods, same with certain Bounty Hunters who catch Bounties alive, Big Game Hunters, even Spy's like to capture the enemy for interrogation.

If it fits the Narrative around that character or situation then role with it.

Now what if it becomes the Go To for the entire party? have a chat to them, if they and you think its a core theme in the campaign then let them have at it, but start to build encounters around it (we can help with ideas if this thread goes in that direction). But as a group you may all decide that spending every advantage and threat on inflicting strain is just boring and they will move on, only using it when its actually appropriate.

Sorry for your slooooow internets. Sorry for my delayed and seemingly out of date posts, distractions. Help is wanting to be provided.

The way I've usually done it is positive effects followed by negative effects. With the greatest effects being resolved last on the scale.

So, advantages -> triumphs -> threats -> despairs.

In the rare cases where the GM decides to allow successes and failures to be "spent", those are resolved first before any ancillary effects from the above.

I'm certainly not angry. You don't need to worry about PCs using Threat to stun opponents unconscious as the GM is by default in charge of their expenditure. The combat sections of the CRBs spells out the steps by which a dice pool is evaluated. I think that addresses your two primary concerns.

My understanding was that the GM gets to spend Player Threat and NPC Advantage, while the Players spend PC Advantage and NPC threat. If it ain't it should be. Using threat to knock opponents out will only really work on minions (who cares?) softened-up rivals (again, who cares?) and Nemeses who have been spending strain like candy. Just be sure to describe it. The stormtroopers open fire on the PC's cover, and one of them takes a blaster bolt, collapsing. The bounty hunter grapples with the PC, only to discover that headbutting a Wookiee doesn't end well. The Inquisitor attacks with his lighsaber, hoping to finish the fight, only to be disarmed, kicked hard in the stomach, and is now on his knees at the mercy of the player.