PDA

View Full Version : Stealth: The Eternal Headache



Oracle_Hunter
2013-11-06, 09:13 PM
In the course of designing my many, many wonderful RPGs (http://oraclehunter.wordpress.com/about/) [/shamelessplug] one issue has kept coming up that just does not have a good solution: Stealth.

The issues why Stealth -- of all thing -- is such a knotty problem are myriad:
Inherently Opposed Checks: Opposed rolls are a problem in virtually any system because whatever variance issues are inherent in the base mechanics are doubled (at least!) when both sides have to roll. This plays hob with Player Expectations which are one of the most important considerations in designing a game.
Lots of Rolls: While it's not too bad having every sneaky guy make his own check, having everyone who sees him make an individual Spot check can grind a game to a halt. Trying to work around this concern seems to result in nothing but unsatisfactory compromises or incredibly fussy math.
Granularity: Distinct from Lots of Rolls is the issue of "who sees who." Just because one member of the sneaking group is seen doesn't mean everyone is -- nor do you want a situation where one good check reveals every hidden guy in line of sight. This inherent need for deep granularity in the mechanic will almost always make it more trouble than Stealth's role in the game should be worth.
Information Asymmetry: When do you ask for checks? If you only ask when there is someone hidden then the Players will be burdened with OOC knowledge that someone is hidden nearby. But you don't want to be constantly making checks that don't matter either -- it'll slow down the game.
That's my summation of the issues, but perhaps you see it differently. More importantly, do you know of a game that you think handles the issues of Hide & Seek particularly well? If so, what are the high-points of the system that make it function so well.

Inquiring minds want to know! :smallsmile:

Urpriest
2013-11-06, 09:26 PM
In the course of designing my many, many wonderful RPGs (http://oraclehunter.wordpress.com/about/) [/shamelessplug] one issue has kept coming up that just does not have a good solution: Stealth.

The issues why Stealth -- of all thing -- is such a knotty problem are myriad:
Inherently Opposed Checks: Opposed rolls are a problem in virtually any system because whatever variance issues are inherent in the base mechanics are doubled (at least!) when both sides have to roll. This plays hob with Player Expectations which are one of the most important considerations in designing a game.
Lots of Rolls: While it's not too bad having every sneaky guy make his own check, having everyone who sees him make an individual Spot check can grind a game to a halt. Trying to work around this concern seems to result in nothing but unsatisfactory compromises or incredibly fussy math.
Granularity: Distinct from Lots of Rolls is the issue of "who sees who." Just because one member of the sneaking group is seen doesn't mean everyone is -- nor do you want a situation where one good check reveals every hidden guy in line of sight. This inherent need for deep granularity in the mechanic will almost always make it more trouble than Stealth's role in the game should be worth.
Information Asymmetry: When do you ask for checks? If you only ask when there is someone hidden then the Players will be burdened with OOC knowledge that someone is hidden nearby. But you don't want to be constantly making checks that don't matter either -- it'll slow down the game.
That's my summation of the issues, but perhaps you see it differently. More importantly, do you know of a game that you think handles the issues of Hide & Seek particularly well? If so, what are the high-points of the system that make it function so well.

Inquiring minds want to know! :smallsmile:

Stealth has lots of issues, granted...but those particular issues are all dealt with by 4e's concept of Passive Perception. You "take 10" on 4e's equivalent of Spot checks, so the only person rolling is the person using stealth.

Deophaun
2013-11-06, 09:37 PM
3.5 actually solves a few of these problems if you're applying penalties appropriately. Between distance and distraction (basically anyone who isn't spending an action to look is likely distracted for a -5 penalty), it's fairly easy to eyeball the three orcs out of the 30-strong raiding party that the players have to worry about. Furthermore, even people on lookout aren't rolling. They're taking 10 unless something has prompted them to start taking chances. A good stealth encounter in 3.5 has very little rolling if the sneaky side knows what it's doing. Not even the sneaky person is rolling.

The main issue I have with stealth is that it's isolating. More isn't merrier. If you're sneaking past the enemy, you want as few people around to blow your cover as possible. That's a problem for cooperative RPGs.

Grinner
2013-11-06, 09:43 PM
Nothing really comes to mind, but I think you're handling it in an awkward fashion.

When you say "stealth", I can think of two possible scenarios. The first is infiltration, where the characters are attempting to enter a facility unseen, and the second is hide & seek, where the characters are attempting to be unseen while running from something.

In the first, the passive checks Urpriest mentioned basically solve that problem. It shifts the burden of making infiltration interesting to the GM, but it certainly simplifies things.

The second is a chase and should be handled as such. Stealth should not negate the scene entirely, but it should make it easier. It should buy you time while the pursuer searches for you. Then again, that's likely beyond the scope of the rules, unless you turn it into a minigame of some sort.

What we can learn from this, I think, is that game designers need to consider how their rules are presented in play and not just on paper. It may make sense on paper, but that can easily end messily in play.

Kane0
2013-11-06, 09:53 PM
Stealth has lots of issues, granted...but those particular issues are all dealt with by 4e's concept of Passive Perception. You "take 10" on 4e's equivalent of Spot checks, so the only person rolling is the person using stealth.

Yep, 4e does a pretty good job at stealth. You roll to become hidden, then retain that roll to use against your opponents passive perception until you break stealth. An opponent can spend a minor action to roll perception to find you (and i think you cant perceive more than one person at a time with this minor action roll, so no roll to detect the entire enemy group).
And cover/concealment/invisibility doesnt provide the same benefits as stealth, only true stealth can hide your location (4e splits the two into cover/concealment and hidden)

Oracle_Hunter
2013-11-06, 10:16 PM
Stealth has lots of issues, granted...but those particular issues are all dealt with by 4e's concept of Passive Perception. You "take 10" on 4e's equivalent of Spot checks, so the only person rolling is the person using stealth.
Ah, but what about when the PCs are "looking" for ambushes? Do you let them roll Perception or not?

Plus there is still the issue of "tactical" stealth checks.

nedz
2013-11-06, 10:43 PM
The main issue I have with stealth is that it's isolating. More isn't merrier. If you're sneaking past the enemy, you want as few people around to blow your cover as possible. That's a problem for cooperative RPGs.

For a party: Stealth can be all or nothing.
It's also like virginity, but that's another issue.

Urpriest
2013-11-06, 10:47 PM
Ah, but what about when the PCs are "looking" for ambushes? Do you let them roll Perception or not?

Plus there is still the issue of "tactical" stealth checks.

I'd assume they were always looking for ambushes, but that's because my idea of D&D is a game where the PCs are professionals. In general, 4e RAW is as Kane0 described.

What do you mean by "tactical" stealth checks?

Knaight
2013-11-06, 11:06 PM
Take a look at Chronica Feudalis, it handles this extremely well. REIGN does as well, but you kind of need a grip on enough of the rest of REIGN for it to be more intensive to look into.

Kane0
2013-11-06, 11:17 PM
Ah, but what about when the PCs are "looking" for ambushes? Do you let them roll Perception or not?

Plus there is still the issue of "tactical" stealth checks.

If they are looking for something specific they roll for it, otherwise they have a permanent passive perception (take 10) to ensure they can spot things in general. Usually looking out for something but not looking for it specifically is like a passive perception +2 or something.

Tactical as in using in combat, or while being observed?

The Dark Fiddler
2013-11-07, 12:15 AM
I have to disagree with stealth inherently involving opposed checks. Sure, it seems like the best way to handle it, but it's not the only way.

Take Fate (Core, Accelerated, some older edition; I think it applies in all of them). Sure, the easiest way to handle sneaking past somebody would be for you to roll Stealth and the guard to roll Notice.

However, equally valid and completely supported would be you rolling Stealth against a passive opposition (basically, a DC).

If you wanted to hide in the middle of a heated combat to get the edge on somebody, making opposed rolls actually makes less sense than what you'd typically do for Fate. Simply make a stealth roll to create an advantage; if you pass, you give yourself an aspect along the lines of Hidden and Readied.

It depends on the circumstances a lot, obviously. There's still times where opposed rolls would work best; during a high-tension moment against somebody who isn't just a mook, for example. But there's plenty of situations where an opposed roll would almost be inappropriate, too.

Acatalepsy
2013-11-07, 02:26 AM
Inquiring minds want to know! :smallsmile:

There's the question of "what's the raw mechanics for it" and then there's the question of "what's the role of stealth in play", and these are two different questions - and you need to answer the latter first.

I'd also add to that list of problems the "decker problem"; namely, that while the stealthy character is sneaking ahead, the rest of the party is doing absolutely nothing, which is boring for most of the players. This means that a lot of the time, you'll be looking for fairly abstracted mechanics to handle things like "did I observe them without them noticing".

Besides answering the "what do you need stealth mechanics for" question, I do have one interesting mechanic that might be interesting (but might not be what you're looking for) from SotC. There's a deceit/disguise stunt that allows the PC to go "off camera", and then reveal themselves later - for stealth, this would be something like rolling their stealth check, and if successful, they go "off camera" but can burst from some convenient hiding spot whenever it becomes necessary.

Rakaydos
2013-11-07, 02:36 AM
Inherently Opposed Checks: Opposed rolls are a problem in virtually any system because whatever variance issues are inherent in the base mechanics are doubled (at least!) when both sides have to roll. This plays hob with Player Expectations which are one of the most important considerations in designing a game.

Not all systems have varience issues. The Cardinal system used in Ironclaw scales well without ever becoming unmanagable. (at least, not before reaching skill levels that warp reality)

Ravens_cry
2013-11-07, 03:37 AM
I actually like opposed rolls for Stealth, since it is an activity both parties have a stake in. That being said, unless the searching party was actively looking and alert, I'd likely just use a Take 10 or the local equivalent. Still, there modifier matters too. It's something I don't like about AD&D and many of its percentile rolls.

TheThan
2013-11-07, 03:39 AM
My old workaround was to simply roll spot/listen/perception check for the players instead. So if they didn't tell me that they’re intending to use their perception or stealth skills, then I’d roll them for them and tell them any results that pop up. It solved waiting for everyone to make rolls and OOC meta-gaming, I could just keep track of who’s noticing who. If the players want to make rolls that’s fine I’d allow it.

However I much prefer passive detection skills, it has all the benefits of the above but much faster than constantly rolling dice to see who sees who when they’re not actively playing hide & seek.

Rhynn
2013-11-07, 03:43 AM
What's wrong with opposed rolls?

RuneQuest 6 etc. use a handy mechanic for opposed group tests: in sneaking, the worst member of the sneaking party rolls Stealth against the best Perception of the detecting party. (In other group tests, it might be best vs. best, worst vs. worst, or best vs. worst.) It's a nice simplification. I suppose, if you wanted, you could have the other members of the detecting party assist, adding 1/10 of their skill to the best skill, but that seems unnecessary unless, say, they're actively looking for someone in a bounded space. (E.g., they're searching a house for a hiding person - a case where more people looking is obviously a great help.)

If you want people to be spotted individually, you can have each hider roll against the single roll for the detecting group.

"Who sees who" seems like unnecessary complication to me. Just make a call if it's important for some reason - that's what GMs are for. You can't expect rules to tell you everything.

Also, stealth is, obviously, one of those situations where the GM makes all the rolls. (If you care about keeping secrets from players at all. You might not.) If your players don't trust you to make rolls for them, you've got a whole 'nother problem.

Lorsa
2013-11-07, 04:46 AM
When I saw this thread I thought it was going to be about the problem where stealth is only viable if all party members are great at it or else the high stealth guy will always be dragged down by the others. Or how the stealth guy to avoid the former problem runs off on his own and half the session turns into a solo act.

As shown, there are any number of ways to do stealth rolls. In some games oppossed check is the way to go, in others you roll against a target number that is modified by the opponent's perception. It might even be so that you never roll stealth but have a passive "this is how good I am at sneaking" value and the only thing rolled is perception for the opponents.

Also, not all rolls have to be individual, you can make one roll for an entire group if you want. If one person spot the stealthy character chances are they'll call out to their friends anyway.

Zejety
2013-11-07, 11:19 AM
Rule of Cool's Legend uses something they call Awareness, a Wisdom-based property that sets the DC for skill checks that would be opposed in other systems, kind of like AC or CMD in Pathfinder.

Segev
2013-11-07, 02:17 PM
The best way to avoid information asymmetry and to avoid lots of rolling is, as others have said, to establish passive "perception" levels.

The people engaging in stealth make the check, and compare it to the passive perception of all potential detectors. Those they exceed, they avoid the notice of. They hide from everybody iff they exceed every passive perception. They hide from everybody important if the only ones who notice them can't or won't do anything about them.

You now need never tell the players to do anything just to find out if the NPC who's hiding is seen. Roll your check and report to players whose characters' perceptions are not exceeded.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-07, 02:29 PM
Ah, but what about when the PCs are "looking" for ambushes? Do you let them roll Perception or not?

Plus there is still the issue of "tactical" stealth checks.

You can just switch it up if you want to let the PCs roll dice; have the NPCs 'take 10' while the PCs roll. It shouldn't change the math too drastically.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-11-07, 08:17 PM
Tactical as in using in combat, or while being observed?


What do you mean by "tactical" stealth checks?
Oops :smallredface:

Tactical Stealth checks are those made primarily during combat (as opposed to "strategic" stealth checks when you're sneaking through territory) but can be fairly said to cover any situation where you need to confirm Hidden/Revealed from round-to-round.

To make a D&D 4e example: a five-man party is facing down 3 Invisible enemies. Each enemy makes his Stealth check versus the Passive Perceptions for the party and passes. On each Player's Turn, they want a chance to spot the Enemies so they start spending Minor Actions to make Perception Checks. What do they roll against to see who they see? Assuming "Passive Stealth" (which isn't in 4e, but w/e) you cut down on the rolls a bit but ultimately you're making an awful lot of dice rolls which aren't actually making the Encounter end faster. Also, what if someone rolls lower than their Passive?

Additionally, the variance in 4e means that a five-man party is almost certain to see anyone who can be seen, even if they are half-blind Mooks and he's a Master Thief.


When I saw this thread I thought it was going to be about the problem where stealth is only viable if all party members are great at it or else the high stealth guy will always be dragged down by the others. Or how the stealth guy to avoid the former problem runs off on his own and half the session turns into a solo act.
Actually, this scenario depends heavily on the given Stealth mechanics. In D&D you would be correct but, say, in 5e you wouldn't be since the "high-Stealth guy" can substitute his roll for the entire party -- whether it's his apprentice of a horde of knights in full plate -- with no penalty.

kyoryu
2013-11-07, 08:46 PM
I generally have the stealth roll be for the party as a whole - "who sees who" isn't super-interesting to me, as as soon as one person sees a hidden enemy, he'll alert the rest of his party.

Repeated rolls will almost inevitably end up with whatever the 'terminal' roll (failure for stealth) is occurring.

INDYSTAR188
2013-11-07, 09:40 PM
Actually, this scenario depends heavily on the given Stealth mechanics. In D&D you would be correct but, say, in 5e you wouldn't be since the "high-Stealth guy" can substitute his roll for the entire party -- whether it's his apprentice of a horde of knights in full plate -- with no penalty.

I did not participate in any of the playtests for 5e, so today I learned... That sounds silly to me, of course there are always silly things in DnD *cough cough spellcasters, lookin at you* but I would expect some kind of negative modifier in the knights in full plate example.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-11-07, 09:48 PM
I did not participate in any of the playtests for 5e, so today I learned... That sounds silly to me, of course there are always silly things in DnD *cough cough spellcasters, lookin at you* but I would expect some kind of negative modifier in the knights in full plate example.
Actually, you are correct. I misread the "Exploration Task" of "Sneak" to apply to the entire group when, in fact, it is just "this character makes a Stealth Check." :smallredface:

Kane0
2013-11-08, 01:35 AM
To make a D&D 4e example: a five-man party is facing down 3 Invisible enemies. Each enemy makes his Stealth check versus the Passive Perceptions for the party and passes. On each Player's Turn, they want a chance to spot the Enemies so they start spending Minor Actions to make Perception Checks. What do they roll against to see who they see? Assuming "Passive Stealth" (which isn't in 4e, but w/e) you cut down on the rolls a bit but ultimately you're making an awful lot of dice rolls which aren't actually making the Encounter end faster.

Alright. The three invisible enemies are not hidden (stealthed) by default, invisibility just means they have concealment (synonymous with cover) and can therefore hide as part of a move action, which i'm guessing they do before the party approaches.
If that is the case you roll stealth for each of the invisible enemies and that is their stealth roll until they attack, become unstealthed. When the PCs approach you compare their passive perception against their stealth roll (it is not rolled again), and if they match or beat it they know something is there. If they beat it by 10 (or is it 5?) or more they know exactly where they are. If they choose to alert any party members who did not have a passive perception high enough to detect anything they can make a roll as a minor action, initiating combat turns unless they have already been ambushed at this point.

So the total amount of rolls in this case is 3 (one stealth check for each invisible opponent) plus any that the PCs choose to take (who must be prompted to do so. If they all fail to notice anything, they cant opt to find something they don't know exists. That would be metagaming.). The DM doesnt even have to ask the players for their passive perceptions if he has them on hand already (which most do).

After this point the invisible enemies (if still invisible, since that breaks upon attacking too) can attempt to become hidden again as part of a move action, and the PCs repeat the process of detecting them. The only difference is that now that the PCs know there is/was an enemy they can choose to try and find him on their turns as a minor action, since they are now aware of their presence.



Also, what if someone rolls lower than their Passive?

Additionally, the variance in 4e means that a five-man party is almost certain to see anyone who can be seen, even if they are half-blind Mooks and he's a Master Thief.

If the invisible enemies roll really low on their stealth check they are stuck with it and have to hope for the best.
Unless you meant the PCs. If their roll is lower than their passive then that is their roll, bad luck.

Variables are pretty tightly controlled in 4e. All skills are calculated by half your level plus the corresponding stat modifier plus any bonus for being trained (a straight +5) plus misc modifiers. Thus a trained PC with above average wisdom should be perceiving most things, and a trained PC with above average dexterity should be making most stealth checks barring bad rolls and the aforementioned perceiver, in which case it roughly evens out and is tipped by items, feats and other effects (most of which are temporary).
If you are untrained thats a -25% chance to succeed right there, and your stat modifier makes a difference too. The thing is that the half level part means that everyone can at least try and hope for a good roll, whereas only the people with training, a high stat and/or skill focus can reliably succeed.

Hope that clears things up.

Rakaydos
2013-11-08, 01:58 AM
By the way Oracle hunter, from what I've heard of your system, it looks almost like a Dice pool system, but one that uses D20s instead of D6 or D10.

RustyArmor
2013-11-08, 09:55 AM
Yeah stealth was always an annoyance to me. Even passive checks don't matter when a 1st level guards passive spot is maybe 12 or 14 and that is almost a 1st level rogues modifier in 3.5. And only gets worst at higher levels when your average elite guard might be 3-5th level and a rogue of even modest level with a high roll on dice is walking around them in circles, wearing bells, while juggling fire. And the guard is just Elder scrolls style "Huh did you hear something? Nah just my imagination."

Its just one of them skills that are rough to translate into a game without adding all kinds of factors and modifiers which in turn make it to much of pain in butt to do. But I always just house rule it where common sense applies and minus the one random player here and there that wants to use it as an "I win" button, I have had no complaints from my players as a whole.

Jacob.Tyr
2013-11-08, 10:24 AM
Numenera handles "opposed checks" rather well, in my opinion. In that, it doesn't have them. Sneaking past level X creatures is just a stealth check against a level X challenge. 4+ creatures count as a challenge 2 levels higher. Sort of how 4e deals with it via passive challenges.

Numenera may appear simpler than 4e, but it also allows inclusion of other factors nearly as well. One creature might be a level 3, but if it's a "scout" it might count as a level 4-5 stealth challenge to reflect this. If they're actively watching, it can up the level of the challenge, and if they have tools to help them keep watch it can also go up again. It's not nearly as fine-grained as DnD, but due to the simplicity of mechanics I like it quite a bit for skill challenges. DnD is far superior in tactical combat, though.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-08, 10:56 AM
I've heard that Black Seven (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/93976/Black-Seven) has an excellent stealth core mechanic. And really--I feel as though having a dedicated stealth subsystem is no worse than having a dedicated combat system when it comes to the "decker problem". The difference is, D&D players have internalized the notion that everyone needs to participate in combat.

Fortunately, every party member is capable of participating in stealth, just as every party member is capable of participating in combat. (I mean, it's not as though you tell some of the party members to sit out while the rest of you fight.)

I think that most Stealth systems haven't been built from the ground up to be interesting. Combat in D&D-like systems is fundamentally interesting and tactical, with choices to be made at every turn, such as who to attack and where to move. Stealth should be likewise interesting and meaningful.

For instance, failing stealth checks, instead of being a flat-out "you get caught" result, might add "alarm" to the area. Succeeding at stealth checks could get you from one point of cover to another, with the DC determined by how far you have to run between cover. In fact, let me stat this out...

1. You set up a map, with points of cover and distances between them. Also place guards on the map; sneaking past guards requires a higher DC.
2. Each character starts in cover (or, depending on the situation, needs to pass a Stealth check to enter cover; the DC is linked to how far away the cover is)
3. Each character picks what point of cover that they're trying to go for next. Once that's locked in, go in order of Dexterity.
4. When you attempt to move from one point of cover to another, make a Stealth check. The farther you have to move, the higher the DC is. Any guards nearby to any point of your path (within a specific distance) increase the DC. You can opt to run, which gives you a bonus (+3?) to your check.
5. If you succeed, move to your new point of cover. Roll a d6 (or a d8 if you ran) and subtract your Dexterity. If you fail, move to your new point of cover but roll 2d6 (or 2d8 if you ran) and subtract your Dexterity. This is how much Attention you've drawn to yourself; write it down.
6. Once everyone's moved (and here is where my rules get fuzzy again), the GM moves the guards towards any characters whose Attention exceeds a certain threshold. They have drawn too much Attention.
7. In future turns, when players move, they add their Attention to the DC to move between points of cover. They can spend a turn to remove 1d6 Attention by resting and waiting.
8. For fun, you can also introduce a time limit to the game. Don't let them spend too long waiting behind cover!

That is incredibly rough, and it has loopholes, and edge cases that need to be fixed, but that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Black Jester
2013-11-09, 11:26 AM
Inherently Opposed Checks: Opposed rolls are a problem in virtually any system because whatever variance issues are inherent in the base mechanics are doubled (at least!) when both sides have to roll. This plays hob with Player Expectations which are one of the most important considerations in designing a game.

That is not a problem at all. If anything, this is a major boon.
In pretty much any situation or in any game, opposed rolls are the best way to handle the mechanical depiction of any situation or conflict. The opposed tests create dynamics and tension, while checks against a fixed, passive difficulty are dull, predictable and as a consequence, a trademark of lifeless game design. If you want to truly upgrade a game system's mechanics replace as many static difficulties with opposed tests and see how much more interesting and surprising it becomes.

So you are right, this is a question of player expectation. I for one, expect plausible and good mechanical depictions and this means that opposed tests are of course the solution of choice for stealth, combat, bluffing or any other source of conflict or attempt of action with an open outcome.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-11-09, 08:01 PM
By the way Oracle hunter, from what I've heard of your system, it looks almost like a Dice pool system, but one that uses D20s instead of D6 or D10.
Indeed :smallbiggrin:

The reasons why I'm taking this approach are a bit "inside baseball" so I'll throw 'em in spoilers.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about what dice to use in a mechanic as well as how to use them lately (which I will condense into a blog post!) and one mechanic I had been using a lot is the nWoD Dice Pool system. As distinct from most dice pool systems, the number of success you get in nWoD usually don't matter; the idea is manipulating Pool Size via Boons (+dice) and Banes (-dice). However, I noticed that the Players in my games always expected more success to be better and were vaguely disappointed when it wasn't so. Also, I knew that Players in d20 games were much more comfortable with pass/fail rolls and didn't expect additional results outside of a Critical mechanic.

Now, Dice Pools are great for reducing variance in results (which is one reason why I like them) but I didn't really think of applying them to D&D until I got into a discussion on the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic ("AD/DA") in D&D Next. Having played 4e and seeing how much fun AD is in a d20 game
I realized that this could serve as a foundation that wouldn't alienate One True Gamers while fixing a lot of D&D's traditional problems. The Skill System and, more importantly, Opposed Rolls fixes grew organically from pushing the idea of AD/DA to their limits.
In short, it's an excellent fusion of Singe-Die Pass/Fail rolling and Dice Pool variance smoothing. Sadly for the gaming public, I doubt WotC will do much with AD/DA when they finally roll out D&D Next.

Of course, that makes me very happy as a Designer :smallamused:

Numenera handles "opposed checks" rather well, in my opinion. In that, it doesn't have them. Sneaking past level X creatures is just a stealth check against a level X challenge. 4+ creatures count as a challenge 2 levels higher. Sort of how 4e deals with it via passive challenges.
I've glanced over Numenera and, off-hand, I'm less than pleased with the extra thinking the DM needs to do for relatively simple tests. Instead of resolving a single action with a DC and a roll, Numenera requires every situation to be framed within the abstracted system of "Challenges."

Could you say more about how Numenera handles "tactical" Stealth? And Party Stealth?


I've heard that Black Seven (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/93976/Black-Seven) has an excellent stealth core mechanic. And really--I feel as though having a dedicated stealth subsystem is no worse than having a dedicated combat system when it comes to the "decker problem". The difference is, D&D players have internalized the notion that everyone needs to participate in combat.
Hmm... could you give me the high-points of the system? I've not heard of Black Seven before :smallsmile:

As for "Decker Problem" -- the issue is that in D&D everyone is built for Combat but not for Stealth. Additionally, being sub-par in combat can be "fixed" by having another PC carry the weight; few Stealth Systems work this way.

Interestingly, your ad hoc Stealth Mechanic is similar in principle to my idea for Strategic Stealth (and Dungeon Design!). No long will there be "wandering monsters" -- every Dungeon will have a Security Tally which goes up with alarming activities and down over time. When the Security Tally hit certain levels, certain events happen: in a magical dungeon the Wards may activate magical traps on certain doors; in an orc camp additional patrols may be sent out.

I was inspired by the pre-4e Shadowrun Decking Subsystem here, in case you can't tell :smalltongue:

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-10, 12:27 AM
I actually have intended to check out Black Seven for myself, but have not yet. I just had it recommended to me.

Jacob.Tyr
2013-11-10, 12:49 AM
Indeed :smallbiggrin:
Could you say more about how Numenera handles "tactical" Stealth? And Party Stealth?


Mechanics are rather streamlined and simple. If you're being tactical, your tactics apply as an asset (this reduces the challenge level by 1. DnD terms would be a +3). You can have up to two assets applying at a time (darkness, someone doing a successful challenge to distract the guards, stealth enhancing items etc).

For party stealth, you just allow a character specialized in stealth to apply as an asset to the rest of the party. Basically in DnD terms, having a rogue who's really good at sneaking would count as the rest of the party having masterwork sneaking tools and an aid-another bonus.

In a party-stealth situation, the rest of the party will most likely still be behind the stealthy character by 1-2 levels (15-30% higher chance of failure, difference of +3 to +6). In Numenera this means that if the stealth mission is necessary then those characters are going to wind up expending their resources on stealth. They also most likely don't have as many of these resources to expend as the stealthy character either. So he makes it easier on them, but to carry their own weight they probably have to take a hit.