Artificial Difficulty in Tabletops

[ZeroGear]

I'm sure there are many who already know what "artificial difficulty" is, but for the sake of argument, here's the definition:

"A term to describe games that have enemies that are too powerful to be killed even through intelligent gameplay and the player must resort to cheap tactics and exploits because the enemy cannot be killed in a straight up fight due their health and damage surpassing the player's. The difference between artificial difficulty and real difficulty is that real difficulty can be overcome through intelligent gameplay such as planning out how you will attack a group so you will not take any damage, being patient, and being cautious. Real difficulty is achieved through enemies that have intelligent abilities that the player must learn and learn to avoid while artificial difficulty is achieved simply by raising the enemies' damage and health."

[Edit]: Forget that definition. Since this terminology seems to be causing too much confusion, let's try this distinction:

Real Difficulty: Games played straight with challenges slightly higher than average (for example, raising the CR of encounters by 2 above that of the party)

"Artificial" Difficulty: Adding in elements that may force heavy use of tactics to even stand the chance agains the enemy (ex. Foes have specific, uncommon DR, dragons can only be taken down with plans involving them being lured into gorges and blasted with ballistas, etc). Can include games where clues for upcoming enemies are easily missed, weaknesses are rarely known or unconventional, and enemies pop out at almost paranoia-inducing instances.

Now that that's out of the way, on the the main topic. As a fan of Bloodborne, I sometimes enjoy games that tend to troll me (sometimes literally) for whatever reason. Usually this is due to the sense of accomplishment I get form overcoming the challenge. Anyway, the threefold question is basically if it is possible to create "artificial difficulty" in Tabletop RPGs without players moaning and calling it unfair, if anyone would enjoy playing a game like that, and what tactics could be added to balance the scales.

I ask this because it seems that D20 games, among other dice engines, have been ground down to what amounts to "hit it with a stick until it's dead" or "when in doubt, fireball!". Is it possible to create a scenario where fighting the enemy is more complicated than rushing in and hacking away without the players making a big stink and calling it BS? And, for that matter, would anyone want to play a game where everything literally IS out to kill you?
Add to that the question of how players should go about fighting in a wold like this, and you have yourself a real conundrum.

Anyway, my contribution is the third point of how players could fight smart:
-Storerooms can be found that have oil and rags, allowing characters to create firebombs to throw at enemies with insane AC.
-Some rooms have ceiling decorations that can be dropped on big foes.
-Tough enemies might be incredibly stupid, and it is a viable tactic to lure the lumbering brute into a pit and jab at him from above.
-Rockslides and cave-ins can sometimes be used to bury foes

And for that matter, a reason why these tactics are needed:
-The characters are children, not fully trained adults
-Monsters in this world just happen to be exceedingly tough.

Thoughts and comments?

[Yora]

Wouldn't the use of tactics and the environment count as real difficulty instead of artificial difficulty?

I feel like the two categories don't really have any meaning when applied to RPGs.

[Maglubiyet]

I don't think you need any justification for using tactics that minimize damage to yourself. That's kind of been the trend in human history.

Except for gladiatorial spectacles, I doubt anyone has ever fought a bear or a lion blow for blow. Ambush-immobilize-retreat or attack from hidden and/or unassailable position is the way we do it.

Even in warfare we rarely prefer equally-matched one-on-one combat.

[Anonymouswizard]

It depends. I like games where PCs are squishy. In the next game I run a dragon's fire breath deals an average of 14 damage, and most people have 10 HP (with up to 6 points of armour on top of that), with their claws doing even more (average of 19.5), while possessing DR 10 (basically completely ignoring pistols and people without exceptional strength, but a musket or lucky sword hit can hurt it) and 30 HP. The PCs will be starting relatively near a dragon's nest, with their only hints as to not going there being an OOC 'dragons are powerful' and IC peasant fear. If they do decide to fight the dragon only cheesy tactics will save them, but it's basically bestial and it's first action will be to try and scare them off.

Otherwise I really can't think of what artificial difficulty would bring to the table.

[noob]

Artificial difficulty can be added by making the players fight a powerful group and having no anti-divination spell
The powerful group knows where you are and send a group of 15 lvl 17 priest who all cast their firestorms of all the elements and your team die if they does not have a way to get a surprise round against people teleporting to their location.
Else if you know a way to not be surprised by people teleporting to your location your team can win.

[Jay R]

The definitions are far too subjective. One player's "cheap tactics and exploits because the enemy cannot be killed in a straight up fight" is another player's "difficulty [that] can be overcome through intelligent gameplay".

Specifically, the only reason you need to be "planning out how you will attack a group so you will not take any damage, being patient, and being cautious" (real difficulty) is if "the enemy cannot be killed in a straight up fight" (artificial difficulty).

I suspect that if you dropped the definition and used real examples, there would be huge disagreements about which encounters are real difficulty and which ones are artificial difficulty.

[ZeroGear]

I don't think you need any justification for using tactics that minimize damage to yourself. That's kind of been the trend in human history.

Except for gladiatorial spectacles, I doubt anyone has ever fought a bear or a lion blow for blow. Ambush-immobilize-retreat or attack from hidden and/or unassailable position is the way we do it.

Even in warfare we rarely prefer equally-matched one-on-one combat.

I agree with you on that. However, how many times have you actually seen people using those in tabletops? While it can be partially the fault of the DM not putting them in, how many characters have you ever seen stocking up on oil and rope instead of enchanting swords and buying scrolls? Most times monsters in RPGs are fought "blow for blow", and more often tend to die within two rounds (much to the dismay of some DMs).


Wouldn't the use of tactics and the environment count as real difficulty instead of artificial difficulty?

I feel like the two categories don't really have any meaning when applied to RPGs.

Difference between "artificial difficulty" and "real difficulty" is that the "real" can still be overcome with regular hack-and-slash tactics if the players fight smart. The "artificial", on the other hand, cannot be won no matter how hard the paladin swings his sword, and requires extremely focussed skills ("sorry, you didn't make the spot check to notice the missing scales on the dragon's belly" or "kinda makes you wonder why all these corpses are wearing blindfolds or carrying mirrors"). It might also require some degree of paranoia ("you should have expected the statue with the axe to attack you when your back was turned). Real difficulty is making the CR of the encounter higher, artificial difficulty is when low-level monsters are almost immune to conventional weapons.

Special note: I would point to nordic berserkers actually fighting bears up close and personal, if only to prove their strength.

[noob]

"(you should have expected the statue with the axe to attack you when your back was turned)"
I did not knew they were players not knowing that.
This kind of trick have a chance of working the first time but some players try to swing their axe at statues the first time they meet one "It looks like a something I can power attack so I do"

[CarpeGuitarrem]

IIRC, the term "artificial difficulty" arises from strategy games where the different players have the same role (even if they have asymmetric factions), and the same playing/starting parameters. They sometimes compensate for poor AI by cheating and giving the AI players more resources and units to play with.

i.e., they overcome the lack of intelligent play by having superior numbers.

Since the role of a GM is usually not the same as the role of the players, this doesn't really apply. Maybe, though: the only level of the game that the players and GM are even on is the dice. So perhaps artificial difficulty means that the GM cheats fudges the results of rolls in the favor of NPCs.

[ZeroGear]

Since the role of a GM is usually not the same as the role of the players, this doesn't really apply. Maybe, though: the only level of the game that the players and GM are even on is the dice. So perhaps artificial difficulty means that the GM cheats fudges the results of rolls in the favor of NPCs.

Yes and no, as there are actually more levels where this may apply:
Leaving dice aside for now, it is possible to equip NPCs with gear more powerful than anything a player has. It is a very different fight when your opponent is wearing an adamantine plate while you only have a +1 dagger to attack and the opponents mage is counter spelling everything the wizard is throwing at them. Doubly true if the players can't loot the monsters for whatever reason ("sorry, the armor is not your size", "that amulet only functions for drow", "you gotta be evil for that wand to work")
Similarly, fighting a group of four goblins with sticks is very different than fighting twelve with bows, knives, and alchemists fire that are up on a cliff. Tactical advantages work both ways, as proven by Tucker's Kobolds (that I would consider artificial difficulty).

In this sense, DM's don't need to fudge the dice if the bonuses NPCs have are substantially higher than the PCs, and having to rely on that "lucky 20" could be considered a "gimmick" itself.

[Segev]

There's little difference between assigning NPCs better gear that can't be looted and simply putting higher-CR monsters on the field.

[Slipperychicken]

You can find it in really bad GMing. I've run into it a number of times IRL.

First general idea: have the GM ignore resource constraints for enemies when it suits him. Players killing the boss too fast? Regardless of hit points, just don't say it dies until the players have had "enough". Enemies have limited ammo and spells? Not anymore! Just keep slingin' till they're dead; it's not like the players can see the ammo total anyway.

Second: "Just say no. Or yes". When the PCs try to overcome obstacles, and you don't want it overcome, just say "no" to everything they try, whether or not it's consistent or sensible. A variant I've seen thrown around is to always let the players' third idea succeed, no matter how inane or nonsensical it is.

Third: "Don't mention it". The GM doesn't communicate critical information to the players. No amount of skill will let you overcome your DM telling you without warning that your equipment is all broken and you starved to death because you never mentioned swallowing your food. Same goes for the dragon in the room that was never mentioned until after the PCs were killed and eaten by it.

Fourth: "Rocks fall, you die". Skill in-gamd can't stop the GM from declaring your PC dead or otherwise disabled on a whim.

[ZeroGear]

And this is where we get into the "is it possible to do tactfully in-game without being a bad DM" portion of the thread. It's easy to be a bad DM, and no player want to be controlled by one. It is easy to forget that tabletops don't have hard barriers the players can't get through, but is it possible to ramp up difficulty without going overboard or causing player mentality to go: "let's always tunnel though the wall because it's safer than going though the door".
This also comes with the question of how should a DM convey expectations at the beginning of the game to prevent death-by-miscommunication? Should the DM ask for everyone's perception stats and roll secretly, informing the player in question when it's relevant? Would passing notes asking for specific rolls be too much of a tip-off that something's around the corner ready to bash them with a hammer (like in Dark Souls)? How many hints are enough that players can pitch up the meaning before it's a dead giveaway to what there actually facing?

This also come with: would anyone willing play a game where they know the world is out to kill them form the get-go? Again, this assumes the DM has told them that this is the kind of world the'll be facing.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

If you want to play a game tactically, you must play it honestly. By this, I mean that you must be reasonable when responding to the players' questions. (If you're in doubt, assign a % certainty and roll for it.) When possible, prepare likely encounters in advance, or at the very least stat up NPCs so that you have something to stay consistent to.

The problem is, it's hard to be a referee when you're also trying to play tactically.

[TheThan]

I’ve always associated artificial difficulty with unintentional or even intentional methods to make the game hard aside from the enemies in the game. Poor controls, bad camera angles, graphics so bad you can’t easily tell what’s going on, obtuse and cryptic clues to puzzles, backtracking inserted in to increase game length, bosses that read your controller inputs that sort of stuff.

Having difficult to fight enemies or hyper tough enemies does not always constitute these things.

Now translating this into a table top game. Artificial difficulty would be things like the Dm inserting traps that weren’t there before. Enemies that are designed to counter the player’s capabilities. (Oh two spell casters in the part? Guess what, anti-magic fields for everyone! Oh a crit focused rogue? guess what, nothing but crit immune monsters for you! That sort of BS). DM’s shutting down player plans because HE didn’t realize the pcs had an easy way to circumvent his meticulously planned encounter, forcing the players to engage and not circumvent or overcome the obstacle in any other way other than direct combat. Railroading, and other heavy handed tactics.

[Anxe]

Yeah, artificial difficulty in video games is when the enemy basically cheats.
"Oh that attack hit my model? Well I say it missed!"
Or more often in RTS games, when the computer just gets more resources than you do because programming a better AI is too much work.

But the enemy can think in roleplaying games. There's a person playing it! And it can have a high AC, that's fine. The players can defeat it intelligently by pumping their attack rolls or hitting its other defenses or whatever the game allows you to do to get around that one defense.

The enemy has a lot of HP? Lets bring some potions, we'll outlast it. The enemy has a high attack roll? Pump our AC with spells and rotate out who's getting beat on by the monster.

These are all intelligent ways to beat something that is essentially "artificial difficulty" where a challenge is challenging because it has higher numbers.

For real difficulty did you mean something like Tucker's Kobolds? Or a troll where you have to discover its one weakness? The troll functions pretty much the same way as I loosely described other scenarios. Target the weakness and you win. The Kobolds? Cover your weaknesses and you win.

Roleplaying games just don't work the same way as when you're playing against a computer because you're not playing against a computer. And there also isn't a source of frustration of beating your head against the same level boss over and over again. You lost the first time... You're probably dead and can't go back. If you retreated, then there are actually different tactics you can try the next time whereas in a video game there might not be.

[NichG]

The issue is that, as far as I can tell, 'real' versus 'artificial' difficulty is entirely based on whether the skill that is necessary to overcome the difficulty belongs to the set of things that it "makes sense" for the game in question to be testing. The clear examples are ones where either there is no skill that can overcome the difficulty (luck-based stuff) or where the skill is specifically something like dealing with the consequences of an unintentional oversight, mistake or error made by the game designers.

Outside of those very clear cases though, different people will have different opinions about what skills the game is supposed to test.

[Slipperychicken]

The issue is that, as far as I can tell, 'real' versus 'artificial' difficulty is entirely based on whether the skill that is necessary to overcome the difficulty belongs to the set of things that it "makes sense" for the game in question to be testing. The clear examples are ones where either there is no skill that can overcome the difficulty (luck-based stuff) or where the skill is specifically something like dealing with the consequences of an unintentional oversight, mistake or error made by the game designers.


This is actually something that was nagging me earlier in the thread: Randomization in game-mechanics is a pretty big source of fake difficulty. Even if you follow the best possible strategy, the dice can still screw you over and make you fail. There's not much you can do when RNGesus calls for blood.

[NichG]

This is actually something that was nagging me earlier in the thread: Randomization in game-mechanics is a pretty big source of fake difficulty. Even if you follow the best possible strategy, the dice can still screw you over and make you fail. There's not much you can do when RNGesus calls for blood.

I'm hesitant to say that any kind of randomization in game-mechanics is fake difficulty.

Something like poker has a large random element, but the game is all about doing what you can to manage that risk; so it would be strange to call the randomness of the cards a source of artificial difficulty in poker. Something like Snakes & Ladders on the other hand doesn't give you any way to deal with the luck-based elements - your performance in the game is completely separate from your skill.

Even with something like 3d6-down-the-line rolling for stats, the question comes down to 'what is the game supposed to be testing?'. People play CCGs starting from a random pool of cards and building their decks on the spot in part to test peoples' adaptiveness and reduce it from being about a small number of very powerful combos. There's also Fischer chess, which uses random initial placements to reduce the reliance of chess on memorizing lots of openings.

So its not so easy a question to answer in general.

[LudicSavant]

I'm sure there are many who already know what "artificial difficulty" is, but for the sake of argument, here's the definition:

"A term to describe games that have enemies that are too powerful to be killed even through intelligent gameplay and the player must resort to cheap tactics and exploits because the enemy cannot be killed in a straight up fight due their health and damage surpassing the player's. The difference between artificial difficulty and real difficulty is that real difficulty can be overcome through intelligent gameplay such as planning out how you will attack a group so you will not take any damage, being patient, and being cautious. Real difficulty is achieved through enemies that have intelligent abilities that the player must learn and learn to avoid while artificial difficulty is achieved simply by raising the enemies' damage and health."

Now that that's out of the way, on the the main topic. As a fan of Bloodborne, I sometimes enjoy games that tend to troll me (sometimes literally) for whatever reason. Usually this is due to the sense of accomplishment I get form overcoming the challenge. Anyway, the threefold question is basically if it is possible to create "artificial difficulty" in Tabletop RPGs without players moaning and calling it unfair, if anyone would enjoy playing a game like that, and what tactics could be added to balance the scales.

I ask this because it seems that D20 games, among other dice engines, have been ground down to what amounts to "hit it with a stick until it's dead" or "when in doubt, fireball!". Is it possible to create a scenario where fighting the enemy is more complicated than rushing in and hacking away without the players making a big stink and calling it BS? And, for that matter, would anyone want to play a game where everything literally IS out to kill you?
Add to that the question of how players should go about fighting in a wold like this, and you have yourself a real conundrum.

Anyway, my contribution is the third point of how players could fight smart:
-Storerooms can be found that have oil and rags, allowing characters to create firebombs to throw at enemies with insane AC.
-Some rooms have ceiling decorations that can be dropped on big foes.
-Tough enemies might be incredibly stupid, and it is a viable tactic to lure the lumbering brute into a pit and jab at him from above.
-Rockslides and cave-ins can sometimes be used to bury foes

And for that matter, a reason why these tactics are needed:
-The characters are children, not fully trained adults
-Monsters in this world just happen to be exceedingly tough.

Thoughts and comments?

I don't know where you're quoting from, but as others have mentioned that is an exceedingly terrible definition. Here's a much more functional one: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty

[Slipperychicken]

I'm hesitant to say that any kind of randomization in game-mechanics is fake difficulty.

Me too. That's why I didn't say that.

[dream]

I'm sure there are many who already know what "artificial difficulty" is, but for the sake of argument, here's the definition:

"A term to describe games that have enemies that are too powerful to be killed even through intelligent gameplay and the player must resort to cheap tactics and exploits because the enemy cannot be killed in a straight up fight due their health and damage surpassing the player's. The difference between artificial difficulty and real difficulty is that real difficulty can be overcome through intelligent gameplay such as planning out how you will attack a group so you will not take any damage, being patient, and being cautious. Real difficulty is achieved through enemies that have intelligent abilities that the player must learn and learn to avoid while artificial difficulty is achieved simply by raising the enemies' damage and health."

Now that that's out of the way, on the the main topic. As a fan of Bloodborne, I sometimes enjoy games that tend to troll me (sometimes literally) for whatever reason. Usually this is due to the sense of accomplishment I get form overcoming the challenge. Anyway, the threefold question is basically(1) if it is possible to create "artificial difficulty" in Tabletop RPGs without players moaning and calling it unfair,(2) if anyone would enjoy playing a game like that,(3) and what tactics could be added to balance the scales.

I ask this because it seems that D20 games, among other dice engines, have been ground down to what amounts to "hit it with a stick until it's dead" or "when in doubt, fireball!". (4) Is it possible to create a scenario where fighting the enemy is more complicated than rushing in and hacking away without the players making a big stink and calling it BS? And, for that matter,(5) would anyone want to play a game where everything literally IS out to kill you?
Add to that the question of (6) how players should go about fighting in a wold like this, and you have yourself a real conundrum.

Anyway, my contribution is the third point of how players could fight smart:
-Storerooms can be found that have oil and rags, allowing characters to create firebombs to throw at enemies with insane AC.
-Some rooms have ceiling decorations that can be dropped on big foes.
-Tough enemies might be incredibly stupid, and it is a viable tactic to lure the lumbering brute into a pit and jab at him from above.
-Rockslides and cave-ins can sometimes be used to bury foes

And for that matter, a reason why these tactics are needed:
-The characters are children, not fully trained adults
-Monsters in this world just happen to be exceedingly tough.

Thoughts and comments?
1. Yes

2. Most TTRPG gamers enjoy the tactical aspect of combat. We know this because the most-popular TTRPG, D&D, has always had tactical combat options. D&D's roots are planted firmly in tabletop war-gaming, where superior strategy often outweighs superior numbers and/or resources.

3. Great tactical options: terrain, traps, & surprise;

using Cover and Concealment gain real tactical advantages; Let them attack from rooftops, or alleyways, or from behind large greenery, or from underwater, or from a distance THEY can strike from but can't be counter-attacked
use 5-foot steps & Attacks of Opportunity; Have them circle & approach 5' at a time with Readied-attack options if the enemy even MOVE at them. Military-style, small unit warfare is excellent (hit & run, using fire & smoke for confusion, attacking enemy resources)
use ambushes, with staged loot or the wounded or corpses to draw the enemy into an area that provides maximum strike potential for PCs using concealment (shadows, trees/shrubbery, hills, ect.). In D&D & many systems, Surprised combatants suffer defensive penalties. Spiders are the masters of ambush-predation. Study them.
a 3rd level is trapping; ambush from concealment/cover, flee, the opponents pursue & fall into a tiger pit. The same kinds of snare-traps used by hunters against animals will work against monsters/NPCs. Falling into a spike-filled pit will ruin the day of even the most powerful creatures. HUse Caltrops & fire to limit opponent movement.
since I touched on them; ANIMALS; Wild dogs, swarms of bees, giant spiders (plural), and monsters/NPCs with trained attack-animals. Big ones that fight to the death. While the foes are fighting the animals, PCs attack from a distance or FLANK, gaining tactical advantage.

4. Some players will always "make a stink" about not being able to railroad any threat/challenge and they are sometimes the same players who complain about not having a good challenge. It can't be helped. If the majority of the group is having fun, accept that as a positive.

5. I don't know which setting you are using, but yes, D&D settings tend to be dangerous. How dangerous is usually up to the GM, but talk to players before the game begins, finding out the type and frequency of danger they might enjoy.

6. Finally, in a world where monsters & evil NPCs use sound tactics to subdue or kill the PCs, the players would need to learn to do the same if they intend on their PCs surviving. If they just "attack with their attack", have their foes/monsters stalk them; first one in the distance. Then later a few more. Then more and they're closer. Then a "hit & run" night attack. Then a vicious day attack where animals/monsters attack in units. Not to kill, but to wound, slowing the party down and making them easier to track. Many predators don't kill immediately; they incapacitate prey & then eat the still warm/alive meat. Or they feed it to their young. Or both. Early D&D had a focus on the horror aspect of facing monsters & stalking is an easy way to put players on edge.

Most armed units will use tactics to quickly subdue their targets. Your group can get better at combat by studying military strategy, specifically small-unit tactics and guerrilla warfare. Then apply those tactics to the system's combat rules. Most importantly, have fun with it! :smallbiggrin:

[ZeroGear]

dream, those are awesome points.
Let me ask you, how many groups have you been with that have used tactics like this? (no, I'm not trying to be satyrical, I am actually curious to know more about your experiences here)
Have you ever been on the receiving end of this (or on the dealing side)? How did the encounter/campaign end?

A note though: when I said "the world is out to kill them", I meant more than the normal amount (aka, suits of armor waiting around door corners ready to smash peoples skulls in, gargoyles perched on ledges ready to swoop down and butcher people, pitfalls under almost every rug, constant supply of mimics, chairs and tables ready to eat you, etc). For a lack of a better example, think Dark Souls like worlds.

As for my quotes: the definition of Artificial Difficulty came from Urban Dictionary, the ones in parentheses are ones I made up on the spot as a type of example. Sorry if they weren't any good.

[Knaight]

Personally what I've found is that in systems which don't have a bunch of mechanics that incentivize just wading into every fight (from very specific codification of stuff for that and having jack-all for other things), and which don't have an obvious gear treadmill to suck up resources (e.g. the succession of gradually better equipment in D&D) these sorts of tactics come up all the time. It also depends on the players, with some favoring them.

It's also worth noting that as a GM you set the standard. If ambush tactics are the norm, clever terrain use is the norm, so on and so forth, players usually start doing the same. This seems particularly true in rules light games, where the GM's standard setting carries a bit more weight. With more rules heavy systems, selecting those that work best for this helps. Pendragon probably isn't what you're looking for here. Shadowrun is likely the wrong genre, but provides a good example for encouraging caution.

[Algeh]

I think of the distinction between real difficulty and artificial difficulty as follows: Say that you are an accountant, and you keep the books for a small coffeeshop.

Real difficulty: The owners of the coffeeshop expand, and now they have 3 locations in two states. You now have to track relevant laws in two states and keep track of more things that generate income and cost money because there is about 3 times as much business as before. Payroll is a lot more complicated than it used to be. These are all accounting-related things that make sense for your job to grow into. Perhaps you need an assistant or they need to hire a more skilled accountant who can cope with this.

Fake difficulty: For some reason, you now have a live ferret strapped to your head while you work (perhaps it is the shop mascot). This makes it very difficult to concentrate, and your job is much harder. You will probably make more mistakes and be very stressed out, as well as need to wear protective goggles and will probably have bite marks on your ears. You ability to cope with this is almost completely unrelated to your accounting-related skill set - the best accountant in the world would probably be no better at coping with this than an average accountant. Also, it makes absolutely no sense.

I mostly use this distinction when I'm trying to come up with advanced work for math students. Too many of the "gifted student/challenge" problems I see out there are of the "strap a ferret to their heads, that'll keep them busy" variety, and I try not to do that when I write them myself. (In math, this often looks like giving them ugly numbers and then insisting they use a particular method that doesn't work well with those numbers rather than another, equally valid method that is better suited to those sorts of numbers. Examples would be asking them to factor or complete the square with really awkward coefficients rather than using the quadratic formula or asking them to solve a system of equations using substitution rather than elimination when neither variable in either equation can be isolated without fractions. Basically, artificially ruling out perfectly valid methods so they have to go through tedious algebraic or computational steps just to make it more likely they'll make mistakes rather than expanding on the skill you're actually teaching.)

In a tabletop game, I'd see artificial difficulty as being closely aligned with railroading. No, the Quest Giver won't let you do it that way, here, strap this ferret to your head and go fight the dragon head on (maybe you'll get lucky and the ferret will bite the dragon instead of you part of the time). Real difficulty is when there is a difficult obstacle, the players have a chance to learn the information they need to come up with a strategy to get around it somehow, and they have the chance to overcome that obstacle by using clever tactics or a complex plan rather than charging straight at it and hoping to be stronger.

[goto124]

I would be rather amused by the ferret strapped to my head, and let it pass... depending on circumstances =P

[dream]

dream, those are awesome points.
Let me ask you, how many groups have you been with that have used tactics like this? (no, I'm not trying to be satyrical, I am actually curious to know more about your experiences here)
Have you ever been on the receiving end of this (or on the dealing side)? How did the encounter/campaign end?

A note though: when I said "the world is out to kill them", I meant more than the normal amount (aka, suits of armor waiting around door corners ready to smash peoples skulls in, gargoyles perched on ledges ready to swoop down and butcher people, pitfalls under almost every rug, constant supply of mimics, chairs and tables ready to eat you, etc). For a lack of a better example, think Dark Souls like worlds.

As for my quotes: the definition of Artificial Difficulty came from Urban Dictionary, the ones in parentheses are ones I made up on the spot as a type of example. Sorry if they weren't any good.
ZeroGear, as a longtime DM/GM, I've found it my role to bring that tactical element to the game, if the players are open to it. If not, we just "attack with our attacks". I have never had players complain about my use of tactics & if I had to guess why, it would be because facing foes who fight tactically adds another level of FUN to the game. It allows players to be creative and explore options beyond their sheets. The few campaigns that were completed ended well and it's always fun when players openly reminisce on key encounters & how they handled them. It means I hit my mark :smallwink:

When I can occasionally play rather than GM, I LOVE a tactical opponent, since I know the GM has put real thought into the encounter.

I should note that tactics aren't limited to physical combat; NPCs can use all manner of social skill (Bluffs, Intimidation, Diplomacy, ect.) attempting to outmaneuver the PCs in a contest of wills. Again, depends on the group/system/rules.

I avoided the debate on terminology & focused on your questions, as "artificial" and "real" are very deep concepts with varied definitions.


Personally what I've found is that in systems which don't have a bunch of mechanics that incentivize just wading into every fight (from very specific codification of stuff for that and having jack-all for other things), and which don't have an obvious gear treadmill to suck up resources (e.g. the succession of gradually better equipment in D&D) these sorts of tactics come up all the time. It also depends on the players, with some favoring them.

It's also worth noting that as a GM you set the standard. If ambush tactics are the norm, clever terrain use is the norm, so on and so forth, players usually start doing the same. This seems particularly true in rules light games, where the GM's standard setting carries a bit more weight. With more rules heavy systems, selecting those that work best for this helps. Pendragon probably isn't what you're looking for here. Shadowrun is likely the wrong genre, but provides a good example for encouraging caution.
+1 this.

[ZeroGear]

I'm going to bow to you all and admit my understanding of terminology seems to be more limited than I thought.
As such, I have altered the definitions this thread will be using, hopefully making this less of a argument of definitions.
The new "definitions" are meant to serve as a baseline, and I do not claim that's what they mean verbatim. I would simply like us all to talk about the same topic and be able to make a distinction between two different kinds of play style difficulties without too much confusion abounding.
Thank you.

[TheThan]

I like Algeh’s definition, so lets sum all that up (no pun intended… no actually, pun intended).

Real difficulty: providing challenges and hindering the player/character for logical and sensible reasons

Artificial difficulty: Providing challenges that hinder the player/character for no logical or sensible reason. Or hindering the player/character for no logical or sensible reason.

[Vitruviansquid]

Reply based on what ZeroGear defined the terms as in the edited original post:

I try to never create a situation in RPG's where I'm fishing for a specific answer from my players because every GM ever is constantly surprised by how dense their players are, and as a player it would get frustrating anyways. I wouldn't, for example, put players in a room with an undefeatable enemy and a heavy chandelier, and then wait for a players to decide to drop the chandelier on him. Rather, I think a better way for handling difficulty is to give players difficult encounters and then be open to the idea of them coming up with ways to reduce the difficulty. Give the players 1 more orc than is prescribed for their level, but maybe let the players attack by ambush to get an extra move in, or isolate and pick off one orc before the battle proper begins, or let them come up with some other tactic that sounds reasonable to the situation and the PCs' abilities. Still, the best kind of difficulty is the difficulty that emerges organically, from understanding the complex consequences of clear and simple game rules. But really, that's more on the system than the GM a lot of the time, and it's something you can't really try to make happen all the time. Rather, you should just change up the environments your game takes place in more or less arbitrarily, and let players come up with their tactics on their own.

Reply about "Artificial Difficulty":

The term "artificial difficulty" is slung around a lot in gaming by a lot of people, and as far as I can tell, has come to mean "difficult in a way I don't like" rather than whatever specific meaning it was coined to have, if it had a specific original meaning at all. The term itself is not helpful - video games and tabletop RPG's are all designed by people, so all difficulty in them could ultimately be called artifice. The way I personally like to think of it, however, is that gaming ultimately boils down to some kind of test of planning and execution. Take any Legend of Zelda boss and it boils down to understanding what the boss's patterns are and coming up with a way to counterattack (planning) and then having the reflexes, controller speed, and muscle memory to do it (execution). Normal difficulty is when the game allows you to progress only when you have both the planning and the execution it expects. Artificial difficulty is when the game keeps you from progressing even though you have the planning and execution down.

For example, Zelda bosses that take 3 hits to beat could be made artificially difficult if they took 30 hits to beat. The game can reasonably assume you understand the fight after getting 3 hits on the boss, but if it makes you jump through the hoop 27 more times, it just prolongs the fight unreasonably without allowing you to feel like you figured more stuff out. A lot of RPGs also use stat gating for artificial difficulty. There could be a boss that is easy to figure out how to beat, but you need to grind an inordinately long time to have the raw stats to just survive his first attack.

[ZeroGear]

So, it is more reasonable to give people a very hard monster to fight, one they 'could' potentially muscle through with a lot of determination and luck, and then add in environmental extras, like dropping chandeliers, bottles of oil, obstacles, spiked walls, and poisoned darts to reward clever planning instead of saying something like "you must use the ballistas to defeat the dragon!", correct?

[goto124]

Yes!

Especially since the players are not restricted to any one way of fighting.

[ZeroGear]

Can anyone think of more examples for this style of game? Possible scenarios that involve special tactics or setups a DM could uses as a basis?

[NichG]

Time limits help, especially combined with objectives that are different than 'everyone on the opposing side is dead'.

For example: There are cultists performing a ritual mass sacrifice to summon the power of a defeated god to the world and imbue it into the person who is holding the sword which used to belong to that fallen god. It will conclude in 3 rounds. The leader of the cultists is quite powerful, and currently has the regalia. There are many support casters whose job is to keep the cultists safe and keep the ritual going.

So immediately there's at least four major obvious things that could be done:
- Defeat the leader of the cultists via focus fire
- Disarm the leader of the cultists/steal the sword, so a PC gets godhood instead
- Disrupt the ritual directly by attacking the cultists
- Kill/abscond with the sacrifices so that the ritual can't proceed

Add to that a dozen things based on whatever screwy abilities/interactions the PCs happen to have stocked up.

[goto124]

I think that's under 'Set up a situation, not a plot that depends on the PCs doing an exact set of actions that may or may not happen.'

[dream]

Sun Tsu's Art of War (http://www.readbookonline.net/title/5124/)

Hagakure (Way of the Samurai) (https://archive.org/details/Hagakure-BookOfTheSamurai)

Try what I call the "Hollywood Trio" (three levels of interaction);

There's the opponent (attacking)
There's the environment (a burning room, a rain-swept rooftop, a trash-filled alleyway, a crowded market, ect.)
There's other NPCs involved (attacking, hostage/endangered, getting in the way, trying to help, ect.)


It can be overwhelming for players, so the GM has to be very clear, descriptive, & pace the action round-by-round. Done well, it gives everyone in the party something to do that has real impact on the scene. It can also turn FUBAR real fast --- no, it will turn FUBAR real fast :smalltongue:

Just make sure you have strong notes on things (e.g., how fast will the fire spread? What will the endangered NPC do/say? How will obstacles like furniture/trash/crowds impede movement? How will rain/smoke/high winds affect accuracy & vision?)

One more thing: combat shouldn't be just for the sake of combat. It needs a purpose. IMO, players tend to get lethargic in combat because the fight has no purpose. The monsters/NPCs just appear & attack! Writing/literature is a part of game design, and a key tool of creating great characters is giving them wants. So, in short, the monsters/NPCs attack because the PCs (1) have something they want, or (2) stand in the way of what they want. I establish what that is using dialogue before the fight begins. This way, players have a chance to maybe give the foe what they want before combat begins.

The devil's in the details :smallwink:

[Darth Ultron]

I ask this because it seems that D20 games, among other dice engines, have been ground down to what amounts to "hit it with a stick until it's dead" or "when in doubt, fireball!". Is it possible to create a scenario where fighting the enemy is more complicated than rushing in and hacking away without the players making a big stink and calling it BS? And, for that matter, would anyone want to play a game where everything literally IS out to kill you?
Add to that the question of how players should go about fighting in a wold like this, and you have yourself a real conundrum.

D20 games, and even more so D&D, are built around the ''Attack! Attack!'' gaming style. After all D&D is 99% hard core combat rules. So most players play D20/D&D with the idea of being crazy murdebobos, as to them ''that IS the game.'' It's a lot like a typical Comic Book or Cartoon plot: all the characters will act like five year olds and just fight.

And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.

And on the other side, few DM's use tactics as that would simply kill all the characters. Even the most simple tactics can kill a group of characters in a couple minutes. And even more so if the DM does not use Hollywood Tactics.

So most players play D20/D&D to play a crazy combat game. And some DM's are like that too. The disconnect comes when the DM is not playing the crazy combat game.

[ZeroGear]

D20 games, and even more so D&D, are built around the ''Attack! Attack!'' gaming style. After all D&D is 99% hard core combat rules. So most players play D20/D&D with the idea of being crazy murdebobos, as to them ''that IS the game.'' It's a lot like a typical Comic Book or Cartoon plot: all the characters will act like five year olds and just fight.

And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.

And on the other side, few DM's use tactics as that would simply kill all the characters. Even the most simple tactics can kill a group of characters in a couple minutes. And even more so if the DM does not use Hollywood Tactics.

So most players play D20/D&D to play a crazy combat game. And some DM's are like that too. The disconnect comes when the DM is not playing the crazy combat game.

You make a lot of valid points here, and I agree that holds true for about 75% of the game. Now, I only say 75% because tactics don't have a guide like "mundane" combat does. A good number of 3.5 sources I've read do mention alternate ways to attack someone (such as bull-sushing them off a cliff or into lava, or using maneuvers and/or poisons to disable and weaken them), but not nearly as much as one would like. Since the "mundane" form of combat ("attack, attack, attack!") have entire chapters dedicated to them, it is understandable that people use that as the default (I rarely see anyone using grappling or bull-rush rules. If you see this commonly, then you have my admiration).

Counter point though: there are dedicated rules for falling objects, surprise rounds, combat maneuvers, poisons, and falling characters that are often overlooked. I will assign partial blame to DMs as they need to actively incorporate such scenarios (and others like bottles of oil or dirt that can be kicked into enemy eyes), but players do need to think outside the box too. It has been stated that a DM should feel pleased when a character wins an encounter in a way they didn't expect (like pushing a large foe onto a group of smaller foes and killing the lot of them).

[Vitruviansquid]

Wait. Why are systems with an emphasis on combat incompatible with tactics?

Why can't the combat be tactical?

[Knaight]

Wait. Why are systems with an emphasis on combat incompatible with tactics?

Why can't the combat be tactical?
It's not that it can't be tactical, it's that if you spend a hundred pages of rules on a particular range of tactics and range of fighting, that's the sort of thing that's generally going to be used. To use a D&D example, you're going to see plenty of precise motion, positioning, area targeting, etc. You're less likely to see exploitation of the environment or more particular weaknesses (something like salt for a ridiculously over-sized slug), because the rules books are on the heavy side and have a lot of priming for focusing on the positioning, area targeting, etc. end of things.

[Vitruviansquid]

It's not that it can't be tactical, it's that if you spend a hundred pages of rules on a particular range of tactics and range of fighting, that's the sort of thing that's generally going to be used. To use a D&D example, you're going to see plenty of precise motion, positioning, area targeting, etc. You're less likely to see exploitation of the environment or more particular weaknesses (something like salt for a ridiculously over-sized slug), because the rules books are on the heavy side and have a lot of priming for focusing on the positioning, area targeting, etc. end of things.

See, that's what I thought too. You just use whatever kind of tactics your game system is built to account for, whether it's in positioning, targeting, terrain, out-of-combat stuff like social or political interactions, and so on.

I'm asking Darth Ultron to explain what he means by this:


And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.

[Darth Ultron]

See, that's what I thought too. You just use whatever kind of tactics your game system is built to account for, whether it's in positioning, targeting, terrain, out-of-combat stuff like social or political interactions, and so on.

I'm asking Darth Ultron to explain what he means by this:

D20/D&D is all about killing foes. There is no other way in the rules to win an encounter. Sure there are three or four paragraphs about how a game does not have to be all about combat, but then there are no rules to back that idea up anywhere.

And worse, the rule do specify an encounter must be a challenge. If a player does use really good tactics, then that takes away from the challenge of the encounter. Just take time for example. Say a PC wants to kill an evil warlord cleric. A great tactic would be to sneak over and attack them at 4 AM, so the cleric would be alone, unarmored and have no protective spells on their person. But doing this makes the encounter too easy, as even a high level/CR foe can't do much in such a situation. So the 'weak' cleric is not exactly a CR 12 encounter. The same is true with something like poison. It's a great tactic to sneak over and poison a high level character, but is that challenge really worth the CR?

And then the DM can't really use such tactics back at the characters. It is just too easy to attack and kill sleeping characters, for example.

[Hawkstar]

D20/D&D is all about killing foes. There is no other way in the rules to win an encounter. Sure there are three or four paragraphs about how a game does not have to be all about combat, but then there are no rules to back that idea up anywhere. Sure there is. "Roll a d20, add skill, attribute, and miscellaneous modifiers, and compare to a target DC". If you have issues with campaign design, that's on you.


And worse, the rule do specify an encounter must be a challenge. If a player does use really good tactics, then that takes away from the challenge of the encounter. Just take time for example. Say a PC wants to kill an evil warlord cleric. A great tactic would be to sneak over and attack them at 4 AM, so the cleric would be alone, unarmored and have no protective spells on their person. But doing this makes the encounter too easy, as even a high level/CR foe can't do much in such a situation. So the 'weak' cleric is not exactly a CR 12 encounter. The same is true with something like poison. It's a great tactic to sneak over and poison a high level character, but is that challenge really worth the CR?First off "Stab the dude when he's sleeping" is Strategy at most, not Tactics (Unless he's sleeping because the wizard cast Sleep on him last round). Even then - a level 12 Warlord Cleric would have, even at 4 AM, a perimeter of bodyguards, magical wards and alarms, and other defenses that alone would make getting to him to assassinate at 4 AM a challenge. He'd also have a number of protective spells still up from the previous day (Persisted spells last 24 hours.) A CR 12 encounter is always a CR 12 encounter, unless the DM does something weird like "Hey, look at all these free high-explosive barrels these CR 12 monsters are hanging out by!"


And then the DM can't really use such tactics back at the characters. It is just too easy to attack and kill sleeping characters, for example.... there are parties that don't have two people awake and alert keeping an eye on the others at all times?
And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.Sorry... but D&D is make-or-break on the tactics. You have to know who is doing what, with incredible value on positioning, target prioritization, resource management, spell selection, etc. Rough terrain can make it difficult to reach an enemy to deliver melee damage. It's a pain in the ass to shoot a ranged weapon from out of melee. Getting hit hurts. Getting hit twice (Such as from an OA) hurts twice as much. The latest edition of D&D doesn't have quite as much battlefield tactical emphasis, but every class has resources and actions they need to manage and time.

[Cluedrew]

Strategy at most, not Tactics

Isn't strategy the overarching plan, while tactics is how you do it on a smaller scale?

[The Fury]

D20/D&D is all about killing foes. There is no other way in the rules to win an encounter. Sure there are three or four paragraphs about how a game does not have to be all about combat, but then there are no rules to back that idea up anywhere.

And worse, the rule do specify an encounter must be a challenge. If a player does use really good tactics, then that takes away from the challenge of the encounter. Just take time for example. Say a PC wants to kill an evil warlord cleric. A great tactic would be to sneak over and attack them at 4 AM, so the cleric would be alone, unarmored and have no protective spells on their person. But doing this makes the encounter too easy, as even a high level/CR foe can't do much in such a situation. So the 'weak' cleric is not exactly a CR 12 encounter. The same is true with something like poison. It's a great tactic to sneak over and poison a high level character, but is that challenge really worth the CR?

And then the DM can't really use such tactics back at the characters. It is just too easy to attack and kill sleeping characters, for example.

Sure, the PCs can absolutely use the tactics you've mentioned. Heck, I'm sure people in my group have done all of them at some point. Though if you're out to get a warlord cleric, he's more than likely anticipated one of his enemies trying kill him in his sleep or poison him and has probably planned countermeasures. Posting guards outside his tent as he sleeps, having someone taste his food to make sure it's not poisoned, or "Detect Poison."

Maybe your experience is different, but in mine thinking tactically rarely makes a hard encounter breezy.

[ZeroGear]

Sure, the PCs can absolutely use the tactics you've mentioned. Heck, I'm sure people in my group have done all of them at some point. Though if you're out to get a warlord cleric, he's more than likely anticipated one of his enemies trying kill him in his sleep or poison him and has probably planned countermeasures. Posting guards outside his tent as he sleeps, having someone taste his food to make sure it's not poisoned, or "Detect Poison."

Maybe your experience is different, but in mine thinking tactically rarely makes a hard encounter breezy.

It's also worth a mention that for some reason people assume he's taking these countermeasures and don't even try to get him this way.
Groups I've played with have only ever used three kinds of tactics for encounters:
-Frontal assault! Hit him with a stick until he's dead!
-Scry and die
-Create ungodly amounts of simulacrums to the point at which it becomes ridiculous to oppose them.

All of these still boil down to the "hit it with a stick" mentality.

And it's not that hard to think outside the box on some of the ways to beat someone (note that these are all Pathfinder):
-Alchemists can go invisible and poison a person's drink (some familiars can do this too)
-Gunslingers and archer builds can attempt to snipe form far away
-Spells can be used to collapse buildings on enemies
-Pushing people off of cliffs/ledges/other high points works very well
-Political figures can be cornered in diplomatic situations
-Bards can use songs/speeches to spread rumors and cause problems for figures in power
-Teleporting enemies into distant locales can bead for their health
-Tying someone up ad throwing them in the river may work too (and can involve grappling rules). Alternatively, they can be sold or turned in for a bounty.
-Traps can be activated against enemies (Ihave honestly never seen anyone include traps in their home base)

And these are a just a few that are worth mentioning. There are dozens more.

[Cluedrew]

-Traps can be activated against enemies (Ihave honestly never seen anyone include traps in their home base)

Have you ever read the All Guardsmen Party (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386908-The-All-Guardsmen-Party)?

Personally, I have seen tactics used a lot. I've seen traps, summons and so on all used. None of them have been really complex and there have been few to no instances of winning the fight without fighting, but there are a lot of things beyond "hit it" that come up on a regular basis.

[GloatingSwine]

I like Algeh’s definition, so lets sum all that up (no pun intended… no actually, pun intended).

Real difficulty: providing challenges and hindering the player/character for logical and sensible reasons

Artificial difficulty: Providing challenges that hinder the player/character for no logical or sensible reason. Or hindering the player/character for no logical or sensible reason.

Part of the problem is that players have different ideas about what is a "logical or sensible" reason for being hindered.

Let's take two examples from this thread:


(In math, this often looks like giving them ugly numbers and then insisting they use a particular method that doesn't work well with those numbers rather than another, equally valid method that is better suited to those sorts of numbers. Examples would be asking them to factor or complete the square with really awkward coefficients rather than using the quadratic formula or asking them to solve a system of equations using substitution rather than elimination when neither variable in either equation can be isolated without fractions. Basically, artificially ruling out perfectly valid methods so they have to go through tedious algebraic or computational steps just to make it more likely they'll make mistakes rather than expanding on the skill you're actually teaching.)

Because maths is based on faithful application of deterministic but complex rules in frequently complex situations (which is why computers are good at it), a set of problems which rely on deliberately making the steps of following the rules difficult tests the discipline of following the rules faithfully and accurately. The test isn't finding the solution, the test is doing the difficult steps accurately (because other more difficuly maths later will have similarly difficult steps which need to be accurately followed).


For example, Zelda bosses that take 3 hits to beat could be made artificially difficult if they took 30 hits to beat. The game can reasonably assume you understand the fight after getting 3 hits on the boss, but if it makes you jump through the hoop 27 more times, it just prolongs the fight unreasonably without allowing you to feel like you figured more stuff out. A lot of RPGs also use stat gating for artificial difficulty. There could be a boss that is easy to figure out how to beat, but you need to grind an inordinately long time to have the raw stats to just survive his first attack.

How many iterations are actually required to test whether the player has successfully mastered the planning and execution required? Trick question, it's inversely proportional to the complexity of the steps. The simpler the steps required to damage a boss, the more times the steps should need to be repeated to win, because the test is doing it consistently not doing it once by accident.

In both of these cases something is posited as "artificial" difficulty which was actually just difficulty of an unanticipated sort, something which a particular person didn't think was a logical hindrance because their perception of the thing being tested was different.

So really, "Artificial" difficulty doesn't really exist, it's just difficulty that the player doesn't percieve the reason for and so rejects the necessity of.


And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.

The rules of chess have no tactics or strategy, only a list of allowed and forbidden moves, a beginning condition, and a set of end conditions.

This is true of 100% of all games. The rules are not supposed to provide tactics, they are supposed to create a set of constraints in which tactics can emerge from the interaction of the players.

[ZeroGear]

This is true of 100% of all games. The rules are not supposed to provide tactics, they are supposed to create a set of constraints in which tactics can emerge from the interaction of the players.

Thank you, I have been trying to make this point. Rules exist for all kinds of tactics, I (personally) have never seen them used. Anyone want to throw in an idea of other interesting things people can do?

Here's one:
Roll a cart full of oil down the hill at a giant enemy, then shoot flaming arrows at it. If nothing else, it'll force the foe to roll around to put itself out.

[TurboGhast]

Thank you, I have been trying to make this point. Rules exist for all kinds of tactics, I (personally) have never seen them used. Anyone want to throw in an idea of other interesting things people can do?

Here's one:
Roll a cart full of oil down the hill at a giant enemy, then shoot flaming arrows at it. If nothing else, it'll force the foe to roll around to put itself out.

Using forced movement to move foes into traps is also another interesting action. Bonus points if you made the trap, rather than it already being there.

[dream]

An old favorite of mine: kicking/throwing dirt or mud into a foe's eyes to daze or stun them. Done right, the target is Flat-Footed & set-up for a quick (finishing) strike. Stole it from 13 Assassins. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgPC74-Tde8) :smallamused:

[ZeroGear]

On that note (and this still pertains to running tabletop games that feel like Dark Souls), is there any way to utilize a failure system?
What I mean here is that there is something in the world that brings players back to a point after they have failed a articular objective (usually though death) without it being too gimmick-y? I know that there are a large variety of games that have revival mechanics (like dragging the body back to a cleric), but is there a reasonable way to model that in TTRPGs without it being broken and abused?
By this I mean that it has some kind of a penalty for dying that is more manageable than shelling out 50k gold to a high-level cleric/druid/oracle/other divine caster?

I'm only introducing this vein of though because of the ramifications it entails when creating situations that require roundabout strategies to overcome. A system like this allows for failure, and creates a learning curve without resorting to new characters (plus, the boss may also become smarter each time they try, making them think more about their tactics). The only worry is that it may be abused in one way or another.

Thoughts?

[NichG]

Replaying a scenario in a tabletop game is pretty tedious, because a single 'run' could take hours (whereas usually in games where you have to retry until you succeed, either an individual segment is only a couple of minutes, or you're doing a completely new playthrough with a new character/situation as in a Roguelike). I think this is a very hard element to make much use of - best reserved for sort of one-off challenges that aren't along the direct line of the game, so players can try, get fed up, then come back in a few months and try again.

[aspekt]

The more tactical your early npcs and monsters are when engaging your players can greatly impact their use or non-use of tactics and strategy later in the game.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

"Artificial" Difficulty: Adding in elements that may force heavy use of tactics to even stand the chance agains the enemy (ex. Foes have specific, uncommon DR, dragons can only be taken down with plans involving them being lured into gorges and blasted with ballistas, etc). Can include games where clues for upcoming enemies are easily missed, weaknesses are rarely known or unconventional, and enemies pop out at almost paranoia-inducing instances.

For me artificial difficulty is not so much about needing to use tactics, but needing to use very specific tactics, or a very specific path to victory. In a difficult bullet hell computer game you have to constantly dodge, find a path for yourself and react quickly to incoming things. In an artificially difficult bullet hell game there simply is only one good solution. If you choose to dodge left at the beginning you will get shot halfway. It's harder to finish the game, not because it required more skill but because there are less valid solutions. This can be a problem in RPG's, because they're build for letting players find or make up any of a wide range of solutions.

Your dragon example is a good one. In a difficult game the players are often not able to defeat a dragon directly, but they can try to raise an army, or set an ambush with siege weapons, or try to collapse a cave on the thing, or research a time travel spell to get a tank from the future, or...

Those solutions are all individually difficult to succeed in, and they can be combined and mashed together in many ways that are also still difficult. But in an artificially difficult game you can spend three sessions preparing to go with the tank plan and fail because the scenario was set up to disallow any other solution that leading the dragon into the gorge with the catapults.

So basically, my view on the matter is that it's a form of railroading where the tracks aren't clear enough to follow, but anything outside of them will still be disallowed for being a stupid idea.

I don't know if it's very common, it might take a very specific (but pretty high) DM skill level to set up a world big enough that you have no idea where to look yet not being able to give the players a way to interact with it.

[/semi-offtopic because not really reacting to the current discussion]

[Vitruviansquid]

On that note (and this still pertains to running tabletop games that feel like Dark Souls), is there any way to utilize a failure system?
What I mean here is that there is something in the world that brings players back to a point after they have failed a articular objective (usually though death) without it being too gimmick-y? I know that there are a large variety of games that have revival mechanics (like dragging the body back to a cleric), but is there a reasonable way to model that in TTRPGs without it being broken and abused?
By this I mean that it has some kind of a penalty for dying that is more manageable than shelling out 50k gold to a high-level cleric/druid/oracle/other divine caster?

I'm only introducing this vein of though because of the ramifications it entails when creating situations that require roundabout strategies to overcome. A system like this allows for failure, and creates a learning curve without resorting to new characters (plus, the boss may also become smarter each time they try, making them think more about their tactics). The only worry is that it may be abused in one way or another.

Thoughts?

I don't see why not. After all, everything's made up in tabletop RPG's anyways.

You could have this difficult, Tomb of Horrors-esque adventure prepared that is not explicitly fair, and the GM could repeatedly run it for the players as they fail each time. It might be fun as a player to be able to iterate multiple times and attempt to solve the dungeon.

[GungHo]

Replaying a scenario in a tabletop game is pretty tedious, because a single 'run' could take hours (whereas usually in games where you have to retry until you succeed, either an individual segment is only a couple of minutes, or you're doing a completely new playthrough with a new character/situation as in a Roguelike). I think this is a very hard element to make much use of - best reserved for sort of one-off challenges that aren't along the direct line of the game, so players can try, get fed up, then come back in a few months and try again.

Yeah, it'd be cute used in a sparing, episodic one shot, where the characters live through a day that keeps repeating itself and ending horribly until one character finally gets the meta-clue and saves the team before Kelsey Grammer emerges through a rift in space time only to never be seen again.

[Hawkstar]

In video games, the biggest form of Artificial Difficulty is 'difficulty' imposed through obtuse mechanics (In order to jump, you have to hold Left Trigger to let the game know you're wanting to make an Acrobatic Maneuver, move the left thumbstick to set the arc, tap and hold A to set the jump force, then tap "B" when you're ready to jump... and then hold left trigger again, move the left thumbstick to align with your landing angle, press and hold B to absorb impact force, and tap A to jump again, or hold it to diffuse the landing force! So precise to give most realistic jumping ability! Now... jump across this very simple series of platforms. - Cue players fumbling and falling to their death repeatedly as they fail to get all the steps done in the right order with the right timing.), or constrained information. I imagine Artificial Difficulty in Tabletop games would be similar to those.

Obtuse mechanics... "Grappling" comes to mind (Though, honestly, it's not so bad to me because of the complexity, but instead its ability to be an absolute lockdown through a single number),

And anyone can give an example of "Difficulty through obtusely obscured information".

[goto124]

The 'obscure information' is less of a problem in vide games, because you can look up a guide online. Even then, it's problemantic enough for people to complain.

Only One Way To Progress is kind of necessary (and a staple) in video games, but goes against the very point of tabletop ones.

[SowZ]

I don't think much harder enemies qualify as artificial difficulty. I ran a campaign where the first real boss fight was at level 2 against a Flesh Golem and then at level 3 they fought its maker, a level 10 Wizard with the Necromancer Bone Skeleton Companion ACF. The whole campaign went like this during climactic encounters, with monsters being undefeatable through typical tactics but not through intelligent and clever plays. They never used exploits, but taking advantage of their environment, resources, and abilities was necessary.

[Segev]

The 'obscure information' is less of a problem in vide games, because you can look up a guide online. Even then, it's problemantic enough for people to complain.

Only One Way To Progress is kind of necessary (and a staple) in video games, but goes against the very point of tabletop ones.

These are both forms of artificial difficulty; in fact, tvtropes likes to call the first one "Guide Dang It," referring to something that only the incredibly lucky and persistant would find in the first dozen playthroughs and therefore are something you NEED a guide to find. The second is the tabletop equivalent, in a sense, since you have to guess the GM's secret solution. (In video games, this could also be a "Guide Dang It" if the solution is inobvious in the extreme, but most video games that aren't trying for that have so many signposts - literal and figurative - to the next plot point that you can usually find that one way through. It may frustrate you that you can't try other, possibly better solutions, but at least you're not lost on what to do.)


Real difficulty is something that calls upon the skills from the player which the game ostensibly measures/utilizes. In a rhythm game, real difficulty is more complex patterns involving more and different kinds of moves, or even patterns you've never seen before. It can also legitimately involve known patterns that are different just a little to see how well you're paying attention. Artificial difficulty shows up in modes players can self-impose in some of them, like DDR. Things like the patterns moving faster or slower on the screen than usual to throw off your learned pacing, or having them disappear before they reach the "execute now" symbol, or only appering very close to the symbol so you have to watch more carefully. A controller with a button or sensor that only works if you hit it just right is another common form of artificial (but unintentional) difficulty; this is especially true with DDR on home consoles, where the pads can just wear out from the physical abuse through which normal wear and tear puts them.


In a table top games, the skills usually called upon for players are character optimization (pre-game), tactical ability use (in-game), and problem-solving (inclusing puzzle-solving) skills (in-game, but semi-OOC). There's really little difference between "artificial difficulty" and "DM railroading" in such things, I think. It could take the form of the DM just over-inflating an encounter's CR, but that's less "difficulty" and more just "impossibility." About the only two things that really can count as genuine "artificial difficulty" involve obfuscation of information: the DM fails to describe what's going on to the players, so they are fumbling around in the metaphorical dark and not even aware there is something to which to react before it's screwed them over; or the DM is running on rails but won't tell the players where to find them, so they have to metaphorically pixel-hunt for the exact right solution as thought of by the DM. This makes the skill in question "read the DM's mind" or at least "know your DM very well." These are not usually expected skills in a tabletop game, so they're artificial difficulty to call upon.

[goto124]

the DM fails to describe what's going on to the players, so they are fumbling around in the metaphorical dark and not even aware there is something to which to react before it's screwed them over

This can create a weird game with so little description there's not much you can do, and you have no idea what you're doing. You don't get the joy of making reasonably informed decisions. Might even be a different kind of railroad where the DM doesn't have to stop you from interacting with stuff outside the plot, because they don't exist. Better than some alternatives, but still.

It also breaks versimiltude. Where am I? What does the place look like? What are the buildings made of? Are the people armored human guards, orc barbarians, or elf swashbucklers? How am I not able to know all of these when I'm in a sense a character able to see and percieve my surroundings?

Maybe I'm biased towards the wordy side, since I play mainly PbP and can take my time to wade through the text. I feel disappointed whenever I see 'You reach the town. Three people close in on you.'

Such lack of immersion doesn't exactly help with enjoyment of the game.

[ZeroGear]

I pose a counterpoint were a DM can give too much detail. Going into such detain, in fact, that it is hard to find exactly what is relevant to the whole plot, or is a solution to the puzzle.
By this I mean describing almost every item in the room even if it is either completely useless, a red erring, or trapped/coated with poison with the expectation that players will screw themselves over by going though it all with a fine toothed comb, essentially "not seeing the forest for the trees". Here, players need to be very wary of the words "seems" and "appears", as not everything is told at face-value, such as treasures that "seem" to be made of jewels and are quite heavy, but are actually quite worthless (and worse when you only get to choose a small amount of the treasure). Granted, the treasure problem relies on players not being proficient with appraisals (a skill few people ever put ranks into in 3.5), but it may happen at any time.
It can also come about when NPCs give contradictory information to the point where there is only one truth, but it is lost in the web of lies, rumors, and misinformation. Worse when rumors exist of a foe's weakness, but then finding out while fighting the boss that those rumors were planted and his weakness is something else entirely.
This gets worse when the actual campaign is open ended, but every choice you make influences the outcome in ways you could never predict.

[Segev]

This can create a weird game with so little description there's not much you can do, and you have no idea what you're doing. You don't get the joy of making reasonably informed decisions. Might even be a different kind of railroad where the DM doesn't have to stop you from interacting with stuff outside the plot, because they don't exist. Better than some alternatives, but still.

It also breaks versimiltude. Where am I? What does the place look like? What are the buildings made of? Are the people armored human guards, orc barbarians, or elf swashbucklers? How am I not able to know all of these when I'm in a sense a character able to see and percieve my surroundings?

Maybe I'm biased towards the wordy side, since I play mainly PbP and can take my time to wade through the text. I feel disappointed whenever I see 'You reach the town. Three people close in on you.'

Such lack of immersion doesn't exactly help with enjoyment of the game.

Indeed. That was somewhat the point. This is artificial difficulty in a tabletop game because it's not really allowing the players to use the skills they're "supposed" to be using to play it.

In some video games, artificial difficulty can be potentially fun, especially when self-imposed or when used to change the game to a different sort of game (e.g. DDR and its various modes that change how you see the arrows). But in a tabletop game, you can't call any changes made specifically with the intent of changing the skills expected to play it "artificial difficulty," because tabletops by their nature are mutable. House rules to change the nature of the game are not artificial difficulty; they're just changing the game.

Artificial difficulty in a tabletop requires that the expected/ostensible skills be one thing, and the way the game is laid out create another.

I suppose that means that games which are designed poorly enough in the direction of "we expect it to be played this way, but the game mechanics encourage playing this wholly different way" also have artificial difficulty, come to think of it. So "caster supremacy" is a form of artificial difficulty in 3e D&D.

[ZeroGear]

I suppose that means that games which are designed poorly enough in the direction of "we expect it to be played this way, but the game mechanics encourage playing this wholly different way" also have artificial difficulty, come to think of it. So "caster supremacy" is a form of artificial difficulty in 3e D&D.

Caster supremacy is just plain bad game design that leads to exploitation. It is an inherent design flaw that players can capitalize upon and has been up to DMs to remedy most of the time. If, of course, the players WANT to play a game like that, then there's not much that can be done.
Granted, poorly worded resources have led to a lot of exploitation (like the infamous "astral wish scroll cloning" or Iron Heart Surge abuse), but that is an entirely different problem.

[Segev]

Caster supremacy is just plain bad game design that leads to exploitation. It is an inherent design flaw that players can capitalize upon and has been up to DMs to remedy most of the time. If, of course, the players WANT to play a game like that, then there's not much that can be done.
Granted, poorly worded resources have led to a lot of exploitation (like the infamous "astral wish scroll cloning" or Iron Heart Surge abuse), but that is an entirely different problem.

My point was more that it is "artificial difficulty" because it was not intended by the game designers; their expressed intent was for all classes to be roughly on par with each other at every level. Because the game's writing assumes this is true, it becomes artificial difficulty for players because they now need to know where the book is just plain wrong in its assumptions in order to optimize their characters as best they can. It's a form of Guide Dang It with other, more experienced players being the guide.

[goto124]

I pose a counterpoint were a DM can give too much detail. Going into such detain, in fact, that it is hard to find exactly what is relevant to the whole plot, or is a solution to the puzzle.
By this I mean describing almost every item in the room even if it is either completely useless, a red erring, or trapped/coated with poison with the expectation that players will screw themselves over by going though it all with a fine toothed comb, essentially "not seeing the forest for the trees". Here, players need to be very wary of the words "seems" and "appears", as not everything is told at face-value, such as treasures that "seem" to be made of jewels and are quite heavy, but are actually quite worthless (and worse when you only get to choose a small amount of the treasure). Granted, the treasure problem relies on players not being proficient with appraisals (a skill few people ever put ranks into in 3.5), but it may happen at any time.
It can also come about when NPCs give contradictory information to the point where there is only one truth, but it is lost in the web of lies, rumors, and misinformation. Worse when rumors exist of a foe's weakness, but then finding out while fighting the boss that those rumors were planted and his weakness is something else entirely.
This gets worse when the actual campaign is open ended, but every choice you make influences the outcome in ways you could never predict.

For some reason, this seems (har har) more appealing than the lack of information DM.

I would love to hear a few actual examples from your experience, so that I can better understand your point as to why it's unenjoyable.

[awa]

I have one, we had a wordy dm who had a group of npcs have a conversation which we couldn't interrupt and it went on a long time and apparently a bit of important information was supposed to be delivered but we missed it because it was subtle and we had started to tune him out. Not the best story but it happened like 12 years ago so the details have kind of leaked outa my brain in the mean time and it wasn't that exciting the first time.

Now that I think about it I can think of several instances of this and in general at least for me they focus on the unimportant stuff heavily describing all the stuff you can ignore and only spending a few words on the stuff you need. unfortunately none of them are very good stories.

(edit Thinking about it the real problem with to much info guy that can make it worse then to little is the amount of time it wastes they are often the one that wants to give a quirk to every single person and describe every one of a dozen inconsequential bystanders but the thing is the odds of the dm being a great story teller are no better then to little info. So often times the long description does not give you a better sense of the setting or sets the mood it just tells you that you've found a another merchant that likes to pick his nose or another bartender that burps constantly.)

I run into the dm wont tell you things a lot more often I had one dm who would refuse to tell me what type of armor foes had on or what weapon they had out because he thought it was meta gamming. (He started a good dm but eventually started getting weird)

[Darth Ultron]

I pose a counterpoint were a DM can give too much detail. Going into such detain, in fact, that it is hard to find exactly what is relevant to the whole plot, or is a solution to the puzzle.


This is my DMing style. I make up tons and tons and tons of things and add all of it to the game. I do not go for the minimalist idea at all. I hate the idea that everything encountered must perfectly fit into the plot and over all story. Like a video game or movie or TV show. A RPG is different, and not like them. A TV show only has a small amount of time and has to appeal and be understood by even the below average people. So they keep things simple and easy. RPG's can be better.

This is not for every player. Lots of players like the minimalist approach. And they don't like all the details and stuff. For example:

The Ghost Door: The game started off ok, a basic vampire rising in the dark woods threatening town. The party fights some minor undead and makes it to the inn on the edge of the dark woods. That night at the inn a poor npc is crushed and killed by the inn's backdoor. The group is told the tale of the haunted ghost door,how Marley a town drunk, was killed by the former innkeeper with that door. Marley, now a ghost(poltergeist, accurately), haunts the place some times late at night and kills people using the door.

Now as DM I made this all as just part of flavor of the inn. It had nothing to do with the vampire at all.

But minimalist player Pete, does not get it. He thinks everything is connected, like a video game or tv show. He hears ''undead door'' and is convinced the ghost must be working with/servant of/master of the vampire. And he is the charismatic group leader, so he get the group to stay at the inn. The group takes a lot of time and trouble to track down and fight and destroy the poltergeist. Get a little treasure and xp, but do nothing to advance the vampire plot. The game ends for the night, and Pete is all mad. ''What was the point of that stupid door?" he complained. My answer was like ''it was just there''. And Pete was all like ''But we wasted like half our game play time on that stupid door and it did not mean anything''. I just shrugged.

Everyone else had fun, but Pete just could not get over ''wasting his time for nothing''.

[Knaight]

I would love to hear a few actual examples from your experience, so that I can better understand your point as to why it's unenjoyable.

I haven't seen a lot of that, but a lot of it just comes down to description time. Describing things eats time, and the amount of information you get just keeps diminishing. The first sentence can convey a lot of useful information, the next few fill in a fair few details, but past a certain point all that's happening is focus is being lost. If you spend five paragraphs describing some pillar, it is either important enough to warrant five paragraphs, a deliberate red herring, or indicative of prose so purple it comfortable occupies the ultraviolet part of the EM spectrum.

Consider a novel, for reference. Even science fiction and fantasy, which frequently have to describe things which aren't even named yet and are lacking in obvious analogs, overly long prose tends to weaken a work. Even setting-first writers like Tolkien chose their words carefully, described things efficiently and with an eye for linguistic appeal, and didn't spend page after page after page on every little thing.

[goto124]

But minimalist player Pete, does not get it. He thinks everything is connected, like a video game or tv show. He hears ''undead door'' and is convinced the ghost must be working with/servant of/master of the vampire. And he is the charismatic group leader, so he get the group to stay at the inn. The group takes a lot of time and trouble to track down and fight and destroy the poltergeist. Get a little treasure and xp, but do nothing to advance the vampire plot. The game ends for the night, and Pete is all mad. ''What was the point of that stupid door?" he complained. My answer was like ''it was just there''. And Pete was all like ''But we wasted like half our game play time on that stupid door and it did not mean anything''. I just shrugged.

Everyone else had fun, but Pete just could not get over ''wasting his time for nothing''.

I have encountered this myself before, with me being the Pete.

I take the stance of 'If you're adding atmosphere, use broad strokes.' Don't use insane amounts of detail to something that isn't related to the main plot:


Even setting-first writers like Tolkien chose their words carefully, described things efficiently and with an eye for linguistic appeal, and didn't spend page after page after page on every little thing.

At least, not unless the players explicitly ask for it.

I don't have the tendency to write a lot - the opposite, in fact - but I usually go for things like


Waves crash against the shore as the crystal clear water shimmers under the burning hot sun. Boys and girls dash across the bright yellow sands, splashing one another playfully and filling the air with laughter. Some of the children are armed with water guns. You may get hit by stray but harmless jets of water.


That said, everyone else had fun doing the sidequest. Funny how Pete is the only one who's mad, when he started it. Just because it's irrelevant to the main storyline, does not necessarily mean it's unfun and a waste of time.

Could've been a lot more trouble if the rest of the group members didn't have fun though...

I understand how he's a bit angry about it. Hopefully, he's learned about your sandbox style, and adjusts accordingly.

I'm surprised you went so far in something that you didn't plan. Kudos to you as a DM on that point- not forcing your players to 'follow the rails' of the main plot.



I'll talk about my own experience. Near the start of the game, I encounter an NPC, called Daz. She's the first NPC I met and she's named, so I make a note: 'Daz is important'. Later on, I hear Daz screaming. Naturally, I put in effort to rescue her, even breaking character to do so.

As it turns out, the DM hadn't expected me to go that way, and that the screaming was just atmosphere. This one wasn't bad, since the entire adventure was more or less made up on the fly anyway.

But I shudder to think about what could've happened in a different game.

[Knaight]

I don't have the tendency to write a lot - the opposite, in fact - but I usually go for things like...

That's a decent example. It's four sentences, it covers a broad area, and it evokes an inhabited beach where people are enjoying themselves quite well. That description could easily grow if there was something else particularly notable there (something like docks and a boat, or something particular about the sand, or tons of washed up jellyfish, or whatever else). It could also easily be bloated with lots of exact dimensions, beach curvature information, sand color distribution information, and marking down the location of every little tidepool. Doing that would convey the beach much less evocatively and thus much less effectively.

[Hawkstar]

I have encountered this myself before, with me being the Pete.

I take the stance of 'If you're adding atmosphere, use broad strokes.' Don't use insane amounts of detail to something that isn't related to the main plot:


This is my DMing style. I make up tons and tons and tons of things and add all of it to the game. I do not go for the minimalist idea at all. I hate the idea that everything encountered must perfectly fit into the plot and over all story. Like a video game or movie or TV show. A RPG is different, and not like them. A TV show only has a small amount of time and has to appeal and be understood by even the below average people. So they keep things simple and easy. RPG's can be better.

This is not for every player. Lots of players like the minimalist approach. And they don't like all the details and stuff. For example:

The Ghost Door: The game started off ok, a basic vampire rising in the dark woods threatening town. The party fights some minor undead and makes it to the inn on the edge of the dark woods. That night at the inn a poor npc is crushed and killed by the inn's backdoor. The group is told the tale of the haunted ghost door,how Marley a town drunk, was killed by the former innkeeper with that door. Marley, now a ghost(poltergeist, accurately), haunts the place some times late at night and kills people using the door.

Now as DM I made this all as just part of flavor of the inn. It had nothing to do with the vampire at all.

But minimalist player Pete, does not get it. He thinks everything is connected, like a video game or tv show. He hears ''undead door'' and is convinced the ghost must be working with/servant of/master of the vampire. And he is the charismatic group leader, so he get the group to stay at the inn. The group takes a lot of time and trouble to track down and fight and destroy the poltergeist. Get a little treasure and xp, but do nothing to advance the vampire plot. The game ends for the night, and Pete is all mad. ''What was the point of that stupid door?" he complained. My answer was like ''it was just there''. And Pete was all like ''But we wasted like half our game play time on that stupid door and it did not mean anything''. I just shrugged.

Everyone else had fun, but Pete just could not get over ''wasting his time for nothing''.Wow... I think I'm more with Darth Ultron on this. (There's a surprising lack of advocacy for railroading) There's adventure everywhere in the world. Kind of a shame the guy who started it didn't enjoy the sidequest.

[ZeroGear]

And this is why my point of "too much information" works. Even if you keep it moderately short and say something along the lies of:

"You enter a long, ornate hallway. The decorations feel very much like what you would expect to find in a dukes manor, with a red velvet carpet covering most of the floor, and polished suits of iron lining the fall. Between them hang Portraits of past royalty, most likely the former owners of the abandoned mansion you are in."

Odds are that the characters will want to flip over the rug and possibly attack the armor, even if it is pretty clear that most of the description is just cosmetic. Maybe one of the armors *might* come to life or hide a foe, but odds are none of them do. That being said, none of them will look at the portraits, despite the chance that they might trigger Knowledge checks relevant to the ongoing plot. They may also miss the part about the armor being polished, possibly pointing to the fact that the mansion may not be as abandoned as most would assume.

It is very easy to hide actual clues underneath unimportant scenery because players tend to look in the most obscure places even if the answer is right in front of their noses. This may be because most are trained for traps at every turn, but abandoned homes of nobility rarely have traps in heavy-tragic areas.
Similarly, you describe a library full of books related to the outer planes, summoning, arcane lore, experiences of resurrected people, and druidic rituals expecting players to figure out that the incidents may be the result of a wizard trying researching certain topics, players will often toss the books aside looking for hidden rooms without even looking at the titles.

[erikun]

I've read through most of the thread at this point, and there are just two things I would like to make note of at the moment.

First: The allowance on what is considered an "artificial" difficulty of a game and what is considered a "natural" or "allowable" difficulty depends a lot on the game design and nature of the setting. Dark Souls (and, presumably, Bloodborne) are designed in such a way to where having an enemy jump out of a corner and instantly kill you, or pull off an unfamiliar attack which wipes out all your HP, is an acceptable temporary loss. These things are considered fair because you can get back into the game without too much fuss involved. Most video games, if nothing else, allow a player to simply reload a save file if things go poorly, limiting the amount of damage even a full death and loss can deliver.

Most tabletop RPGs, by contrast, have a much less lenient view on bringing characters back. Even something as simple as "reloading a previous save" is quite awkward in a standard RPG. The standard resurrection procedure in D&D involves dragging a corpse back to a priest in town, and most other RPGs don't even offer that option. As such, an unknown enemy suddenly jumping out of the shadows and OHKOing a PC is considered distinctly unfair. By contrast, if some of the game mechanics were to change - if a PC could be easily revived, perhaps even just by having an ally stand next to the body for a round - then the "unfair" situation can be more acceptable and the difficulty easier to work with.

Second: D&D has a long history of playing groups who have dealth with considerably unfair difficulties. They are the stereotypical 10-foot-pole groups. They are the ones who rent hirelings to set off traps, who have items for infinite free minions, who use divinations on any potential threat. They are the ones who back up their spellbook and put then in Leomund's Secret Chest. They are the ones who go through a set routine of spells, checks, and precautions every time they open a door or enter a new room. They are the ones who turn themselves into Necropolitans, set themselves up on a faster-speed demiplane of infinite platinum and Astral Projection themselves to the party. It's something that has been happening since AD&D, and while there are clearly people who enjoy that - or at least are willing to play like that - I think you might want to consider what would reasonably happen if you present a D&D party with "unfair" or "artificial" challenges on a regular basis. The end result may not be what you might expect.

[awa]

in those specific examples (in reference to zero gear) it seems that the problem is not the description but the players. Possible it's the problem of player expectation if they have been in a lot of games where those would be the correct choice of action.

Personally I would ask their int or will or something then roll a die behind my screen and say it occurs to you that maybe this might help and hopefully they figure out these kinds of stuff could be useful
then you could wean them off of it say next time roll the dice but don't tell them anything so now they start trying to figure out what they missed. and/or you may let them be confused awhile and then have a helpful npc say have you tried X. Either they will learn or you will learn you are not running the correct game for that group

The problem in this is not too much info it's that they are focusing on the wrong info. You just need to show them what is most likely to be useful.

On the other hand another way to get them to focus on the info in question is to emphasize it give that bit an extra line. Also remember this is not a computer game they are supposed to be these people not just a guy driving them like a remote control robot. If they enter a hallway with pictures and the pictures might triggered a knowledge check don't require them to say they look at them they may be assuming that if they are in a room with pictures they were doing that already. Just make the check for them.

[ZeroGear]

You make a fair point, and this does vary from group to group. Again though, players will that you (the DM) are railroading them if you make hidden checks for them. And there are groups, and I have played with some, that will still focus on all the unnecessary background fluff despite you telling them that it is cosmetic.
It almost seems like DMs can't make detailed and interesting worlds without them obfuscating quest focusses and adding distractions.

[awa]

possibly but that hasn't been my experience, I have only seen one time in recent years where the pcs became really enamored with a piece of decoration and that was a complex arcane mechanism built by alien entities with lots of strange functions and even then it wasn't really a problem they eventual gave up and got on with the quest.

I don't think any my players have ever thought hidden check meant railroading I use them fairly often whenever the party is trying to do something where success or failure is not necessarily known for example looking for traps.
If there is no trap and they rolled a 20 then they would no there actually is no trap but if they rolled a 1 they would think well maybe there is a trap if I roll for them then all they know is they found no trap just as it should be.

[goto124]

It is really hard for players to separate 'fluff detail' from 'plot-relevant knowledge', as ZeroGear has demostrated a few posts above. Don't blame the players- calibrating expectations is difficult, and chances are the group will stumble over it a few times. I'm not blaming the DM either, since both sides have their reasonable points.

It does point to something else though. Why must you look at the portraits to get clues to a plot? Why must you follow a specific set of actions to be able to progress in amy fashion? Why is there a pre-planned plot? Why can't players interpret things their way, choose their own way, make their own story?

For example: The players were in a mansion. I described a hallway (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?384767-Riverside-16-Turn-and-face-the-strain&p=18895572#post18895572) with many trophies and a large portrait, intending to showcase the owner of the mansion as pompous and self-important. The players, however, too, away the message that he was a competent person who could actually do things. Hilarously enough, one of the players says,
The only question is whether he has used all his wealth and skill for anything Good, or if he has only used it to enhance his own greatness. One is good, the other is better.

It's these sort of things that tabletop games are for.

Side note: I had a suit of armor in the mansion. If the players thought it was dangerous for whatever reason and attacked it, it would've made for a really funny scene. 'Miss, are you alright?'

Oh, and yea, being forced to follow a script as if it were a computer game, would be artifical difficulty.

[ZeroGear]

I would just like to not the that my previous example was about PCs missing clues in the background fluff, not that the clues were absolutely vital to the actual adventure.
In the Example with the hallway, the fact that the armor is polished means someone is taking care of the abandoned mansion, and the characters shouldn't be surprised when someone attempts to get the drop on them. Similarly, the paintings could have provided clues about the habits of the builder, and thus the possible layout of the building, like where the hidden rooms tend to be.
The library example, on the other hand, could have induced that the Big Bad is a caster that focusses on Conjuration and Necromancy.
Neither of these are absolutely necessary for groups to know, but they do make the game a lot easier if the characters take time to look at the right clues. It was just being pointed out that the vital clues can be missed if placed between background fluff, making them harder to notice.

Again, experience with groups vary, and I have played with people that can be quick to point fingers.

[Segev]

My biggest piece of advice in response to the "description-heavy" approach is to allow players to roll appropriate checks - perception, knowledge, sense motive, even gather information/diplomacy or relevant professions and crafts - to get certain relevant elements of the detailed setting highlighted for them. You could give your description, then ask the players for rolls, or you could ask for rolls and then take care to, during the description, say, "And, Pete, your character, thanks to his Profession (Guardsman) check, notices that the number and distribution of guards seems excessive in this particular area," which would make sure that Pete's attention was drawn to a detail his PC would find significant and thus is not losing relevant information he should be able to pick up just because the description also conveys lots of other details that are less relevant.

Personally, I do start to tune out description. I can't stand Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame because its insanely detailed descriptions of hats and bricks in the city without a jot of character introduction after pages of reading was just so hideously dull. I wasn't getting a vivid mental image of Paris; I was getting tired of individual bricks being lovingly detailed. I similarly stopped reading The Hobbit after a particularly purple bit of prose describing the history of a mountainside, until a piece of it fell off as a pebble, which got a page of description as to its own journey through weather and other natural processes until - and this was the sole relevance it had to the narrative - it wound up in Bilbo's shoe, and made him have to stop and shake it out. "He got a rock in his shoe" was apparently not detailed enough of a reason.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand words won't always paint a clear picture. It's a literary equivalent to those image-games where somebody zooms in for a super-close-up of an everyday image, and then you have to guess what it is.

[ZeroGear]

Ah, than you for bringing us to the following point:
Skill checks.
One of the problems with them is that once you ask characters to make rolls for spot, listen, profession, knowledge, appraise, search, survival, or any number of other skills that may give unknown information, and a character fails everyone immediately grow suspicious because THEY KNOW something is there. Rarely have I ever seen a group that enters a room after a failed spot check because everyone KNOWS there is a trap in the room (this kinda defeats the point of unknown information).
On the other side of this argument, some DMs don't ask for these check, fully expecting players to make them on their own discretion. THEY DON'T. Which often leads players to accusing DMs of being unfair because they "didn't know they needed to make the check".

So here's the problem: how do you run a game that is supposed to be mysterious and hard without either giving away every potential hazard, or being accused of hiding information? I know someone will inevitably say "tell the group that it's that kind of game", and I would point out that some players either don't listen or forget (and these tend to be the complainers).

This is brought up because since players are rarely in the habit of asking to make these checks, it seems to impose a unintentional difficulty.
("Why the hell didn't you tell us there was a trap in that room?"
"You never asked to make a spot check, I just told you what you would have normally seen at a glance."
"I didn't know I needed a check!")

[goto124]

Personally?

I would let the PCs automatically pass the checks. Make it that those checks were so easy (DC 0 :smalltongue:), rolling is unnecessary.

Again, personally. The checks come with the advantage of making the characters feel individualised- Bob notices that there're too many guards, Alice notices the hidden trap in that corner over there, etc.

[awa]

that one is easy write down there spot, sense motive, ect scores ahead of time and roll for them behind your screen. Make Shure to roll sometimes when nothing is happening so they don't necessarily know a roll is important.

Or roll a bunch of d20s ahead of time and write them down and when you need to make a secret check just look at the top number use it and cross it off

or just assume they take 10

[ZeroGear]

Playing Devil's Advocate on this, so bear with me:

Wouldn't the constant rolling make them suspicious and influence their actions?
Wouldn't the assumption of taking 10 cause them to cry 'railroading', because it makes the encounter seem scripted?

If no, then those are awesome ideas, especially the rolling ahead of time one. I'm guessing it would make the game flow a lot more because rolling wouldn't be a constant interruption?

[NichG]

I tend to favor systems with a sort of passive perception mechanic in order to avoid that kind of problem. Threshold-based things are annoying if you're designing adventures on the fly (because you know the PCs' stats), so my current favorite is a sort of expenditure-based system. For example, the way I run Stealth is that rather than roll and see if you're detected, you have a pool based on your skill that gradually counts down as you spend time in places you could be detected. If there's someone in the area with high perception skills, your pool ticks down faster. You're guaranteed to be unobserved until you take an overt action or your pool hits zero, but you don't know how quickly your pool will drop because you don't know the stats and positions of the observers.

For static things like traps, I don't have such a system yet, but you could make one in a similar way. The player can choose to declare that they are 'on the lookout', which burns through their Search pool room by room. As long as they are 'on the lookout' in a room, they automatically find anything hidden there before it can negatively affect them - monsters waiting to ambush, traps, secret doors, hidden loot, etc. But every room they go through burns a portion of their pool.

[goto124]

Suspicious as in 'DM's rolling again- is he rolling for Perception or a Fort save?', causing them to start searching the room and take other precautionary actions?

What does taking 10 mean here? Does it refer to assuming the player rolled a 10?

Do players complain if the DM decides that a certain action is easy, and thus they automatically pass the check?

Ooooo, where can I get a set of detailed rules for the pool system? We could all benefit from it! Is it for DnD? Is it a homebrew?

[Earthwalker]

that one is easy write down there spot, sense motive, ect scores ahead of time and roll for them behind your screen. Make Shure to roll sometimes when nothing is happening so they don't necessarily know a roll is important.

Or roll a bunch of d20s ahead of time and write them down and when you need to make a secret check just look at the top number use it and cross it off

or just assume they take 10

Of course we get into a situation where the players have a pool of points that allow them to influence dice rolls. Stuff like action points in pathfidner, or edge in shadowrun or fate points in fate.

You then have a situation of the group being on the completly wrong end of a ambush and asking why didnt we get perception checks ? I would have totaly spent an action point to mean we werent so disadvantaged.

Of course if they spend action points on perception check, do they lose them becuase the GM is just making them roll for nothing.

Player "Yay I got a 20 plus 4 more for my action dice. Percption tot is 32"
GM "Erm you notice the floor is a lighter shade of grey. it doesnt do anything tho"
Player "mumble grumble"

[NichG]

Ooooo, where can I get a set of detailed rules for the pool system? We could all benefit from it! Is it for DnD? Is it a homebrew?

Complete from-the-ground-up homebrew system, but you could try to port it. Here's the full system. (http://games.urbanhermitgames.com/dynasty/dynasty.pdf)

To summarize the relevant parts, skills in this game are on a rank system, with 1-5 ranks being the normal human range (5 being a grandmaster or other pinnacle of normal human achievement), and 6-7 being skill on the level of the supernatural. Each rank of each skill grants a particular special ability. Ranks cost a fixed amount of XP to buy up, but buying up the cap involves stuff in a different subsystem which isn't relevant here. So most characters will be in the 1-5 range, with PCs having 5 in their main schtick and trained NPCs (veteran soldiers and the like) being around 3 ranks.

The relevant part is:

Stealth

The Stealth skill provides a pool of Stealth ’pips’ that
can be used during a particular infiltration scenario. Factors
which increase the alertness of defenders with respect
to the sneaking character reduce that Stealth pool, but as
long as the Stealth pool remains and the character does not
take actions which explicitly break Stealth, the character
has not been detected.

A character’s base Stealth pool is one pip plus one pip
per their rank of the Stealth skill.

At any particular time in which a character needs to
move or act in a way that would be detected by an observer
but where there is some form of scattered cover or
usable distraction, it costs one pip of their Stealth pool.
If the motion is completely exposed, the cost is two pips.
The number of observers does not matter, but their skill
can matter in the form of increased costs (from Perception
waza). An action that directly involves an observer
normally breaks Stealth (e.g. going up to a guard and
speaking with them or trying to grab their sword).

For example, a character who needs to pass through
a cluttered office in which two guards are chatting would
have to spend one pip to cross the office. If the door were
locked and they had to take the time to pick it, this would
cost a second pip. If the office were well lit without clutter,
it would cost two pips to cross it due to a lack of cover. If
you want to spy on a meeting in said office, you only pay
the pip cost to initially hide in the office — continuing to
hide is free, until you take a subsequent action or move to
leave.

Monitoring devices, alarms, and the like may modify
the pip cost. For example, scattering dry leaves over the
floor makes it harder for someone to move without being
heard and would increase the pip cost for crossing that
area by 1.

A character cannot normally initiate Stealth against
an observer who has already seen them and is continuing
to watch them. However, things which break line of sight
can allow them to do so if they have pips remaining (e.g.
smoke bombs and the like

Stealth Waza:
●❍❍❍❍❍❍ Backstab: You may spend 3BP to
make an attack while Stealthed which causes dou-
ble the normal injury (the target receives their de-
fenses as normal). If the attack is ranged, this costs
3 pips unless the attack kills/takes out all potential
observers. If this is a melee attack, it automatically
breaks stealth unless it takes out all potential ob-
servers.
●●❍❍❍❍❍ Second Shadow: By spending 2BP,
you can use someone else as a form of cover in order
to cross an otherwise wide-open space.
●●●❍❍❍❍ Share Stealth: You may double your
pip costs to help a group of people all sneak through
an area (applying to up to one extra person per your
rank in Stealth)
●●●●❍❍❍ Just a Cat: Once, during an infiltra-
tion, if you mistakenly begin to take an action that
would cause your Stealth to be broken (e.g. you did
not realize that there was a skilled observer and the
Stealth costs were different than you expected), you
can spend 5BP and retract the action. If it was their
action that created the situation, (an observer enters
the room) you can use the opportunity to leave the
room back the way you came just before they step
in.
●●●●●❍❍ Exit Strategy: When you spend pips
to avoid detection in a particular situation, you do
not have to spend pips again to reverse your steps
and leave that same way. If situational factors have
caused the cost to increase, you do have to pay the
additional cost however.
●●●●●●❍ Whisperless Blade: Targets may
not Bolster against attacks you make from Stealth.
●●●●●●● Fade: When Stealthed, you hide so
well that you can pass part-way out of reality, and
gain the advantage of the Faded status condition
even against area attacks and other ambient hazards.
In addition, you no longer suffer penalties from using
Stealth to cross areas without some form of cover,
and do not need to interrupt line of sight to re-Stealth
so long as you have pips remaining.


The Perception skill is mainly relevant here because of the 2nd rank waza, which increases the Stealth cost. Otherwise, Perception mainly does things with regards to avoiding the consequences of ambushes, noticing certain kinds of details 'about' a situation or person, etc.

●●❍❍❍❍❍ Piercing Sight: For hostiles, main-
taining Stealth within the range of your vision costs
an extra pip per round per two ranks of Perception
(rounded down).


There are also waza for other relevant skills that help with situational stealth. For example, Wilderness grants extra Stealth pips when in wild surroundings, Guise has a similar pool-based system for undercover work or pretending to be someone else (any time your disguise is challenged, you lose pips), etc.

The system has actually come into a lot of use recently for a series of timed dungeon levels that the party is trying to make their way through. The 'timed' aspect starts from the moment that the guards notice the PCs, so they can basically earn extra rounds of time by having stealthy characters sneak into position before doing things that catch the attention of the level guardians. It seems to work decently well - the PCs have to decide whether or not to risk darting from cover to cover when they don't know what's in the area they're going to, which can be a bit nerve-wracking ("Crap, we stealthed into a dead end, now we don't have enough pips to backtrack without alerting the guards!" kind of thing).

[Segev]

Ah, than you for bringing us to the following point:
Skill checks.
One of the problems with them is that once you ask characters to make rolls for spot, listen, profession, knowledge, appraise, search, survival, or any number of other skills that may give unknown information, and a character fails everyone immediately grow suspicious because THEY KNOW something is there. Rarely have I ever seen a group that enters a room after a failed spot check because everyone KNOWS there is a trap in the room (this kinda defeats the point of unknown information).You're giving detailed description; you therefore know what's important ahead of time. Make them roll before you start describing, and make note of what to call out to whom. They only know there is something important in the description somewhere, now. In theory, you wanted them paying attention anyway, didn't you?

So here's the problem: how do you run a game that is supposed to be mysterious and hard without either giving away every potential hazard, or being accused of hiding information? I know someone will inevitably say "tell the group that it's that kind of game", and I would point out that some players either don't listen or forget (and these tend to be the complainers).I'm not sure what you mean. How do you never tell them about the hazard and NOT be obfuscating information? I think you may need to elaborate on this one a bit more for me to grasp what you're talking about.


This is brought up because since players are rarely in the habit of asking to make these checks, it seems to impose a unintentional difficulty.
("Why the hell didn't you tell us there was a trap in that room?"
"You never asked to make a spot check, I just told you what you would have normally seen at a glance."
"I didn't know I needed a check!")Spot checks should be called for. Search checks - which are what you need to find traps - should be the players' responsibility to initiate. Even if they don't say "I roll a search check," they should have to say, "I'm taking this action" that the DM interprets to be searching, so the DM calls for a search check.

[Hawkstar]

Spot checks should be called for. Search checks - which are what you need to find traps - should be the players' responsibility to initiate. Even if they don't say "I roll a search check," they should have to say, "I'm taking this action" that the DM interprets to be searching, so the DM calls for a search check.
What are "Spot" and "Search"? All the games I play (D&D, the previous edition of D&D, and Pathfinder) simply have a "Perception" skill.

[Segev]

What are "Spot" and "Search"? All the games I play (D&D, the previous edition of D&D, and Pathfinder) simply have a "Perception" skill.

3.5 uses both, and I tend to err on the side of assuming a distinction unless otherwise told. Since the post I quoted spoke of "spot," I spoke of the edition that used that skill.

Besides, my point remains valid: For things which would be "spotted" by just looking around casually - things one might notice or fail to notice on casual inspection - Perception is reflexive. For things deliberately hidden which require actually investigating to find, Perception would have to be called for in response to specific character action. Unifying Search, Spot, and Listen into Perception doesn't change that there are separate functions; it just lets you use the same skill point investment on multiple functions.

[ZeroGear]

To answer you questions in order:

-Making them roll ahead of time can make them suspicious, especially when you have to let them know which rolls they are making. This is why I agree that the "roll ahead of time and cross the numbers off a list is good idea, especially if the group has a designated lookout or scout.

-Describing the room does not mean telling them about the hidden traps. If you run a game where they have to find out everything on their own (and, I reiterate, you have been clear they know that it's this type of game) then they have to declare that they are actively going to look for hazards. These games tend to assume the characters wither have amnesia or are sheltered, therefore little information is given ahead of time. If it's 3.5, then spot checks have to be declared to see concealed danger at a glance (like a pit under a carpet) while search checks have to be declared to find more thoroughly, though often less dangerous, hidden details (like the sliding wall). Pathfinder just uses Perception for both. This is a specific type of game, just to make that clear.

-This is an example of the game I describe. A casual glance into a room is not going to reveal the hidden pit trap. If that is all you make, and you do not declare you are looking for danger, then you don't get a spot/perception check. This example has the player say "what does the room look like?", not "I look into to room to see if there are any dangers". He never bothered to state he was looking for traps or hazards despite being told he needs to state that and declare he is making the roll. The DM is will never ask for these types of rolls unless it is in conflict with a monster's stealth. This, again, is under the premise the players know what type of game they are playing.

[Segev]

My suggestions on this have been in response to the "highly descriptive" DM whose players miss things because they're covered in all that detail. Asking for rolls before the story starts can only help, here. It wo'nt call out specifics, but if it makes them pay mroe attention and try to figure out which parts of your boxed text are referencing what elements, then it's a win for you and them.

[awa]

in regards to constant rolls making players nervous if there in an ancient tomb with traps and monster possible lurking behind every alcove or door making them a bit nervous is a feature not a bug.

The games I play don't have action points or such that apply to spot checks so it doesn't come up and general reroll require them to not be flatfooted so a spot check against something there not aware of is automatically exempt.

If they ask why didn't we get a spot check I say you did you just failed.

Like any solution it depends on your group for mine its worked well.

An artificial difficulty I encounter occasionally, I describe as playing the guy controlling the character rather then playing the character. What this means is when you encounter a problem which would never afflict a person. Like for example walking to close to a fire and taking damage often times d&d fire only hurts you if you actually touch it but there are a few instances where even being close can hurt you now a real person would likely notice it was hot long before they got close enough to take actual dam but the player doesn't. Another is the fact that events might be hours in the past for the character but weeks or even months for the player.

[GungHo]

Wouldn't the constant rolling make them suspicious and influence their actions?
Yes. They know they're being observed. They know they're being watched. So, it becomes Big Brother where they are obviously aping for the cameras and wondering when the Chenbot is going to pop up and throw pies at them. The only way I've found to get around this is to roll all the time to the point where it's clear you're rolling for no damn reason, and therefore they don't know what is or isn't a real roll.... which is a lot of friggin work with dubious returns.

[dream]

Just use Secret Checks for anything the PCs wouldn't know they failed at; perception, appraisal, stealth, knowledge, bluff, intimidate, ect. There's sections in the DMG of every version of D&D that suggets DMs/GMs use secret checks. I do & they work like a charm.

You will need to establish before the game starts that you the GM will be doing those secret rolls & have a method of verification just in case a player challenges something (I use Orokos.com).

[Frozen_Feet]

In my opinion, the best solution is for players to have to call important checks, after being informed they have to do that. I can see retaining something similar to spot checks as a saving throw mechanic ('cause that's what it is), but only if they make it clear they're on the lookout

Reason being, the more explicit the players have to be of their character's actions, the more they have to think in-character and actively participate. If the GM assumes too much on the part of the characters, it tends to have a passivating effect on the players. It leads to players stating what their characters do without thinking why or how, or to "my character wouldn't have done that!" when the GM gets it wrong.

However, as such playstyle requires more attention to detail and logic from the part of players, it's good to prime them by practicing with situational puzzles. As a bonus, players will also become better at utilizing divination spells and other information gathering mechanics.