D&D 5E What is your "Sweet Spot" of Success? (poll)

[R_J_K75]

The skill system already is already a binary pass/fail model. Are you calling for a more constrained RNG? Like a fixed DC of 15 for all tasks?

I was thinking something similar to how non-weapon proficiencies worked in 2E. I guess there might have to be a way to upgrade skills so maybe a static system wouldn't work with the d20 system. I havent given it much thought because I doubt they'll change it, and I don't have interest in house ruling it. Though I did like how Alternity handled skill checks, so I suppose I wouldn't mind seeing something similar in D&D and was a little disappointed when it didnt show up in 3E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

60% to 65%.

Humans are weird. Our intuitive (and more importantly emotive) perception of probability and events is not particularly accurate. You see this problem, for example, in films that actually feature an equal number of male and female characters. Historically, female characters have been less common, and much less central, than male characters, which sets an expectation. As a result, when people* see a film that consciously works to ensure an equal balance of male and female characters, both in terms of quantity and of narrative importance, most audience members, even women, will often perceive an overabundance or preponderance of women even though there isn't one.

When it comes to bad events vs good events, truly fair and equal probability does not feel fair and equal. It almost always feels incredibly biased toward failure! In order to prevent players from feeling like they fail all the time, you need to have success rates around 65%, maybe a bit lower. And yes, that means people feel like they fail more often than not unless they succeed about twice as often as they fail! This is not a rational part of human psychology, but it's mostly pointless to try to fight against it.

*I'm fairly sure this comes from studying Western cultures specifically, so it might be different for non-Western cultures.

So, if you choose 50%, you are saying you want your PC to succeed at the task half the time and fail half the time, making success rewarding and failure a bit painful.

See, I find the latter half of this statement nonsensical. The chance of failure is completely different from the pain of failure or rewards of success. You can have a 5% chance to do something completely pointless, like tossing exactly four heads in a row (p=0.0625), and a 95% chance to do something that will get you your heart's desire, or something that if you fail you'll curse that day for the rest of your life. An outcome being unlikely does not, and cannot, make the outcome more rewarding or the lack of that outcome more painful. It may, sometimes, make the uncertainty more (or less) dramatic, but it can't change whether one cares about the result or not.

 

[Composer99]

Just like Stabs wanted her bar to have the air of exclusivity but not actual exclusivity (because that would mean people leaving before giving her money) - to my mind gameplay should be tailored to player psychology: it should feel challenging to the players regardless of the actual probabilities of success or failure.

Note that this means depending on the players at a given table that these probabilities could be different - even very different. A player who just wants to enact a power fantasy in a leisurely game with friends where they all do cool things and kick monster butt is probably going to feel challenged despite a high success rate, while a player who wants to play to D&D's roots as the inspiration for Rogue and its descendants is probably going to want a much lower success rate to feel challenged.

If I had to average it all out to a single number for a "good"-at-something PC to perform a "difficult" task related to that something, I would probably also go with 65%. I would actually vote for exactly two-thirds if I could, but you can't roll exactly two-thirds on a d20.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Note that this means depending on the players at a given table that these probabilities could be different - even very different. A player who just wants to enact a power fantasy in a leisurely game with friends where they all do cool things and kick monster butt is probably going to feel challenged despite a high success rate, while a player who wants to play to D&D's roots as the inspiration for Rogue and its descendants is probably going to want a much lower success rate to feel challenged.

Which is why it is so important to emphasize, at every turn, the importance of intentionally choosing things of this nature, and having a conversation about it with the players.

If the game is a toolbox, it needs to tell people the ways to usefully employ a toolbox. If the game is a toolbox meant to be used to build stuff for the group as a whole, and not simply for the DM, then it needs to tell people how to best go about building something collaborative and cooperative.

 

[Argyle King]

I feel that "good" is better than average, so I voted accordingly.

Likely, I would need more context though. Is a bell curve involved? Are there actions I can take (such as feinting, aiming, or something else) which can be taken to adjust my odds?

 

[John R Davis]

For a d100 system i put 65-70
So for 5th ed I would declare myself good at something I guess if I had +9 (assuming I needed a 15 AC/DC)

 

[Yaarel]

With regard to success percent versus a Difficult challenge: the solid range between 25% and 40%, suggests aiming for about 33% success.

So a Difficult challenge should only succeed about a third of the time. But there is some leeway between a fourth and two-fifths.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Here's the scenario:

• Your PC is "good" at a task (whatever "good" means to you), not great, but definitely above average.
• You are trying a "difficult" task (whatever "difficult" means to you).

What chance of success is perfect for you, the "sweet spot" if you will; where the enjoyment of success meets the risk of failure?

So, if you choose 50%, you are saying you want your PC to succeed at the task half the time and fail half the time, making success rewarding and failure a bit painful.

You have two votes for your response, in case you want a slightly wider range.

It's kind of funny to me that so many people are picking such extremely low numbers, because that results in terrible gameplay in practice, because it explains why spells, which don't need to make a check, just arbitrarily do something, are so much more powerful than skills. Honestly, anyone picking 40% or below, you're part of why spellcasters are so dominant in the two non-combat pillars, especially at level 5+. The idea that someone "good" should just fail 60% of the time, whereas a spell should fail 0% of the time is deeply problematic, design-wise.

Also, if spells had a similar fail rate to skills, which they probably should, I bet we'd see very different numbers being picked by the same people.

I picked 65% and 70% which are, I see also pretty popular (interesting), based on my experience with RPGs. If you invest in something, to the point where you're good, and still fail the majority of the time, the message your giving the player is "your decisions were worthless". Again especially in D&D where spells and many abilities just work 100% of the time.

 

[James Gasik]

Better than a coin flip.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Better than a coin flip.

Yes, exactly. If it's worse than a coin-flip, and you invested in it, and would be considered "good at it", then what are you even doing? Imagine if characters in movies/TV/books who were "good at" stuff were worse than a coin-flip at that stuff? Lord of the Rings where every time Aragorn or Legolas tries anything that would be considered difficult they fail at it 60% of the time lol. And yet people are actively asking for that! It would be a farce. People are advocating for farce!

Monty Python is a helluva drug I guess.