Swords under the Sun — Blades in the Dark meets Dungeon World

[loverdrive]

No difficulty? Given that it's the only table I had to include in my game, this was probably destined to rub me the wrong way. I would probably do a lot of arguing with the GM/players instead of Being a Fan and Open Communication.

You don't have to argue with them
The GM says what will happen on a fail, and what will happen on success and lets the player rethink their course of actions. There can be a little discussion, sure, but full-blown argument? Nope.

Now I'm thinking that maybe "no difficulty" is a bit misleading. There's a difficulty, but it is expressed not through a number that needs to be rolled, but through a number of steps you need to accomplish the goal.

Like, if a lone fighter tries to Command a group of cultists to drop their weapons, the difficulty of the task is not expressed as near impossible to beat DC 25, but as an extra step "Well, you're outnumbered 5 to 1, it's not gonna have zero effect. But if you show them that you aren't one to be messed with first..." or, maybe, as reduced effectiveness "Well, you have some fearsome reputation, but you're still outnumbered. The best you can do is to make one or two of them surrender, so when the fight breaks out it will be a bit more manageable"

I'm looking forward to the live-action Youtube demo!

I'll look what I can do, but don't hold your breath.

 

[loverdrive]

Introductory adventure doesn't look like an introductory adventure anymore...

 

[aramis erak]

Art on black background? Awesome!
Fiction-first? Awesome!
No initiative? Awesome!
No grid? Awesome!

No difficulty? Given that it's the only table I had to include in my game, this was probably destined to rub me the wrong way. I would probably do a lot of arguing with the GM/players instead of Being a Fan and Open Communication.

I'm looking forward to the live-action Youtube demo!

For me, as well, no difficulty is the fatal flaw that requires some other exceptional bit to look further.
The excess use of expletives in the announcement makes that bar even harder, by discouraging me from looking further.
When the beta announcement hits two strikes immediately, and it's those two, I know I'm not in the intended audience.

 

[loverdrive]

For me, as well, no difficulty is the fatal flaw that requires some other exceptional bit to look further.
The excess use of expletives in the announcement makes that bar even harder, by discouraging me from looking further.
When the beta announcement hits two strikes immediately, and it's those two, I know I'm not in the intended audience.

¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[loverdrive]

Ok, now that I've sobered up, I think it's time to talk design.

For me, as well, no difficulty is the fatal flaw that requires some other exceptional bit to look further.

I hear from time to time that lack of difficulty class or difficulty modifiers is a flaw, but it had always puzzled me.

I mean, I understand the necessity of DCs in a rigidly structured gameplay, like with action economy and rounds, but when everything flows like a movie?

Let's imagine that a rogue is trying to pick a lock on a chest in a building on fire. So, the task is....

Task difficulty	SutS situation	D&D 5E DC
Very easy	Yeah, the building is on fire, but the lock is a piece of cake. You crack it open in no time. What ya gonna do next?	5
Easy	Yeah, the building is on fire, but the lock is kinda flimsy. I tell you what, on a success, you will open it, on a fail you'll end up in a riskier position.	10
Medium	Ok, that's a pretty normal lock. You can pick it, sure, but you risk getting burned -- a moderate harm, "Nasty burns".	15
Hard	It's some quality lock. You can crack it open, but you risk suffering some grave harm -- "3rd-degree burns".	20
Very hard	That lock is real tough, crafted by a master. You succeed, you fail, you'll get Grave harm, "3rd-degree burns" and there's also a risk of damaging your lockpicks.	25
Nearly impossible	Nah, ain't gonna work. You can try to Wreck it, though, or carry the whole chest outside. Don't count on either being easy, though.	30

Each of these took me like 1 second -- I've spend more time typing it out, and in an actual game I would only need to gauge a single situation, not a range from Very easy to Nearly impossible.

 

[pemerton]

Ok, now that I've sobered up, I think it's time to talk design.


I hear from time to time that lack of difficulty class or difficulty modifiers is a flaw, but it had always puzzled me.

I mean, I understand the necessity of DCs in a rigidly structured gameplay, like with action economy and rounds, but when everything flows like a movie?

Let's imagine that a rogue is trying to pick a lock on a chest in a building on fire.

<snip chart and descriptions>

Each of these took me like 1 second -- I've spend more time typing it out, and in an actual game I would only need to gauge a single situation, not a range from Very easy to Nearly impossible.

I've recently been reading a bit of Ironsworn. Your examples, and its discussion of a similar point, give good illustrations of how to use the fiction rather than DCs to make sure that the challenges that are present in the imagined situation comes through vividly in play.

 

[GMMichael]

Ok, now that I've sobered up, I think it's time to talk design.

Aw! Expletives and (apparently) drunken commentary could be a selling point, despite aramis's tastes.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, as someone who hasn't read - any - of the rules, but a task (like killing the dragon with iron-like, razor-scales) becomes more difficult as it has more steps to fulfill it? That makes sense to me, as each additional die roll adds another chance for the unfavorable outcome, and if characters get better rolls as they progress/level-up, they have a better chance of rolling well through a number of dice contests. The mystique, if I were GMing, would be in exactly how many rolls were needed. "I like my odds of rolling through five levels, but my odds drop below 50% on the sixth level."

I know, it's not very immersive to reduce a difficult scene to a percentile chance of winning, but as a player, I want some way to gauge whether the scene will end well for me. I guess that comes from the GM's risk-assessments ("grave harm")?

 

[aramis erak]

Ok, now that I've sobered up, I think it's time to talk design.


I hear from time to time that lack of difficulty class or difficulty modifiers is a flaw, but it had always puzzled me.

I mean, I understand the necessity of DCs in a rigidly structured gameplay, like with action economy and rounds, but when everything flows like a movie?

It has to do with verisimilitude.
That all rolls are the same difficulty is SUCH a break from my life experiences that it renders a game unplayable to me Because it's completely unrealistic.
EG: Driving across town is easy at the speed limits. No rolls kind of easy (barring other issues from conditions). Driving across town at 90 MPH on fresh snow over ice is a messy attempt at suicide. insanely dangerous, At the speed limit (typically 35) on fresh snow over ice. it is roll needed, as there's a significant risk of meaningful failure. But the nature and rate of failure is vastly different between 35. 60, and 90... At 35, you may need a new vehicle, or be stuck. At 60, you're likely to crash. At 90, it's likely you'll die on a fail. The number of places your failure can happen are the same, but the results and difficulty are not.

Stating difficulty as a number of needed rolls, as your replies to others indicate you've decided to stand in for proper difficulties, is a poor choice from my perspective. (I don't like it as a skill mechanic, either. See also Dying Earth RPG. Nor as an attribute benefit, as in Albedo: Platinum Catalyst.) Back to the drive example, the places where a roll might be needed are the same at all speeds... but the difficulty changes by speed.

Plus, there are many times multiple rolls doesn't make sense.
Shooting someone. spotting an ambush (literal or proverbial). Leaping a gap between roofs. Making a first impression.

As I said, I'm clearly not your intended audience. I'm good with that. On the no difficulties score, there's only one game without difficulties baked in that I've enjoyed: Sentinel Comics. It does, however, have different difficulties baked in to the characters' special abilities. One without does tempt me: MASHed... but I haven't been able to get comfortable with it; it does have a pseudo-difficulty, tho', in the timers.

The excessive profanity is actually far more an issue for me. I'm not one who avoids profanity, per se, but I don't like gratuitous use, and simply put, it's a sign I'm unlikely to enjoy reading the work.

The concept sounded cool, the execution means I'm not in your audience. Since I'd expressed interest prior, and you wanted feedback, I chose to give why I'm no longer interested. For clarity: I was not in any way affronted by your initial shrug response.

 

[Aldarc]

It has to do with verisimilitude.
That all rolls are the same difficulty is SUCH a break from my life experiences that it renders a game unplayable to me Because it's completely unrealistic.

Are you familiar with PbtA games or how Position and Effect in Blades in the Dark works? Or dice pools in BitD? Rolls are less about a "difficulty" scale and more about generating narrative consequences. Position and Effect are extra dials and knobs regarding the range of possible consequences to your character and what you can achieve in the fiction.

Also, why would GM have you roll for driving across town at the speed limits? BitD and PbtA styled games operate by the principle of "say yes or roll the dice." If you are just driving across town at speed limits, you likely wouldn't need to make a roll and the GM would just "say yes" as there would be no interesting consequences or complications UNLESS there was something else that you were trying to achieve that was connected to it: e.g., are you trading effect (i.e., how quickly you arrive at your destination) for a safer position (i.e., legal speed limit)?

The excessive profanity is actually far more an issue for me. I'm not one who avoids profanity, per se, but I don't like gratuitous use, and simply put, it's a sign I'm unlikely to enjoy reading the work.

There's barely any profanity (less than 10) in the main document.

 

[loverdrive]

The mystique, if I were GMing, would be in exactly how many rolls were needed. "I like my odds of rolling through five levels, but my odds drop below 50% on the sixth level."

Well, that's something I don't think can be reliably predicted or decided beforehand.
I mean, killing a dragon can be broken up into three pretty straightforward steps:
1) Find its weak spot
2) Get into position to attack that weak spot
3) Actually wound the thing

At least step 2 can take anywhere from 1 to a dozen of rolls -- if the dragon sends you flying with his tail, or flies away, or prevents you from getting close in any other way, then step 2 would need to be broken down into substeps...

My recommendation is to gauge and describe the immediate situation and let everything else flow from it, both from the GM and the player side -- after all, a couple of really bad rolls can turn what looked like a piece of cake into a very sticky situation.

I know, it's not very immersive to reduce a difficult scene to a percentile chance of winning, but as a player, I want some way to gauge whether the scene will end well for me. I guess that comes from the GM's risk-assessments ("grave harm")?

Mostly, yes. The GM tells the player what will happen on a fail and what will happen on a success and the player then goes like "ok, that's a risk I'm willing to take" or "nope, I really need to reconsider life choices".

The concept sounded cool, the execution means I'm not in your audience. Since I'd expressed interest prior, and you wanted feedback, I chose to give why I'm no longer interested. For clarity: I was not in any way affronted by your initial shrug response.

Yeah, I respect that. I will respond to previous point anyway, but it's fine if you don't want to engage. It's more of a reflection on "how should I explain stuff".

That all rolls are the same difficulty is SUCH a break from my life experiences that it renders a game unplayable to me Because it's completely unrealistic.
EG: Driving across town is easy at the speed limits. No rolls kind of easy (barring other issues from conditions). Driving across town at 90 MPH on fresh snow over ice is a messy attempt at suicide. insanely dangerous, At the speed limit (typically 35) on fresh snow over ice. it is roll needed, as there's a significant risk of meaningful failure. But the nature and rate of failure is vastly different between 35. 60, and 90... At 35, you may need a new vehicle, or be stuck. At 60, you're likely to crash. At 90, it's likely you'll die on a fail. The number of places your failure can happen are the same, but the results and difficulty are not.

I think it boils down to a paradigm shift. A default assumption in games with DC or difficulty modifiers is that success is a success -- you do it, and you do it cleanly. Some, like Dark Heresy, also throw in degrees of success and failure, but the default assumption still stays the same -- in that example, speed of the vehicle determines the probability of success, but rolling success still means "you got there on time, you didn't destroy your car and you are in one piece".

SutS (and other Forged in the Dark games) assume that what exactly success means changes depending on the situation, and in tandem with assessing risk, it represents difficulty. So, the difference between riding through snow and ice at 35, 60, and 90mph is:

• 35mph: you can get there, but you risk getting stuck
• 60mph: you'll crash regardless of what you roll, but the result will determine how bad did you crash
• 90mph: ain't gonna work. If you do it, you are dead. Try something else.