PDA

View Full Version : Low Level Characters vs. High Level Characters



Mr. Mask
2015-02-11, 02:54 AM
Wanted to discuss play when one side is clearly disadvantaged.

In some games, there is just no chance in heck that the weaker side can win, sometimes a literal impossibility. In others, through good tactics or luck, you might maim the other side as you lose, or might even win completely.


I had a discussion about this very concept with someone, for deciding how to handle cases like this in an RPG.

I liked the idea of keeping the maximum output of both sides the same, so you'd never get a result higher than 20 in a d20 game. High level characters would just have a better chance of rolling high, via a system of rerolling, or rolling several dice and picking the best result.

In our conversation, someone put forward it was better to have the maximum output of the stronger side increase, having a range of 1 to 20. For the weaker side, it would decrease, having a range of 0 to 0 in the worst case. However, with a critical hit, you could roll again, your result being a straight 1 to 20--thus allowing the weaker side to come out on top, if they rolled criticals.

Personally, the latter system doesn't appeal to me, and I'm not quite sure why. Maybe I just don't like the probability curve.


If anyone has thoughts or experience with the two systems I mentioned, or on the subject in general, go ahead and post them.

Mastikator
2015-02-11, 05:37 AM
I... don't see the point of having levels if you don't want there to be a big numerical difference between high power character and a low power character.

Mr. Mask
2015-02-11, 05:58 AM
Well, how big a numerical difference do you want? I mean, you could have a game where you're never meant to fight anything outside your level, or ones like Dark Souls where a level 1 character can (potentially) win the whole game.

Vitruviansquid
2015-02-11, 07:02 AM
I feel like I've been dropped into a conversation about a specific game that simply went unnamed in this case.

The nature and results of lopsided conflicts should be dependent on the genre of the game. A lot of that heroic, high fantasy stuff doesn't function well when a famed hero decked out in magical gear can be shanked in the back and killed by a random thug. Imagine if dudes just dropped out of the fellowship of the Ring randomly, every once in a while, because a goblin got lucky every once in a while. Imagine if any of them even suffered serious injury in their many fights against random, nameless mooks.

And don't start with Boromir. Boromir died because he had a personal moral failing, a perfect cause to effect a hero's death.

On the other hand, the grittier settings do particularly well when the disadvantaged side still has teeth. The less you can predict the results of a combat, the more feeling of danger and suspense.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-11, 10:42 AM
Sometimes, one side is just going to win and the other side is just going to lose.

Other times, the side that's clearly going to lose has the option to change what "winning" means, or win a few of the numerous "victories" present in the conflict. For instance, the Rebel Alliance had no hope of winning against the Imperials at Hoth. The losses the Empire sustained were, to them, inconsequential and they succeeded in the goal of wiping out the base. They failed, however, to wipe out the Rebellion then and there. By escaping, the Rebels "won" even though they lost a great deal.

If I were going to run the Battle of Hoth, I might not put it in terms of hit points or attack rolls. The Imperials would be a timer that the Rebels couldn't stop, but could slow down. At the start, the Rebels could save a certain number of their personnel and materiel starting at X minutes, and more every Y minutes after that. The Imperials would reach the base and halt the evacuation in X-1 minutes. Successful delaying tactics would increase the time available, probably in increments related to Y, so that for each major success (determined by skill, rather than force of arms, since the Imperial forces are effectively impervious) the Rebels could evacuate a little more of their forces.

That's a pretty large scale situation, but similar situations can be done on a smaller scale. Fend off or distract a giant long enough to open an escape route. Go one-on-one with an orc chieftan, long enough for evidence to be found to clear up the misunderstanding. Etc.

Red Fel
2015-02-11, 10:51 AM
Having the weakling take out the titan works fine in a system that doesn't use levels. In such a case, you could have somebody "weak" who - through tactics, knowledge, uniquely-focused skills or sheer luck - manages to take down someone massively powerful, and it works.

But in a level-based system, where you have a concrete metric for increasing tiers of power (and I'm not referring to the Tier System here, just the general use of the word tier), some people will be stronger than others. Yes, it's possible for a first-level Goblin to get ahold of a vorpal sword and get lucky, decapitating a 20th-level hero. But that's rare. More likely, those enemies will simply cease to be a threat to the powerful hero, who will either retire or seek out more challenging fare.

The point I'm trying to make is that I see no need to balance between the strong and the weak. If the weak want to overcome the strong, they need to either (1) get stronger, or (2) get smarter. It's that simple. Using mechanics to offset the disparity in power defeats the purpose of that disparity existing in the first place.

GGambrel
2015-02-11, 02:05 PM
...I liked the idea of keeping the maximum output of both sides the same, so you'd never get a result higher than 20 in a d20 game. High level characters would just have a better chance of rolling high, via a system of rerolling, or rolling several dice and picking the best result...

I think rolling multiple dice (possibly equal to character/skill level) for task resolution has a lot of merit. Using the highest result will shift results toward the upper end rather quickly though. For instance the average result for the highest roll of the following dice pools are:


1d20 (10.50)
2d20 (13.82)
3d20 (15.49)
4d20 (16.48)
5d20 (17.15)
6d20 (17.62)
7d20 (17.97)

Beyond 3d20 the average result increases by less than 1.00, so gains beyond that will be very slow (but possibly desireable). To spread this out a bit (to help distinguish characters more), you could have even levels contribute a differently colored d20 which only counts on even rolls which then becomes a regular-colored die at the following odd level. This basically gives half a d20 probability-wise at each level gained.

(ex. Marven is a LV 4/2.5d20 painter, so he rolls 2d20 (from LV 1 and 3) and 1d20/even (for LV 4) for his Paint skill. If his 1d20/even comes up as an odd result, it doesn't count and the result of his check is from the 2d20.)

One thing that I like about using the highest die is that the odds for getting a critical hit increase with experience, but it is still possible for the LV 1 character to get a critical hit. Contrary to what others have said, I think a system that allows low-level characters some (small) chance of overcoming higher-level foes is worthwhile, it may subvert player expectations though.

Converting an existing system to this mechanic (or a similar one) would obviously require a lot of work, but it could be worthwhile.

Mr. Mask
2015-02-11, 10:54 PM
That is a good post. Yeah, I think the multiple dice system where you pick one result has merit, which is why I wanted to use it for my RPG system. Someone was very insistent it was no different from a critical system, where when you roll a nat 20, you get to roll an unmodified 20 and use that result.

EX: Tibit the Level 0 Goblin Dirt Scratcher is fighting Bolg the Lesser. Even if Tibit rolls a 19, it will have no effect, he can only inflict 0 damage. However, if Tibit rolls a natural 20, he gets toll roll again, ignoring Bolg's defences. If he rolls a 15 he does 15 damage, if 1 then 1 damage, etc..

I'm not keen on that system, as I see less ways for the player to influence the roll. As you get weaker, you quickly end up relying on this less than 5% chance of a decent critical, and rolling anything else is uninteresting.


With multiple dice, if slanted correctly and accommodated with other suitable rules, you could make conflict interesting even when disadvantaged. I'm considering mechanics like the ability to trade away two dice, so that your opponent can't use one of theirs. I also need to consider separate botch and critical rules, as everyone will try to get a 20 and will never try to get a 1.

Your even/odd half die is a clever idea. It's a good way of adding a partial bonus.

veti
2015-02-11, 11:22 PM
The nature and results of lopsided conflicts should be dependent on the genre of the game. A lot of that heroic, high fantasy stuff doesn't function well when a famed hero decked out in magical gear can be shanked in the back and killed by a random thug. Imagine if dudes just dropped out of the fellowship of the Ring randomly, every once in a while, because a goblin got lucky every once in a while. Imagine if any of them even suffered serious injury in their many fights against random, nameless mooks.

And don't start with Boromir. Boromir died because he had a personal moral failing, a perfect cause to effect a hero's death.

What "many fights against random, nameless mooks" are you referring to?

I count:
1. The fight on Weathertop (if you consider "nameless Nazgul" to be mooks), where Frodo gets injured.
2. The fight in Moria, where Frodo gets wounded (saved by his priceless artifact-level armour) and Gandalf ultimately sacrifices himself to save the party.
3. The fight on Amun-Hen, where Boromir dies and two of the hobbits are captured.
4. Helm's Deep, where no-one important dies (but it's a big battle with many mooks on both sides. And only three PCs are present.)
5. Minas Tirith, which is the same as Helm's Deep except for the bit where Merry stabs the Witch-king and gets paralysed.
6. The Black Gate, where Aragorn's entire army is within minutes of a TPK when Mordor just collapses from within.

... and that's it. Out of a grand total of six battles, four involve PC casualties, including two deaths (even if Gandalf later recovered), one near-fatal poisoning, and two prisoners taken. That's - pretty scary, really.

I'm a big believer in keeping high and low levels within slapping distance of each other. "The strongest warrior may be felled by a single arrow", as Pippin puts it.

goto124
2015-02-11, 11:29 PM
Erm, LotR is a storybook, not a tabletop. Different genre, different pirorities.

Arbane
2015-02-12, 12:51 AM
Erm, LotR is a storybook, not a tabletop. Different genre, different pirorities.

Maybe, but saying "That game Bob ran three years ago at college" simply isn't going to be a useful reference for most people.

There's plenty of RPGs that don't have the degree of Plot Armor high-level D&D characters do - RuneQuest and GURPS both have plenty of situations where a mook might get lucky and instakill a PCs. in Feng Shui, it's possible, but vanishingly unlikely.

Jay R
2015-02-12, 11:18 AM
Some of the most satisfying adventures I've ever had have been against absurd odds.

Six 6th-level characters killed a 134-hit-die monster in a convention tourney.
Several 3rd level characters defeated a dragon in original D&D, via an avalanche.
Six Flashing Blades characters, in a world without magic, stopped a 1,000 man army.

The point of such a game is to come up with a way to win other without a straight-up melee.

Having said that, you can't just roll on your character's Intelligence. You have to come up with an excellent plan, to generate an absurd tactical advantage. Note that I only list three such examples from 41 years of gaming.

Knaight
2015-02-12, 11:32 AM
This is an extremely setting based thing. There are settings where it is entirely appropriate for higher powered individuals to so outclass lower powered individuals that direct conflict between the two always ends in the destruction of the weaker one. There are settings where it is entirely appropriate for the greatest warrior to have ever lived to slip up once, get unlucky, and get killed by some untrained teenager with a cooking knife.

As for how to handle this, there are a few notable ways. One is exploding dice - if you roll the highest, you roll again and add the new result. These work pretty well with some dice, but the chance of rolling the maximum needs to be decent - it works great with a d6, it's fine with a d10, using it with a d20 is pushing it, and d100 exploding dice are just pointless. Savage Worlds uses something like this, where you roll variable dice against variable numbers, but anyone can get a really good roll that hurts anyone else. It might be unlikely, but it's there.

The other big method I've seen is making numbers really count. A one on one duel between some minimally trained fighter and the best warrior around is going to end poorly for the minimally trained fighter (though the use of opposed rolls actually does create the possibility that they do better, even if it is really slim). The outnumbering mechanics are brutal in that game though - you take a hefty penalty for every person outnumbering you that is already in the fight. In D&D terms, imagine if the +2 attack bonus from flanking was replaced with a +4 attack bonus for every other person fighting the target in melee. Then there's the need to do better than all opponents to strike any of them, unless they really screw up big time or you're willingly dropping your main defenses and hoping your opponents miss (or that your armor is good enough, which is a questionable tactic most of the time).