Star Wars meandering

[Mike Holmes]

Buzz.

Damnintall, Walt got me. He's correct of course. I plead reading too fast.

That said, I think my point still stands. That being that, unless one likes the bag solution, an equivalent dice solution can be arrived at by using a larger die and also limiting the drop. That is, if you start at 100, and go down by one for each infraction (instead of dropping from 20), by the time you hit ten infractions your chance of having succumbed is about 55%, or about what we're shooting for.

As it happens, this also makes each attempt more likely to succeed, individually, especially at the start, which means that the player may feel more tempted to get started down the road, and keep on it.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Following up on Mike Holmes and John Kim ...

I don't see the options limited to free-form vs. mechanical; in fact, I venture to say that this dichotomy is largely not an issue in role-playing in general. Both my Tunnels & Trolls example (which was not about morality but could be adapted into a Dark Side mechanic) and my Sorcerer example are based on my preferred approach that choice leads to Fortune outcome leads to new basis for choice.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

Mike, you're right about the 100-point mechanism, but I see the deceptiveness of the odds as a big potential problem. I think many if not most players would see going down to 90 from a starting point of 100 as being still very much in a "safe" part of the range, unaware that even to get that far is taking a cumulative risk almost tantamount to a coin flip. Many would probably also see 80 points as "still pretty good" and not realize that using the next 10 points from 90 to 80 would be far riskier still (about a 4 in 5 chance of going over, in those ten checks alone). This seems almost like entrapment.

Ron, I agree on the power of the mechanisms you cite in representing incremental change. The split between free-form vs. mechanical arises when what's being modeled is a catastrophic (discontinuous) change, like Banner turning into the Hulk: he doesn't get more and more Hulk-like as anger builds up; he hits a threshold and that's it, all or nothing. Ultimately, in such a case, the final deciding factor at the moment the change-over occurs has to be either a mechanical result or a player choice. (Even if the mechanism involves both, in the end one or the other must have had the final say in any given instance.)

Now, Drew and others disagree with me on whether or not "going over to the Dark Side" in Star Wars should be modeled as a catastrophic event. I certainly have no problem with that.

In the T&T example, it appears to make a big difference whether or not the threshold is known by the player in advance. Is it? If it is, you know in advance that you have a number of safe draws, and you know when your next draw will no longer be safe. If it's not, what would that imply for extrapolating the mechanism to a standard system element for which the threshold would be difficult to keep secret from players?

- Walt

[JMendes]

Hello, :)

This seems almost like entrapment.

And that's bad because... ;>

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) Given the subject matter, entrapment is not much of a stretch of the imagination. At least subconscious entrapment. Also note that if you put those odds reservations in the rules themselves, then the entrapment, if still present at all, does become subconscious. I think that'd be ok, no?

Cheers,

J.

[clehrich]

Given the subject matter, entrapment is not much of a stretch of the imagination. At least subconscious entrapment. Also note that if you put those odds reservations in the rules themselves, then the entrapment, if still present at all, does become subconscious. I think that'd be ok, no?

I've gotta agree with Joao on this.  When you think about the list of things which turn you to the Dark Side, it does sort of seem like the entire universe, in difficult times at least, is out to entrap you.  Anger, fear, pride, impatience --- really, strong emotions of just about any kind.  If you're the sort of person who'll gamble, on any odds, that you can do something a little bit dubious and still come out smelling like a rose, you're well on the path to the Dark Side.  Besides, I just love the idea of the odds being deceptive.  Isn't that just how it is in the movies?  It seems like this action isn't that bad, and I'm sure it won't lead to more things like that, just this one time, really, I promise....

Time to get out the black helmet....

[Walt Freitag]

Y'know, you're both absolutely right. So okay, change that sentence to "This is, therefore, an ingenious mechanism for representing the insidious allure of the Dark Side."

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. Odds Opaqueness as a tool to guide player action. Neat. Ethics anyone? :-)

Also keep in mind the horseracing problem. That is, the odds must change in the middle of the race to keep up with the frontrunners if betting is allowed to continue after the bell (which is why it's not). In our case, a character who has already dropped 5 points and gotten away with it has, in fact, a substantially larger chance of making it to 10 down than when he started. As such, an even more insidious effect occurs, the "push your luck" effect. From a player POV, he's not looking at a target. He's just looking at that next roll. If the odds are 95% that he'll be fine for this roll, the player will often consider that alone in the current decision.

Oh yes, this will draw them in like flies, I think. Make it uncertain, and the effect increases I think. Say on each violation the GM rolls a d3-2 in secret. Perhaps the character has not been affected at all after 5 rolls. The player can assume 95% for his next roll. But since it's uncertain, he'll have even more incentive to consider the current situation over the ramifications.

This all assumes that compelling in game reasons can be made to use Dark Side powers.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

Walt, the T&T example was taken from a solo adventure module, so the threshold is known to the player. I think that makes sense; it's exactly the same as the difference between any Humanity value above 1 in Sorcerer and the value of 1 (which is known to the player).

The point in both cases is that there are three phases: (a) no result of the dice can "damn me," (2) the dice may or may not "damn me," and (3) damned.

So it's a lot like Blackjack. In the T&T example, the first gem gets you, maximum, 6. The problem is when you hit 14 or higher, and ... hit me? Um ...

I think this works better than an unknown threshold, as the "safe" score values act, essentially, as theme music throughout the history of the character.

Best,
Ron

[Jeremy Cole]

It seems the majority of posts now are on the merits of different rising risk* mechanics, where multiple rolls affect the chance of a certain test being made, or failing, in future.  While this mechanic might be part of a "dark side" element to a game, there are several other elements that need to be considered, if I have missed any, or if any could be better phrased, please give suggestions.

A good act/evil act mechanic, here specifically in relation to Star Wars, seems to consist of the following options;

Temptation - there must be some reason for choosing to take the risk of the dark side.  This can be bonusses to your actions, or new powers, but does it have to be?

Threat - the likelihood of suffering any repercussions from the dark side.  Should this increase as you take more dark options, and increase if you take increasingly dark options?  Should this be an either/or thing, or should it be a scaled threat, where you may suffer one of several penalties of increasing severity?  Are there any benefits to a guaranteed penalty, rather than a fortune based system?

Consequences - the negative result of taking the dark side option.  I personally hate the consequence, 'lose your character to the GM', that seems very non-enjoyable to me, I think there must be other options, such as the imposition of codes of behaviour proposed in the initial post.

Increasing decline - should choosing the dark side increase the likelihood of choosing it again, and increase the danger of the actions taken?  It seems that most mechanics discourage choosing the dark side with increasing regularity, which seems to me at odds with the films.

Redemption - most systems model decline, but not the chance of redemption, which again seems at odds with the films.  If a chance for redemption is desirable, how is this best done?

It seems to me the mechanics of rising risk being suggested are not the best way of representing the above, especially when coupled with the penalty of losing your character.  Going through that list of requirements, I'm increasingly thinking that a model of the temptation of the dark side, or anything similar, shouldn't be done with a pass/fail test.




*This was the best name I could come up with, sorry :)

[M. J. Young]

Increasing decline - should choosing the dark side increase the likelihood of choosing it again, and increase the danger of the actions taken?  It seems that most mechanics discourage choosing the dark side with increasing regularity, which seems to me at odds with the films.

Jeremy's right on this one; and maybe we can use the hidden odds to work in our favor on this.

What would happen were we to begin with a 30% chance that taking the dark side point send you over to the dark side, but then subtract dark side points from that probability? That is, if you have to roll 70 or less to not change, and then if you took the point the next roll could be as high as 71, then 72, et cetera....

I'm too tired and too rushed to crunch the numbers, but it seems obvious to me that the odds are astronomically against any player ever reaching 0% chance of going over to the dark side. The odds moving toward your favor becomes seductive. The young jedi who fears the dark side has strong incentive not to take the risk (that first choice has a very high chance of dominating his life forever), but with each choice it feels safer, even though the cumulative rolls are against you.

30% is probably too high to start; you might get away with 25%, as the odds of not going over to the dark side (twenty-five successful rolls to reach 0% chance of failure) is just below 3%.  If you start with 30%, you fall below 1% after the nineteenth roll, when you've got an 11% chance of failure.

Anyway, it's an idea.

--M. J. Young

[erithromycin]

I was thinking about this earlier this morning, and had a rather bizarre notion - rather than Jenga, how about Connect Four?

Every time you perform a 'Dark Side' action Red gets a piece to play, and every time you perform some noble or selfless act Yellow gets a piece.

Now, bringing in a different game for resolving this sort of thing does seem a little squiffy, but I like the fact that there's a temptation to push it so far, and try and 'block' the Dark Side for a little longer.

I'm not entirely sure how this would work over a campaign - either keeping a record of where the pieces were played or starting afresh each time a new piece was added, nor am I sure how you'd need to adjust the rules of Connect 4 to cope with dissimilar numbers of pieces that those involved were free to play. I'm verging on ultimate digression now, so I'll stop.

- drew

[Mike Holmes]

Problems with that method, MJ.

The odds from 70 to 100 are over half a percent, and from 75% are almost 3%. The problem is that you've only got a 50 $ chance to make it past two rolls. If you do make several rolls, somehow, then the horserace problem begins, and, since the player's odds are dramatically increased, he will keep rolling. Until he gets to, say, 90% where he has better than a 50% change of rolling out.

Then what?

Thematically it's all messed up, too. You're being rewarded for successfully avoiding the Dark Side with more resitance to the Dark Side.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

You're twice right, Mike; and I don't seriously think I've got the perfect answer here.

However, what I like about the system is that it is seductive.

Typically, the average role player looks at odds in a rather straightforward way: what are my chances of making this roll? If you've got a system in which the odds of failure keep going up (as with rolling against a percentage that increases with increasing darkside points) the system discourages you from taking the chance again. You eventually decide you've pushed your luck as far as you can push it, and you get out of the game.

But the dark side is supposed to work opposite to this. It's supposed to be that the more you yield to the forces of the dark side, the more tempted you are to do so again. By having the chance of failure decline with each success, you create the incentive for the player to act in a manner which reflects the expected feelings of the character. That is, each time I successfully use the dark side without suffering for it, as a character, I more and more believe myself invincible, that I can get away with it; and in the mechanics, the perceived odds reflect this, because as a player I'm being told that I have a lower and lower chance of failure, a better and better chance to avoid the dark side entirely.

I think there are a couple of tweaks necessary; I'm just not sure how to do them at this point. One is that, as you observe, the chance of failure is far too high on the first rolls. There has to be a level set at which the chance of failure is not so high on the first rolls, but is still high enough to make the player nervous about making those first rolls. Maybe a ten to fifteen percent chance of failure would do the job.

The other is that the system can't ever confer immunity on the character. Probably you'd have to stop at one percent; or maybe you could shift to a decimal (that is, if you roll 99 you have to roll another die for the tenths).

At some point you'd have a system in which the perception to the player would be that each time he gets away with using the dark side he's more likely to get away with it again; but because of the cumulative odds of repeated rolls, he's actually increasing his chance overall such that ultimately, if he allows himself to yield to the temptation, he will be caught.

--M. J. Young

[Jeremy Cole]

However, what I like about the system is that it is seductive.

Typically, the average role player looks at odds in a rather straightforward way: what are my chances of making this roll? If you've got a system in which the odds of failure keep going up (as with rolling against a percentage that increases with increasing darkside points) the system discourages you from taking the chance again. You eventually decide you've pushed your luck as far as you can push it, and you get out of the game.

I think you can expand that out, a player thinks 'what are the costs/benefits attached to this roll'.  That is, a player's choice is affected not only by the sliding probabilities, but also the sliding costs and benefits of taking the roll.  

With this in mind, keep the risk of falling to the dark side neutral, say 5% or something, but have have the power received for taking the dark side option increasing logarithmically, as ever increasing bonusses, or force powers with each one much greater than the last.

Noting this isn't a complete mechanic, but just something for illustrative purposes of where we could be looking, how about it as a way to encourage more common trips to the dark side?

[contracycle]

I was thinking about this earlier this morning, and had a rather bizarre notion - rather than Jenga, how about Connect Four?

Ah, nicely spotted.  As it happens I had wondered if Jenga could ever be used in RPG once upo a time, I like going back to succesful real games.
So there are several significant aspects to Jenga - it gets more complex over time, you can't opt out, its hard to tell when the fatal point has been reached, and skill in the act or lack thereof is also important.

It might help to have a better idea of what effect is intended for going over to the dark side.  Removing the character is pretty hefty penalty, but what is the penalty in the system proposed above?  It seems to me that encouraging the risk taking looks good, but that it won't get much more refined until some sort of consequential principles are established.  Perhaps its bad stuff that happens to other people that develops along the path; perhaps some other side effect to the character, or the setting up of future complications.  Anyway, if the fatal point is to be defferred, then something else will need to act as signifier of consequence during the process.