Difficulty Numbers: Scaling, or Static?

[Tigris]

However, I will say that even in systems or editions with a DC-by-level chart, like 4E's advice for what is a "Hard DC" for a level 13 character or something, the implication is that these DCs translate to more impressive challenges. Those paragon characters are climbing much gnarlier walls than their lower level brethren just like they're fighting giants rather than orcs.

This is exactly what I was thinking. For me it 100% makes sense to have a table what a hard DC by level is, but not the same things should be hard for a level 1 and a level 11.


Having a clear numerical table helps GMs to set challenges as hard as they want, but of course also having a table of what is hard for different (key-)levels (like level 1, 11, 21 or maybe also 6/16/26) helps a GM to not create the feeling of walls becoming harder to climb as you level.

 

[Fenris-77]

Generally speaking my answer is static, but I think that the locks and thieves example has some additional nuance. A high level party will usually be exploring high-level locations in search of high-level loot. It does make a certain sense that one might encounter locks of previously unseen difficulty in situations like that. You'll get no argument from me that high level thieves should be able to bypass normal locks with ease but it's also the case that only high level thieves might have the skill necessary to even attempt to pick the most fiendish locks in creation. Obviously you don't want to turn this into a skill treadmill situation, but I also don't think there's any need to leave the highest possible encountered lock DC at a trivial number.

 

[Aldarc]

Given my growing preferences for the DCs to be PC-centric (roll under/over PC stats) and not external, I suppose my answer is "static."

 

[GrimCo]

Static, because it shows in tangible way how PCs have improved and gotten better at it. So that lock you couldn't open at level 1 is now piece of cake at level 10. That goblins that beat you up and made you run away at level 2? Yea, you make minced meat out of them without breaking sweat at level 8. That kind of thing. DCs and monster strength is dictated by the inner logic of the world i design, not character level. Sometimes that mean they have cakewalk, sometimes it means they are in mess way above their pay grade.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Static, because I have played a few systems now where, RAW, characters actively got worse at basic things as they leveled up. Unless they spent their limited supply of increases on something, the target number would scale faster than their ability to do it. So, a level 20 wizards would actually be WORSE at climbing the same wall than they were as a level 1 wizard.

But then, I tend to prefer systems where power growth is as much if not more horizontal than vertical. I like when I get to add more tools to the toolbox instead of just increasing the size of my hammer. And scaling DCs are usually just bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers (in my experience).

 

[Aldarc]

It is fairly interesting though that some video games have embraced scaling challenges, where either the PC scales to the level of the environment or the environment scales to the PC. The logic with these games is that it keeps old content more relevant and challenging, even if a higher level PC probably has more tools than a low level PC at dealing with challenges.

 

[payn]

It is fairly interesting though that some video games have embraced scaling challenges, where either the PC scales to the level of the environment or the environment scales to the PC. The logic with these games is that it keeps old content more relevant and challenging, even if a higher level PC probably has more tools than a low level PC at dealing with challenges.

Pat of that is open world aspect of some of these games. They dont know if you are going to the goblin cave or the trog swamp first or second or even last. There isnt a GM to adjust and change things on the fly.

 

[Reynard]

It is fairly interesting though that some video games have embraced scaling challenges, where either the PC scales to the level of the environment or the environment scales to the PC. The logic with these games is that it keeps old content more relevant and challenging, even if a higher level PC probably has more tools than a low level PC at dealing with challenges.

Doesn't this become something of a "quantum ogre" problem? If you have a cave from which raiders emerge to harass passing caravans on the King's Road, but only decide whether they are goblins, bugbears or ogres depending on when the PCs bother to confront them, how do you make them inherently part of the world?

 

[payn]

Doesn't this become something of a "quantum ogre" problem? If you have a cave from which raiders emerge to harass passing caravans on the King's Road, but only decide whether they are goblins, bugbears or ogres depending on when the PCs bother to confront them, how do you make them inherently part of the world?

It is a video game so it runs into the GM cant adjust the world (other than math) on the fly problem. A.I. might change this a bit, but presently that seems to be a limitation of video game-designed RPGs.

 

[Reynard]

It is a video game so it runs into the GM cant adjust the world (other than math) on the fly problem. A.I. might change this a bit, but presently that seems to be a limitation of video game-designed RPGs.

Sorry, I was responding to this as a method to do scaling in a TTRPG. Video games aren't really relevant here.