Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8791660" data-attributes="member: 71699">It's helpful to have that reference point. What I want to find are where the "natural" or highest utility thresholds fall. Taking a look now at Talislanta 4th ed, the action table presents this index -0 or less = Mishap1-5 = Failure6-10 = Partial success (reduced effect, rather than effect with a hitch)11-19 = Full success20 or more = Critical successMine is slightly different, and I think there might be some tweaks I can make from knowing the design choices in Talislanta. I currently have this index -Natural 1 = Mishap4 or less = Failure with consequences (costs or losses)5-9 = Success with complication (a hitch in the plan)10 or more = Full successNatural 20 = Critical successI consciously avoid plain failure as it could imply no change to the game state which I think can have low utility for play. That said, it's likely (speaking without having played Talislanta) that in practice costs are paid for the failure. When it comes to mitigated-successes, I prefer to add a hitch than reduce effect... although I suppose a hitch could well be reduced effect.In play, one impactful difference is that between looking for results below-0 / above-19 versus looking for natural 1s and 20s. Say I have a net +2 on the check? It's impossible for me to have a mishap, and I make a critical success on three numbers (18-20). 15% of my rolls are exceptional, and they can only be exceptionally good. That can also go the other way. I find at the table players always look for special narration when they see a nat-1 or nat-20, so I favour giving those rolls special impact. I've nothing against the above/below approach though... it just has a different set of virtues.Another difference might be found in the expected modifiers. It looks like Talislanta uses a difficulty modifier range of normally +10 to –10 (but can be greater,) and it looks like ability modifiers are in the range +10 to –10. Skill modifiers start in the range +0 to +5 and look like they can go up to +40.  With the thresholds as I have them I would suggest difficulty modifiers +5 to –20. Ability modifiers +5 to –5. And skill modifiers +0 to +10. In play, Talislanta looks to have potentially much wider gaps in net modifiers for actions being attempted.There's something to learn from Talislanta, and it's fantastic to see a published game with d20-indexed graded outcomes. I think one of the real misses in 5th ed D&D (and unlikely to be changed) is to continue with a "sliding" index. It puts the system a bit behind contemporary RPG tech.</blockquote>

Verification