SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

So...Savage Pathfinder is out...

Started by HappyDaze, June 17, 2021, 08:09:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Eirikrautha

Quote from: tenbones on June 21, 2021, 09:38:51 AM
Edit: I'm remiss in my posting etiquette if I don't put something constructive. Eirikrautha - you did post something cogent that I see a LOT and experienced myself about the Bullet Sponge phenomenon. That experience happens with new SW GM's because they haven't learned how to balance their ability to reward Bennies to their players. PC's shouldn't be hoarding Bennies for combat with whatever Big Bad or encounter that may happen in that session. Bennies should flow to incentivize PC's to do crazy shit. If you choke the flow of Bennies, you'll get hoarding. It's not intuitive for new GM's. This is one of the oldest complaints that come up with new SW GM's that is totally solvable and changes the entire way the game is played once that balance is established.
I'll deal with the part of your response that is about RPGs (as your ad hominems, opinions on conversational writing, and understanding of statistics are irrelevant... suffice it to say that one of us is right about properly modeling random systems and neither of us agrees who it is).  Let me take my experience with both SW:Deadlands and with other SW-based games (like Slipstream, et al.).  The issue of "hoarding" bennies had nothing to do with the frequency they were given.  In both those games the whole group got a Bennie anytime one of us drew a jack for initiative.  We would easily have 7-8 bennies available per person per 3-4 hour session.  Players didn't spend them on "cool" stuff due to, a) the fact that points for spells/psychic powers often needed bennies for recharge (as fast moving adventures often didn't give us the hours between uses for the points to recharge, and b) each player used them mostly to remove stuns and soak damage.  The only casualties we had in the game occurred once bennies were gone, which incentivized players to save bennies.  This is especially true when wounds carry a performance penalty.  Who wants to sit and miss turns due to stun, or fail every roll that doesn't ace because you are -2 from wounds?  The very mechanics of the game incentivized preserving bennies for soak rolls.
"Testosterone levels vary widely among women, just like other secondary sex characteristics like breast size or body hair. If you eliminate anyone with elevated testosterone, it's like eliminating athletes because their boobs aren't big enough or because they're too hairy." -- jhkim

Eirikrautha

Quote from: Mishihari on June 21, 2021, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 19, 2021, 09:03:37 PM
Quote from: tenbones on June 19, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
They are run through a simulation of thousands of rolls. Zadmar builds his own apps to test all the Savage Worlds rules (as he does his own design-work for the system).

I believe it's a probability aggregate based on the fact we're talking about literally splitting a 1.4% difference. Two Fudge dice apparently in his simulations make up that difference.
Uhhh, "simulations" are completely statistically invalid (no matter how many times you run one).  The math of the fudge dice should be calculable, which will determine if there are any benefits to them.  But,  no matter how you program it, a result from a "simulation" is always an anecdote.

???!!!

In a properly done simulation, the odds of the simulated result being more than infinitesimaly different than a calculated difference is, well, infinitesimal.  The explanation is lengthy - I'd suggest a course in probability and statistics if you want a full understanding.  And simulations get used more than calculations because they are often a lot less work.  I use "Monte Carlo" simulations all the time in issues a lot more important than an RPG, and we have great confidence in them.
I've also done probability simulations in my profession.  Ignoring the "properly done" issue concerning this topic, I can say that simulations can be useful, depending on their error and significance ranges.  I can also categorically assert that the mathematical calculation of non-complex probabilities (and complex multi-dependent probabilities are usually why simulations are used) is superior 100% of the time.  Do you disagree that a mathematically calculated probability (where that is possible) is more accurate than a simulated one?
"Testosterone levels vary widely among women, just like other secondary sex characteristics like breast size or body hair. If you eliminate anyone with elevated testosterone, it's like eliminating athletes because their boobs aren't big enough or because they're too hairy." -- jhkim

Mishihari

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 11:34:16 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on June 21, 2021, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 19, 2021, 09:03:37 PM
Quote from: tenbones on June 19, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
They are run through a simulation of thousands of rolls. Zadmar builds his own apps to test all the Savage Worlds rules (as he does his own design-work for the system).

I believe it's a probability aggregate based on the fact we're talking about literally splitting a 1.4% difference. Two Fudge dice apparently in his simulations make up that difference.
Uhhh, "simulations" are completely statistically invalid (no matter how many times you run one).  The math of the fudge dice should be calculable, which will determine if there are any benefits to them.  But,  no matter how you program it, a result from a "simulation" is always an anecdote.

???!!!

In a properly done simulation, the odds of the simulated result being more than infinitesimaly different than a calculated difference is, well, infinitesimal.  The explanation is lengthy - I'd suggest a course in probability and statistics if you want a full understanding.  And simulations get used more than calculations because they are often a lot less work.  I use "Monte Carlo" simulations all the time in issues a lot more important than an RPG, and we have great confidence in them.
I've also done probability simulations in my profession.  Ignoring the "properly done" issue concerning this topic, I can say that simulations can be useful, depending on their error and significance ranges.  I can also categorically assert that the mathematical calculation of non-complex probabilities (and complex multi-dependent probabilities are usually why simulations are used) is superior 100% of the time.  Do you disagree that a mathematically calculated probability (where that is possible) is more accurate than a simulated one?

Sure, mathematically calculated is more accurate, assuming that your mathematical model is correct in the first place.  However in a few minutes I can write a sim of any dice mechanic with a very high confidence level of being within a millionth of a percentage of the mathematically calculated result.  For me, doing the actual math takes somewhat longer if there are complex dice mechanics, so I'll take the easier approach. 

tenbones

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 11:18:38 AM
Quote from: tenbones on June 21, 2021, 09:38:51 AM
Edit: I'm remiss in my posting etiquette if I don't put something constructive. Eirikrautha - you did post something cogent that I see a LOT and experienced myself about the Bullet Sponge phenomenon. That experience happens with new SW GM's because they haven't learned how to balance their ability to reward Bennies to their players. PC's shouldn't be hoarding Bennies for combat with whatever Big Bad or encounter that may happen in that session. Bennies should flow to incentivize PC's to do crazy shit. If you choke the flow of Bennies, you'll get hoarding. It's not intuitive for new GM's. This is one of the oldest complaints that come up with new SW GM's that is totally solvable and changes the entire way the game is played once that balance is established.
I'll deal with the part of your response that is about RPGs (as your ad hominems, opinions on conversational writing, and understanding of statistics are irrelevant... suffice it to say that one of us is right about properly modeling random systems and neither of us agrees who it is).  Let me take my experience with both SW:Deadlands and with other SW-based games (like Slipstream, et al.).  The issue of "hoarding" bennies had nothing to do with the frequency they were given.  In both those games the whole group got a Bennie anytime one of us drew a jack for initiative.  We would easily have 7-8 bennies available per person per 3-4 hour session.  Players didn't spend them on "cool" stuff due to, a) the fact that points for spells/psychic powers often needed bennies for recharge (as fast moving adventures often didn't give us the hours between uses for the points to recharge, and b) each player used them mostly to remove stuns and soak damage.  The only casualties we had in the game occurred once bennies were gone, which incentivized players to save bennies.  This is especially true when wounds carry a performance penalty.  Who wants to sit and miss turns due to stun, or fail every roll that doesn't ace because you are -2 from wounds?  The very mechanics of the game incentivized preserving bennies for soak rolls.

I can only go by what you post. You said (my paraphrase) 'everyone hoarded bennies for soak rolls' - this is 101 Savage Worlds New GM issue. It's been a thing long addressed for years **long** before I ever started using Savage Worlds and a trap I fell into as a new GM myself.

This also is an issue with the older Explorer Edition more than the current SWADE Edition. You have a metric shit-ton of unspoken claims here that can't be addressed without details. Bennies for Jacks - okay so what? If the players are passive - which is a byproduct of the Benny-Hoarding-Starvation cycle, as I said the point of the Benny Economy to alleviate the Hoarding is actually handing them out to incentivize players to not do it.

I tend to play hardcore mode myself because I like it ultra-lethal (including Injury Tables - which I'm not sure you're aware of if you only played Explorer Edition), I'm merely pointing out without detail, there is nothing I can say but "You're doing it wrong" - which is something NO one wants to hear, nor something I want to say in the spirit of being constructive. I'd need more details if you care. Everything you're saying screams to me your GM is new to the system and has horrible pacing control.

As I said - this phenomenon is well established in previous editions as much as any other system has its "known issues". This one is also easily rectified in the hands of even a basic brand new GM with little effort. Your mileage etc. etc. etc. based on the GM.

tenbones

You realize you're bickering over an anomaly that is less than 1.4% in *very* specific circumstances?

This is a variation that supports what precisely? What system doesn't have an odd mathematical application for the sake of abstraction? Shall we trot out how AC is supposed to numerically represent 2000+ years of armor creation? This seems to be a fairly petty concern, unless you really love math.

What are we really doing here?

Maybe we should create a Systems thread where we can talk about probabilities and statistics and their abstract use in game mechanics? I'm not joking. I don't see the value of going back and forth this. It's like arguing about whether +1 to hit for high-ground in D&D renders the system invalid. It's worse than that because +1 in D&D is a 5% increase in success...

horsesoldier

Savage Pathfinder. A combination of my two least favorite systems.

Eirikrautha

Quote from: tenbones on June 21, 2021, 12:03:23 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 11:18:38 AM
Quote from: tenbones on June 21, 2021, 09:38:51 AM
Edit: I'm remiss in my posting etiquette if I don't put something constructive. Eirikrautha - you did post something cogent that I see a LOT and experienced myself about the Bullet Sponge phenomenon. That experience happens with new SW GM's because they haven't learned how to balance their ability to reward Bennies to their players. PC's shouldn't be hoarding Bennies for combat with whatever Big Bad or encounter that may happen in that session. Bennies should flow to incentivize PC's to do crazy shit. If you choke the flow of Bennies, you'll get hoarding. It's not intuitive for new GM's. This is one of the oldest complaints that come up with new SW GM's that is totally solvable and changes the entire way the game is played once that balance is established.
I'll deal with the part of your response that is about RPGs (as your ad hominems, opinions on conversational writing, and understanding of statistics are irrelevant... suffice it to say that one of us is right about properly modeling random systems and neither of us agrees who it is).  Let me take my experience with both SW:Deadlands and with other SW-based games (like Slipstream, et al.).  The issue of "hoarding" bennies had nothing to do with the frequency they were given.  In both those games the whole group got a Bennie anytime one of us drew a jack for initiative.  We would easily have 7-8 bennies available per person per 3-4 hour session.  Players didn't spend them on "cool" stuff due to, a) the fact that points for spells/psychic powers often needed bennies for recharge (as fast moving adventures often didn't give us the hours between uses for the points to recharge, and b) each player used them mostly to remove stuns and soak damage.  The only casualties we had in the game occurred once bennies were gone, which incentivized players to save bennies.  This is especially true when wounds carry a performance penalty.  Who wants to sit and miss turns due to stun, or fail every roll that doesn't ace because you are -2 from wounds?  The very mechanics of the game incentivized preserving bennies for soak rolls.

I can only go by what you post. You said (my paraphrase) 'everyone hoarded bennies for soak rolls' - this is 101 Savage Worlds New GM issue. It's been a thing long addressed for years **long** before I ever started using Savage Worlds and a trap I fell into as a new GM myself.

This also is an issue with the older Explorer Edition more than the current SWADE Edition. You have a metric shit-ton of unspoken claims here that can't be addressed without details. Bennies for Jacks - okay so what? If the players are passive - which is a byproduct of the Benny-Hoarding-Starvation cycle, as I said the point of the Benny Economy to alleviate the Hoarding is actually handing them out to incentivize players to not do it.

I tend to play hardcore mode myself because I like it ultra-lethal (including Injury Tables - which I'm not sure you're aware of if you only played Explorer Edition), I'm merely pointing out without detail, there is nothing I can say but "You're doing it wrong" - which is something NO one wants to hear, nor something I want to say in the spirit of being constructive. I'd need more details if you care. Everything you're saying screams to me your GM is new to the system and has horrible pacing control.

As I said - this phenomenon is well established in previous editions as much as any other system has its "known issues". This one is also easily rectified in the hands of even a basic brand new GM with little effort. Your mileage etc. etc. etc. based on the GM.
Well, I seriously doubt this is just GM inexperience, inasmuch as the bennie hoarding is a direct result of the incentive created by the system.  To expand on a comment I made above, this also is demonstrated in the flow of combat.  Unless you play with very low toughness PCs and monsters (in which case you'll go through bennies like candy), you're going to get the "hit - does nothing, hit - does nothing, hit - does nothing, hit - ace damage dice - 5 wounds - dead" pattern.  This works against the player as much as it works for the player, so you can either save your bennies so that you don't get -3 to every subsequent roll due to wounds, or you can use them and be out the first time your GM aces a damage roll (BTW, we played Slipstream using SWADE and saw no difference in this pattern).  I'm just curious as to what the "normal" flow of combat is supposed to be like, if this is somehow unusual.  I need direct examples of what it should look like, not vague assertions that it shouldn't happen like that.
"Testosterone levels vary widely among women, just like other secondary sex characteristics like breast size or body hair. If you eliminate anyone with elevated testosterone, it's like eliminating athletes because their boobs aren't big enough or because they're too hairy." -- jhkim

Shasarak

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 20, 2021, 08:58:12 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on June 20, 2021, 08:56:38 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 20, 2021, 10:13:37 AM
First, as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.  An anecdote is a single experience.  Data is information about a representative sample.

Thats the opposite of the saying.

The plural of anecdote is data - thats how you get data, by adding up all the anecdotes.
Nope.

A better definition: Data that I dont like is called anecdotes
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

tenbones

#68
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 02:32:30 PM
Well, I seriously doubt this is just GM inexperience, inasmuch as the bennie hoarding is a direct result of the incentive created by the system.  To expand on a comment I made above, this also is demonstrated in the flow of combat.  Unless you play with very low toughness PCs and monsters (in which case you'll go through bennies like candy), you're going to get the "hit - does nothing, hit - does nothing, hit - does nothing, hit - ace damage dice - 5 wounds - dead" pattern.  This works against the player as much as it works for the player, so you can either save your bennies so that you don't get -3 to every subsequent roll due to wounds, or you can use them and be out the first time your GM aces a damage roll (BTW, we played Slipstream using SWADE and saw no difference in this pattern).  I'm just curious as to what the "normal" flow of combat is supposed to be like, if this is somehow unusual.  I need direct examples of what it should look like, not vague assertions that it shouldn't happen like that.

Except everything you're describing is exactly that. Hell, the very way you're describing play it's as if you're playing mechanics as the game. I could reduce D&D down to the same algorithm - you swing, miss? Hit! roll damage. Rinse/repeat. This game is boring. The fact that you experience this shows me your GM either has you fighting things beyond your ability - or he's like me and likes things bloody but he never decided to tell his players (you) that.

The Benny economy properly managed (and honestly it's *NOT* that hard. Just hand out Bennys for the shit you like your players doing). If you never incentivize them for that of course they're going to hoard, especially in a brutal game where despite their abilities every fight gets them down to 3 Wounds. You're putting them in siege mode. Unless the setting is supposed to be like that, he's managing it wrong. That's crazy.

There is a miscommunication happening, clearly. I've been running this thing across multiple genres from lowly normy-humans fighting quasi-supernatural shit, to mountain shattering Rifts, fights rarely last more than a few rounds and it gets deadly when it's appropriately supposed to be deadly. Sure you can get your wild rolls where exploding dice insta-kill someone. OH WELL enjoy the easy kill PC's. And it's happened to PCs on occasion too.

But moderating all of that requires the GM to understand the system. Not sure what to tell you, your stories sound like others new to the system - including me, which dissolved the moment it clicked on Bennys. That took like two sessions to figure out. /shrug.

tenbones

Quote from: horsesoldier on June 21, 2021, 02:08:14 PM
Savage Pathfinder. A combination of my two least favorite systems.

Actually it's just Savage Worlds as a system. The setting is a very stripped down version of Pathfinder's Golarion. There is nothing overtly "Pathfinder" systemwise in here other than a Savage Worlds facsimile of some of the concepts. All of which are completely ignorable.

You don't have to take a Class Edge for instance. You can simply just play normally and you get some side bonuses instead. Somehow, heh I don't think this is going to matter for you, but it bears mentioning for anyone that thinks this is Pathfinder's system. It's not. It's SWADE.

Eirikrautha

#70
Quote from: tenbones on June 21, 2021, 06:13:37 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 02:32:30 PM
Well, I seriously doubt this is just GM inexperience, inasmuch as the bennie hoarding is a direct result of the incentive created by the system.  To expand on a comment I made above, this also is demonstrated in the flow of combat.  Unless you play with very low toughness PCs and monsters (in which case you'll go through bennies like candy), you're going to get the "hit - does nothing, hit - does nothing, hit - does nothing, hit - ace damage dice - 5 wounds - dead" pattern.  This works against the player as much as it works for the player, so you can either save your bennies so that you don't get -3 to every subsequent roll due to wounds, or you can use them and be out the first time your GM aces a damage roll (BTW, we played Slipstream using SWADE and saw no difference in this pattern).  I'm just curious as to what the "normal" flow of combat is supposed to be like, if this is somehow unusual.  I need direct examples of what it should look like, not vague assertions that it shouldn't happen like that.

Except everything you're describing is exactly that. Hell, the very way you're describing play it's as if you're playing mechanics as the game. I could reduce D&D down to the same algorithm - you swing, miss? Hit! roll damage. Rinse/repeat. This game is boring. The fact that you experience this shows me your GM either has you fighting things beyond your ability - or he's like me and likes things bloody but he never decided to tell his players (you) that.

The Benny economy properly managed (and honestly it's *NOT* that hard. Just hand out Bennys for the shit you like your players doing). If you never incentivize them for that of course they're going to hoard, especially in a brutal game where despite their abilities every fight gets them down to 3 Wounds. You're putting them in siege mode. Unless the setting is supposed to be like that, he's managing it wrong. That's crazy.

There is a miscommunication happening, clearly. I've been running this thing across multiple genres from lowly normy-humans fighting quasi-supernatural shit, to mountain shattering Rifts, fights rarely last more than a few rounds and it gets deadly when it's appropriately supposed to be deadly. Sure you can get your wild rolls where exploding dice insta-kill someone. OH WELL enjoy the easy kill PC's. And it's happened to PCs on occasion too.

But moderating all of that requires the GM to understand the system. Not sure what to tell you, your stories sound like others new to the system - including me, which dissolved the moment it clicked on Bennys. That took like two sessions to figure out. /shrug.
You never answered the question, though.  What should a "correct" encounter look like?  When should bennies be used, especially in combat, if not to soak?  You keep saying that the way the game played for us was "beginner mistakes."  OK, then what is the "advanced version"?  I'm beginning to think you don't have any actual advice, since you can't give any clearly.

To compare with your D&D example:  Actually, you are saying exactly what I did above.  D&D combat can feel just as much of a slog as does SW (lot's of rounds of nothing, then poof - the monster is dead).  How would I change that?  Specific examples for D&D 5e: use optional rules for flanking to help generate more varied combats.  Be more generous with advantage (players who give up their action for some kind of maneuver should always convey advantage to multiple allies, not just the next attack).  Use varied terrain and obstacles, and traps that modify the environment (and not just cause damage).  Use environments where shoves and grapples/dragging open up more combat options.  Create choices through monster placement and type (attack the missile weapon mobs above or charge the toughs in front?).  All of these can be used to change the normal D&D slog.  Note that some are mechanical in nature, and some depend on D&D mechanics to work.  So what are the strategies to create variable combats and differing use of bennies (and don't say "what you just said," because they don't all work the same in SW as they do in D&D)?
"Testosterone levels vary widely among women, just like other secondary sex characteristics like breast size or body hair. If you eliminate anyone with elevated testosterone, it's like eliminating athletes because their boobs aren't big enough or because they're too hairy." -- jhkim

Shrieking Banshee

While not Tembones, how quickly combat happens can be pretty easily calculated, depending on the foes toughness and players weapons.

If the players have low damage dealing weapons, and the foes have jacked up toughness, its gonna take forever.

Assuming the players are also innacurate and can't do headshots or the like.

oggsmash

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on June 22, 2021, 01:10:35 AM
While not Tembones, how quickly combat happens can be pretty easily calculated, depending on the foes toughness and players weapons.

If the players have low damage dealing weapons, and the foes have jacked up toughness, its gonna take forever.

Assuming the players are also innacurate and can't do headshots or the like.

Or flank, or gang up, or gang tackle a foe and slide a dagger in their throat.  I think some of the toughness of opponents is overcome with wild attacks (similar to all out attacks from GURPS), targeted attacks from the drop, etc.  I appreciate that sometimes a head on assault wont get it done.  I also think we have been somewhat programmed by D&D to keep attacking till we hit that critical as other than a rogue, there is not always big value in positioning or outnumbering a foe.   I also found from a couple of games using SW against tough foes, magic is a serious force multiplier (smite, especially with a raise makes a massive difference for the grunts/warriors) in that many spells roll multiple dice (as well as the ranged spells seem to have better odds at getting a raise) and the chances of those aces make a big difference.

Eirikrautha

Quote from: oggsmash on June 22, 2021, 09:01:22 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on June 22, 2021, 01:10:35 AM
While not Tembones, how quickly combat happens can be pretty easily calculated, depending on the foes toughness and players weapons.

If the players have low damage dealing weapons, and the foes have jacked up toughness, its gonna take forever.

Assuming the players are also innacurate and can't do headshots or the like.

Or flank, or gang up, or gang tackle a foe and slide a dagger in their throat.  I think some of the toughness of opponents is overcome with wild attacks (similar to all out attacks from GURPS), targeted attacks from the drop, etc.  I appreciate that sometimes a head on assault wont get it done.  I also think we have been somewhat programmed by D&D to keep attacking till we hit that critical as other than a rogue, there is not always big value in positioning or outnumbering a foe.   I also found from a couple of games using SW against tough foes, magic is a serious force multiplier (smite, especially with a raise makes a massive difference for the grunts/warriors) in that many spells roll multiple dice (as well as the ranged spells seem to have better odds at getting a raise) and the chances of those aces make a big difference.
OK, I'll look into what you have mentioned (I've never seen "wild attacks," etc.).  How do you help stop the "bennie hoarding" we started the conversation with, though?  It still seems like bennies are best used to soak, with every other use being wildly inferior.
"Testosterone levels vary widely among women, just like other secondary sex characteristics like breast size or body hair. If you eliminate anyone with elevated testosterone, it's like eliminating athletes because their boobs aren't big enough or because they're too hairy." -- jhkim

Shrieking Banshee

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2021, 10:34:47 AMOK, I'll look into what you have mentioned (I've never seen "wild attacks," etc.).  How do you help stop the "bennie hoarding" we started the conversation with, though?  It still seems like bennies are best used to soak, with every other use being wildly inferior.

Not Tenbones or Oggsmash again, and I don't know if wild attacks are a thing in Explorer Edition (I know they are in Adventure Edition):

But SW (At least in my experience) favors the attacker. My players have found it better to hit well during critical times then hope for a soak, because enemy damage can spike.
Maybe try out saying that only 'Starter' bennies can be used to soak, and the rest during the game usable for other stuff. That can ween you into the process.

But I will also admit this may be a 'more of a art then a science' type of deal.