How odds make you feel

[Frostmarrow]

Traditionally in D&D your odds of success depends on your character's experience. A high level character is more likely to succeed at any given task than a low level one.

I wonder if the odds of success could be based on what you like to convey emotionally?

Let's look at some odds of success:

5% chance. This is a long shot. The player knows this is a sacrifice and that he will most likely fail. However, sometimes it works and the whole table cheers.

30% chance. A hard check. This makes the player feel like an nincompoop or a fish out of water.

50% chance. This is a coin toss. The player feels like he's not in control of the situation.

70% chance. The player feels in control and is confident to succeed, but not overly so.

90% chance. The player is sure of success and somewhat arrogant. Failure here is a huge disappointment.

The point is maybe the game should put focus on this aspect of die rolls rather than the progression from 30-90% chance for every character in every area.

For instance, spell casting is an area where you want the caster to be arrogantly aware of the power of magic. In D&D this is represented by the fact the spells never fails. Wouldn't it be interesting if spell casting instead had a 95% chance of being cast successfully?

Attacking with a sword should be in the area around 70%. Fighting is risky but I'm a skilled swordsman and you can rely on me.

Picking pockets is exciting but should not be attempted with high confidence (as it breaks the economy). Pick pocketing should fall in the 50% chance bracket. Turn undead also belongs here. The uncertainty brings suspense.

30% chance is good for characters that has to do something out of their area of expertise, such as a fighter trying to bargain with a merchant.

 

[Yora]

"Never tell me the odds!"

 

[Dice4Hire]

Actually the flat odds are one of the things I really dislike about 4E. I like the system overall, but basically having every door a hard roll, or medium, is just too much for me to accept.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Actually the flat odds are one of the things I really dislike about 4E. I like the system overall, but basically having every door a hard roll, or medium, is just too much for me to accept.

It seems to me that all actions in 4E where around 50%. This was raised to 55% with the notorious feat tax. But 50% is a toss up. It feels like you have no control whatsoever on the outcome. In my mind this is 4E's biggest flaw.

I'm saying 50% is a good chance of success if you want to give the player a sense of uncertainty. But if you want to invoke other emotions you need to pick other odds.

I've played a lot of Basic role-Playing. In that system skills increase up to and even above 100% over a campaign. It produces very arrogant players who can navigate the game succeeding with everything they try. -Not that there is anything wrong with that. Sometimes you want the players to feel in charge. This is in fact a powerful tool that we need to put in the hands of the DM.

 

[Frostmarrow]

What I could see for the classes:

Fighters should be confident. Most of the stuff fighters do should have a 70% success rate. Be that fighting, jumping or bullying. "Bring it on".

Wizards should be arrogant. Most of the stuff wizards do should have a 95% success rate. Be that spellcasting, spellcraft or arcane knowledge. "According to my studies this should work as a charm".

Clerics should be thoughtful. Most of the stuff clerics do should have a 55% success rate. Be that undead turning, knowledge religion, or healing. "It's not an exact science..."

Rogues should on the one hand be uncertain with some stuff but arrogant in some areas. Rogues should be competent (50%) in some areas and experts in others (90%). "We'll see what I can do."

 

[Minigiant]

4E's flat odds for everything annoyed me the longer I played. The "Rolled a double digit. Success" thing made the sheet almost ignorable.... WHICH SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

I missed my 90% success chance to sneaking, man. I know some people don't like the wide chance of success. "What do you mean I didn't see him? I rolled a 17. Wah wah wah." Tough. Next time bring someone trained in Perception/Spot/Listen.

 

[steenan]

I begin a lot of posts on these boards with "it depends". This one is no different.

So, the feeling I get from varying odds depends on several factors. The probability of a successful roll is nearly meaningless without defining two crucial things: the consequence of success and of failure.

If I make twenty attack rolls during a fight, with a success taking some HPs from the enemy and a failure meaning I wasted some time, there is not much difference between 30% and 70%; I care more about average DPR, if anything.

It changes if the roll decides something important by itself. The more I can gain, the more even a small chance of success means. The more I can lose, the more significant is any chance of failure. If I have a chance of gaining a powerful ally, 30% chance is a lot; if the roll decides between living and dying, 90% still feels risky.

A secondary, but important, factor, is how the successes and failures are presented in game. If I'm playing an experienced fencer, I won't accept a situation where "I miss" 30% of time. But I have nothing against having 30% or less successful attacks against a similarly experienced opponent - if it is clear that the failed rolls represent opponent's tricks and parries, not my failures.

The terminology used in the rules and the GM narration style are very important here, and it is impossible to comment on % chances without this kind of context.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It seems to me that all actions in 4E where around 50%. This was raised to 55% with the notorious feat tax. But 50% is a toss up. It feels like you have no control whatsoever on the outcome. In my mind this is 4E's biggest flaw.

I'm saying 50% is a good chance of success if you want to give the player a sense of uncertainty. But if you want to invoke other emotions you need to pick other odds.

IME, the chance of success in 4e is more typically in the 60-70% range.

There are studies (which, IIRC influenced the design of 4e) that indicate that the "ideal" rate of success for games of chance is around 66%. Raise the odds significantly above that and people get bored; drop it significantly below and folks get frustrated.

Personally, I agree with that assessment. That isn't to say that every roll must fall within that range, but I think the designers should aim for it as the ballpark that rolls will most often fall into. If my character is skilled at something, then he should succeed more often than he fails (unless he constantly attempts the impossible).

One new aspect that I think deserves mention is that for the first time, a high attribute will negate your need to roll at all. A character with an 18 Strength, for example, will automatically succeed when kicking open a flimsy door. In many editions, 100% success was impossible (in 1e and 2e, rogues always failed on a roll of 96+). In other editions (3e) you had to crank your attribute high enough that you could still succeed on a natural 1. A 30 Strength giant might be foiled by a simple DC 12 door, which was a little silly. As such, I think this new auto-success mechanic is a great idea, allowing you (and moreover the DM) to stress your character's strengths.

 

[Frostmarrow]

IME, the chance of success in 4e is more typically in the 60-70% range.

There are studies (which, IIRC influenced the design of 4e) that indicate that the "ideal" rate of success for games of chance is around 66%. Raise the odds significantly above that and people get bored; drop it significantly below and folks get frustrated.

Personally, I agree with that assessment. That isn't to say that every roll must fall within that range, but I think the designers should aim for it as the ballpark that rolls will most often fall into. If my character is skilled at something, then he should succeed more often than he fails (unless he constantly attempts the impossible).

One new aspect that I think deserves mention is that for the first time, a high attribute will negate your need to roll at all. A character with an 18 Strength, for example, will automatically succeed when kicking open a flimsy door. In many editions, 100% success was impossible (in 1e and 2e, rogues always failed on a roll of 96+). In other editions (3e) you had to crank your attribute high enough that you could still succeed on a natural 1. A 30 Strength giant might be foiled by a simple DC 12 door, which was a little silly. As such, I think this new auto-success mechanic is a great idea, allowing you (and moreover the DM) to stress your character's strengths.

I've been nagging people about that 66% chance ideal for years. In fact I've written an RPG called 66 Demoner (in Swedish mind you) with that success rate as a base.

But now I looking at other odds. I think you'll agee with me when I say that 5% chance will frustrate players and that 95% will make them nonchalant. My point is what if I want players to be frustrated? What if I want players to be nonchalant? So if my players are fighting hordes of zombies I might want to frustrate them or if they are fighting mooks I might want them to behave like rockstars.

I learned this playing Warhammer. A lot of the difference in feel between playing Space Marines and Imperial Guard is that marines succeed 66% of the time whilst guardsmen succeed 50% of the time. You feel confindent with marines and you feel exposed while playing Imperial Guard.

This could be used in D&D. We might want wizards to be perfectionists in a few areas and we might want clerics to be thoughtful (yet useful in more fields). Or even we might want evil clerics to be full of themselves and good clerics to be self-doubting.

Traditionally high level characters are sure of success (80%) and low level characters rely on sheer luck (50%). It might be interesting to mix this up.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
(Bertrand Russell)

***

I really like the idea of built in auto-success with high ability scores.

 

[DogBackward]

Why do so few people seem to realize that 4e did not have "flat odds"? The tables for difficulty by level weren't meant to show that the same door would be harder to break at level 20 than it was at level 10. It was meant to show that a door meant to stop 20th level characters was harder to break down than a door meant to stop 10th level characters. You would not have a 50% chance to break down a simple wooden door at level 20, you'd have a 50% chance to break down a magically reinforced steel door. The wooden door is, at this point, officially in "don't need to roll" territory. Which is great for those instances when you want to show off how far you've come; you may have had trouble with the archmage's rune-covered gateways, but damned if you can't smash the hell out of this bandit's hide-out... the same bandit that sent you packing five levels ago.

Difficulties don't change based on your level. But if you're level 20, and all you have to worry about breaking down is a simple wooden door... then you're acting out some pretty damn boring "adventures".