Is it... too simple? (Related experience inside)

I can understand your intention to avoid too much gaming of the system, but the way it is seems to be too far in the other direction. It's TOO random. But what I really mean by that is that it's too random for resource expenditure. If it were just the skills and assets - all the static bonuses - then the d20 mechanic would be fine as is. But once you throw in the effort mechanic, now you're basically paying for what is still a very random roll.

In simpler terms, it's sort of like flipping a coin and being given the option to spend a character resource to win on "edge" as well as "heads." Obviously it's not quite that extreme, but that's how it feels to me. Ultimately I'm still just guessing blind whether or not I need the effort, and I'd rather not do that with a finite resource.

Another fix would be to turn effort into rerolls rather than a very slight bonus. That would be a HUGE difference. And I wouldn't even mind doing so in advance, like if you got an extra d20 to roll for every point of effort you spent. I would be all over that.

Fairman Rogers said:

I can understand your intention to avoid too much gaming of the system, but the way it is seems to be too far in the other direction. It's TOO random. But what I really mean by that is that it's too random for resource expenditure. If it were just the skills and assets - all the static bonuses - then the d20 mechanic would be fine as is. But once you throw in the effort mechanic, now you're basically paying for what is still a very random roll.

Click to expand...

I disagree here, as well as with the blog post you mentioned earlier. A starting character can only expend one level of effort on an action which is comparable to a +3 or 15% increase in chance of success. However as characters advance they are able to expend more levels of effort which in turn increase the bonus they are receiving. At effort 2 it is equivalent to a +6/30% increase, at effort 3 it's a +9/45% increase... as the game stands now, characters can progress up to the 6th tier at which point they can expend 6 levels of effort for what equates to a +18/90% increase.

Fairman Rogers said:

In simpler terms, it's sort of like flipping a coin and being given the option to spend a character resource to win on "edge" as well as "heads." Obviously it's not quite that extreme, but that's how it feels to me. Ultimately I'm still just guessing blind whether or not I need the effort, and I'd rather not do that with a finite resource.

Click to expand...

From my experience with d20 games in general I am going to disagree, even at 1st tier with a +3 bonus effort is a significant (though not overwhelmingly so) factor for success.

Fairman Rogers said:

Another fix would be to turn effort into rerolls rather than a very slight bonus. That would be a HUGE difference. And I wouldn't even mind doing so in advance, like if you got an extra d20 to roll for every point of effort you spent. I would be all over that.

Click to expand...

IMO, this would be way too powerful, especially at higher tiers/more d20's. If you're adverse to expending effort without knowing the odds... well the book goes back and forth on whether the difficulty should be revealed to players or not and basically leaves it up to the GM to decide which way they want to run their game.

I think the emotional size of a +3 bonus may vary with personal experience, so I'll concede that my own d20 history may not be representative of how it "feels." But I think I can still use some specific examples to make my overall point a little clearer.

Let's say we take that 1st level character, who is facing a difficulty 7 task (pretty high for level 1). Now this hero is reasonably well-suited to the task, and has both a relevant skill and asset. It is now reduced to a difficulty 5, which means he needs a 15 on the d20. Figuring that this is still pretty high, he (understandably) spends a point of effort, so that now he needs a 12. Now, the straight up math seems to suggest that this increases the likelihood of success by 15%, as you say, but let's take a look at the three possible outcome ranges:

1-11: Failure. But more importantly, this hero was not going to succeed with or without the effort. The expended effort is wasted.
12-14: Success. And the hero feels righteously justified in spending the effort.
15-20: Success. However, the hero would have succeeded without spending the effort. Effort is wasted.

Now, maybe you can say that the 15-20 range still feels worth the effort if it was something important. You wanted to make sure. You got a good roll this time, but it COULD have been slightly worse. Maybe some people can think this way, but too many of those and I'm going to get irritated.

Second example, same character. This time the character is facing an easier task that (with bonuses) is reduced to a difficulty 2. Needing a 6, the hero sensibly decides this is not the time for effort. Let's look at the spread here:

1-2: Failure. Wow, bad dice luck. Well, that'll happen. Nothing you can do about that.
3-5: Failure. Uh, crap. Why didn't I spend an effort just to make sure?
6-20: Success. See? No effort needed.

So here we are on the other end of things, and once again what I'm seeing is a 15% chance that I actually care about effort, and an 85% chance that I don't.

But then there's the question of the higher-level character. The thing is, the frustration gets WORSE as you have the option to spend more points. Now, I am less familiar with the higher level stuff, but don't you have to decide how many points you're spending? If you just get your max every time, that seems pretty swingy. Assuming you do get to decide how much to expend on each roll, I have another example:

Let's say you're a 4th-tier character, with the option to go up to effort 4. You're dealing with something that ends up at a difficulty 6 without the effort. So...how much should you spend? If you spend 3, then you have the following outcome ranges:

1-5: Failure. Wasn't going to happen no matter what, but those are pretty low rolls, so I don't feel bad about it. Still, I wish I hadn't wasted that effort.
6-8: Failure. Argh! Why didn't I spend more effort? But how could I know it would end up here?
9-11: Success. Yay! I guessed right!
12-17: Success. But...I didn't need to spend that much.
18-20: Success. Well that was a waste of effort.

And if you spend more or less, you are simply moving these ranges around, potentially expanding and contracting most of them, BUT NOT the "Yay! I guessed right!" result range. That will ALWAYS stay 15% no matter what level you are, no matter what the difficulty is, and no matter how much effort you expend.

So, I hope this at least explains my feelings. If you have a different emotional reaction to these various ranges, then you probably won't mind the mechanics as much. I am certainly willing to admit that this is a YMMV situation. I just wanted to articulate more clearly what it was that bugged me about it.

@Fairman Rogers : I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your view on this and the odd (IMO) perception being used for determining the "value"of effort. In D&D 3e/4e you expend a non-renewable resource to get a single +1 with a particular type of weapon... Is that feat then worthless anytime you don't hit by 1... since you only ever need it if you miss by one... or should we be looking at the fact that over the lifetime of play you will hit by one numerous times and the cost of the feat being spent to gain it evens out over that time period in the higher average of successful hits (+5%) with that +1 you spent the feat on? I think a renewable resource that can be used to give you a +3 on any roll (skill/attk/dmg/etc.) is a pretty big deal and looking at it as only valuable for a range of 3 numbers is true but not an entirely accurate picture... I think looking at it as making you 15% more effective overall is a more fair way of looking at it... IMO of course.

EDIT: Furthermore I think that there should be a chance that you waste effort since that often happens in real life where something is harder or easier than one anticipated... so, for me, it also feels right.

Imaro said:

I think looking at it as making you 15% more effective overall is a more fair way of looking at it... IMO of course.

Click to expand...

But that's not what it does. It depends on your average chance of success. If your average chance of success is 15%, then adding 15% doubles your effectiveness! If your average chance is already at 75%, adding 15% will only increase your effectiveness by one fifth.

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] Maybe I don't quite understand how scarce effort is supposed to be. I have a perception that it's pretty limited within a single game session, but maybe that's not how it plays. Do you find that there's a decent balance of scarcity (to make it feel like not-every-time thing) and availability (to make you feel comfortable spending it)?

I mean, if you can use it all the time, then it's not really resource management, it's just a permanent bonus. But if you can only use it on a few of your rolls in each session, then it would have the potential to be frustrating to me. How does it feel when you play? Do you feel like it's there whenever you need it but only when you really need it?

Jhaelen said:

But that's not what it does. It depends on your average chance of success. If your average chance of success is 15%, then adding 15% doubles your effectiveness! If your average chance is already at 75%, adding 15% will only increase your effectiveness by one fifth.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm getting what you are saying?? I'm assuming each +1 is equivalent to a 5% increase... so if your chance of success is 0% and you use effort it increases it by 15%... if your chance of success is 30% spending one level of effort increases that chance by 15% to 45%. I get what you are saying but it doesn't change the fact that you have increased your effectiveness by +15%. If I'm not understanding please explain in more detail.

Fairman Rogers said:

@Imaro Maybe I don't quite understand how scarce effort is supposed to be. I have a perception that it's pretty limited within a single game session, but maybe that's not how it plays. Do you find that there's a decent balance of scarcity (to make it feel like not-every-time thing) and availability (to make you feel comfortable spending it)?

I mean, if you can use it all the time, then it's not really resource management, it's just a permanent bonus. But if you can only use it on a few of your rolls in each session, then it would have the potential to be frustrating to me. How does it feel when you play? Do you feel like it's there whenever you need it but only when you really need it?

Click to expand...

Well there are a few things about effort...

The first is that it comes from the same pool(s) that you also take damage from... so it doesn't just deplete from using effort.

There is also "Edge" which reduces your cost for levels of effort for certain actions.

The pool is replenished by resting, when you rest you regain (1d6+ tier) in points for your pool.

However the amount of time needed to rest, and recover points increases as you rest more, like so...

Recovery Roll Rest Time Needed

First recovery roll= One action
Second recovery roll = Ten minutes
Third recovery roll = One hour
Fourth recovery roll = Ten hours (this is usually assumed to be sleeping)

So while I wouldn't say you can use effort all the time... I think the economy makes enough available (especially if your GM allows you the time to recover it regularly) while still setting a hard limit (limited number of times) and a drawback (time taken to recover) that players have to consider
their expenditures somewhat. In other words, and this may change with actual play, I think it strikes a pretty good balance between availability and resource management.

Imaro said:

@Fairman Rogers : I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your view on this and the odd (IMO) perception being used for determining the "value"of effort. In D&D 3e/4e you expend a non-renewable resource to get a single +1 with a particular type of weapon... Is that feat then worthless anytime you don't hit by 1... since you only ever need it if you miss by one... or should we be looking at the fact that over the lifetime of play you will hit by one numerous times and the cost of the feat being spent to gain it evens out over that time period in the higher average of successful hits (+5%) with that +1 you spent the feat on?

Click to expand...

First, the difference is right there in what you wrote. Dodge or Weapon Focus are sunk costs that gain you potential benefit in every combat situation. You know longer have to spend resources to gain the advantage and it doesn't cost me anything. It's like saying, "You can spend 1 effort for free every time you attack something." Essentially 'Weapon Focus' or 'Dodge' is like Edge - an unlimited resource. If 'effort' is a limited resource though, then I must carefully spend it only in the right situations. It's instead like a spell that gives me a small bonus on an roll. It may be renewable, but it still must be conserved for that situation its essential. I can see this being similar to a situation in many RPGs where the player carefully hordes his consumable potions and scrolls, but ultimately almost never uses them.

Secondly, it's worth noting that many people (rightly or wrongly) felt the same way about dodge and weapon focus - wasted resources. Those feats helped in such a small number of situations, that they didn't feel it worth the investment. Many people of this opinion argued that the bonuses ought to scale upward with level to make them feel more worthwhile (I wasn't one of them, but I recognize the motivation).

Thirdly, the focus on the resource management misses the point. For the vast majority of situations the roll doesn't seem to mechanically reflect the differences in the character making the roll. I'm not sure that most players want to manage scarce resources on every proposition, and as a GM I think I'd have a hard time making every roll important enough to make the effort of resource allocation seem dramatic and worthwhile. I'm not hugely familiar with the system, but I would have thought Edges were more common and central to the system than they seem to be from the description.

BTW, I'm backing the Kickstarter for the cRPG based on the system, and in a cRPG I don't think this is going to be a big issue because inherently cRPGs involve very small tightly constructed scenarios.

Celebrim said:

First, the difference is right there in what you wrote. Dodge or Weapon Focus are sunk costs that gain you potential benefit in every combat situation. You know longer have to spend resources to gain the advantage and it doesn't cost me anything. It's like saying, "You can spend 1 effort for free every time you attack something." Essentially 'Weapon Focus' or 'Dodge' is like Edge - an unlimited resource. If 'effort' is a limited resource though, then I must carefully spend it only in the right situations. It's instead like a spell that gives me a small bonus on an roll. It may be renewable, but it still must be conserved for that situation its essential. I can see this being similar to a situation in many RPGs where the player carefully hordes his consumable potions and scrolls, but ultimately almost never uses them.

Click to expand...

You spend an even more rare resource to gain what amounts to an even smaller effect in overall game play though. Effort is replenish-able and re-usable which seems to make it a less important resource than a feat. I guess I am looking at it from the perspective that once I spend Effort I consider it a "sunk" cost... so why do I care if I did succeed purely by effort or not... I'm just concerned with whether I succeeded and whether something was or wasn't important enough (and a big enough risk) for me to hedge my bets a little (or alot) with spending Effort... thus increasing my chances of overall success. And I don't find it similar to potions at all... you have a guaranteed way to replenish Effort... you don't have a way to replenish potions or consumables.

Celebrim said:

Secondly, it's worth noting that many people (rightly or wrongly) felt the same way about dodge and weapon focus - wasted resources. Those feats helped in such a small number of situations, that they didn't feel it worth the investment. Many people of this opinion argued that the bonuses ought to scale upward with level to make them feel more worthwhile (I wasn't one of them, but I recognize the motivation).

Click to expand...

Yes but the Effort bonus does scale (for all intents and purposes) through edge and with tier but that is looked at as a bad thing since you're wasting effort if you don't hit the exact amount you needed in order to succeed. Let's use your example of a spell, perhaps Bless (+1 on attack rolls and +1 morale bonus vs. fear). I expend a spell to get a +1 bonus... that according to this logic is only worth something if whoever I casted it on rolls within the small window where they are 1 under what they needed. How does a cleric decide whether expending the spell is worth it for the buff? Isn't this the same issue being claimed with Effort?

I think most people look at it as every bonus increases the overall chance to succeed and in this fight expending the spell or sacrificing the movement is worth it to increase my overall chances. I don't think I've ever seen someone call out a buff to hit/skill check/AC/etc. as useless because the roll wasn't always exactly in the range where the buff made the difference and I've never seen agonizing over when to expend buff spells similar to what the OP seems to be saying about Effort (though Effort is easier to replenish by magnitudes than the spell)... all it is is a self-buff (consider it a spell)for anything.

Celebrim said:

Thirdly, the focus on the resource management misses the point. For the vast majority of situations the roll doesn't seem to mechanically reflect the differences in the character making the roll. I'm not sure that most players want to manage scarce resources on every proposition, and as a GM I think I'd have a hard time making every roll important enough to make the effort of resource allocation seem dramatic and worthwhile. I'm not hugely familiar with the system, but I would have thought Edges were more common and central to the system than they seem to be from the description.

Click to expand...

Again I'm confused about this... how would a buff that does mechanically reflect the differences in the character making the roll... unless he hits in whatever the range the buff creates work exactly?

Effort also isn't something you'd use on every roll, however when to use it or how much (at higher tiers) is definitely an individual player thing. As a GM I'm not calling for a roll unless it's something important... but then because Numenera uses objective difficulties not every important action even needs a roll (your skill stats and assets might reduce it to zero), much less Effort to be expended (may be low enough that Effort is considered unnecessary or low enough that Effort makes it an auto-success).

I'm not sure you understand what Edge is exactly. It allows you to conserve your points from pools when using Effort... I'm not sure how Edge would be more common or more central to the system... could you explain?