I've been looking at the Difficulty Number chart lately, and I've wondered if it should be trimmed down quite a bit. There's three versions of difficult after all. I mean, is there really much of a statistical difference between getting 10 and 12?
In other words, any math junkies here willing to hammer out what would be a (relatively) linear difficulty progression, where each step is more or less and even jump from before?
I'm considering 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 15, but it's sort of wobbly (we see a 4 jump between 8 and 12, then back down to 3 for 12 and 15?). The old 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 is such a clean progression, with the only larger jump being for "nigh impossible."
Streamlining the Difficulty Chart
I don't know how you originally arrived at the DNs? If you're only using the base 2D6 roll, the Ricochet System will generate an average result of 3 or 4 (6 or 8 if you roll doubles)? I'm not a mathematician, but I know someone did a statistics chart on this forum. I guess you have to use something like that?
I know that Traveller (another 2D6 system) uses 8 as their average target number. After switching to a "roll-over" system, BESM 3rd edition converted to a target number chart and designates 12 as an average difficulty number with a 3 point variable (6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 24). Both of these systems add the dice together and assumes you're going to add something on top of that.
UPDATE: I found the post here. It was done by Father of Dragons.
viewtopic.php?t=1911
I know that Traveller (another 2D6 system) uses 8 as their average target number. After switching to a "roll-over" system, BESM 3rd edition converted to a target number chart and designates 12 as an average difficulty number with a 3 point variable (6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 24). Both of these systems add the dice together and assumes you're going to add something on top of that.
UPDATE: I found the post here. It was done by Father of Dragons.
viewtopic.php?t=1911
What number of dice are being rolled by a character to compare it to a DN that is easy or difficult?
Richochet can seem very hard to figure out the odds...since the more dice you roll the more richochet comes into play - and it can seem to vary wildly.
Just for fun we tried just setting a target DN for success as always 6 (since we were using a d6 system)...then we would subtract dice from their pool based on difficulty instead of upping the DN:
+2 dice for easy tasks
0 for moderate or average tasks
-2 for challenging
-4 difficult
-6 extremely difficult
-10 for nigh impossible
Worked out okay, but far less chance of someone with just 3 dice getting lucky and making a nigh impossible roll. Some campaigns might like that but we felt reaching nigh impossible should have more ability levels backing up any attempts.
Example, with (using Father of Dragon's chart) rolling 12 dice against a DN 15 was ~67% of success (and you even had a shot with just 3 dice albeit small shot ~1%). Having a -10 dice penalty for impossible vs DN 6 was ~38% (and not even considered til a character had 10 or more dice to roll)
I should also mention:
This also had synergy with a house rule we agreed - you couldn't buy more drama dice than the original # of dice you had to roll. Doing that put in a needed limit for us - we didn't feel we could just buy success and keep rolling dice until the endurance ran out. Miracles (where you do buy success) were kind of weird in some cases, like contested rolls were the value of success was dependent on how much you beat the DN, not by just beating it - such as attack with damage multiplier rolls but that's another subject. So it worked out okay in our case with less dice rolling around (because the dice penalty would lower the original # of dice) - rolling 12-14 dice (or more with drama) could get...distracting.
Only problem with this - which didn't come up often but considering..was on tasks where you had no real DN to target and for some reason you just rolled to see how good you did like in performance.
Richochet can seem very hard to figure out the odds...since the more dice you roll the more richochet comes into play - and it can seem to vary wildly.
Just for fun we tried just setting a target DN for success as always 6 (since we were using a d6 system)...then we would subtract dice from their pool based on difficulty instead of upping the DN:
+2 dice for easy tasks
0 for moderate or average tasks
-2 for challenging
-4 difficult
-6 extremely difficult
-10 for nigh impossible
Worked out okay, but far less chance of someone with just 3 dice getting lucky and making a nigh impossible roll. Some campaigns might like that but we felt reaching nigh impossible should have more ability levels backing up any attempts.
Example, with (using Father of Dragon's chart) rolling 12 dice against a DN 15 was ~67% of success (and you even had a shot with just 3 dice albeit small shot ~1%). Having a -10 dice penalty for impossible vs DN 6 was ~38% (and not even considered til a character had 10 or more dice to roll)
I should also mention:
This also had synergy with a house rule we agreed - you couldn't buy more drama dice than the original # of dice you had to roll. Doing that put in a needed limit for us - we didn't feel we could just buy success and keep rolling dice until the endurance ran out. Miracles (where you do buy success) were kind of weird in some cases, like contested rolls were the value of success was dependent on how much you beat the DN, not by just beating it - such as attack with damage multiplier rolls but that's another subject. So it worked out okay in our case with less dice rolling around (because the dice penalty would lower the original # of dice) - rolling 12-14 dice (or more with drama) could get...distracting.
Only problem with this - which didn't come up often but considering..was on tasks where you had no real DN to target and for some reason you just rolled to see how good you did like in performance.
-WARNING! Play at own risk.
Well, theoretically, the game supports doing just what you say, Erinak. The Game Master can pick the same DN every time and resort to Penalties and Bonuses instead. Admittedly, there's no guidelines, but still...
Having given a second look at White Dragon's probability chart, (thanks calibur!) I remember how surprised I was that there actually is a pretty nice scale in each level. Each difficulty level you go up, you roughly halve your chances. The only bump in this is 10, which seems to drop only by a fourth from 8, and then only a fourth again when you move to 12. If you skip ten, you stick to the semi-half drop each time.
But once again, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 15 is such a weird looking chain.
Hmm.
Having given a second look at White Dragon's probability chart, (thanks calibur!) I remember how surprised I was that there actually is a pretty nice scale in each level. Each difficulty level you go up, you roughly halve your chances. The only bump in this is 10, which seems to drop only by a fourth from 8, and then only a fourth again when you move to 12. If you skip ten, you stick to the semi-half drop each time.
But once again, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 15 is such a weird looking chain.
Hmm.
I'd seriously consider including those guidelines in there, or even better, get rid of one of 'em. Either stick with assigning a Difficulty Number, or keep the same target number and apply Dice Penalties or Bonuses.Clay wrote:Well, theoretically, the game supports doing just what you say, Erinak. The Game Master can pick the same DN every time and resort to Penalties and Bonuses instead. Admittedly, there's no guidelines, but still...
-Nate
And here's the thing about point based chargen...it's not the easiest for new players, nor does it help the players into making characters that jive with one another.
I think making Abilities purely effects-based can also be problematic. Abilities like Attack, although simple enough, force players into taking strings of them. So, instead of Faithful Robot Companion 2, you have Servant 2, plus whatever Abilities and Weaknesses you decide to give it. This is great for people who've been playing rpgs and enjoy that kind of thing, but not so great for people who haven't been. "I want to shoot fireballs!" becomes, Attack+Area Effect+Continued Damage+Ranged.
Putting some examples, whether in the form of NPCs or not, is probably a good idea. Have you considered putting some examples along with the Ability descriptions?
-Nate
I think making Abilities purely effects-based can also be problematic. Abilities like Attack, although simple enough, force players into taking strings of them. So, instead of Faithful Robot Companion 2, you have Servant 2, plus whatever Abilities and Weaknesses you decide to give it. This is great for people who've been playing rpgs and enjoy that kind of thing, but not so great for people who haven't been. "I want to shoot fireballs!" becomes, Attack+Area Effect+Continued Damage+Ranged.
Putting some examples, whether in the form of NPCs or not, is probably a good idea. Have you considered putting some examples along with the Ability descriptions?
-Nate
The main reason for both is this: In a contested action between characters, you'll need penalties and bonuses to differentiate circumstances between them. There is no DN to modify up or down. Also, the entire Abilities/Weaknesses system is like built-in Bonuses/Penalties to a character.
But at the same time, trying to convey a static task is more difficult by burdening the player with Penalities is not cool. Rolling negative dice to pull off the impressive feat of hiding in plain site totally derails half the point of a dice pool system, where you can FEEL the power in your hands by the massive number of dice you roll.
That, and nothing is as easy as comparing your roll to a number.
Having both is not nearly as contradictory as it would appear. DN represents how hard the task is. Penalties represent additional problems with completing the task that are not always present or not present to everyone trying the task.
Flying in a hurricane is difficult for everyone and deserves a higher DN. Flying with a broken wing is only difficult for you and deserves a penalty.
Make sense?
But at the same time, trying to convey a static task is more difficult by burdening the player with Penalities is not cool. Rolling negative dice to pull off the impressive feat of hiding in plain site totally derails half the point of a dice pool system, where you can FEEL the power in your hands by the massive number of dice you roll.
That, and nothing is as easy as comparing your roll to a number.
Having both is not nearly as contradictory as it would appear. DN represents how hard the task is. Penalties represent additional problems with completing the task that are not always present or not present to everyone trying the task.
Flying in a hurricane is difficult for everyone and deserves a higher DN. Flying with a broken wing is only difficult for you and deserves a penalty.
Make sense?
As for Point-Based Char-Gen...you should check the Revised Edition Blog posts detailing the new Attack ability. Half its purpose is that you don't have to define attacks if you do not want to. For example, if you want a ninja who's just plain bad-assed and don't want to worry about it, just give him Attack +3. You can say he's shooting fire from his fingers, roundhouse kicking, or ninja-swording, it doesn't really matter as far as the game's concerned. Just add DT to your attack and go wild with the description.
Likewise, Servant (now Companion), Vehicle, and other "Create a new character" Abilities can also just represent a general usefulness.
Likewise, Servant (now Companion), Vehicle, and other "Create a new character" Abilities can also just represent a general usefulness.
Clay, I understand it, but think it's unnecessary.Clay wrote:Make sense?
How hard is it to just bump it up the Difficulty Level?
Okay, you're flying thru a tornado with a broken wing, just bump up the difficulty.
Having two things that essentially have the same effect is complicated for the sake of being complicated.
Isn't that what you're trying to do with redundant Abilities? Trim the fat?
It still comes down to one person deciding who hard(or easy)something is. Making what could often times be pretty dramatic, more difficult.
Which is a kinda an odd thing in itself, if ya think about it.
As I said, modifiers have to remain for two reasons: One, in contested rolls, it's the only way to differentiate circumstances between two parties. Two, because Abilities and Weaknesses themselves are a kind of Bonus/Penalty, it would be silly the remove the possibility to make up such things on the fly.
If you want to use the DN exclusively, you can. Nothing in the rules states you can't. In fact, generally, it's what I'd do. But removing Bonuses/Penalties just makes contested rolls complex.
If you can think of a solution, I'm all ears. But I don't think there's a simpler way to handle it. You could make difficulties actual rolls, (ie, a challenging task may be versus 3 dice, while a very difficult might be versus 6) but random difficulty systems both don't make a lot of sense and tend to bog down the game with ceaseless rolling.
If you want to use the DN exclusively, you can. Nothing in the rules states you can't. In fact, generally, it's what I'd do. But removing Bonuses/Penalties just makes contested rolls complex.
If you can think of a solution, I'm all ears. But I don't think there's a simpler way to handle it. You could make difficulties actual rolls, (ie, a challenging task may be versus 3 dice, while a very difficult might be versus 6) but random difficulty systems both don't make a lot of sense and tend to bog down the game with ceaseless rolling.
I agree with you on using a DN for contested rolls...it'd be tricky.
It'd be neat to give players a way to tap into Abilities and Weaknesses for those contests...not just leaving it up to GM approval, player intuition and rules interpretation. Making Abilities and Weaknesses less static. What good are Weaknesses during play, other than to give negative points during chargen, and to round out a character? Sure some Weaknesses have a crunchy side, like Frail, but others like Pacifist or Naive are just there to either roleplay or ignore. Which for some people is fine, I agree. But what good is something if it's never used? It'd be neat to actually use them...either to get something or take something from someone or thing. Weaknesses in play are fairly lazy or things solely for the GM to use against players. They're reactive. Players, for the most part, use their Abilities more than their Weaknesses. Not always, but for the most part.
What I'm saying is if you let the players choose, and then give those choices actual weight, you needn't worry so much about bonuses or penalties.
Shouldn't Pacifist effect combat? Either positively or negatively? Not just thru choice(roleplay), but thru use. Why couldn't I attack with Pacifist or defend using it?
I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative? If I am, I apologize.
I just love roleplaying.
It'd be neat to give players a way to tap into Abilities and Weaknesses for those contests...not just leaving it up to GM approval, player intuition and rules interpretation. Making Abilities and Weaknesses less static. What good are Weaknesses during play, other than to give negative points during chargen, and to round out a character? Sure some Weaknesses have a crunchy side, like Frail, but others like Pacifist or Naive are just there to either roleplay or ignore. Which for some people is fine, I agree. But what good is something if it's never used? It'd be neat to actually use them...either to get something or take something from someone or thing. Weaknesses in play are fairly lazy or things solely for the GM to use against players. They're reactive. Players, for the most part, use their Abilities more than their Weaknesses. Not always, but for the most part.
What I'm saying is if you let the players choose, and then give those choices actual weight, you needn't worry so much about bonuses or penalties.
Shouldn't Pacifist effect combat? Either positively or negatively? Not just thru choice(roleplay), but thru use. Why couldn't I attack with Pacifist or defend using it?
I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative? If I am, I apologize.
I just love roleplaying.
Not at all. I love discussing the game, and it's only through disagreement and debate that things improve. I was just genuinely perplexed how to eliminate the duality of DN and modifiers. The only way I can think of was the random difficulty (so that, in effect, ALL rolls are opposed rolls) but...yeah. What does everyone else think about that? Ironclaw did it, and I'm sure several others, too. Might even be easier to remember, as long as you follow the basic "+1 is good, +5 is cosmically godly" rationale for difficulty.
Anyway, in OVA it's always been possible to add any Ability you want to a task, as long as you can justify it. And while the old game touched on it under "Intimidate", there is now a specific heading under Taking Action that describes "Reverse Modifiers," that is, using Weaknesses as a Bonus and Abilities as Penalties.
It'll never be quite as robust as, say, Spirit of the Century, where the game's Aspects are intentionally open to being both negative and positive, but this heading does give a canonical approach to doing such things, and I think a clear divide between good attributes and bad attributes is much easier on inexperienced players to understand.
As for crunching the role-play Weaknesses, I was always under the impression such things should be role-played out instead of rolled for, and that the limitation of choices justifies their existence. I mean, it's hard to ignore Pacifist -3 if you were running a Dragon Ball Z type of campaign...
Of course, any Weakness can be applied to any roll. If the group decides Pacifist -2 should be a Penalty to attack rolls, go for it. Even though the game gives specific suggestions for what Abilities and Weaknesses to use, never feel you can't use them creatively! Perhaps I should add a section elaborating on that fact...
Anyway, in OVA it's always been possible to add any Ability you want to a task, as long as you can justify it. And while the old game touched on it under "Intimidate", there is now a specific heading under Taking Action that describes "Reverse Modifiers," that is, using Weaknesses as a Bonus and Abilities as Penalties.
It'll never be quite as robust as, say, Spirit of the Century, where the game's Aspects are intentionally open to being both negative and positive, but this heading does give a canonical approach to doing such things, and I think a clear divide between good attributes and bad attributes is much easier on inexperienced players to understand.
As for crunching the role-play Weaknesses, I was always under the impression such things should be role-played out instead of rolled for, and that the limitation of choices justifies their existence. I mean, it's hard to ignore Pacifist -3 if you were running a Dragon Ball Z type of campaign...
Of course, any Weakness can be applied to any roll. If the group decides Pacifist -2 should be a Penalty to attack rolls, go for it. Even though the game gives specific suggestions for what Abilities and Weaknesses to use, never feel you can't use them creatively! Perhaps I should add a section elaborating on that fact...