Notes on Difficulty Values

[Morrus]

You'll see this is in the next playtest packet in a couple of weeks, which will include a standardization of difficulty values for attribute checks. In place of "a difficulty 15 INT check" or "an END check at difficulty 21" you'll see "a Challenging (16) INT check".

The current scale looks like this. Note that the descriptors are from the reference point of a normal human - what is impossible to a normal human might not, of course, be impossible to Einstein or James Bond.

[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 500"] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Trivial
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]6
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Easy
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]10
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Standard
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]13
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Challenging
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]16
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Difficult
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]21
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Severe
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]25
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Impossible
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]29
[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
You'll note, from the above, that shooting at somebody's DEFENCE score is typically a Challenging -> Severe AGI check. In other words, it's actually quite difficult to hit someone. That's where the aiming, pinning down, crossfire, suppressive fire, etc. come in. The combat becomes more mobile as position makes a big difference - it becomes almost a chess game as each side jockeys for position to get those AGI checks down to less difficult values without sacrificing their own DEFENCE.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You'll note, from the above, that shooting at somebody's DEFENCE score is typically a Challenging -> Severe AGI check. In other words, it's actually quite difficult to hit someone.

I like this idea. That most people shoot and miss. it makes for a very cinematic

 

[GMMichael]

You'll see this is in the next playtest packet in a couple of weeks, which will include a standardization of difficulty values for attribute checks. In place of "a difficulty 15 INT check" or "an END check at difficulty 21" you'll see "a Challenging (16) INT check".

Good rule. So good, in fact, that I used the same thing in my RPG. (edit)
(It seems D&D figured this out, put it on a page I never read, and proceeded to specify additional DCs anyway.)

Any reason why your difficulty classes/titles don't progress by a set number of points?

One thing you might want to nip in the bud: something of "trivial" difficulty should probably be a 2 difficulty; 6 sounds a little high. Unless, of course, you have a rule like d20's Take 10.

 

[Morrus]

Any reason why your difficulty classes/titles don't progress by a set number of points?

Each is calculated as a 50% success rate for certain levels of ability.

One thing you might want to nip in the bud: something of "trivial" difficulty should probably be a 2 difficulty; 6 sounds a little high. Unless, of course, you have a rule like d20's Take 10.

2 isn't a typically attainable roll. It's a d6 dice pool system. And 2 wouldn't be a 50% success rate for any competence level. It's quite heavily mathematicized.

 

[GMMichael]

2 isn't a typically attainable roll. It's a d6 dice pool system. And 2 wouldn't be a 50% success rate for any competence level. It's quite heavily mathematicized.

The only dice pool system I remember was White Wolf's: roll all the dice in your pool (d6s), and each roll above X counts as a success. You need Y successes, to, well, be successful.

Is that how yours works?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The only dice pool system I remember was White Wolf's: roll all the dice in your pool (d6s), and each roll above X counts as a success. You need Y successes, to, well, be successful.

Is that how yours works?

no his is more like west end games (not a knock just a comparison) you roll xd6 and add them up...


so if you have 5d6 you are generating a number from 5-30 with an average of 19.5

so even rolling 2d6 is auto making a 2DC

so looking at his numbers

2d will hit his 6 most of the time
3d is almost a gurantee
4d+ you need a very bad day not to hit that 6

13 is his standard, 2d can never hit it, 3d can but it's hard 4d does it on average though, and 5d+ just gets easier and easier

as the numbers go up the number of dice you need goes up as well

21,25, and 29 are all huge on d6's

on average you need 6+ die pools for any of them, and I would not feel it easy to get a 29 even with 10d6 (average 35) because of the amount of swing at that level... infact I would say for me personaly to feel comfadant I would need a 12+ die pool for a 29

now not knowing how these pools are formed (WoD was stat+skill and west end game was as well but in a different mind set)

edit: [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] please tell me if I over stepped with my analysis

 

[Morrus]

The exploding dice push that average up to 4.2 per dice (and means there's always a chance, however small) but that's not far off. There's a couple of pages going through the maths and probabilities in the playtest document for those interested in such things. Lots of spreadsheets and formulae died bringing you this information!

 

[LucasC]

I expect that this table will prove extremely useful for running the game. When we were playing Tuesday my players tried several things that required I make a judgement call - and we only played one short encounter!

When the action in question is not a contest, this table will help standardize and normalize those judgement calls immensely.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The exploding dice push that average up to 4.2 per dice (and means there's always a chance, however small) but that's not far off. There's a couple of pages going through the maths and probabilities in the playtest document for those interested in such things. Lots of spreadsheets and formulae died bringing you this information!

with exploding dice (I assume that means rolling a 6 means add and roll again) I would risk a DC 29 on 8 or 9 dice...

 

[LucasC]

Each time you roll a 6 you roll again and add the results. Repeat until no more 6's are rolled.