Hi there,

thank you, whafrog, for yout thorough reply. I appreciate it a lot, I really do.

Yes, naturally I look at the result of dice, because after all it is all about that in gaming: what are the results of the dice. You narrate based on what the dice-faces show and how you may understand them based on the rulebook. And I like the complexity of the dice-system provided by ST EotE, just because it does not simply stick to the success/fail-system so common in rpgs, but because it offers several layers of interpreation using three specific term-pairs.

And yet I raise a specific question concerning my issue with "Triumph" in relation to "Threat", as you can see. So this is not about the dicing system in general, but one specific dicing-situation which may happen at least occassionally.

1) You are right - one main pillar of my thesis is what is provided as an explanation of the various symbols in the ready-to-play character sheets. And I consider these as equally valid game-material as the core-rulebook, because these sheets are meant to get gamers into the game. And I see no reason why to consider the information there as less valid or potent than what is written in the corebook. After all this game-material is meant to explain the game properly in order to draw attention; and I doubt it that this game-material would prepare gamers in a certain way, just to make them understand that the rules in the complete game are different. The opposite is true - at least I hope so.

2) My argument about "rare D12" is based on several assumptions: a) the dice still remain uncommon or rare just from looking at the charactersheet; in order toet these days you probably have to spent a certain amount of what character-building-points or experience points or whatnot; so a gamer has to invest something (if not a lot) in order to get the dice; b) as for the odds: each d12 has just one Triumph symbol, which means that you are down to a like 8% chance per dice to get the Triumph; how common will it be that a gamer roles three of those dice raising the chances to like 33%?; c) you may get a d12 from using those nifty light-side tokens which may lead to the gamemaster/ opponent to upgrade a difficulty die accordingly in order to balance the advantage from it. So, yeah - to keep it on the surface: the d12 will be uncommon enough to make their appearance less likely than the standard d8. I may be wrong about this estimate, but this is what I see; and I also don't see the Triumph making a common appearance on the game-table - at least a lot more than what gamers know as ciritical successes or failures in other games. But here, again admitted, I lack the appropriate game-experience with EotE, which may partially invalidate my assumptions and thoughts in this particular point.

But that is not important; this argument at best is a supportive, but regardless of that still arguable thought in this context.

3) When I speak of "incredible" success, I simply speak of what is described as a

powerful positive consequence

from the "Triumph" (ready-to-play charactersheets use this wording) or, as it is written in the corerulebook, of a

"powerful result, indicating a signifcant boon or beneficial outcome"

And in the same section the corerulebook also states as the second effect of a "Triumph" that

each Triumph can be used to trigger incredibly potent effects.

In other words: I stick to the wording provided by the game itself.

And this is actually where the ambiguity of the rules comes from. People keep telling me: take the rules as written, because the specific results from a "Triumph" 'are written down' in the corerulebook; but the second result is exactly what I am talking about here - the "trigger[ed] incredibly potent effect". What is that?

And here I don't understand why a simple "Advantage" is able to cancel a "Threat", while the "incredibly potent effects" of a "Triumph" is not meant to be at least just as powerful, although "Triumphs" are officially described as "positive consequences" (just more powerful ones), just like the "Advantages" are described.

3) So, my approach of thinking does not come from the years of practice as a standard-gamer used to resolve dice on a binary basis; my matter here is one of understanding the rules properly based on the language used in the official game-material. And I would appreciate it, if you keep that in mind when thinking about my arguments here.

Best wishes!

Liam

There's too much to quote from above, so I'm not going to bother, but try to make a few final points.

About the D12 and Triumph frequency: if you have just started playing they will seem rare. But you won't need more than a few sessions at 15-20XP per session to raise that frequency considerably. Most of my players have 2 ranks in their core skills by now...combined with the occasional upgrade that means we see it often.

About the consistency of the rules: I referred you to the core rules because they are the most recent. There are some differences between the content of the beginner box and the core rules. However, in this case they are not in conflict. You are taking vague descriptive fluff, like "incredibly potent effects", and reinterpreting it to mean something specific mechanically. When you say you're "sticking to the wording", you're crossing the context in which those words appear.

Also, you are assuming all the results must be mutually exclusive, even though I gave you a complete interpretation with the Charm example which shows how they aren't mutually exclusive: even scoring a Triumph can still take something out of you. If you want to house rule that Triumphs can cancel Threat, that's fine...I think you're missing out on the dynamic nature of this incredible mechanic though.

Lastly, you're kind of running solo on this, and it looks like a lot of effort for no gain. If you listen to any podcasts which host the game *designers* (eg: the Order66 podcasts), you will not hear any interpretation that comes close to what you're saying.

Hi there,

thank you again, whalfrog, for taking your time.

Yeah, maybe I need to wrap my head around some certain things.

Yes: I listen a lot to podcasts, and I will try to get hold of your recommendation.

And as an aside: I don't care a lot about how much I may run solo on things; I speak up for what is on my mind; and I really appreciate any exchange about the topic at hand. This is not about me or me in relation to a majority; this is about thoughts I have and I want to discuss.

And I am glad that you come to the conclusion that it may be OK to resolve Triumph and Threats against each other; but since the rules for Triumph are so totally vague and actually without any "hard regulatory core" about the second effect, I don't see how this would be a houserule; instead it may be a valid way to perform the die-results.

Thanks again.

Best wishes!

Mad

And as an aside: I don't care a lot about how much I may run solo on things;

...and that's fine, of course, except that in this one specific case you're disagreeing with the designers of the game.

I don't see how this would be a houserule; instead it may be a valid way to perform the die-results.

Nope, it's definitely not.

Oh well, I'm done.

... listening ... to the podcast ...

... and awaiting an official respond from FFG on my rules-question via e-mail ...

Out.

MaddockKrug, no offense man but I really think you need to sit down and play the game some more. I'm aware that that's not always an easy thing for everyone to do, but actual gameplay will DEFINITELY clear up some of these issues you're having. I told people the same thing about 4th edition D&D aaaaaaaall the time, and without a single exception every one of my players who got over their preconceived notions about the game and actually sat down and played it under me ended up doing a complete 180. It was a fun system that got more crap than it deserved because so many people were merely reading the books rather than playing the game.

Simply put, reading a core rulebook and/or playing a session or two of its beginner's set is no replacement for playing/running an ongoing campaign; it's akin to judging a book you haven't read based on the trailer for its movie adaptation. You haven't had the full experience yet, because learning the nuances of a new tabletop roleplay game takes a fair bit of time. I've been running EotE for 5 months now, and there are still new things I'm learning. The best thing to do is to head on over to forums like this one, ask any questions you might have, and keep in mind that you're getting answers from folks with experience. That doesn't make what they tell you infallible, but it certainly lends perspective and context to whatever your thought process might be.

Hello.

Well, JonahHex.

I will consider your recommendation. But that won't stop me from using my head with all the "incredibly potent effects" like raising and discussing questions on forums.

Best wishes!

Mad

Hi there,

final note.

@whafrog: I listened to Episode 10 from the podcast you recommended listening to, and now I have a much better understanding. Thank you very much.

What I had not in mind that there is kind of a strict method in resolving the dice - the Advantages and Triumphs are being narrated by the Gamers, the Threats and Despairs by the Gamemaster. And with that in mind there may be room for Gamers and Gamemaster to agree that a Triumph might cancel a single Threat, but - as you kept telling me - the intention of the system is not meant to result in such an action.

And that is actually the kind of major argument or reasoning I was hoping to find in order to move towards one of the two different ways to look at it. Thank you very much. I will inform my playgroup, and in the future I look forward to seeing us performing the dicing much better.

Best wishes!

Mad

Cool, man! Happy gaming!

What I had not in mind that there is kind of a strict method in resolving the dice - the Advantages and Triumphs are being narrated by the Gamers, the Threats and Despairs by the Gamemaster. And with that in mind there may be room for Gamers and Gamemaster to agree that a Triumph might cancel a single Threat...

Absolutely agree. Sorry if I came off too insistent. I wasn't trying to tell you how you should play your game, only trying to clarify what the baseline intent of the rules were. From that baseline everyone can go in whatever direction they want.

Cheers!

Hello there,

I am very glad that we had this mind-boggling sharing of thoughts. That was awesome! And challenging. The podcast I added to my long list of podcasts I frequently listen to. And it is very nice to listen to it - even if someone does not play the game yet. 'Cause there is happening so much.

Now I just hope that the gaming group and the game-master I played with two days ago will keep focussed on this game. Time will tell. I certainly will get a copy of the corerulebook myself.

Best wishes!

Mad

Hello again,

final words on this one. Today I received letter from Sam Stewart from FFG. And to cut things short:

whafrog: You were right. MaddockKrug: You were wrong.

Best wishes!

Mad

Yep. Although nobody will confiscate your dice if you're 'doing it wrong'.

The 'official' way works for us because most failures seem to generate advantage, which is great for the 'falling forward' aspect of the game, I find. The players tend to 'hit a soft wall', not a 'hard wall', and just have to find another way to do things even if they fail. Great for a game like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, where it helps to keep the action moving.

And here I don't understand why a simple "Advantage" is able to cancel a "Threat", while the "incredibly potent effects" of a "Triumph" is not meant to be at least just as powerful, although "Triumphs" are officially described as "positive consequences" (just more powerful ones), just like the "Advantages" are described.

Because the number of Advantage/Threat, Success/Failure, or Triumph/Despair are not consequences or effects, they're a mechanic.

Consequences or effects of actions within the game likewise exist within the game, not on the table in front of the players. A consequence or effect in the game is something that can (at least potentially, or theoretically) be observed by the characters, rather than the players.

Does that help any?

Hello.

And here I don't understand why a simple "Advantage" is able to cancel a "Threat", while the "incredibly potent effects" of a "Triumph" is not meant to be at least just as powerful, although "Triumphs" are officially described as "positive consequences" (just more powerful ones), just like the "Advantages" are described.

Because the number of Advantage/Threat, Success/Failure, or Triumph/Despair are not consequences or effects, they're a mechanic.

Consequences or effects of actions within the game likewise exist within the game, not on the table in front of the players. A consequence or effect in the game is something that can (at least potentially, or theoretically) be observed by the characters, rather than the players.

Does that help any?

I haven't thought about this way of looking at it. It is kind of abstract, but it makes a lot of sense. The consequences or effects, as you describe it, are not mechanical events you see on the dice, but are something you "describe" by interpreting the dice while resolving the dice-results. English is not my first language, so I ask: Did I understand you correctly?

Best wishes!
Liam

Hello.

And here I don't understand why a simple "Advantage" is able to cancel a "Threat", while the "incredibly potent effects" of a "Triumph" is not meant to be at least just as powerful, although "Triumphs" are officially described as "positive consequences" (just more powerful ones), just like the "Advantages" are described.

Because the number of Advantage/Threat, Success/Failure, or Triumph/Despair are not consequences or effects, they're a mechanic.

Consequences or effects of actions within the game likewise exist within the game, not on the table in front of the players. A consequence or effect in the game is something that can (at least potentially, or theoretically) be observed by the characters, rather than the players.

Does that help any?

I haven't thought about this way of looking at it. It is kind of abstract, but it makes a lot of sense. The consequences or effects, as you describe it, are not mechanical events you see on the dice, but are something you "describe" by interpreting the dice while resolving the dice-results. English is not my first language, so I ask: Did I understand you correctly?

Best wishes!

Liam

Yes, exactly.