Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5437083" data-attributes="member: 42582">To the best of my memory, it isn't in either book. I think it is suggested in the "GM troubleshooting" section of the Moldvay Basic rules - but again, that is from memory only.Doesn't this depend on how big you want the typical differential in a party to be?For example, consider a first level untrained skill check, with a stat spread from 8 to 18 (pretty typical for 3E or 4e), against a DC of 10 (pretty typical for 1st level in either of those systems). The 8 has a 50% chance of success (with a -1, succeeds on 11+). The 18 has a 75% chance of success (with a +4, succeeds on 6+). The 18 will fail 1 time in 4. The 8 will fail twice as often - 1 time in 2.A roll-under-stat mechanic gives the 8 a 40% chance of success (succeeds on 8 or less) and the 18 a 90% chance of success (succeeds on 18 or less). So the 18 will fail 1 time in 10. The 8 will fail 6 times as often - 3 times in 5.Which ratio of failure propsects between strong and weak PCs makes for a better game? This isn't something to be worked out just on the basis of nostalgia or simplicity. It takes at least a bit of maths, and then a lot of playtesting to work out.I can certainly see why the 3E and 4e designers (and the 2nd ed Skills and Powers designers, for that matter) thought they had reasons for going the way they did. A challenge in an adventure where one PC is six times more likely than another to fail is a difficult one to GM - if only the strong PC has to deal with it, it runs the risk of being nothing more than a tedious roadbump, and if every PC has to deal with it, disaster is likely. Reducing the difference in the propsects of individual PC failure makes it viable to set up a challenge which only 1 PC has to deal with, but which need not be the strong PC, and also a challenge which every PC has to deal with to at least some extent.</blockquote>

Verification