Schleiermacher wrote:In my opinion, this framing of the problem is backward. The only way to have a system that describes a consistent, verisimilar setting rather than a 4e-style bonus treadmill is to design the challenges first and determine what's level appropriate at any given level from there, rather than vice versa.
How do I design a challenge that is appropriate for characters of a given level when I don't know the DCs that characters at that level are capable of meeting, and how likely it is for them to do so?
Premise #2 is a little interesting though. If you want an action resolution system where character level is one of the most important determinants of skill, such that high-level Cavaliers routinely out-sneak low-level Assassins, premise #2 is a good way to define what "level" and "level appropriate" means.
That is entirely what I'm about, yes, so this is a good sign.
But:
1. then you need to be aware of what you're writing and the setting implications thereof.
And 2. that's not the only valid or functional way to define what level-appropriateness means.
Sure. What are some of those implications, as you see them?
It's fine for characters who work in different idioms to have different skill sets, even to the point that one auto-succeeds where another auto-fails, as long as that doesn't lock either of them out (or allow them to opt out) of being able to participate meaningfully in core gameplay, whatever that means for any given game.
Sure - not everyone can or should have max ranks in Hot Dog Eating, so when the Hot Dog Eating contest happens, the guy who specced it gets to feel like he didn't waste his time.
That said, I should have clarified that I'm considering these progressions for things akin to "save DC versus save bonuses" and "BAB versus AC" rather than skill checks, because I'm trying to work out the core gameplay mechanic first.
It's totally fine in the abstract for an adventure to have a Stealth challenge that the Assassin in the party can't fail and the Cavalier can't pass, as long as passing that challenge isn't the only way to succeed in the adventure. (In such a case the challenge wouldn't be "level appropriate" after all since the Cavalier can't pass it, and more importantly, it's restrictive, overly linear and generally bad adventure design.)
One of my assumptions, that auto-results are less fun than having to roll for it, is directly opposed to your scenario here, so I am really interested in your reasoning. Do you find it fun when no one at the table needs to roll for something that is supposed to be a major scripted challenge due to good character building or preparation or whatnot? For my part, I'm imagining here the opening scene of
Raiders of the Lost Ark, except instead of cautiously weighing out his bag of sand and making the quickest switch he can, Indy just yoinks the idol and strolls off with it scot-free.
In my opinion, it's OK if Princess Leia and Han Solo have literally zero chance of hitting the Death Star exhaust port from an X-Wing cockpit, since there's still some tension in the scene as long as Luke isn't guaranteed to hit it either and the others can participate in the scene in some different way.
tussock wrote:So, I can't help but notice, aside from the assumption of a level treadmill, you make no accounting for retries, group attempts, multiple characters all attempting separately, or any of that.
Those are good things to consider regarding skill checks and such, but these progressions are first and foremost meant to handle the nuts and bolts "BAB vs AC" kind of mechanics.
#1: 45% failure is happening constantly, that's certain failure for anything that can ever matter.
[...]
#3: If you're only rolling once, a 10% success rate never works, likewise, 85% success rates fail all the time if you roll more than once, and still a lot at just once. Assuming you roll these things more than once in a session, I hope the game can handle the quantity of failures you're throwing at perfect experts and stuff.
OK, we get to the meat of it. I picked my default 2d10 DC of 11 based on the 3.X average DC of 10; both of these have a 55% chance of success for a character with +0 bonus. Do you feel that 3.X also should have lower DCs in general? What, in your opinion, is the ideal chance of success on an "Average" check (or a basic attack vs a CR1 monster) for a rando lv1 adventurer?
#2: You seem to be OK with automatic success, and with effectively automatic failure, but not with both at the same time? That's, um, picky. Did you maybe just read that somewhere and not think it through? Like, maybe there are mostly characters other than the perfectly fit to task and not at all fit.
To the contrary: I don't like setting DCs such that the worst character has les than 10% chance to succeed, nor do I like setting DCs such that the best character has greater than 85% chance to succeed. Nor do I like the idea of someone having such a high bonus compared to the rest of the party that they auto-pass checks at their level's default DC.
#4: Really? You're not letting perfect experts succeed all the time at basic "level appropriate" tasks? That's not 100%? That's not, like, 100% after massive penalties?
I would define a "basic" task as one that has a relative DC in the 7-10 range. On such tasks, experts would have a 90%-99% success rate, which I think checks out.
F'rinstance: your Assassin with a +4 to Reflex Save has a 99% chance to hit a DC 7 avoid-the-crappy-poison-dart-trap check, while your Wizard type with +0 to same has an 85% chance to do the same. If anything I feel as though the wizard is getting too good a deal here, and that therefore you as the MC should only call for a roll if the DC is that low when you want everyone to pass - perhaps this DC 7 check comes in when the party triggers a low-power firebolt trap in the first rooms of a low-level dungeon.
For a DC 11 dodge-swinging-scythe-blades check, Joe Assassin is now batting at 85%, while Jimmy Wizard is down to 55%.
The examples above seem reasonable to me, but again, I'm looking for your feedback - is this too low?
So, like, OK, but maybe consider ...
What does failure even mean? Setbacks, damage, more things needing done? If failure is "try again" then none of this even matters, just roll a d6 until you get a 6. If failure does hurt, and will stack with other failures, then fail rates need to come way down.
Good question. My current thinking on the subject is that a failure that misses the DC by 1-9 points has no special consequences beyond losing the time it took to make the check (may or may not have a chance to retry depending on circumstances), whereas a failure that misses the DC by 10+ does bring with it some kind of consequences - something like "you broke the lock by doing such a shitty job of picking it" or "you committed a terrible faux pas and now the Duke won't talk to you".
If you're allowing multiple characters to try to succeed, what happens? Because you could be collapsing the failure rates to near-zero if they all have to fail, or collapsing the success rates no near-zero if they all have to succeed, or doing unexpected things if half of them have to succeed (seriously, it'll flick from near-0% to near-100% very quickly).
And if you need to chain these things together to get anywhere, hello, that's also way too low of a success rate.
That is a serious problem, but it's not unique to any RNG or set of guideposts on an RNG. It's easy enough to deal with all this when checks are made 1 character at a time. Going back to talking about skill checks, your Assassin might silently scale castle walls for breakfast, but when he's dragging along Cavalier, Wizard, and Swordguy, he's basically hopeless.
The options, as I see them, are:
- keep the spotlight on character specialties as briefly as possible (not satisfying to the person who specced Hot Dog Eating when the hot dog contest is one roll and only happens once),
- split the party in order to put the spotlight on everyone's specialty in turn (doesn't work because everyone else goes to play Smash until their turns),
- or give everyone a chance to contribute in all circumstances... or to at least be relatively assured of not fucking it up for everyone.
I feel like Door #3 there is the least of those evils, but maybe there's a Door #4 I'm not seeing. Perhaps in cases like Assassin trying to drag the whole party up the wall with him, the best solution might be to cover for his partymates' lack of skill by taking a different approach. I'm imagining a zany scheme involving fake beards and a work order for latrine cleaning; something that would still leverage Assassin's stealth abilities by letting his skills give a benefit to his teammates while still letting them participate.
So, what are you even doing with these numbers, man?
A good question. Ideally, making a game about gaining power by beating up monsters and using that power to beat up bigger monsters until you find yourself punching Zeus in the face because you don't like how he runs the cosmos. Realistically, probably nothing.