to me if they cancel each other out then it breaks the mechanic. why have force destiny points to use for gm or player if they can be cancelled out by the other? what use would that have? Am i missing something? if we are talking dice rolls then effectively the will a boost die against a set back die will most certainly cancel out more often than not. the gm uses one to add a challenge die to the mix and states the reaction if they roll a despair. The players then decide to use a destiny point to add a boost die well that is just pitting the force against itself and you cannot cancel a despair if rolled so really they pretty much wasted a destiny point. but if players use them in dire situations where they forgot to think of something and flip one to have the needed items or aid,show up at the last second to save them ( trash compactor scene in "a new hope") or their nav computer begins to suddenly work again just as quickly as it had shut down. just before they get blown out of the galaxy. then the gm could use his to add a setack or challenge die to their next roll on navigation. for the finicky nav computer. I see value in the mechanics I also see the potential for, and have seen it abused by both gm's and players alike. using destiny in a thematic way tends to add to the story and lends less to abuse. because i will flip the token if the players have a good reason for using it. and depending on how creative they are in stating how they used it.

It's worth noting that "positive" dice and "negative" dice don't actually cancel one another mathematically - not exactly.

The Boost die averages 0.333 successes and 0.666 advantage.

The Setback die averages 0.333 failures and 0.333 threat.

The Ability die averages 0.625 successes and 0.625 advantage.

The Difficulity die averages 0.500 failures and 0.750 threat.

The Proficiency die averages 0.833 successes, 0.666 advantage, and 0.083 triumph effects.

The Challenge die averages 0.750 failures, 0.666 threat, and 0.083 despair effects.

So if both a light side and a dark side destiny point are spent on the same roll, the effects are not actually a mathematical wash.

If you upgrade one Ability die to Proficiency and upgrade one Difficulty die to Challenge, then you have slightly decreased the expected net successes while slightly increasing the expected net advantage.

So if both a light side and dark side point are spent, the acting side (usually the PCs) is slightly less likely to succeed but will probably generate slightly more advantage in the attempt.

I agree with OverMatt in that the positive and negative dice do not cancel each other out mathematically but I've arrived at a slightly different (we're talking fractions of a percentage point difference) conclusion. Here is a comparison of the terminal states for 1 positive die versus 1 negative die. Results were calculated by simply listing all possible permutations of each dice pool and tallying up the successes, advantages, and threats after cancelations. Triumphs and despairs counted as successes and failures but otherwise were not calculated since they have equal distribution (1/12) on their respective dice.

1 Ability die vs. 1 Difficulty die:

Success Rate: 34.4% (Failure Rate: 65.6%)

Advantage Chance: 25.0%

Threat Chance: 35.9%

Notes: This is our baseline for comparison.

1 Proficiency die vs. 1 Difficulty die:

Success Rate: 45.8% (Failure Rate: 54.2%)

Advantage Chance: 27.1%

Threat Chance: 35.4%

Notes: Upgrading the positive die results in a higher rate of success, a higher chance of advantage, and slightly lowered (albeit nearly insignificant) risk of threat. Nothing unexpected.

1 Ability die vs. 1 Challenge die:

Success Rate: 26.0% (Failure Rate: 74.0%)

Advantage Chance: 29.2%

Threat Chance: 31.3%

Notes: Upgrading the negative die results in a much lower rate of success, but a higher chance of advantage, and lowered risk of threat. Interesting, no?

1 Proficiency die vs. 1 Challenge die:

Success Rate: 34.7% (Failure Rate: 65.3%)

Advantage Chance: 30.6%

Threat Chance: 30.6%

Notes: Upgrading both the positive and negative dice results in a nearly insignificant higher rate of success, a higher chance of advantage, and lower risk of threat from the baseline. Very interesting.

The important thing to keep in mind is the effect of advantage and threat as they can be used to add boost and setback dice to future dice pools. The GM and the PC both spending a Destiny Point may not have much effect with regards to success or failure for the current PC's dice pool but it has the potential to increase the chance of success on the next PC's dice pool.

TL;DR - Conclusion: Any use of Destiny Points, GM, PC, or both GM and PC has the potential to increase the chance of advantage and to lower threat.

The real benefit is the 1/12 chance of despair. Since it isn't canceled by Triumphs a 1/12 chance of things going wrong is huge.

We found that mechanic doesn' mean anything in the game, despite the original author's idea, it's just a gimmick by RAW. Adding creative storytelling for both sides isn't enough to go over that feeling. We have tried to give Destiny point like fortune points to pc... fliped when used by pc, then used by GM then destroyed. It was more intense and interesting to play.

but i'm kidnapping the thread... about red die :I dont recommand it because it will lessen its intensity.

- Consider 3 banes should equal to something real bad : Pc fall prone, spacedoor jamming will take longer, weapon is out of ammo, npc takes an extra action on you or an ally flee...

- and keep dispair for total disaster :floor collapses, spacedoor opens, weapon is broken until repair, giant monster/spaceworm/aquaticdragon/krayt appears...

I'm not entirely sure, but in the book isn't it written as follows?

The acting player/GM decides if he wants to use a destiny point, then the reacting player/GM decides if he wants to use a destiny point.

Thus a player climbing up a wall could first decide to use a destiny point, then the GM decides if he uses a destiny point.

An NPC shooting at a PC would have to decide to use a destiny point, then the player decides if he uses a destiny point.

That way the acting PC/NPC is always at risk of getting that negative die, without being able to just flip one point to get a proficiency die?

Thus the player decides to climb up the wall, and not use a destiny point. The GM then flips a darkside point and upgrades a die into a challenge die. The player can't upgrade his die anymore, as he passed the opportunity

Yes, that's technically correct.

The acting party chooses first, the reacting party chooses second.

So you're right - if you want to stick to the rules-as-written, an acting PC cannot spend a destiny point to upgrade his ability in reaction to the GM spending one to upgrade the difficulty. He's already missed his chance.

Note, though, that this technically correct approach is a little awkward in practice. It requires you to always pause and ask the acting party, "Before we continue, do you wish to spend a destiny point on this roll?" Then, only after the acting party has clearly stated his choice, the reacting party may declare whether he wishes to spend a point.

It does prevent the situation of both sides flipping destiny points all the time when the other side does.

So, I have read and re-read the rules on building the dice pool and there doesn't seem to be a lot about when to use challenge dice. It seems besides opposed skill checks, if the npc has training, or spending a dark force point there really isn't any other way to use them and you should use set back dice instead of upgrading difficulty. The side bar on page 21 seems to say once difficulty is set, if circumstances would make it harder use setback dice.

Since despair is only on the challenge, I'd like to be able to have them in play when appropriate.

So, I wanted to ask the community when else do you use red challenge dice?

Thanks

I use them whenever I want despair to be in play, basically.

In our game last night, the PCs were in a gunfight against some NPCs who had a ferocious lylek which was about to burst free of its chains.

I used dark side points to upgrade almost every skill check the PCs made so that if a Despair came up, the lylek would get involved in a much bigger way.

Sure enough, a Despair got rolled as someone was shooting at the head thug, so that meant that a stray shot hit the lylek and got its attention. The lylek charged the PCs and the NPCs, which complicated things greatly!

Basically whenever you want a despair to be an option. In our case I used dark side points, but I feel like as GM you have a lot of leeway to just use a red instead of a purple at your discretion.

It does prevent the situation of both sides flipping destiny points all the time when the other side does.

We had this happen a few times last night, to be honest I don't see a problem with it.

The one restriction I keep an eye on is that the other side can't flip literally the same destiny point that has just been flipped by the other side. For example, if there are 6 destiny points in play, all dark side, and I as GM flip a dark side point to upgrade to a challenge die, the players would not be able to turn over that one and only light side point.

But I haven't noticed any problems with being a little more free-form about it otherwise.

On a PbP game I have been running, I introduced one of the PCs as a slave in a gladiator pit (similar to TFU II). The pit was set like a game of American Gladiator where the PC was pit against 3 NPCs. all 4 of the combatants were given rudimentary weapons (brass knuckles or truncheons). The arena itself was filled with all sorts of installations pieces, obstacles and other such structures (think Hutt Ball from SW:TOR). In the middle of this arena was a deep, circular trench. The trench surrounds an "island" structure containing a ziggurat. On top of this ziggurat is heavy repeating blaster rigged to only deal stun damage (this was supposed to be a non-fatal fight). The only way to cross the trench was over one of several electrical mesh nettings that spanned the gap.

I made crossing the net an upgraded hard coordination check. I didn't bother spending a destiny point, the net was really unstable and the threat of just falling off and into the "blackness" was meant to be there. the player didn't mind one bit, and he completely understood for me wanting to upgrade that difficulty without needing to spend the DP. I should also mention that he had to make several coordination checks to make it across, the same as the NPCs who were going for the blaster.

Ok it´s fate rpg situation-aspect invocation. I get it.

Yes, that's technically correct.

The acting party chooses first, the reacting party chooses second.

So you're right - if you want to stick to the rules-as-written, an acting PC cannot spend a destiny point to upgrade his ability in reaction to the GM spending one to upgrade the difficulty. He's already missed his chance.

Note, though, that this technically correct approach is a little awkward in practice. It requires you to always pause and ask the acting party, "Before we continue, do you wish to spend a destiny point on this roll?" Then, only after the acting party has clearly stated his choice, the reacting party may declare whether he wishes to spend a point.

I'm having trouble finding this anywhere in the rules.

Frankly, what is suggested here is too much like a card game. There's no "missed opportunity" to spend a Destiny Point in this game until the player rolls the dice pool.

It's on page 28, the second paragraph under "The Limits of Luck".

It clearly states that the acting party (usually a PC) first has the choice to spend a point to upgrade his Ability. Then, once that decision has been made, the reacting party (usually an NPC) has the choice to spend a point to upgrade the Difficulty.

The only "ambiguity" (if you consider it an ambiguity) is that it doesn't explicity state that the acting party doesn't get a second opportunity to change his mind after the reacting party has made its choice. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that this is clearly implied. It seems quite clear that the intent of the author is to say that the acting party has missed his chance by the time the reacting party is deciding.

There are also Challenge dice involved when making Piloting checks (unless the terrain is completely open with no obstacles). You take the highest of your vessel's current speed or half its silhouette as Difficulty dice, and then you upgrade a number of them to Challenge dice based on the lowest of those two. Same as upgrading skills.

If you're referring to the section "Stellar Phenomena or Terrain," I think you may be misunderstanding the rules. The piloting check mentioned here is only needed when passing near a dangerous obstacle, like an asteroid or black hole. Not every check requires one.

For terrain, it's specifically covered in Table 7-8 by adding setback dice, not challenge dice.

Lots of interesting stuff here: when to upgrade?

I actually had an idea here, but I don't think it would work. So I took it down.

Just as easy to houserule that only 1 can be used per action. Whomever initiates the action gets first dibs

you could, I personally don't see a point to it because they don't cancel each other out.

I actually thought that was actually the way it was written in the rules - 1 use per action - meaning a GM and a player can't use it on the same thing.

I might be imagining it, but I swear I read that somewhere in the CRB... or maybe I misunderstood what I read. I hate it when I think I remember something, but it's possible that I only think I remember something...

It is one use per action but both the GM and player can use a DP in the same roll. The party initiating the check gets to decide first whether or not to use a DP. EoE CRB p. 28 under "The Limits of Luck".

Some competitive rolls I have made the pc against the NPC ability directly in the dice pool. i.e., my Agility 2 pilot 1 smuggler puts 1 yellow, 2 green in pool with his equally skilled opponent contributing 1 red, 2 purples and roll away hoping for a success

Re: DP thread hijack

Our group ran into the "both use the points" problem early on, and switched to house rule that DP spent refresh at the end of the encounter (flipped). Occasionally, the pool is refreshed mid-encounter when something major changes things up, but I'm thinking of having something less handwavy in place in the future (like whenever there is a despair and triumph in the same roll.

Re: The original issue

I very rarely artificially upgrade difficulty. I think the instinct of most GMs is to raise or upgrade difficulties when setback dice should be used.

Some competitive rolls I have made the pc against the NPC ability directly in the dice pool. i.e., my Agility 2 pilot 1 smuggler puts 1 yellow, 2 green in pool with his equally skilled opponent contributing 1 red, 2 purples and roll away hoping for a success

That is, in fact, exactly how opposed checks are done. However, either you mistyped the Agility value in your example or you're generating dice pools wrong.

An Agility of 2 with one rank in Piloting would only generate P A . The higher value (in this case the Characteristic of 2) determines the size of the pool ( AA ), and then the lower value (The Piloting Skill of 1) upgrades the pool that many times ( AA -> P A ).

Some competitive rolls I have made the pc against the NPC ability directly in the dice pool. i.e., my Agility 2 pilot 1 smuggler puts 1 yellow, 2 green in pool with his equally skilled opponent contributing 1 red, 2 purples and roll away hoping for a success

Like Joker Two pointed out, the example is faulty...make sure you're generating the dice pools correctly!

But yes, this is a good example of when to upgrade the difficulty. When facing trained or otherwise highly skilled opponents, Challenge dice are appropriate and even called for.

I think the dice names help with this issue.

The difficulty dice represent just that, the difficulty of a given task, all other things being equal. How hard is it to crack this lock, see the hidden guy/thing, shoot the target at range, etc.

Setback die are generally environmental hardships, that is, something is not actively working against you, yet it is still making it harder. Environmental effects bring Setback, as does stress (e.g. taking fire, needing to hurry), local noms and mores for social checks, or anything else that's not directly involved in the task. I think I'll post a sister-topic to discuss the lack of Setbacks we GMs tend to have.

I'd agree with using challenge dice whenever something is actively opposing (i.e. challenging ) your action. Opposed checks have been pretty well covered (e.g. social checks). These can also be delayed opposed checks, like defusing a bomb could be against the saboteur's Skulduggery, or a defensive security program using it's programmers Computers skill.

It was noted that doing something under fire is generally a Setback. However, in certain circumstances, it could upgrade instead. For instance, you're climbing a cliff and someone is chasing you. They miss their shot, but Triumph. They don't hit you, but obliterate the part of the rock you were about to grab hold off, so now your climbing is more difficult. Or maybe they're trying to take you alive, so they took out your next handhold on purpose instead of shooting at you. Similarly, if you're chasing someone across a tightrope or a rickety bridge, and they're sawing at it to snap it before you make it across, causing the bridge to shake, that could be an upgrade. The idea is if something is directly opposed to you, challenging your ability to accomplish your task.

I also think you could gain some insight into the intent of challenge dice by looking at the vehicle obstacle rules, as there is no usage of DPs, nor an opposed NPC, but still reds involved.