Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7716059" data-attributes="member: 4937">One big problem is if the system gives no concrete guidance as to what success actually means, then it becomes very likely that unconsciously the GM will scale the degree of difficulty to the ability of the player.&nbsp;&nbsp; In other words, with no way of knowing 'A success of the degree means you cleared 8 meters', a GM asked to resolve a proposition, 'Jump this canyon', will tend to often without realizing it, set the difficulty of the jump based on the player getting a better than expected result.&nbsp; Instead of setting the difficulty as 'better than average result' the difficulty becomes 'better than average roll'.&nbsp;&nbsp; But the result of that is that clearing the obstacle whatever it is, becomes a coin flip no matter how skilled your character is.&nbsp;&nbsp; This may not even be immediately obvious to all players, because often players are each facing there own obstacles rather than competing with each other against the same obstacles.&nbsp; Even your own example implies that there is a subconscious expectation that everyone, regardless of skill traits, has the same 1% chance of surviving jumping into the chasm.&nbsp; This also tends to happen whenever there is no myth in the game.&nbsp; Without prep, the skill of an enemy tends to be, 'whatever would be a challenge for the particular character facing the enemy'.&nbsp;&nbsp; In D&amp;D 3e or later, this is most commonly seen in things like the difficulty of disarming a trap or opening a lock.&nbsp;&nbsp; How hard is it?&nbsp; Hard enough to require the rogue to make a good throw, regardless how the rogues aptitude for disarming traps or opening locks.&nbsp; DC scales with ability, meaning that there is little to be gained in investing in the ability.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7716059, member: 4937"] One big problem is if the system gives no concrete guidance as to what success actually means, then it becomes very likely that unconsciously the GM will scale the degree of difficulty to the ability of the player. In other words, with no way of knowing 'A success of the degree means you cleared 8 meters', a GM asked to resolve a proposition, 'Jump this canyon', will tend to often without realizing it, set the difficulty of the jump based on the player getting a better than expected result. Instead of setting the difficulty as 'better than average result' the difficulty becomes 'better than average roll'. But the result of that is that clearing the obstacle whatever it is, becomes a coin flip no matter how skilled your character is. This may not even be immediately obvious to all players, because often players are each facing there own obstacles rather than competing with each other against the same obstacles. Even your own example implies that there is a subconscious expectation that everyone, regardless of skill traits, has the same 1% chance of surviving jumping into the chasm. This also tends to happen whenever there is no myth in the game. Without prep, the skill of an enemy tends to be, 'whatever would be a challenge for the particular character facing the enemy'. In D&D 3e or later, this is most commonly seen in things like the difficulty of disarming a trap or opening a lock. How hard is it? Hard enough to require the rogue to make a good throw, regardless how the rogues aptitude for disarming traps or opening locks. DC scales with ability, meaning that there is little to be gained in investing in the ability. [/QUOTE]

Verification