New Legends and Lore:Difficulty Class Warfare

[LostSoul]

I think the terminology narms me, too. "I have journeyman perception" is meaningless jargon to me (and to any newbies, I imagine), but "When I swim, I roll this dice and get this bonus, and if I get high, I do it well" is pretty intuitive.

"Journeyman":

1. One who has fully served an apprenticeship in a trade or craft and is a qualified worker in another's employ.
2. An experienced and competent but undistinguished worker.

DC 15:

??

In order to make sense of "DC 15", I'd have to perform a mechanical analysis of the system. Saying "Journeyman" actually means something that's easily accessible, whereas calculating what "DC 15" means in the context of the game is not. (Which is where 4E's DCs by skill level tables come in handy.)

Auto-Success and Auto-Failure actively work against that, since what you have is what you have. The result -- barring heavy DM intervention -- is said and done with. Now, that's often a useful outcome -- I don't necessarily want to have to make the barbarian roll to move a statue around. But that's what passive skill checks ("Take 10" and the like) are for. They don't fail at providing auto-success, what they do fail at is providing auto-failure.

So auto-failure isn't an appealing selling point to me. I don't need to be more empowered to say no.

It's only auto-failure if the players can't think of anything to do that will improve their ability to succeed.

Now, when you say "barring heavy DM intervention":

I am a lazy DM. I do not want to have to make thousands of micro-judgments about the permissiveness and results of an action that the rules don't handle. Furthermore, I like players to be empowered to change the world on their own, rather than asking me for permission at each turn. The more active they are, the more reactive I can be, and the easier my job is.

So I guess the two things I see this system potentially accomplishing that the current skill system can't already accomplish are both things that would reduce the fun of the game for me. I don't want to adjudicate permissible actions, and I don't desire stronger rules authority to say "No."

If you don't want to make judgement calls, this is going to be a bad system. However, this system - if the challenges are auto-failures - is going to engage players who want their characters to succeed. They are going to have to empower themselves to make decisions for their characters that turn auto-failures into auto-successes. You're given authority to judge the player's decisions for their PCs. If this responsibility is something you don't want, the skill system isn't going to work.

In a similar fashion, if the players are the type who fear failure and won't engage because the game challenges their skill, this won't work for them. But if they are willing to "step on up" to the challenge - it's going to empower them and bring them into the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In order to make sense of "DC 15", I'd have to perform a mechanical analysis of the system. Saying "Journeyman" actually means something that's easily accessible, whereas calculating what "DC 15" means in the context of the game is not. (Which is where 4E's DCs by skill level tables come in handy.)

I believe see yer point: journeyman is an actual word with meaning, "DC 15" is meaningless. However, "journeyman" doesn't imply something about how easy or hard it is for me to do something, or what I'm actually capable of as a character, while "Beat a 15 with this dice + these mods" does, rather clearly.

Terminology is quite a minor thing, though. It's easy enough to improve!

It's only auto-failure if the players can't think of anything to do that will improve their ability to succeed.

...and run it pass a DM. Which, I believe, works just as well with a DC system and circumstance bonuses, no?

If you don't want to make judgement calls, this is going to be a bad system. However, this system - if the challenges are auto-failures - is going to engage players who want their characters to succeed. They are going to have to empower themselves to make decisions for their characters that turn auto-failures into auto-successes. You're given authority to judge the player's decisions for their PCs. If this responsibility is something you don't want, the skill system isn't going to work.

I don't want my players to ask me, "Can I do this?"

I'd much rather them tell me, "I do this."

To encourage the second option, I need rules that they can use without my DM stamp of approval, ways that they can succeed without requesting special dispensation.

To bring it to a comparison: could combat work well if attacks were resolved like this? If you are unable to hit the goblin entirely, until you specify how you are going to hit them?

Could searching a room work that way? You are unable to find the treasure, unless you specify how you find the treasure?

"You're all going to die, tell me how you try avoid it or you die! If I deem your answer worthy, you get to flip a coin instead!"...yeah, not so appealing to me.

In a similar fashion, if the players are the type who fear failure and won't engage because the game challenges their skill, this won't work for them. But if they are willing to "step on up" to the challenge - it's going to empower them and bring them into the game.

I'm not generally a fan of games that require players to be steeped in medieval combat in order to fight an orc, or to know edible herbs in order to survive in the wilderness, to solve puzzles in order to have their characters solve puzzles, or to be particularly witty in order to play a witty character.

I know that a good, solid, chunk of folks who play D&D definitely are bigger fans of that style, so I'd bet this would go over well with them, at least in certain circumstances.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I know that a good, solid, chunk of folks who play D&D definitely are bigger fans of that style, so I'd bet this would go over well with them, at least in certain circumstances.

I don't generally like the players having to ask if they can do something, but I do in this case. It seems to me to be one of those things where they quickly learn what is possible and then don't need to ask anymore. But maybe that is just the players I've encountered.

Your objection does make me wonder, however, if such a system could have an option that collapses it back into numbers. Something like: DC is 15. For every rank you have in the "major difficulty" scale (novice, et al.), you get a +10 to the roll. But for every rank the task has (in the module or set by the DM), add 10 to the DC. So now that novice with a measly +5 can get occasionally lucky with a journeyman task (now DC 25).

Maybe it is just me, but it seems easier (and more elegant in presentation too) to have the micro/macro aspects of modest bonuses/major difficulty ratings in tiers, as the default--then collapse the numbers as an option for those that want to roll it back into a single number--than to have the numbers as the default and have to reverse-engineer the DCs and abilities for every factor of 10.

There is a distinction made between the guy that is a +8 Novice (perhaps due to items or ability score) and the guy who is a +4 Expert (well-trained but not particularly gifted). It's easier to collapse that distinction back into a simple skill mod than it is to break it out of a simple skill mod.

 

[pemerton]

It's also appealing to me to have everyone contribute in a dramatic skill situation, but this method actually decreases the possibility of that happening, since getting it to happen requires plying the DM, which is deeply unsatisfying gameplay for me.

I don't see how stating what your PC does to gain an advantage is "playing the GM". I mean, I can see how in some contexts it might be, but I don't see how it is in general.

In a 4e combat, I've drawn some trees on a battlemap. A player asks "Can I use the trees for cover? Can I climb up into the canopy to get enough concealment to use Stealth?". Or there's some furniture, and a player wants to do something with it - take cover, or make a page 42 attack, or use it to float out of a flooding room (I've had the last come up in play). The game requires the GM to set DCs, to adjudicate actions, to assert authority over these sorts of details of the fiction, all the time. I don't see why Mearls' idea is peculiarly problematic in this respect. (And it could be coupled with a Fate Point mechanic, or something similar, to allow players to assert this sort of control.)

if the players are the type who fear failure and won't engage because the game challenges their skill, this won't work for them. But if they are willing to "step on up" to the challenge - it's going to empower them and bring them into the game.

I liked your idea of using Love for the Princess to meet the challenges also. So it needn't just be about croutons and 10' poles, or even "stepping on up". It can be about the willingness of the player to fully commit the PC to the situation.

To bring it to a comparison: could combat work well if attacks were resolved like this?

<snip>

You're all going to die, tell me how you try avoid it or you die!

That's kind-of how I run skill challenges (following advice from LostSoul posted on these boards a couple of years ago now). And some combats have that form too. Unless the players work out how their PCs can take cover, or cross the bridge/ravine/water, or open the gate/portal/portcullis, or . . ., then the PCs will lose the fight.

In some ways, Mearls' suggestion reminds me somewhat of some dice pool mechanics. In those systems, you have no chance of winning if you don't have enough dice to meet the obstacle. So part of what play involves is scrounging for more dice - whether through clever play, or investing the PC more heavily into the situation (spending Fate Points, calling on relationships, raising the "death flag", etc etc). What makes these systems good or bad is (i) their guidelines and mechanics for scrounging more dice, and (ii) their guidelines and mechanics for resolving failure. Obviously both of these are also crucial for Mearls' system.

 

[FireLance]

In some ways, Mearls' suggestion reminds me somewhat of some dice pool mechanics.

Actually, it reminds me more of a description of the Amber Diceless conflict resolution mechanic that I read about once (I have no personal experience with the system, so take the following with a grain of salt). If your opponent's base attribute is better than yours, you will lose. In order to win, you must find some way to gain an advantage, or change the terms of the conflict, e.g. from armed combat to unarmed combat to psychic combat.

 

[Anselyn]

I think the terminology narms me, too. "I have journeyman perception" is meaningless jargon to me (and to any newbies, I imagine),

I agree this is meaningless jargon as it doesn't make sense if you try to translate it to non-game terms, i.e. "I have expert drive". This is not English.

I'm at expert at driving is a character concept or fact from a character sheet that can be used with the rules. It's just a matter of tweaking game words to work better. Perception to Perceiving would work but is ugly. I'll leave it to the very literate (those with great literacy??) to do the word search.

What is more easily understood English.
A. I am very strong
B. I have high strength
C. I have great strength in my ....

I'd say that A. is the most common English usage, B is actually game jargon that we have a lifetimes experience of hearing (from gamers to gamers), and C may show that the natural English way to talk about these things is qualitatively rather than quantitatively.

but "When I swim, I roll this dice and get this bonus, and if I get high, I do it well" is pretty intuitive.

I do agree - but as with all things someone with great experience of a system finds it hard to remember what it's like not to do things (Oh it's obvious, the ; should be a :: to correctly declare the variable if you have already ...)

Even if the mechanism is easy to learn really understanding the details of the scale is hard.
Newbie:OK. So it says here that I can swim - so my bonus must be +15 as that's a large number compared to the 1-20 range ?? And I can do this, right?

 

[Jhaelen]

Apropos of nothing: Isn't this also similar to Earthdawn? In Earthdawn the maximum level is 15. About every four levels you get to a new tier:

- Initiate (level 1)
- Novice (level 2-4)
- Journeyman (level 5-8)
- Warden (level 9-12)
- Master (level 13-15)

These tiers are used to set the DC for (certain) skill checks, i.e. first you decide at which tier someone would have to be to succeed in the attempted task, then you assign a difficulty.

Since Earthdawn uses open-ended rolls, even an Initiate could still theoretically succeed at a task that would be difficult for a master, but it's infinitesimally small.

Earthdawn also knows degrees of success:
Pathetic, Poor, Average, Good, Excellent and Extraordinary.

This is btw. something I feel is missing from D&D! (although you could easily assign degrees by adding +/-5 steps to DCs).

The Earthdawn system is more complicated (and doesn't use fixed DCs) but I think it's based on the same idea.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I see a lot potential in this idea. At it's base it gives DMs/GMs a rule of thumb to determine how difficult a task is based on who they think could complete the task, and players an understanding of a characters rough skill level based on what tasks they can complete. I don't like the auto-success at skill tier +1 and auto-failure at skill tier -1, but that is fairly simple to handle.

 

[Gundark]

The system has merit, but I think that it needs some tweaking to make it really work. I have been reading both sides of the discussion and can see points that both sides are presenting.

For example, I'm playing in a mekton mecha game; my character was taking part in academy wargames and was attacked by one of the instructors (who the DM said was a pretty hot pilot). My character is a decent pilot but was told that unless I rolled really well I was gonna get "shot down". I rolled and got a dice explosion and rolled really well and was actually able to take the other pilot out. That was a really awesome moment and was pretty cool, I would have hated it if it was just "oh your journeyman pilot skill level isn’t high enough you fail”

OTOH… How many times do I need the dice to give me a hail mary and they fall flat (I rolled a 1!!!!). Not having to roll the dice for some tasks is worthwhile, and I like the idea of how you can boost your skill level through clever play…”oh I pull out the Tallon roll which is a special manoeuvre that the pilot Tallon used during the battle of Vega moon and I’ve been researching this and practicing. Thus boosting me from Journeyman to Easter”. But there needs to be something more to boost skills too. I’m brilliant , but as the night wears on I’m less so and I like the action point mechanic that Sammael mentioned. Spend an # of action points to bump my skill level up to where I can roll the dice. Thus even if your character is by yourself, or not feeling particularly creative you can still get success.

 

[Gundark]

Another thought, this approach makes D&D more "gear focused". ie. The Wizard packs some (pythons) pitons to gain a +1 bump up the skill ladder for climb checks, The Fighter packs some noble clothing to give her a boost up the skill ladder for Diplomacy checks. This makes character creation a bit more advanced as there is more shopping, but it also gets away from characters beginning play with armour, weapon and nothing else.