|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 7:51PM
#51
|
|
|
What makes a system "swingy" is the slope of the cumulative mass function (CMF) in relation to the range of bonuses and difficulties that player characters experience.
I think we're suffering from a difference of definition here. And of the two of us, you're the first one to articulate your definition, so mea culpa. Let me clarify. When you read "swingy", you take that to mean that a change in the DC of a roll causes a large change (or "swing") in the probability of success on that roll. I'm using "swingy" in a bigger-picture sense: the experience of success or failure in an encounter resting on a roll whose probability falls in the 40-60%, which can result in a player feeling uncertain and out of control, because the encounter "swings" on the result of an effective coin toss. I'm certainly not contesting what you're saying about the effect of a normal distribution on the CMF. What I'm pointing out is that a normal distribution pushes the probability more quickly out of that uncertain middle ground and towards probabilities that players can feel more assured about. In short, it is exactly the feature that you call "swingy" that I say alleviates "swinginess". Weird, huh?
Now, you're right in principle that this same assurance-raising effect can be achieved with a uniform distribution by forcing all the DCs into low and high numbers. But this only works when you're dealing with one character with a known and fixed bonus to their roll. When comparing multiple characters with different bonuses, I don't see how you can make this idea work without the DM massaging the math on a character-by-character basis. With a normal distribution, the DM can take any DC, and the distribution itself will naturally push it into the low- or high-probability range (unless it's very close to the character's bonus). This, again, strikes me as an advantageous feature, if keeping most rolls in those ranges is your goal.
EDIT: I see you ninja'ed me in bringing up this "other swinginess".
Yeah, it obviously also occurred to me after I wrote the last post that we might be talking about slightly different issues. Usind 3d6 you'd still have to greatly modify the listed skill DC's. With a uniform distribution I think you could probably create the effect you're looking for by making "training" be about a +15 bonus with the the occasional optional +1 increases. It'd be relatively simple to alter that scale of that initial "training" bonus to find the right balance, instead of re-writing every DC based on a z-table and expected values of PC attributes and advancement rates.
In the past I've created a slightly more diverse version of this effect through an increasing scale in skill advancement. That basically means skills increased in discrete a steps +3, +4(+7), +5(+12), and +6(+18) and then DC's were scattered near 6, 10, 15, and 21. In such a situation, whichever character is "ahead" in skill ranks maintains a significant lead in reliability and the sorts of DC's they can even achieve.
I'd like to point out however that I don't actually prefer skills systems that behave this way. Such systems can act as an obtuse barrier of entry for player participation. It's good for player characters to have varying levels of capability, but too much variance was a common source of annoying design problems and player experiences. These days I tend to use a reverse scale that creates clear diminishing returns so that while specialized characters stand out they do not stand too far over the shoulders of everyone else in the party.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 11:40PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2007
|
I think that the best way is to use the (supposedly forthcoming) rules module for degrees of success. It makes sense really to have things like a glancing blow on AC-2, and a heavy blow on AC+2. You can have a bunch of tables of effects, such as your character succeeding a skill check at DC-1 but tripping and falling prone. You can put in extreme things like if you miss by more than 10 you grant advantage to that enemy against you. The idea isn't that you have to use these EVERY time you roll a die, but rather if a character has a string of bad rolls and then just barely fails a check, throw him a bone and give him a minor success. If a character has a string of bad rolls and then makes a really good roll, make him feel extra awesome by making his success an extraordinary one. You don't have to use it to "cheat" though. You can make it context sensitive, like if the player is trying to do something unusual like grab onto the chandeliers and jump kick the enemy, then use the special effects to make it more cinematic, even in failure. The point is that instead of players rolling a die and then checking to see if they got the magic number, they should be anticpating the consquences to their actions.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 7:07AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2009
|
I was wary of the same thing for a while, until I did the math.
Bonus +1, DC 11 = 50% success chance.
Bonus +52, DC 62 = 50% success chance.
Bonuses v. DC is a way of tracking characters relative to the world, and they should improve, true, and thanks to the D&DNext number shrink, DCs are not likely to change through the levels (much).
Mostly, though, the bonuses are ways of comparing characters to each other, not the world.
The first example above: one party member has -1, another has +4, another has -2, the fourth has +3. Their average success rate is +1, still about 50/50, but now we know that the third guy is probably Jerry Holkins. So, yeah. Bonuses v. DC is not nearly as important as characters compared, and everybody rolls the same d20s (except Jerry, whose d20s are covered in 1s).
"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 8:42AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2006
|
I personally like the d20 because it's a simple abstraction of percentages in 5% increments. It makes it very easy and logical for the GM to set target numbers because you need only determine a percentage chance relative to player skill and ability. I find that when bonuses go past +5 they influence the d20 too much and create weird results such as one character almost automatically succeeding while another automatically fails. I personally favor shrinking the bonuses to a high degree. As soon as the bonuses get to about +10 or higher they almost go 'off the die' and require weird things like incredibly high TNs or bonuses. d100 is usually too complicated (two dice instead of one) and too precise to be useful. d10 is a little too abrupt (I've used both in game designs). Combinations of dice like 2d6 create weird probability curves. Savage Worlds did 'other dice' pretty well. You get some wonky results, but they're usually in the players' favor so of course they don't mind. 
David L. Dostaler
Author, Challenger RPG (free)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 8:57AM
#55
|
|
|
I was wary of the same thing for a while, until I did the math.
Bonus +1, DC 11 = 50% success chance.
Bonus +52, DC 62 = 50% success chance.
Bonuses v. DC is a way of tracking characters relative to the world, and they should improve, true, and thanks to the D&DNext number shrink, DCs are not likely to change through the levels (much).
Mostly, though, the bonuses are ways of comparing characters to each other, not the world.
The first example above: one party member has -1, another has +4, another has -2, the fourth has +3. Their average success rate is +1, still about 50/50, but now we know that the third guy is probably Jerry Holkins. So, yeah. Bonuses v. DC is not nearly as important as characters compared, and everybody rolls the same d20s (except Jerry, whose d20s are covered in 1s).
I'm glad that someone else understands how the comparison between players is the most critical part of any skill system. The nature of PC potency is very much relative from system to system, and an aspect of each system's specific goals and balance. What does always matter is that each player feels that their character's special contributions are respected and well balanced for both their frequency of interaction and over-all utility. While that role's specific abilities can sometimes be protected through systematic gulfs in effectiveness, this strategy actually tends to create greater imbalance between roles because of differing playstyles or even different emphasis from scene to scene. For that reason it's usually more balanced to make character capabilities broadly effective so that players rarely feel their participation is trivialized.
Of course, I'm probably preaching to the choir this time.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 1:37PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2012
|
I keep saying it: Not all tasks should have the same relation of SkillExpertise VS Chance of Success.
In other words sometimes it makes more sense to use a d20, sometimes 3d6.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 02, 2012 - 1:40PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2006
|
I was wary of the same thing for a while, until I did the math.
Bonus +1, DC 11 = 50% success chance.
Bonus +52, DC 62 = 50% success chance.
Bonuses v. DC is a way of tracking characters relative to the world, and they should improve, true, and thanks to the D&DNext number shrink, DCs are not likely to change through the levels (much).
Mostly, though, the bonuses are ways of comparing characters to each other, not the world.
The first example above: one party member has -1, another has +4, another has -2, the fourth has +3. Their average success rate is +1, still about 50/50, but now we know that the third guy is probably Jerry Holkins. So, yeah. Bonuses v. DC is not nearly as important as characters compared, and everybody rolls the same d20s (except Jerry, whose d20s are covered in 1s).
I'm glad that someone else understands how the comparison between players is the most critical part of any skill system. The nature of PC potency is very much relative from system to system, and an aspect of each system's specific goals and balance. What does always matter is that each player feels that their character's special contributions are respected and well balanced for both their frequency of interaction and over-all utility. While that role's specific abilities can sometimes be protected through systematic gulfs in effectiveness, this strategy actually tends to create greater imbalance between roles because of differing playstyles or even different emphasis from scene to scene. For that reason it's usually more balanced to make character capabilities broadly effective so that players rarely feel their participation is trivialized.
Of course, I'm probably preaching to the choir this time.
Yes, that's a line of reasoning one of my players follows all the time. I know what you mean, and I agree.
From a GM's perspective, I'm much more concerned with successfully designing challenges, implied relative power, and other such concerns as well as keeping the game running soundly from a mechanical standpoint.
However, if I was a player, I'm sure that would be my main concern as well. I know at least one of my players who is of the exact same mind. Thanks for the insightful post!
David L. Dostaler
Author, Challenger RPG (free)
|
|
|
