Difficulty Numbers: Scaling, or Static?

[cranberry]

I try to keep encounters reasonably challenging, but there are fixed "zones" that will be harder or easier relative to the PCs current level. Usually, the zones are easy for the players to judge.

I only use quantum ogres if the Monster/NPC in question is key to the adventure. I don't have the bandwidth for a sandbox...

 

[Reynard]

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.

I was operating under the assumption that it was brought up in a TTRPG thread in order to discuss the practice in TTRPGs. I can't think of a reason otherwise to bring it up.

But whatever. Carry on.

 

[stonehead]

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.

That seems perfectly compatible with my point. I said "the party has goals", not "the GM gives the players goals" (only being this pedantic because you were pedantic about 'interesting' vs 'surprising' : P). Their goals shouldn't uniformly increase in difficulty level by level.

The petty thief, the roadside bandits, and the standing army could all be threats in the same "zone." The party could choose to take down the army at level 1, but they probably know they would all die if they try. They don't accidentally walk into the level 17 dragon forest while looking for something to do.

A skilled GM can set up a game world such that this naturally occurs. The party initially investigates a string of murders which are actually committed by an assassins ring, which is actually being controlled by a noble family, who are actually trying to summon an ancient demon. Bog standard fantasy setup. Each time the party chooses to follow another clue, they will naturally encounter more competant foes and security. If they choose to follow other leads, they find similarly shaped threats.

This might all depend on how challenges arise in different groups. If a group is entertained by random encounters that are purely mechanical threats, maybe they need to worry about how dangerous "the environment" is. Other groups get bored by combat encounters or skill checks that aren't connected to some bigger threat or narrative. To those groups, worrying about the "ambient level" could seem pointless.

 

[payn]

I understand having Goblin cave and trog swamp and dragon mountain seem like it’s a real world in a progressive series, but it’s basically a sign post saying “must be this tall to ride “. it would be a railroad if you couldn’t suicide yourself at any point.

While a scaling world seems artificial it allows you more organic narrative choice in going where you want when you want.

So really I see it more of pick your poison because both feel constructed for the players.

 

[JohnSnow]

I really like static DCs, so that terms like "Easy," "Normal," "Hard" and "Extreme" are fixed DCs. Shadowdark does this and sets them at 9, 12, 15 and 18, respectively.

However, Kelsey does do a very interesting thing and notes in one place that one should "take the creature into account" when setting DCs. So a particular task might be "Hard" for one character and "Easy" for another based on their degree of skill.

I like the idea, but haven't fully figured out to implement it in game. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking something like: "The given DCs represent the base chance for a competent adventurer. A particular creature might see the difficulty shifted in either direction by 1, 2, or even 3 tiers, depending on how skilled they are. For example, a typical farmer has a harder time climbing a cliff than even a novice adventurer, but the greatest wilderness guide in the kingdom might find it easier, even if he entirely lacks class levels."

 

[Reynard]

I really like static DCs, so that terms like "Easy," "Normal," "Hard" and "Extreme" are fixed DCs. Shadowdark does this and sets them at 9, 12, 15 and 18, respectively.

However, Kelsey does do a very interesting thing and notes in one place that one should "take the creature into account" when setting DCs. So a particular task might be "Hard" for one character and "Easy" for another based on their degree of skill.

I like the idea, but haven't fully figured out to implement it in game. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking something like: "The given DCs represent the base chance for a competent adventurer. A particular creature might see the difficulty shifted in either direction by 1, 2, or even 3 tiers, depending on how skilled they are. For example, a typical farmer has a harder time climbing a cliff than even a novice adventurer, but the greatest wilderness guide in the kingdom might find it easier, even if he entirely lacks class levels."

I think you are overthinking it. Hard is "hard" for people without a bonus or advantage based on class or background. Hard might be "easy" for someone that has both. The DC doesn't change.

 

[billd91]

I really like static DCs, so that terms like "Easy," "Normal," "Hard" and "Extreme" are fixed DCs. Shadowdark does this and sets them at 9, 12, 15 and 18, respectively.

However, Kelsey does do a very interesting thing and notes in one place that one should "take the creature into account" when setting DCs. So a particular task might be "Hard" for one character and "Easy" for another based on their degree of skill.

The way I see it, there are 2 ways to handle difficulty
1. you set the DC to a static target based on how hard it is

This works well if the PCs have assets proportional to their skill/proficiency to apply when making checks. PCs that are particularly skilled will naturally do better at higher DCs than PCs with lower skills. So set your target number and leave it.​

2. you set the DC based on how skilled the character is

This works well if the PCs do NOT have assets to use in the checks proportional to their skill/proficiency. So instead of the players modifying their results, the GM modifies the target number. It's pretty much the inverse operation to #1 above.​

Using the two of them together... seems largely unnecessary.

 

[JohnSnow]

I think you are overthinking it. Hard is "hard" for people without a bonus or advantage based on class or background. Hard might be "easy" for someone that has both. The DC doesn't change.

The bit I quoted about “taking the creature into account was in the GM section under “Setting DCs,” and specifically compares a task that might be “Hard for a sun-dazzled cave troll but Easy for a forest elf with tracking skills.”

You can think I’m overthinking it, but I’m just reading what’s already in Shadowdark.

 

[zakael19]

That's the sort of thing that I loathe. I don't want to think about "well for this character it's a DC13, but that one wait what was your background again? ok so maybe that's a DC11 but hm, it's dark so maybe it's a 13 again." Judging if a given obstacle is "moderate" or "requires expert knowledge" or whatever is just annoying in a game system that isn't set up to scaffold that in a consistent way.

In something like Blades where the probabilities are immutable based on dice pool and the only question is "how risky is this?" Very different; I never have to provide a quantified amount.