Difficulty Numbers: Scaling, or Static?

[Reynard]

I mean, I think people are generally in favor of the game being a series of "interesting" encounters; constantly having encounters that are cakewalks, or ones where they have to flee quickly or die screaming work against that. Some players have a greater taste for those kinds of encounters because they find them to help enhance setting verisimilitude.

I tend to split the difference and just use "leveled" zones (which is basically no different than asking the players what dungeon level they want to explore). These mountains over here are full of giants and dragons and whatnot -- maybe don't go there at 1st level. This forest is home to goblins, and will remain so even if you pass through at 17th level. Of course there can be exceptions -- the low level orc community in the mountains, or the green dragon lair in the goblin forest.

 

[stonehead]

It is interesting that "scaling DCs" is almost universally rejected, but lots of folks seem to be fine with a "scaled world".

Is it really surprising? "Scaling DCs" is just math homework that leads to no mechanical change.

A "scaled world" plays into the fantasy of growing from a regular person into a great hero. Progressing from fighting goblins all the way up to fighting dragons is a pretty central part of DnD in every edition I've played. A game in which you start fighting goblins, play for a year, and are still fighting the same number of goblins sounds kinda boring.

I tend to split the difference and just use "leveled" zones (which is basically no different than asking the players what dungeon level they want to explore). These mountains over here are full of giants and dragons and whatnot -- maybe don't go there at 1st level. This forest is home to goblins, and will remain so even if you pass through at 17th level. Of course there can be exceptions -- the low level orc community in the mountains, or the green dragon lair in the goblin forest.

I think most games don't have this level of decontextualization. In the tables I've been a part of, the party doesn't look at the three areas around them, see one has lvl 17 dragons, one has lvl 8 trolls, and the other has lvl 1 goblins, and pick where to go based on levels. The party has a goal or mission that they want to accomplish, and the challenges they face are appropriate to that goal.

At lower levels, these goals tend to be more modest, like tracking down a thief or fighting off some bandits. At higher levels, they become things like stopping ancient cults, or overthrowing a small nation. The "levels" of the encounter are just natural results of taking on more challenging tasks. Obviously a group of bandits is weaker than a standing army.

 

[Umbran]

What do you think? How do you liked games to handle difficulties?

I don't care much one way or another. While challenges that aren't level appropriate are possible, overall as characters advance I'm goign to present them with tougher stuff.

Whether I use a hobgoblin, or a goblin with levels, or a goblin with just higher target numbers, is not really material, to me.

 

[Reynard]

Is it really surprising?

I did not say "surprising".

"Scaling DCs" is just math homework that leads to no mechanical change.

A "scaled world" plays into the fantasy of growing from a regular person into a great hero. Progressing from fighting goblins all the way up to fighting dragons is a pretty central part of DnD in every edition I've played. A game in which you start fighting goblins, play for a year, and are still fighting the same number of goblins sounds kinda boring.


I think most games don't have this level of decontextualization. In the tables I've been a part of, the party doesn't look at the three areas around them, see one has lvl 17 dragons, one has lvl 8 trolls, and the other has lvl 1 goblins, and pick where to go based on levels. The party has a goal or mission that they want to accomplish, and the challenges they face are appropriate to that goal.

At lower levels, these goals tend to be more modest, like tracking down a thief or fighting off some bandits. At higher levels, they become things like stopping ancient cults, or overthrowing a small nation. The "levels" of the encounter are just natural results of taking on more challenging tasks. Obviously a group of bandits is weaker than a standing army.

I was not suggesting the zones be blatantly labeled (although philosophically speaking, I don't have a problem with that) but there are ways to give the players a good sense of what tier given areas might tend toward.

But if the game is just the GM feeding missions to the players, sure -- you are likely to have everything presented in level appropriate stages But if the PCs are free to explore the setting and pursue their own interests, goals and whims, they may well decide to push increased risks for increased rewards.

 

[zakael19]

I like static outcome targets when the system is designed for that and they are divorced from the GM. Eg: PBTA 2d6 rolls are what they are.

I prefer scaling targets mathed out to provide consistency in games which have a significant expectation of power scaling. Also I’m going to guess that in, say, a by-5s system you’re implicitly scaling DCs as the characters level up to some degree - certainly those for saves & the like do, and likely you’re not doing a whole lot of Dc15 targets (because they should be beyond that sort of challenge now) at level 14 right? I know that in WOTC adventures you start seeing a lot of DC 16/18 stuff without any context provided as the area approaches level 10.

Regardless, a scaled DC is meant to work with challenges that are appropriate to the tier and expertise of the PCs. See: PF2’s by-level scaling for DCs which suggest using them to reflect how a level-appropriate villain would have used their spells and skills to construct an environment, or how 4e’s skill challenges increase in fictional scope and complexity.

In either case, we’re reflecting that this specific challenge isn’t “standard” or “expert” but reflects that it’s something a PC of level 15 is expected to face but still difficult to overcome.

I also really like objective-scaled DCs given by the game system because I don’t have to manually set them. It turns out more like a PBTA now; we know what the target is for challenges and roll against it. I don’t want to have to go “uhh, so this is an ‘expert’ social roll” or whatever. Dagger heart does this by providing social adversaries by tier with different difficulty ratings so you grab the one that suits the significant encounter as needed.

 

[Aldarc]

Because the cave always includes monsters of the appropriate challenge rating of the PCs. There is no way for the PCs to get chased off, or wait and later go ham on the raiders. It isn't precisely quantum ogre, but is effectively the same thing.

I don't think "quantum ogres" means what you think it means.

And because you can't say what is there until the PCs engage it, you can't build the setting around a group of goblins vs a group of ogres dwelling there -- which should have real implications for the locals.

And as we all know, the only way you can build a TTRPG world is with goblins and ogres in a cave.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think "quantum ogres" means what you think it means.

No, it does. It means putting the challenge you created in front of the PCs regardless of what they choose to do. As I said, this isn't exactly the same but it is functionally the same: the players' choices about when to engage with that thing are irrelevant.

And as we all know, the only way you can build a TTRPG world is with goblins and ogres in a cave.

Or we could just be snarky I guess.

 

[Aldarc]

No, it does. It means putting the challenge you created in front of the PCs regardless of what they choose to do.

Not quite. You are leaving out the part where "quantum ogres" exist in multiple possible location regardless of the PCs choices. But regardless, but this is not what's happening. In these video games that I am talking about, you aren't moving the ogres; everything is simply scaling to the PCs' level or the PCs are being scaled down to the area's level.

As I said, this isn't exactly the same but it is functionally the same:

That has been asserted but yet to be demonstrated.

the players' choices about when to engage with that thing are irrelevant.

How are they irrelevant?

To be clear, I am not advocating for this approach in TTRPGs. I observed that auto-scaling has been a trend in a number of video games, particularly MMOs from the past ten years.

 

[Reynard]

To be clear, I am not advocating for this approach in TTRPGs.

Then why are we talking about it?

 

[Aldarc]

Then why are we talking about it?

That's certainly a question for you to reflect on. I found the observation interesting as an aside, so I mentioned it, and then you responded with claims about it, and I disagreed with those claims. And here we are.