[D&D Design Discussion] Preserving the "Sweet Spot"

[VirgilCaine]

As anyone who has been a manager knows, having the resources, and doing something worthwhile with them is half the challenge, and so it should be for these characters. An entire game-subsystem could and should be developed around wealth, property, resources, knowledge, technological advancement, reputation, influence, allies, followers, strongholds, and kingdoms. Think Settlers of Catan, Age of Empires, etc.

You mean like Birthright?

 

[pogre]

You mean like Birthright?

Although the execution never thrilled me, I'm a big fan of the core ideas behind birthright.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Still waiting to hear about the game design clues that 10th level is the "sweet spot", per Wulf.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Still waiting to hear about the game design clues that 10th level is the "sweet spot", per Wulf.

10th level is not the sweet spot. By 10th level you've moved out of the sweet spot and you should be ready for the campaign's climactic conclusion.

Anyhow, here are the clues:

1) d20 Modern caps at 10th level.

2) Melee: BAB caps at 2 attacks/round (last gasp of an older cap). BAB "jumps" in relevance every 5 levels, so it's natural to look for break points on the 5's. 5th level is too low; 15th level is too high.

3) Magic: 5th level spells are the first appearance of campaign-changing spells-- knowlege, travel, save or die, and raise dead.

4) Certain modifier caps at +10 (skills, magic weapons, caster level, etc.). Combined with the d20 system and the upper end of "reasonable" DCs. The higher the modifier, the less significant the d20 roll.

And #4 ties back to #1-- it's something they figured out during the design of d20 Modern that they really should have applied to D&D, in my opinion. You can't (or shouldn't) simply keep raising the DCs at the same rate as the PCs, for the purpose of keeping the random d20 roll significant. The DCs for "easy" or "difficult" or "nigh impossible" should be fixed in place. The task doesn't change-- the PCs change. You shouldn't be sliding the DCs at the same time that the PCs are advancing.

And, for the most part, D&D does this-- the DCs for certain tasks that are set down in the skill descriptions, for example, are fixed. But you will very often see adventures where the DCs of some tasks (Search, Disable Device, Open Locks-- monster AC!) are inflated simply because it is a higher level adventure.

You shouldn't do that.

But you also shouldn't let the modifiers to the d20 roll invalidate the randomness of the roll.

D&D sees this problem and comes down on the side of sliding the DCs to keep the d20 roll relevant.

Obviously I think a better solution to keep the roll relevant is to cap the modifiers.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Good insight, Wulf.

I think the skill system is the most 'broken' thing in 3ed for that and other reasons. There is a bad combination of class skill lists, cross-class costs, cross-class caps, and low skill point allocation I think. The scaling DCs are part of it, too. It tends to reinforce the mindset that says you have to keep certain skills maxed at every level, and classes that don't have lots of skill points, or that have crucial skills as cross-class, are doomed to fall behind.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Anyhow, here are the clues:

1) d20 Modern caps at 10th level.
4) Certain modifier caps at +10.

Those are strong clues, I agree.

2) Melee: BAB caps at 2 attacks/round (last gasp of an older cap).
3) Magic: 5th level spells are the first appearance of campaign-changing spells-- knowlege, travel, save or die, and raise dead.

These however are not strong clues, to me.

For BAB to generate iterative attacks in a sensible way, it must do so on an integer that divides evenly into 20. The only choices are 2, 4, 5, and 10. I think the designers were right to go with the iteration at 5, rather than 10, because waiting to be 11th level before you get two attacks per round is not enough of a cookie for the melee classes.

Iteration at 2 would be ridiculous, and iteration at 4 is not sufficiently different from 5 to justify the extra attack per round coming into play at lower levels.

Regarding 5th level spells, they were ported over from 1e/2e, so I don't think the fact that they are 5th level is anything other than a historical artifact. Unless you would like to argue that the design of OD&D considered 5th level spells the appropriate level at which to introduce game-changing effects. Which would be an interesting argument to make, and relatively easy to verify (with Col Playdoh).

You can't (or shouldn't) simply keep raising the DCs at the same rate as the PCs, for the purpose of keeping the random d20 roll significant.

It depends upon the kind of game you want to design. If you want to design a game in which the PCs eventually become as powerful as demigods, then the PCs should be able to automatically succeed at tasks with normal-level DCs -- i.e. the PCs should eventually have so many plusses (from skill ranks, ability scores, and magic) that the d20 roll is rendered irrelevant.

If you want to design a game in which the PCs are consistently faced with skill challenges that they have roughly a 50% chance to overcome, then the DCs need to scale up to keep the d20 roll meaningful.

And, for the most part, D&D does this-- the DCs for certain tasks that are set down in the skill descriptions, for example, are fixed. But you will very often see adventures where the DCs of some tasks (Search, Disable Device, Open Locks-- monster AC!) are inflated simply because it is a higher level adventure.

Then that is bad adventure design, not bad game design.

But you also shouldn't let the modifiers to the d20 roll invalidate the randomness of the roll.

Again, it depends upon what kind of game you're designing.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Regarding 5th level spells, they were ported over from 1e/2e, so I don't think the fact that they are 5th level is anything other than a historical artifact. Unless you would like to argue that the design of OD&D considered 5th level spells the appropriate level at which to introduce game-changing effects. Which would be an interesting argument to make, and relatively easy to verify (with Col Playdoh).

Feel free. I think it's self evident. 5th level spells were available at 9th level-- "Name Level." That was very clearly the point of apotheosis for the PC heroes.

Just to reiterate, I didn't mean to imply before that 10th level was the sweet spot. 10th level is the cap. I wouldn't want post-apotheosis play to last very long, but I certainly wouldn't deny it to the players.

It depends upon the kind of game you want to design. If you want to design a game in which the PCs eventually become as powerful as demigods, then the PCs should be able to automatically succeed at tasks with normal-level DCs -- i.e. the PCs should eventually have so many plusses (from skill ranks, ability scores, and magic) that the d20 roll is rendered irrelevant.

No, the problem with D&D is that it is basically designed to satisfy the needs of probability and the needs of verisimilitude simultaneously-- up through the sweet spot.

It's just that at high levels, that mechanic is broken.

A 6th level character has 9 ranks, probably +3 from ability score, and we'll give him a random +4 from either circumstance bonuses, magic items, tools, enhancement spells/items to his ability score, and miscellaneous skill boosters.

Bottom line, I don't think it's unusual for a mid-level character to hit +15 with a "primary" skill check. It can slide back and forth a little bit based on other modifiers and as he levels through the sweet spot (5th-8th, in my opinion).

We have plenty of skills that are "pre-defined" as difficult in the DC25-30 range. Traps, locks, secret doors. Low-level characters can still hit these DCs by being lucky (or taking 20). High-level characters will hit them with more ease and/or regularity.

But the core game is pretty clearly pre-defined with a bias to the sweet spot.

Design Side Note[sblock]
It bugs me that I generally think of essential skills only in terms of the rogue. Does anybody really ever worry whether the cleric can hit DC25 Heal checks? The wizard and a DC25 Knowledge check? There need to be more "essential" skills for non-rogue classes. Either that, or ditch the whole system.

Rodrigo also mentioned that the current system forces characters to max the essential skills. I don't think you can change that.

Players will max skills, and giving them more skill points just means they'll max more skills. They won't spread them out.

So perhaps a better skill system would just give the PC a choice of skills that are always maxxed to his class level. Cut out the middleman.

I know-- choice is good. Even if it's just an option for a player to make a sub-par choice.

End of diversion.[/sblock]

If you want to design a game in which the PCs are consistently faced with skill challenges that they have roughly a 50% chance to overcome, then the DCs need to scale up to keep the d20 roll meaningful.

What I don't want is a game that has to change the underlying mechanics in order to accomodate high-level play.

High-level D&D just doesn't scale realistically. Or satisfactorily.

Again, it depends upon what kind of game you're designing.

I'm not sure, but I think we were designing a game that preserves the sweet spot.[/snark]

 

[green slime]

I'm not sure, but I think we were designing a game that preserves the sweet spot.[/snark]

But as we don't agree where or when this semi-mythical "sweet spot" occurs, how are we going to achieve that?

 

[blargney the second]

You can steal the primary and secondary skills idea from Shadowrun if you want to broaden characters.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But as we don't agree where or when this semi-mythical "sweet spot" occurs, how are we going to achieve that?

Who's the "we" you're talking about?

If you aren't part of the consensus shown in this thread-- if the sweet spot is mythical to you-- find a different thread.

Pretty sure I made that clear in the first post.

EDIT: Pardon the "attitude" on display there. It's not meant to be that snarky, just that I think the "sweet spot" and a desire to prolong it is a pre-requisite to this thread. Your "semi-mythical" comment rattled me and made me overlook the fact that we can reasonably differ on where the sweet spot is. Hope that's clearer.