70% is the Sweet, ain't it?

[Frostmarrow]

Apparently, videogame makers did studies to see what the "sweet spot" is. Basically, the ease of success which people prefer.

If you make a game too easy, you don't get the sense of satisfaction upon completing it. In fact, you'll get bored with it and move on to something else even before finishing it.

If you make a game too hard, people get frustrated with the game and are liable again to put it down and again, move on to something else.

Now, the sweet spot, this is when the game isn't too easy yet not too difficult.

Great explanation!

Do you have a link AllisterH? I have tried to find something to support my claim but failed. I've googled like a madman (shaking head and slamming keyboard with ten digits repeatedly) but I end up back here.

 

[Exen Trik]

I get the feeling that for a role playing game the definition of the "sweet spot" needs to be widened some. Having a 70% chance to hit with attacks and spells isn't the whole story, the targets offensive ability, numbers, strategies, as well as chance of success or failure and the like are just as important.

A ideal encounter against a horde of mooks may involve your attacks landing at or near 100%, but more attacks being used against you presents greater risk, and being able to deal with larger numbers strategically keeps the result from being a sure thing.

Conversely, a single battle against one big bad may involve very few attacks landing, or strong defenses keeping attacks from doing as much, or being exceptionally tough so many more attacks are needed. The enemies ability to hit, the damage it deals, and whatever else it may do to mix things up also effects how fun the encounter is.

So perhaps the 70% can be applied to the rate of overall success. Not to say there should be a 30% chance of someone dying outright, but failing an objective (completely or partially), using up permanent resources, missing out on possible rewards, and having to withdraw temporarily can all factor into it as well.

...Of course that's all much harder to formulate, but them's the breaks.

 

[FireLance]

I think that the 70% chance is a good starting baseline, but there are a couple of key issues here before deciding how we can translate this into D&D.

The first is: a 70% chance for who to do what? In computer games, the "who" is probably the average person who is new to the game. The "what", most likely, would be achieving the first explicit or implied objective, which may vary depending on the game: clearing a stage in a shooting game, winning a fight or gaining a level in a RPG, etc. In a D&D, the "who" might similarly be an average person new to the game, and the "what" might be overcoming the first challenge, which, given that it is D&D, is likely to involve some kind of combat.

This means that the 70% chance of success need not hold at the level of individual attack rolls. You could still have a 70% chance of overcoming the challenge overall, even if you chance of hitting your opponent is low, if the opponent had low hit points.

It also means that experienced players might expect a higher success rate than 70%. Just as an experienced player might expect to be almost assured of clearing the first stage of a shooting game, an experienced gamer might expect to be able to use good tactics such as flanking and synergy with other characters to have a better than 70% chance of overcoming his opponents.

The second issue is: ease of retry after failure. In many computer games, retrying after failure is fairly easy - literally, at the touch of a button. In other cases, failure is nonlethal - if you don't succeed the first time, you can keep trying until you do. In standard D&D, failure may result in character death, and a retry is only possible after creating a new character, which may require considerable effort on the part of the player. Because of this, compter games can have a lower standard of success than D&D. The player simply retries until he gets the hang of the game. This suggests that D&D should have at least one of the following: a higher chance of success, a lower chance of character death following failure (possibly increasing the likelihood and length of time that a character will be dying instead of dead), or a quick way to generate a new character so that a player whose character is dead can get back into the game soon.

 

[takasi]

My first level fighter has AC 27 right off the bat.

He took craft armorsmithing and made his own banded mail. Dex is 14. Armored savant feat from Dragon 355. Shield specialization from PHB 2. Combat Expertise. Tower Shield.

armor bonus 6 + dex bonus 2 + shield 5 + combat expertise 2 + fighting defensively 2

Of course he can't hit anything, but if you're going up against, say, an ogre and absolutely do not want to get hit then every little bit helps. (Speaking of ogre, the same build minus the armored savant and sub in a dwarf and you're at AC 30 against the giant.)

Shield of faith and aid anothers from party members will increase this.

Ignoring the fighting defensively (AC 25) then with a strength of 16 the fighter is at +0 to hit. You have a better chance of beating anything with an AC that's less than 20.