Stalker0's Alternate Core Skill Challenge System: FINAL VERSION 1.8!

[Fieari]

Again, from the "Nuts and Bolts" section, what are:

Secondary Skills, (Bold) and (Aid) tags, and Bold Opening

This sounds interesting, but you don't describe it in the post!

 

[Stalker0]

Again, from the "Nuts and Bolts" section, what are:

This sounds interesting, but you don't describe it in the post!

That section is from Version 1.5, I've moved up several versions since then and I haven't had the time to update that section I'm hoping to get the system completely settled and then go from there.

 

[doctorhook]

In your original post, level 11 in the Easy column looks like a typo.

Also, two questions, Stalker0:
1.) Is this the final version of your skill system?

2.) I just bought myself a beautiful new car. Two weeks later, I found a better car for the same price. I'm really tempted to trade in my new car for this better car, but I feel like I haven't really had a chance to enjoy my car yet, even though I waited and saved for so long to buy it.

4E is my new car, and your skill system is the better one; I really like the look of what you've done, but I'm hesitant to try it before I've even tried the core version.

Can anyone testify to how truly awesome this system is in practice? Don't mince words; if this way has a downside over the core version, lemme hear it. I'm really interested here, but I'd like to know exactly what I'm getting into.

Thanks,
Kyle

 

[dragon_eater]

Keith Baker just wrote an interesting article about skill challenges. Link

I bring this up because one of his house rules is allowing Action Points to reroll failed checks. I think some use for Action Points in your version would be a cool addition.

 

[Stalker0]

In your original post, level 11 in the Easy column looks like a typo.

Also, two questions, Stalker0:
1.) Is this the final version of your skill system?

2.) I just bought myself a beautiful new car. Two weeks later, I found a better car for the same price. I'm really tempted to trade in my new car for this better car, but I feel like I haven't really had a chance to enjoy my car yet, even though I waited and saved for so long to buy it.

4E is my new car, and your skill system is the better one; I really like the look of what you've done, but I'm hesitant to try it before I've even tried the core version.

Can anyone testify to how truly awesome this system is in practice? Don't mince words; if this way has a downside over the core version, lemme hear it. I'm really interested here, but I'd like to know exactly what I'm getting into.

Thanks,
Kyle

The easy column actually isn't a typo, I changed the easy progression at each tier, and that happens to be when it happened. I do think I'm going to change it though, as people are going to get confused by it.

And no, I plan one more version (which I'm currently working on) before I sit back and let the fur fly.

As for benefits/drawbacks comparison, here are a few:

Benefits:
1) More interactive, more player input
2) Better balance overall, more consistent results.
3) Higher complexity = High difficulty, this is not always the case in WOTC's system.

Drawbacks:
1) Higher complexities are shorter than WOTC's
2) Reliance on aid another to compensate for weaker skill users (see below). This is actually a problem that WOTC system has as well, even worse in many cases, but I count it as a drawback because I still feel I should have something better.

The Problem with Aid

You asked for the real deal, and here it is, naked for all the world to see. The biggest flaw in my system is that it doesn't handle well parties that have a low skill user who doesn't use aid another.

Basically your win rate will drop pretty drastically (on the order of 15-20%) if you low skill guy isn't aiding, and by low I mean a difference of 3 or more from the average skill people.

It is a flaw I have worked countless hours to correct, and ultimately found no way to solve it. Here's the problem:

1) You can't take out aid another. Basically that low skill user has to do SOMETHING, or the fun factor of the system fails. But there's no good way to balance the system if the low skill guy is actively participating in the normal mechanics of the system, the variance is too high in an already variable system. This is one of the roadblocks between the math and the fact that the system has to be easy for people to use. If I didn't care about the human element, I could throw in lots of little conditions and requirements that would smooth everything out. But I can't. Further, if I had a system where players were needing 2001 successes before 2000 failures, then it wouldn't be as big a deal. But I can't.

2) I can't force aid another. No one likes being told what to do with their character. Again, the fun factor fails if I do that. But on the other hand, I want the DM to be REALLY encouraging with aid another.

I have made sure in the system that a normal party will always have have higher than 50% win rate even without aiding and an absolute garbage skill guy in there who doesn't aid.

Further, I am working on the next version now, and I will incorporate some corrections that dms can use for players that don't choose to aid. But that's the best I can do right....

wait a minute. I've just had an idea that may help!! Hmmm, back to the spreadsheets!!

 

[doctorhook]

Thank you very much, Stalker0, for taking the time to give me such a detailed response!

One last question, sir: Frankly, I'm in awe of what I see you doing here. I'm highly interested in game design concepts and theory, and I'd like to know, what particular type of math should I study in order to do the sort of things you're doing here?

Thanks again,
Kyle

 

[Stalker0]

Thank you very much, Stalker0, for taking the time to give me such a detailed response!

One last question, sir: Frankly, I'm in awe of what I see you doing here. I'm highly interested in game design concepts and theory, and I'd like to know, what particular type of math should I study in order to do the sort of things you're doing here?

Thanks again,
Kyle

Hehe, most of what I've done is actually not that complicated. I haven't had a huge study of probability, so a lot of what I've done a more educated person probably could have done in half the time. Mainly what I've done is basic probability and combination theory. But I've been merciless at it, I've run hundreds of scenarios, tried and retried different equations again and again.

Some people would write computer software to model the design, and I did that towards the end to verify my calculations and to more accurately represent certain sections that I was averaging to make the math easier. However, I find in general working directly with the math gives more a more intuitive understanding of what's going on. With a program, I can quickly see what changes do what...but the why I usually got by messing with the equations.

Also, a good knowledge of excel works wonders.

Here's an example of my thought process to help you understand better:

For a while, the biggest problem with my system was that as the complexity increased, the win rate started to tank. That's a natural response to this kind of probability work, and its not something you can just reverse.

So what I needed was a mechanic that gave a bigger bonus to a higher complexity challenge. Of course, the simplest way to do this is simply to say: "If your complexity is 3 or higher, subtract 1 from the DC or something". Things like that are actually the best way mathematically to fix the problem. Thing is, you never want the rules to get too complicated. In general, you want things as consistent as possible.

So I started working on mechanics that affected all complexities, but that would affect higher complexities "more". I tried a whole lot of things, some worked but were too complicated to run, others simple but didn't help the math.

Eventually I hit the idea of the bold recovery mechanic. Bold Recovery is a way for players to help themselves if they are doing badly. Which means the more the fail, the more they "win" as far as that mechanic comes in. So the higher the initial rate of failure, the more potent bold recovery becomes, and therefore, it tends to help higher complexities more than lower ones. Voila! That was a critical mechanic that allowed me to tighten up the differences between a 1st and a 3rd level complexity and provide a way for players to have a more active role in the system.

 

[Stalker0]

Alright everyone, Version 1.8 is out!!

Unless someone finds any obvious mistakes, this will be the last version...for a while.

I want to test the system in my own game (starting tomorrow) and hear feedback from live tests. Further, I want to here how close my "default" party is to the actual ones out there.

Good luck in your games, and I hope the system works well for you!

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I did a quick copy/paste into a pdf file.. not pretty but easier to print off than the thread

 

[gonesailing]

Just a quick question. So the "Tags" are gone right? Guiding Light and Bold Recovery should be useable on every check? Simplifies things.

Also, I think the "problem" of a weak skill user is really a problem of Challenge design. I think a challenge needs as many Allowed skills as possible with varied Ability bases. All physical, mental, or charisma based challenges will tend to leave one or more player out.