1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

As a big fan of probability and statistics, let me see if I can help explain the most common forum position on this issue from a more math-based perspective. Although first, I would be remis if I didn't correct an apparent misunderstanding of the rules-as-written:

--If a Dark-side Force user wants to use the white pips they rolled on a Force power check, they must flip a Destiny Point in order to do so, and then additionally suffer 1 strain per white pip they use as a Force Point. They also suffer 1 conflict for black pip they use as a Force Point.
--If a Light-side Force user wants to use the white pips they rolled on a Force power check, they must flip a Destiny Point in order to do so, and then additionally suffer 1 strain per white pip they use as a Force Point. They also suffer 1 conflict for black pip they use as a Force Point.

Both sides suffer strain equally for making use of the other alignment's pips. The only difference is conflict; a Dark-sider is unlikely to care overmuch about taking conflict, while it is probably a concern for a Light-sider. So if your concern stems from Dark-siders needing to suffer strain and Light-siders not having to suffer strain, that's not an issue.

Also, keep in mind that, while the distribution per side is not perfectly even, the Force die has exactly 8 white pips and 8 black pips on it, so with perfectly average rolls, two characters of opposite alignment will, over the course of twelve Force power checks, generate the same number of useable pips. Obviously perfectly average rolling is ridiculously unlikely, so that's why we use odds

Thank you for trying to elaborate on the matter and making a detailed post. However I have to correct you already, because as far as I know, dark siders don't gain conflict when using dark side points, they only suffer the strain, which is on pg. 281 in FaD, and to be sure I just re-read the paragraph for dark siders. However, it's possible that you're assuming that whats detailed on pg. 281 in FaD, is addional to whats on pg. 280, the part that says he suffers conflict equal to the amount dark side points used. However, the reason I don't think thats intended as being additional, is then the dark sider would be suffering strain every time the user would be using the force.

Also, you're writing that a light-side force user wants to use light side points, they must flip a destiny point in order to so, and then suffer additionally suffer 1 strain per light side point they use, and that they also suffer 1 conflict for each dark side point they use - I'm sure you meant for every dark side point spent they gain strain and conflict.

I don't believe that you can use the perfect average to determine that something with an assymetrical spread is balanced because it has the exact same amount points spread out. I think this very similar to the regression toward the mean. I assume you know, that even though it's said in theory that it takes the same amount of rolls as there are sides to reach the perfect average, that doesn't work that way in practice, and it's more likely that it will take a lot more rolls to achieve the perfect average, which for most part probably will more rolls than will happen in a game session. Furthermore, you can't accurately calculate how many rolls it's going to take to achieve the perfect average, means you can't use it to determine if it's balanced on or not. Fact is that it attempts to achieve balance around the average, but when results are not within the average, but out closer to the extremes (min and max), then it's not very balanced and it won't feel balanced, and for some it will make for a good experience (those who get the good rolls), and for others it will make for a bad experience (those who get the bad rolls.)

There is assymetrical and symmetrical balance, where balancing symmetrically on a fundamental level will make it easier to achieve a better cohesive and congruent balance. But when trying to balance assymetrically on a fundamental level, will be very difficult and more often than not, will have certain areas or certain times that won't be and won't feel balanced. So it's generally better to balance symmetrically on a fundamental level than trying to balance assymetrically on a fundamental level and try to balance various incidentals and make everything fit around the imbalance on the fundamental level. Clearly, the force dice on the fundamental level based around asymmetrical balance, they trying to balance the incidentals around various mechanics and resource management.

I think it makes for better balance to have the force dice symmetrically balanced and have the other mechanics to support the lore, like have the light and dark side points have different qualities to them, have them able to affect in different ways, have both side take sided conflict when using the opposite force side.

2 hours ago, Absol197 said:

Now, the best way to look at this problem, from a numbers perspective, is not to look at mixed results. Calculating the odds of 2 black pips and 2 white pips is complex, and it (usually) doesn't matter. Both characters will look at that and see 2 pips they can use. It's easier to look SOLELY at, "What are the odds of me rolling so many pips of my color?"

So, to start, let's look at the two characters, one Light-sider and one Dark-sider, and use the following suppositions: They have Force rating 1, they refuse or are unable to use the opposite color pip, they attempt twelve checks, and they roll statistically average rolls. Here's their results, both in percentage and number of rolls:

Pips | Light | Dark
00 | 58.33% (7 rolls) | 41.67% (5 rolls)
01 | 16.57% (2 rolls) | 50.00% (6 rolls)
02 | 25.00% (3 rolls) | 0 8.33% (1 roll)

So in this test, the Light-sider failed to do anything with the Force 7 times, and the Dark-sider failed 5 times, for a total advantage in success rate of 16.67% to the Dark-sider. The Light-sider got to activate an upgrade 3 times, and the Dark-sider got to activate an upgrade 1 time, for a total advantage in upgrade rate of 16.67% to the Light-sider. It's up to you if the risk of failing completely is worth the chance of getting that single upgrade, but assuming they are roughly equal, both sides are equal, but with different "areas of expertise," as it were. Both characters suffered 0 strain.

Now, we have them do the same thing, but say they are always willing and able to spend a Destiny Point and suffer strain to use the other alignment's pips. The chart is now:

Pips | Light | Dark
00 | 00 .00% (0 rolls) | 00 .00% (0 rolls)
01 | 66.67% (8 rolls) | 66.67% (8 rolls)
02 | 33.33% (4 rolls) | 33.33% (4 rolls)

This time, they have failed an equal number of times (0), and been able to activate upgrades an equal number of times (4). Both characters have also suffered 8 strain. The difference here is how many destiny points they spent. The Light-sider has spent 7 Destiny Points, while the Dark-sider has spent 5 Destiny Points. A 16.67% advantage is Destiny Point expenditure to the Dark-sider. The Light-sider has also gained 8 conflict; the weight of this is entirely subjective and depends on the character, so we'll treat this as a general "negative point" for the Light-sider. Final results is that the Light-sider had to spend more Destiny Points and suffered unwanted conflict for the exact same result as a Dark-sider.

Okay, that's Force rating 1, let's do the same for Force rating 2.

First Test (aligned pips only):

Pips | Light | Dark
00 | 34.03% (49 rolls) | 17.36% (25 rolls)
01 | 19.44% (28 rolls) | 41.67% (60 rolls)
02 | 31.94% (46 rolls) | 31.94% (46 rolls)
03 | 0 8.33% (12 rolls) | 0 8.33% (12 rolls)
04 | 0 6.25% ( 0 9 rolls) | 00 .69% ( 0 1 roll)

Here, the Light-sider failed 49 times and the Dark-sider failed 25 times (16.67% advantage to Dark). Light activated 97 upgrades, while Dark activated 73 upgrades (14.12% advantage Light). Notably, both characters rolled 2 useable pips and 3 useable pips the exact same amount of times. The difference came in the rarer 4 useable pips; the cost for the Dark side's ease of use is that it occasionally falls short of the results achievable by those who follow the disciplined path. Again, both characters suffered 0 strain.

So now for the test where the characters spend Destiny Points. I'll dispense with the charts here (what? Me? Dispense with charts? I must have been replaced with a body-snatcher! * ), as they'll obviously be exactly equal at all pip-levels. We're also going to be more discerning: the characters will only spend a Destiny Point and suffer strain if they roll fewer than 2 pips. They need that basic power and upgrade, but they want to conserve as much as possible, so they'll make do with that minimum level.

With that in mind, the Light-sider has spent a total of 77 Destiny Points and suffered 126 strain. The Dark-sider has spent 85 Destiny Points and suffered 110 strain. So Light has an advantage in spending fewer Destiny Points (4.94% advantage), but suffered more strain (6.78% advantage to Dark).

As we get higher in Force rating, the higher number of dice coupled with the even number of pips on each die starts to sharply pull both sides into obtaining an average roll result ( ² / ₃ * FR). The Light-sider will always fail a bit more than the Dark-sider, but also reach above the average a bit easier as well.

Hopefully this has been helpful. As we can see, both alignments suffer strain roughly equally, and while they have different areas they excel at, both Light-siders and Dark-siders are fairly equal. Not to toot my own horn, but I've done most of this math already in my Force Points thread, which @Daeglan has helpfully linked above. If you have further statistics questions, I'm happy to answer them! The important piece that I think gets lost is that both sides have the same numbers of pips on the Force die , which means over an arbitrary amount of time, they will be rolling the same number of useable Force Points. The only thing that changes is the distribution: Light-siders tend to get their points bunched up, and Dark-siders get them spread out. Making the Dark side easier to use consistently, but the Light-side able to make up for the inconsistency with bursts of inspiration.

* WE HAVE TAKEN THE TOGRUTA! SOON YOUR PUNY HU-MAN BODIES SHALL BE OURS! LONG SHALL THE SQUELZAAN ASCENDANCY RULE!

It is certain help to get more data and view points on the matter. However, my approach is different, as I'm looking at the probability of an exact outcome where both sides are involved in the outcome in a single roll, which I think should be obvious from my recent calculation, where yours only reflect the outcome for specific side respectively on a single roll, a single dicepool that is. Basically your results are for individual sides on individual rolls, where my results for an individual result that constains both.

To give an example, you have a result that says something specifically about the probability for getting 2 dark side points respectively when making rolls with a force rating of 2, then you have a result that says something specifically about the probability for getting 2 light side points respectively when making rolls with a force rating of 2.

My results says something specifically about the probability for a specific outcome where a certain amount dark side and light side points generated with a certain force rating.

Do you see the difference, and do you see why I would choose this method over the one that you used? Like wise what it can show what yours doesn't?

2 hours ago, Absol197 said:

EDIT: Ah, after reading your most recent post (the one right above this one), I think I see the problem(s). There are three main points of yours that I'll try to address:

1) Light-side has a higher probability to get more pips.
This is entirely true. However, if they do not want to pay a cost, they also have a higher probability to get absolutely nothing they can use. Meaning they have to make the choice between A) Do nothing; or B) Pay a DP, suffer strain, and take conflict more often than a Dark-sider has to make the same choice.

2) My previous charts are for the odds across an arbitrarily high number of rolls, not a single roll.
This one is more about statistics in general, but the odds of a result across a perfectly even statistical spread and the probability of that result on a single roll are exactly the same. So while I tend to express things as an average of all possible rolls, the numbers are just as valid being used as the probability of getting the result you're looking for on a single roll.

3) My previous charts separate results for Dark and Light side, and do not provide combined results.
This was done for multiple reasons, the two primary ones being ease of readability and because most players only really care about the odds on rolling pips their character can use with no cost. There is a third set of charts for "grey" pips further down the thread, which gives the probability of the total number rolled regardless of color. I'll grant you that this does lack perfect granularity, as depending on which side of the Force you are on, the strain cost you'd be paying to access all those pips will vary. Once again, this was done to make the chart easier to read, and because I assumed that if you're spending a Destiny Point to get access to opposite-alignment pips you were planning on spending as much strain as possible anyway. However, I can confirm that the expected strain cost will average out over a character's life time. Dark-side results cling strongly to the average, so using them as a baseline, Light-siders will spend less for high-pip results, and spend more during the more frequent times they fail, balancing the scales.

1) Exactly, and that is a consequence of the assymetrical point spread and in my opinion is what fundamentally imbalances it - the assymmetrical point spread.

2) Just be sure that we're not misunderstanding each other here because of differences in the terminology we use, when I say "a single roll" I'm litterally talking about rolling whatever is in the dice pool, even if that is a single dice. You say that the previous charts are for the odds across an arbitrary high number of rolls, not a single roll, are you here talking about an arbitrary amount for sampling or do you treat rolling each dice pool as a single roll?

How so can they be just as valid if they're expressed as a statistical average rather than a probability? Also, the numbers I have been looking for includes both types and amount of points in the result, which yours does not include.

3) Yes, but that chart doesn't specify what outcome it specifically was, my reasons for doing these calculations aren't to find numbers to aid my play, but to figure out where the balance is weighted towards more specifically, because I can tell that because of the assymmetry it's around the averages. But also to see if was actually reasonably balanced. But, I don't think basing balance around averages makes for good balance, especially because when you hit the extremes and you keep hitting the extremes, that is where it potentially can be a bad experience for the player(s).

On 5/26/2019 at 5:42 PM, Vek Baustrade said:

So, having read through your idea and the feedback, I'd like to summarize in brief: You asked for feedback and pretty much everyone is telling you they think your grey design is a bad idea. They've explained their opinions and reasons why. They also disagree with you, broadly speaking, on your interpretation of the Force. No one seems to agree with you thus far. Maybe take that for what it is, rather than digging in your heels. And please don't start a war of pedantry with TrampGraphics. You won't win and we will all lose.

This. lol.

6 hours ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

Thank you for trying to elaborate on the matter and making a detailed post. However I have to correct you already, because as far as I know, dark siders don't gain conflict when using dark side points, they only suffer the strain, which is on pg. 281 in FaD, and to be sure I just re-read the paragraph for dark siders. However, it's possible that you're assuming that whats detailed on pg. 281 in FaD, is addional to whats on pg. 280, the part that says he suffers conflict equal to the amount dark side points used. However, the reason I don't think thats intended as being additional, is then the dark sider would be suffering strain every time the user would be using the force.

Also, you're writing that a light-side force user wants to use light side points, they must flip a destiny point in order to so, and then suffer additionally suffer 1 strain per light side point they use, and that they also suffer 1 conflict for each dark side point they use - I'm sure you meant for every dark side point spent they gain strain and conflict.

I don't believe that you can use the perfect average to determine that something with an assymetrical spread is balanced because it has the exact same amount points spread out. I think this very similar to the regression toward the mean. I assume you know, that even though it's said in theory that it takes the same amount of rolls as there are sides to reach the perfect average, that doesn't work that way in practice, and it's more likely that it will take a lot more rolls to achieve the perfect average, which for most part probably will more rolls than will happen in a game session. Furthermore, you can't accurately calculate how many rolls it's going to take to achieve the perfect average, means you can't use it to determine if it's balanced on or not. Fact is that it attempts to achieve balance around the average, but when results are not within the average, but out closer to the extremes (min and max), then it's not very balanced and it won't feel balanced, and for some it will make for a good experience (those who get the good rolls), and for others it will make for a bad experience (those who get the bad rolls.)

There is assymetrical and symmetrical balance, where balancing symmetrically on a fundamental level will make it easier to achieve a better cohesive and congruent balance. But when trying to balance assymetrically on a fundamental level, will be very difficult and more often than not, will have certain areas or certain times that won't be and won't feel balanced. So it's generally better to balance symmetrically on a fundamental level than trying to balance assymetrically on a fundamental level and try to balance various incidentals and make everything fit around the imbalance on the fundamental level. Clearly, the force dice on the fundamental level based around asymmetrical balance, they trying to balance the incidentals around various mechanics and resource management.

I think it makes for better balance to have the force dice symmetrically balanced and have the other mechanics to support the lore, like have the light and dark side points have different qualities to them, have them able to affect in different ways, have both side take sided conflict when using the opposite force side.

It is certain help to get more data and view points on the matter. However, my approach is different, as I'm looking at the probability of an exact outcome where both sides are involved in the outcome in a single roll, which I think should be obvious from my recent calculation, where yours only reflect the outcome for specific side respectively on a single roll, a single dicepool that is. Basically your results are for individual sides on individual rolls, where my results for an individual result that constains both.

To give an example, you have a result that says something specifically about the probability for getting 2 dark side points respectively when making rolls with a force rating of 2, then you have a result that says something specifically about the probability for getting 2 light side points respectively when making rolls with a force rating of 2.

My results says something specifically about the probability for a specific outcome where a certain amount dark side and light side points generated with a certain force rating.

Do you see the difference, and do you see why I would choose this method over the one that you used? Like wise what it can show what yours doesn't?

1) Exactly, and that is a consequence of the assymetrical point spread and in my opinion is what fundamentally imbalances it - the assymmetrical point spread.

2) Just be sure that we're not misunderstanding each other here because of differences in the terminology we use, when I say "a single roll" I'm litterally talking about rolling whatever is in the dice pool, even if that is a single dice. You say that the previous charts are for the odds across an arbitrary high number of rolls, not a single roll, are you here talking about an arbitrary amount for sampling or do you treat rolling each dice pool as a single roll?

How so can they be just as valid if they're expressed as a statistical average rather than a probability? Also, the numbers I have been looking for includes both types and amount of points in the result, which yours does not include.

3) Yes, but that chart doesn't specify what outcome it specifically was, my reasons for doing these calculations aren't to find numbers to aid my play, but to figure out where the balance is weighted towards more specifically, because I can tell that because of the assymmetry it's around the averages. But also to see if was actually reasonably balanced. But, I don't think basing balance around averages makes for good balance, especially because when you hit the extremes and you keep hitting the extremes, that is where it potentially can be a bad experience for the player(s).

Darksiders DO gain conflict. Which is why it is so hard to get redemption. You have to abstain from using dark side pips as much as possible which makes it harder. If they didnt gain conflict it would be easier.

I rarely see someone fight reality so hard. But boy do you.

Another facter is as a force user puts more points in force powers they need fewer pips tonaccomplish goals.

Is anyone able to make a pie chart or something of force ratings 1, 2 and 3 that show exact probabilities. 1 Die is easy because honestly they are inverted and still favors the darksider with consistency while the light sider is either going to have 0 less often or 1 more light pip (2) more often, in the exact interval in which dark is more reliable. The first chart already shows this, but can we get a pie chart or something for Force Rating 2 and 3, to show this isn't the case, even if it was I do not see why it matters. We already showed that the Dark sider and the light sider have the exact same odds of getting the exact same number of 2 or 3 pips for the only force ratings a player will ever likely play at. Exact rolls aren't really needed and even then they have kind of been gone over and showing averages is the only way we can really talk about the balance here. Other wise you are just using anecdotal evidence which is complete non-sense. Do I get to say "Dark side is stronger, because I never roll light, Light may have 3 double pips but I have only ever rolled the dark double pips so light must suck" does not work. Averages and statistics are fine and if you aren't willing to use them then we should straight be done with this conversation. Yes statistical averages are hard to actually achieve, but that's the thing it can scew in EITHER direction, and that is what we call "fair and balanced"

4 minutes ago, tunewalker said:

Is anyone able to make a pie chart or something of force ratings 1, 2 and 3 that show exact probabilities.

@Absol197 did this very thing. Crunching the statistics for the various probabilities, based on number of Force die in question, and if you are aiming for light or dark pips. It's....somewhere on this forum, I don't recall exactly where though.

edit: And after saying that I noticed it was only 2 threads below this one...so apparently it's come up recently in discussion.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

@Absol197 did this very thing. Crunching the statistics for the various probabilities, based on number of Force die in question, and if you are aiming for light or dark pips. It's....somewhere on this forum, I don't recall exactly where though.

edit: And after saying that I noticed it was only 2 threads below this one...so apparently it's come up recently in discussion.

That would be because I linked it here already for this very reason.

I've run the numbers for my response, but as I can't connect to the forum from work any more, it'll have to wait until tonight for me to reply in full.

@InfinityIncarnate , I did want to address your concerns about the "single roll" issue.

Using Force dice as our example, when you make a roll there are 12 possibilities of what can happen. The door can land on side 1, side 2, side 3, et cetera, all the way up to side 12. Each of these events has the exact same odds of occurring, ¹ / ₁₂ , or 8.33%. However, we don't specifically care about the difference between the fire landing on sides 2 through 7, because the result on those faces is the same: 1 black pip. So we can convince those results to say that the odds of getting a 1 black result is ¹ / ₁₂ * 6, or 50.00%. We can do the same thing with the other sides that produce the same result, getting us the final list of probabilities that we're used to seeing (as above).

If we now roll 2 Force dice, there are 12 ² , or 144, possibilities that can occur: die A lands on side 1 and die B lands on side 1, die A lands on side 1 and die B lands on side 2, die A lands on side 1 and die B lands on side 3, and so on all the way up to die A lands on side 12 and die B lands on side 12. Each of these 144 outcomes is equally likely, with a 0.69% chance of occurring. Once again, though, even though each of these is a unique, possible outcome, the total number of actual possible results is much smaller (10), because many outcomes provide the same result due. As before, we can combine the outcomes that provide the same result, giving us a breakdown of how likely each of the 10 possible results is on our roll.

This continues as we add multiple dice. There are 12 ³ (1,728) possible outcomes for rolling 3 dice, 12 ⁴ (20,736) for four dice, and so on. When I made my charts in the Force Points thread, this is what I did: i laid our all the possible outcomes of a single roll of that many dice, combined the outcomes that provided the same result to give the probability of that result. I just used math that speeds the process along instead of laying out all 61,917,364,224 possible outcomes for rolling 10 dice .

It's important to note, though, that this percentage is BOTH the percentage chance of rolling a given result on a single roll AS WELL AS also the theoretical average spread of results over an arbitrarily large number of rolls. Put another way, even though the odds of rolling 1 black pip on a die is 50.00% and the odds of rolling 2 is only 8.33%, you could make your single roll and still roll the 2-black-pip side of the die. I've done it. Many times. However, as you continue to roll that door more and more, the amount of times you roll 1 black pip will grow faster than the amount of times you roll 2 black pips, and they will tend towards the 50.00/8.33 percentages as time goes on. Yes, in a physical trial getting EXACTLY that percentage over multiple rolls will probably never happen no matter how many times you roll. But the number of 1-pips you roll will always inch towards 50, and the number of two pips will always inch towards 8.33.

It's the same as rolling 2d6 in that gaming game that the forum will block me from naming (Craps). 7 is by far the most common result. Your first roll may not be a seven, maybe not even by your fifth roll. But over time, your results will start to settle into an approximation of the bell-curve-like shape of a 2d6 rol. It may never be exact, but it'll always get closer.

Hopefully that makes sense.

I was actually going to go ahead and set out the percentages of Force Rating 2 Real quick, where it includes both Light and dark side in it's calculation. This will take a bit and I cant do it beyond force rating 2, because I simply do not know the easy equation for doing so, but here is the start.


The chance of rolling 3 dark and 0 light on 2 dice is the same as rolling 3 dark= 8.33
The chance of rolling 4 dark and 0 light on 2 dice is the same as rolling 4 dark= .69
The chance of rolling 2 dark and 0 light is the same as the remainder of the chance to roll 0 light= 25.01%
The chance of rolling 3 light 0 dark same thing as before= 8.33
The chance of rolling 4 light 0 dark same thing as before= 6.25
The chance of rolling 2 light 0 dark same thing as before= 2.78

Now it gets trickier because we have to figure out the combo parts

The chance of rolling 1 light and 1 dark is equal to 6/7th's of rolling the 1 light (remember that if you only have 1 light then the other die MUST be dark, and there are 7 sides of dark 6 of them being 1 and one of them being 2) or 16.66
The chance of rolling 1 light and 2 dark is the remainder of that = 2.78
The chance of rolling 1 dark and 2 light 16.66 minus what remains of rolling 1 dark = 25.01
The chance of rolling 2 light 2 dark is equal to the chance to roll 2 light - the 25.1+2.78 or= 4.15

As we can see here half the odds are either 2 dark 0 light or 2 light 1 dark.... and a third of the odds are split between 1:1 dead heat and then 3:0/0:3 this is pretty darn even and balanced if you ask me in fact favoring dark side because it is only shut out of 1 of these odds while light is shut out of 2. It balances out though as the remaining 16% chance is dominated by the 4:0 light, with the majority of the remaining is owned by the 2:2 split, and the combined 2 light:0 dark and 1 light 2 dark. Once again showing that while the light will RARELY spike higher, and the dark is OCCASIONALLY more consistent they are overall even down the line.

12 minutes ago, tunewalker said:

Again all things considered They are pretty even and BALANCED. The light has a slightly greater chance at a burst while the dark is less likely to be completely shut out.

Which would be a pretty good way to mechanically reflect the "quicker, easier, more seductive" description of the Force that Yoda gives in Empire. Almost like the people at FFG, being huge Star Wars, and number crunching nerds, (like a huge swath of the fanbase in general), found a way to design the dice, to mechanically reflect that

So you have a design, that roughly evens out to 50/50 on light/dark, but, over time, you are more likely to see at least 1 dark pip, more consistently, than Light, the quicker, easier bit. And it's more seductive, because it's sitting right there, asking you to use it so you can do that magic power. But you are more likely to gain more power from the Light (more faces with 2 pips compared to Dark), thus making the Light, more powerful (potentially), but it's not as easy to obtain, because you won't see it any more often than the Dark.

Which basically reflects:
"Is the dark side stronger?"
"No, quicker, easier, more seductive" very well in my opinion.

2 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Which would be a pretty good way to mechanically reflect the "quicker, easier, more seductive" description of the Force that Yoda gives in Empire. Almost like the people at FFG, being huge Star Wars, and number crunching nerds, (like a huge swath of the fanbase in general), found a way to design the dice, to mechanically reflect that

So you have a design, that roughly evens out to 50/50 on light/dark, but, over time, you are more likely to see at least 1 dark pip, more consistently, than Light, the quicker, easier bit. And it's more seductive, because it's sitting right there, asking you to use it so you can do that magic power. But you are more likely to gain more power from the Light (more faces with 2 pips compared to Dark), thus making the Light, more powerful (potentially), but it's not as easy to obtain, because you won't see it any more often than the Dark.

Which basically reflects:
"Is the dark side stronger?"
"No, quicker, easier, more seductive" very well in my opinion.

One of the older Order 66 (before they made the full switch over to the FFG system) had Jay Little as a guest, and he described having what amounted to a "Eureka!" moment when considering how to arrange the Force dice in a manner that fits with what Yoda said. Namely, the dark side (especially for novice Force users) will be more readily available and thus "quick to join you in a fight," but you won't be able to pull off quite as impressive of an effect as you would with a light side result, thus making the light side stronger.

19 hours ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

The rules say that some lies can be told without penalty to benefit others, such as avoiding a combat situation or protecting innocents. - Can be, but not always - obviously it depends on the actual case, and if there is some kind of benefit, even it's not necessarily obvious, or even unconscious wants.

You keep saying it's weaker, but I see no hard evidence on that matter, I see you argue for it, which are basically your opinions on the matter.

What makes you think I don't understand the conflict rules?

It might not be the most likely outcome, but adding in more dices with the same amount of probality does not change the base probability of either side turning up for each dice, but it does change the overall probability. I do know how to do probability, but there are more ways to get the same result, and since it's very late here I decided to do it more differently (less math heavy), which obviously weren't completely correct, but it actually doesn't change how those rolls would affect the situation and what the light and dark side user could do in the situation. Furthermore, those are the combinations you can get when you exclude the one thats going to to be the least likely to occur, namely the double dark point, which has the 8,333% (1/12) chance to occur on one force dice, so it wouldn't make sense to include, but I have now.

Basically, to get the precise probility:
Probability of all = Probability of outcome one × Probability of outcome two × Probability of outcome three × .... = X × 100 = Probability in percent

The probability of roll one would be: 5/12 × 5/12 × 5/12 = 0,416667 × 100 = 41,6667%
The probability of roll two would be: 3/12 × 5/12 × 5/12 = 0,043403 × 100 = 4,3403%
The probability of roll three would be: 3/12 × 3/12 × 3/12 = 0,015625 × 100 = 1,5625%
The probability of roll four would be: 5/12 × 3/12 × 3/12 = 0,026042 × 100 = 2,6042%
The probability of roll five would be: 5/12 × 5/12 × 2/12 = 0,166667 × 16,6667%
-------------------------------------------------
The Probability of 3 dark and 2 light: 1/12 × 5/12 × 3/12 = 0,014468 × 100 = 1,4468%
The Probability of 2 dark and 3 light: 1/12 × 3/12 × 2/12 = 0,005208 × 100 = 0,5208%
The Probability of 2 dark and 4 light: 1/12 × 3/12 × 3/12 = 0,003472 × 100 = 0,3472%

As you can see, excluding the double dark points probability with any light side combination, are below any of the other probabilities, which is why I excluded them from the initial calculation.

So basically, the order would be:
1: Roll #1 - 3 dark side, no light - 41,6667%
2: Roll #5 - 2 dark - 1 light -16,6667%
3: Roll #2 - 2 dark - 2 light - 4,3403%
4: Roll #4 - 1 dark - 4 light - 2,6042%
5: Roll #3 - no dark - 6 light - 1,5625%
-------------------------------------------------
3 dark - 2 light - 1,4468%
2 dark - 3 light - 0,5208%
2 dark - 4 light - 0,3472%

Light siders only gaining conflict from converting dark side points, and dark siders only suffering strain from converting light side points, is in my opinion, very imbalanced.

Re-Read that rule again. It does not say that some lies that are for selfless reasons don't gain Conflict. What it says specifically, is "Some lies may be told without the penalty to benefit others, such as avoiding a combat situation or protecting innocents."

In other words, some lies don't garner Conflict. But in order to do so , those lies must be for the benefit of others , not seflish reasons.

12 hours ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

Thank you for trying to elaborate on the matter and making a detailed post. However I have to correct you already, because as far as I know, dark siders don't gain conflict when using dark side points, they only suffer the strain, which is on pg. 281 in FaD, and to be sure I just re-read the paragraph for dark siders. However, it's possible that you're assuming that whats detailed on pg. 281 in FaD, is addional to whats on pg. 280, the part that says he suffers conflict equal to the amount dark side points used. However, the reason I don't think thats intended as being additional, is then the dark sider would be suffering strain every time the user would be using the force.

Also, you're writing that a light-side force user wants to use light side points, they must flip a destiny point in order to so, and then suffer additionally suffer 1 strain per light side point they use, and that they also suffer 1 conflict for each dark side point they use - I'm sure you meant for every dark side point spent they gain strain and conflict.

I don't believe that you can use the perfect average to determine that something with an assymetrical spread is balanced because it has the exact same amount points spread out. I think this very similar to the regression toward the mean. I assume you know, that even though it's said in theory that it takes the same amount of rolls as there are sides to reach the perfect average, that doesn't work that way in practice, and it's more likely that it will take a lot more rolls to achieve the perfect average, which for most part probably will more rolls than will happen in a game session. Furthermore, you can't accurately calculate how many rolls it's going to take to achieve the perfect average, means you can't use it to determine if it's balanced on or not. Fact is that it attempts to achieve balance around the average, but when results are not within the average, but out closer to the extremes (min and max), then it's not very balanced and it won't feel balanced, and for some it will make for a good experience (those who get the good rolls), and for others it will make for a bad experience (those who get the bad rolls.)

There is assymetrical and symmetrical balance, where balancing symmetrically on a fundamental level will make it easier to achieve a better cohesive and congruent balance. But when trying to balance assymetrically on a fundamental level, will be very difficult and more often than not, will have certain areas or certain times that won't be and won't feel balanced. So it's generally better to balance symmetrically on a fundamental level than trying to balance assymetrically on a fundamental level and try to balance various incidentals and make everything fit around the imbalance on the fundamental level. Clearly, the force dice on the fundamental level based around asymmetrical balance, they trying to balance the incidentals around various mechanics and resource management.

I think it makes for better balance to have the force dice symmetrically balanced and have the other mechanics to support the lore, like have the light and dark side points have different qualities to them, have them able to affect in different ways, have both side take sided conflict when using the opposite force side.

It is certain help to get more data and view points on the matter. However, my approach is different, as I'm looking at the probability of an exact outcome where both sides are involved in the outcome in a single roll, which I think should be obvious from my recent calculation, where yours only reflect the outcome for specific side respectively on a single roll, a single dicepool that is. Basically your results are for individual sides on individual rolls, where my results for an individual result that constains both.

To give an example, you have a result that says something specifically about the probability for getting 2 dark side points respectively when making rolls with a force rating of 2, then you have a result that says something specifically about the probability for getting 2 light side points respectively when making rolls with a force rating of 2.

My results says something specifically about the probability for a specific outcome where a certain amount dark side and light side points generated with a certain force rating.

Do you see the difference, and do you see why I would choose this method over the one that you used? Like wise what it can show what yours doesn't?

1) Exactly, and that is a consequence of the assymetrical point spread and in my opinion is what fundamentally imbalances it - the assymmetrical point spread.

2) Just be sure that we're not misunderstanding each other here because of differences in the terminology we use, when I say "a single roll" I'm litterally talking about rolling whatever is in the dice pool, even if that is a single dice. You say that the previous charts are for the odds across an arbitrary high number of rolls, not a single roll, are you here talking about an arbitrary amount for sampling or do you treat rolling each dice pool as a single roll?

How so can they be just as valid if they're expressed as a statistical average rather than a probability? Also, the numbers I have been looking for includes both types and amount of points in the result, which yours does not include.

3) Yes, but that chart doesn't specify what outcome it specifically was, my reasons for doing these calculations aren't to find numbers to aid my play, but to figure out where the balance is weighted towards more specifically, because I can tell that because of the assymmetry it's around the averages. But also to see if was actually reasonably balanced. But, I don't think basing balance around averages makes for good balance, especially because when you hit the extremes and you keep hitting the extremes, that is where it potentially can be a bad experience for the player(s).

No, @Absol197 was 100% accurate. A Dark Sider does not suffer Strain for using Dark Side pips. He suffers Strai n for using Light Side pips. A Dark Sider also does still earn Conflict for using Dark Side pips. This is explicitly stated on page 281 in the Sid Bar titled Dark Side Force Users.

To quote:

Quote

When a dark side Force user makes a Force power check, instead of using LSP to generate FP, he uses DSP. The dark side Force user generates one FP per DSP . IF the drk side Force user wishes to use LSP to generate FP, he must flip one Destiny Point from light to dark and suffer strain equal to the number of LSP results he wishes to use.

Further, at the bottom of the Sidebar on page 52 titled Redemption from the Dark Side , it states:

Quote

A player shoudl also keep in mind that, mechanically, redemption is no simple matter, either. To reach 70 Moraility, the PC must not only consistently make decisions that will let him avoid earing additional Conflict, but he must also refrain from using DSP to generate FP, as each of the FP generated from DSP generates Conflict as well.

DSP=Dark Side Point

LSP=Light Side Point

FP=Force Point

Thus, a Dark Side Force user does indeed still earn Conflict for using Dark Side Points.

58 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

One of the older Order 66 (before they made the full switch over to the FFG system) had Jay Little as a guest, and he described having what amounted to a "Eureka!" moment when considering how to arrange the Force dice in a manner that fits with what Yoda said. Namely, the dark side (especially for novice Force users) will be more readily available and thus "quick to join you in a fight," but you won't be able to pull off quite as impressive of an effect as you would with a light side result, thus making the light side stronger.

Yep, that's pretty much what I recall from back then as well

5 hours ago, Absol197 said:

I did want to address your concerns about the "single roll" issue.

Thank you for trying to address the concerns. And it did shed some light on your approach and made pretty good sense. However, it seems that even though you did the math for all possible outcomes, your charts only reflected the outcomes for each side specifically rather than, the various combinations with both light and dark side being reflected in the outcome, like how I tried to reflect the probabilities. Obviously, it makes sense why you couldn't have them reflect the specific outcomes, as that would make for extremely long lists, hence also why I tried to do it on a smaller scale to be able to identify the patterns. Which by the way also did because I'm working on a system that doesn't use the force dice but mimics the force dice probability, a system for the ability and skill system. The reason being I think it would make for a cleaner and better narrative tool, including while being able to combine force power rolls with other types of checks, in one check. Which, you're more than welcome to do some numbers, if you feel like it.

4 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Which basically reflects:
"Is the dark side stronger?"
"No, quicker, easier, more seductive" very well in my opinion.

But the thing is, Yoda never said that the light side is stronger, nor did he imply it.
Apparently people incorrectly assume that by saying no to the dark side being stronger, he's at the same time saying the light side is stronger, which is simply not correct, because it could just as well be of equal strength.
Furthermore, that Yoda says it, doesn't make it factually correct, because it could be biased as it comes from a Jedi - a light side user. Again, I haven't seen any evidence that actually states that the light side is stronger, or that the dark side is weaker. However I know, the George Lucas has said in the AOTC commentary, that the dark side is stronger side of the two sides. Which is evidence that speaks for that the dark side is stronger than the light side, not the other way around.

Let try an use an analogy:
If I know your weight and I know my weight, and you ask me if I weigh more than you, and I reply "no", does that mean that I weigh less than you? Not necessarily, because I could also weigh the same as you - which is in essence is the very same thing for when Yoda answered no to if the dark side was stronger than the light side, by saying no he's saying ruling out that it's stronger, but it doesn't rule out that it's weaker or of equal strength.

57 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, @Absol197 was 100% accurate. A Dark Sider does not suffer Strain for using Dark Side pips. He suffers Strai n for using Light Side pips. A Dark Sider also does still earn Conflict for using Dark Side pips. This is explicitly stated on page 281 in the Sid Bar titled Dark Side Force Users.

When I wrote, "they only suffer the strain" it was implied that it was for when dark sider use the light side points.

You're right about the conflict points for the dark side point use, however, that part is not clearly defined in the dark side sidebar, at least not in my book for some reason. But the redemtion part on pg. 52 certainly does verify it. Which obviously can cause some issues, if there are differences in the published books.

55 minutes ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

Thank you for trying to address the concerns. And it did shed some light on your approach and made pretty good sense. However, it seems that even though you did the math for all possible outcomes, your charts only reflected the outcomes for each side specifically rather than, the various combinations with both light and dark side being reflected in the outcome, like how I tried to reflect the probabilities. Obviously, it makes sense why you couldn't have them reflect the specific outcomes, as that would make for extremely long lists, hence also why I tried to do it on a smaller scale to be able to identify the patterns. Which by the way also did because I'm working on a system that doesn't use the force dice but mimics the force dice probability, a system for the ability and skill system. The reason being I think it would make for a cleaner and better narrative tool, including while being able to combine force power rolls with other types of checks, in one check. Which, you're more than welcome to do some numbers, if you feel like it.

But the thing is, Yoda never said that the light side is stronger, nor did he imply it.
Apparently people incorrectly assume that by saying no to the dark side being stronger, he's at the same time saying the light side is stronger, which is simply not correct, because it could just as well be of equal strength.
Furthermore, that Yoda says it, doesn't make it factually correct, because it could be biased as it comes from a Jedi - a light side user. Again, I haven't seen any evidence that actually states that the light side is stronger, or that the dark side is weaker. However I know, the George Lucas has said in the AOTC commentary, that the dark side is stronger side of the two sides. Which is evidence that speaks for that the dark side is stronger than the light side, not the other way around.

Let try an use an analogy:
If I know your weight and I know my weight, and you ask me if I weigh more than you, and I reply "no", does that mean that I weigh less than you? Not necessarily, because I could also weigh the same as you - which is in essence is the very same thing for when Yoda answered no to if the dark side was stronger than the light side, by saying no he's saying ruling out that it's stronger, but it doesn't rule out that it's weaker or of equal strength.

When I wrote, "they only suffer the strain" it was implied that it was for when dark sider use the light side points.

You're right about the conflict points for the dark side point use, however, that part is not clearly defined in the dark side sidebar, at least not in my book for some reason. But the redemtion part on pg. 52 certainly does verify it. Which obviously can cause some issues, if there are differences in the published books.

Right. And he said the dark side is quicker and easier. Which it is. But the pip the number ofnpips rolled will be the same over time.

On 5/29/2019 at 2:10 AM, Daeglan said:

Right. And he said the dark side is quicker and easier. Which it is. But the pip the number ofnpips rolled will be the same over time.

Thats in theory, practically speaking, it will generally gravitate around the average, and if you know how averages work, then you also know that there will be extreme cases, and one could be "unlucky" and keep getting the "bad" rolls.
It's very unlikely that one would keep getting the bad or extreme case rolls, but it's technically possible that one will keep getting the bad rolls, then stop playing it altogether, where if the player had kept playing, the player would've begun to experience the good rolls. Practically speaking, there is really no such thing as a perfect average, even with something thats symmetrically balanced, although it's more likely to get more balanced rolls than with an assymmetrical point distribution.

In regards to the dark side being quicker and easier, I'm not saying the dark side isn't easier or quicker in relation to getting the single points, but saying it's the only one thats quicker is factually incorrect, as the light side is quicker when it comes to the double points. Where it doesn't matter how many force dice thats in use, as long as it's an equal amount, the light side will be quicker with the double points, where dark side users need more dice to be more reliable, meaning that unless they have those have a higher force rating than the one they're compared to, they're by design made to be far more dependent on spending destiny points and suffering strain to equal out the imbalance, than the light side are.

As I've mentioned before, there is nothing in the lore that actually says the dark side is weaker than the light side, just that it's not stronger but it's easier, quicker and more seductive. But for some reason you people keep saying it is, and you referencing the famous quote with Yoda and Luke, but that specific quote, doesn't actually prove that the light side is stronger or the dark side is weaker, just that dark side isn't stronger - hence why I tried to prove this point with my quoted analogy below. I've asked for evidence that proves that the light side is actually stronger than the dark side but never got it, and until then, it's actually more opinion that actual fact. Personally though I think that the two are equally strong, and that light side and dark side, never has been good vs. evil, but a lot more about the intentions of the force user.

On 5/29/2019 at 1:13 AM, InfinityIncarnate said:

Let try an use an analogy:
If I know your weight and I know my weight, and you ask me if I weigh more than you, and I reply "no", does that mean that I weigh less than you? Not necessarily, because I could also weigh the same as you - which is in essence is the very same thing for when Yoda answered no to if the dark side was stronger than the light side, by saying no he's saying ruling out that it's stronger, but it doesn't rule out that it's weaker or of equal strength.

There is another thing with the analogy that is also true with what Yoda responds with in regards to Luke's question, that he might not be completely honest about it, and that is that there can be a good reason not to be completely truthful on the matter. In my analogy, if I responded with no, it might actually be not be untruthful, because maybe I didn't want you to know my weight, which could be for several reasons, like fear that the knowledge about my weight could be used against me, or that knowing my weight would lead to you attempting to gain other information about me. Which in regards to the whole deal about Yoda saying no to the dark side being stronger fits very well with the above analogy, as Yoda could've untruthful about it what he said, for several reasons - reasons like he didn't want Luke to persue the dark side, because there was very few force sensitives left and that he feared that Luke might turn to it, and in the end use it against him, or that he was trying to protect innocent lives by not being truthful - and we've seen Jedi's lie before because of what they believe to be the greater good or the just cause.
I hope the analogy gives cause for reconsideration, as quite clearly

Additionally, can you take what Yoda says as the ultimate truth, as it's said by a character who happens to be a jedi, who naturally would have bias towards the dark side and also might be trying to dissuade Luke from the dark side's temptation of power, even though Yoda might know that the dark side is the stronger of the two. It's also possible, that despite Yoda being a Jedi grandmaster, that he might not actually fully understand the dark side on deeper levels, as he's staying away from the dark side, never embracing it's. There can be many reasons why we can't use Yoda's response as solid truth, hence why I'm asking for evidence that proves it.

Ask yourself this, if Yoda knew that the dark side is stronger, would Yoda have said, yes to the dark side being stronger, to an aspiring young jedi initiate/padawan, in whom he sensed anger, hate and fear, if he knew what impact it would have, would he tell him the truth?

Now couple that with this statement from the AOTC Commentary by George Lucas:
"...to become the most powerful Jedi, and the only way you can really do that is to go to the Dark side because the Dark side is more powerful. If you want the ultimate power you really have to go to the stronger side, which is the Dark side..."

I think it makes quite a lot of sense that Yoda would lie to Luke about the dark side not being stronger, and Yoda could have a plethora of reasons and motives for doing so.

Star wars Clone wars "the Lawless"

"Obi-Wan Kenobi : You can kill me, but you will never destroy me. It takes strength to resist the dark side. Only the weak embrace it.

Darth Maul : It is more powerful than you know.

Obi-Wan Kenobi : And those who oppose it are more powerful than you'll ever be. I know where you're from, I've been to your village. I know the decision to join the dark side wasn't yours. The Nightsisters made it for you."

Also quotes from george lucas are fine in SOME cases. This is a "word of god" scenario where the word is only really all that useful if it explains something that actually happens in canon, but this does not explain something that happens in canon. Also you keep using this word consistency and I do not think it means what you think it means..... I want to go back to the chart let's look at FR 3. The light side has a 12% greater chance to fail and trades this failure for a whopping 6% greater chance at 4 pips, while dark still has a 7% greater chance at 3 pips while also failing less and having greater odds of 2 and 1. Meanining at FR 3 the Dark Side force user can CONSISTENTLY use 1 or 2 upgrades on a force power check, while the light side will still occasionally straight up fail altogether. I do not know about you but I think 3>0. FR 4.... light gets an 8% greater chance at 0, for a whopping 2% increase chance at 5, everything else is a negligible difference.

Further....

No suggestion in this scene that the dark and light aren't equal and lucas isnt in charge any more.

Also turn to page 274 in the core rule book and read the fluff. That should help as that is the version of the force that is canon, to the game and canon to the universe as of this time that I know of.

The dark side also has a chance of rolling 0 pips. So the opposite is possible.

The other thing is if you are smart you buy mor into the force trees so thatnyou can more consistantly do stuff.

On 6/1/2019 at 6:54 AM, tunewalker said:

Also turn to page 274 in the core rule book and read the fluff. That should help as that is the version of the force that is canon, to the game and canon to the universe as of this time that I know of.

...and on pg. 273 in the core rulebook, there you have their stance on it, the dark side is not stronger, but, the light side isn't stronger either. It's actually like I've said before, there is nothing in the famous Luke and Yoda quote the proves that the light side is stronger than the dark side, only that the dark side is not stronger.

To quote it:

Quote

"There are those who say, the dark side of the Force is easier to use, more seductive, and that it constantly tempts those who can sense the Force. However, it is not stronger. When one is calm, when one works to preserve and defend, he finds the power of the light side of the Force to be just as mighty as the dark side."

Nothing here says that dark side is more seductive, only that some say that it is. Furthermore, nothing here says that it's easier or quicker. The whole it's more seductive, easier and quicker, is what you can call a characters viewpoint, not factual and the ultimate truth. However, their stance is proven as:

Dark side: Not stronger than the light side.
Light side: Just as mighty as the dark side.

So both sides of the force are equally strong, none is weaker than the other, and only in certains aspects are they inferior to one another, as they specialize in different aspects.

There is another one in particular I'd like to highlight:

Quote

People speak of a “light side" and a “dark side" to the Force, elements representing its positive and negative aspects. However, these aspects are not in conflict with each other.

They're not in conflict with each other, they unify the force and create balance, being equally strong. Remember what it said about the force? That the force is balance!

On 6/1/2019 at 6:47 AM, tunewalker said:

lucas isnt in charge any more  .

Yes, I'm aware of that, but that doesn't change what's already established with Episode 1 - 6. So whats fundamentally established, doesn't just change. GL created and established fundamentally the original canon, which was why I used what he said.

On 6/1/2019 at 6:47 AM, tunewalker said:

Also you keep using this word consistency

Actually, I've not been using that word, just try searching the page for the word "consistency" and see where it turns up!
I know very well what consistency means.

The force dice is not balanced, period. For a dark side user to use it reliably, without having to spend destiny points and suffer strain, they do need a higher FR than a light side user of same comparable force power.
Let me illustrate - without the use of destiny points and suffering strain - the base probalities reflect it:
FR1:
If you have a dark side force user of FR1, this one can more reliably than a light side force user, activate it's force powers and WITHOUT an upgrade but rarily with.
If you have a light side force user of FR1, this one can less reliably than a dark side force user, activate it's force powers but OFTEN WITH an upgrade.

FR2:
If you have a dark side force user of FR2, this one can more reliably than a light side force user, activate it's force powers often with ONE upgrade but rarily with three
If you have a light side force user of FR2, this one can less reliably than a dark side force user, activate it's force powers but OFTEN WITH two upgrades upgrade. However the user can activate it's powers more reliably than with FR1

FR3:
If you have a dark side force user of FR3, this one can more reliably than a light side force user, activate it's force powers often with two upgrades but rarily with more than three.
If you have a light side force user of FR3, this one can less reliably than a dark side force user, activate it's force powers but OFTEN WITH four or more upgrades. However the user can activate it's powers more reliably than with FR2.

Notice a pattern?
Dark side users can in general more reliably activate force powers and when they do, they will be behind with upgrades compared to a light side user of same comparable force rating.
Light side users can in general less reliably activate force powers, but when they do it's often with more upgrades than a dark side user of same comparable force rating. Additionally, as their force rating increases the more reliably they can activate their force powers along with upgrades.

In my opinion, that is imbalanced. It shouldn't be that one side can get more upgrades but have to sacrifice the reliability of activating it's force powers OR activate it's force powers with less upgrades. Where the other side can more reliably activate its force powers but with less or no upgrades at all.

2 hours ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

...and on pg. 273 in the core rulebook, there you have their stance on it, the dark side is not stronger, but, the light side isn't stronger either. It's actually like I've said before, there is nothing in the famous Luke and Yoda quote the proves that the light side is stronger than the dark side, only that the dark side is not stronger.

To quote it:

Nothing here says that dark side is more seductive, only that some say that it is. Furthermore, nothing here says that it's easier or quicker. The whole it's more seductive, easier and quicker, is what you can call a characters viewpoint, not factual and the ultimate truth. However, their stance is proven as:

Dark side: Not stronger than the light side.
Light side: Just as mighty as the dark side.

So both sides of the force are equally strong, none is weaker than the other, and only in certains aspects are they inferior to one another, as they specialize in different aspects.

There is another one in particular I'd like to highlight:

They're not in conflict with each other, they unify the force and create balance, being equally strong. Remember what it said about the force? That the force is balance!

Yes, I'm aware of that, but that doesn't change what's already established with Episode 1 - 6. So whats fundamentally established, doesn't just change. GL created and established fundamentally the original canon, which was why I used what he said.

Actually, I've not been using that word, just try searching the page for the word "consistency" and see where it turns up!
I know very well what consistency means.

The force dice is not balanced, period. For a dark side user to use it reliably, without having to spend destiny points and suffer strain, they do need a higher FR than a light side user of same comparable force power.
Let me illustrate - without the use of destiny points and suffering strain - the base probalities reflect it:
FR1:
If you have a dark side force user of FR1, this one can more reliably than a light side force user, activate it's force powers and WITHOUT an upgrade but rarily with.
If you have a light side force user of FR1, this one can less reliably than a dark side force user, activate it's force powers but OFTEN WITH an upgrade.

FR2:
If you have a dark side force user of FR2, this one can more reliably than a light side force user, activate it's force powers often with ONE upgrade but rarily with three
If you have a light side force user of FR2, this one can less reliably than a dark side force user, activate it's force powers but OFTEN WITH two upgrades upgrade. However the user can activate it's powers more reliably than with FR1

FR3:
If you have a dark side force user of FR3, this one can more reliably than a light side force user, activate it's force powers often with two upgrades but rarily with more than three.
If you have a light side force user of FR3, this one can less reliably than a dark side force user, activate it's force powers but OFTEN WITH four or more upgrades. However the user can activate it's powers more reliably than with FR2.

Notice a pattern?
Dark side users can in general more reliably activate force powers and when they do, they will be behind with upgrades compared to a light side user of same comparable force rating.
Light side users can in general less reliably activate force powers, but when they do it's often with more upgrades than a dark side user of same comparable force rating. Additionally, as their force rating increases the more reliably they can activate their force powers along with upgrades.

In my opinion, that is imbalanced. It shouldn't be that one side can get more upgrades but have to sacrifice the reliability of activating it's force powers OR activate it's force powers with less upgrades. Where the other side can more reliably activate its force powers but with less or no upgrades at all.

Then why use dice at all? The dice are setup on purpose the way. You dont have to use dice.

14 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Then why use dice at all? The dice are setup on purpose the way. You dont have to use dice.

Because the system is intended to use dice to generate points, which is important in relation to combat and other things, such as upgrades and such.
Just pointing out that, because the dice is made on purpose that way, it actually results in actual game imbalance, that also happen to not be part of canon.

So, if not using dice, how do you propose to handle it?

1 minute ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

Because the system is intended to use dice to generate points, which is important in relation to combant and other things, such as upgradeds and such.
Just pointing out that, because the dice is made on purpose that way, it actually results in actual game imbalance, that also happen to not be part of canon.

So, if not using dice, how do you propose to handle it?

I think dice are fine. I think working yoda's description of the force into things works well. But you have just spent 4 pages complaining about the dice sooo yeah.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I think dice are fine. I think working yoda's description of the force into things works well. But you have just spent 4 pages complaining about the dice sooo yeah.

But Yoda's "discription" isn't actually proof of anything, and if you take it as proof, then it says that the dark side isn't stronger, not that the light side is stronger or that the dark side is weaker, it ONLY says that the dark side isn't equal.
Furthermore, it's stated in the core rule book that both sides are equally strong - so it doesn't matter what Yoda says. Furthermore, it's even stated in the books that it being seductive is just what SOME say it is. So really, I think Yoda's quote can be dismissed, as the core book clearly states, both are equally strong, and it's not specifically defined as being more seductive.

and the light side is NOT stronger in this system. The statistics page showed that. You are wrong about what you think the stats are we have already showed that. They are balanced just as the core rule book states, but the dark side is quicker easier more seductive because it becomes more reliable faster. The light side "higher" is only a small chance, dark still has the chance, but the difference in chance beyond force rating of 1 is negligible, and force rating of 1 is negligible chance to do anything with the force reliably.

2 minutes ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

But Yoda's "discription" isn't actually proof of anything, and if you take it as proof, then it says that the dark side isn't stronger, not that the light side is stronger or that the dark side is weaker, it ONLY says that the dark side isn't equal.
Furthermore, it's stated in the core rule book that both sides are equally strong - so it doesn't matter what Yoda says. Furthermore, it's even stated in the books that it being seductive is just what SOME say it is. So really, I think Yoda's quote can be dismissed, as the core book clearly states, both are equally strong, and it's not specifically defined as being more seductive.

So what fix/change do you propose? Have you tried it? How did it work out for you? Does it make enough difference to bother with?