Character Flaws: Crunch vs. Fluff

[Satinavian]

So, I'm assuming you realize that a multiple die bell curve follows laws of probability, and that those probabilities can be mapped, and used to create target numbers for a single die. In fact, I accidentally crafted such a single-die system once.

You actually can't do that or, to be more precise, any such kind of mapping would depend on the skill level-difficulty difference and not be universal.

But what i want is :
a) standard deviation small compared to skill impact and also small compared to range of results
b) circumstance modifiers changing usefulness depending on challenge.

to illustrate the latter :

assume you have an easy 2d10+mod against DC system. DC is 20. Now you have a characters A,B,C with mods 2, 10, 15. Chances are 6%, 55% and 15%

Now you get some costly "tool bonus" of 2. That one would give A an additional 9%, B an an additional 17 % and C also only 9%. Or to summarize, an amateur with good stuff is still an amateur and a real professional can do well under bad circumstances but expert with a challanging task profits most from extra preparation, good materials, and tools.



Your exapmle would solve the first part of point a. While that is really important, it easily leads to a system with nearly only automatic successes/failures. But as the whole reason to roll at all is introducing uncertainty, that might be too much.

Now there are also systems that allows players to influence the range of possible results. Usually in the form of "you can avoid any freak accidants but the extra time to doublecheck and keeping extra close to established patterns also kills your chance for spectacular success and lowers the average a bit". Which is also nice as it gives players choices and might provide routine sucesses for easy routine tasks on the way.

[NorthernPhoenix]

It depends on the genre but generally, in a game about larger than life characters, i wouldn't personally chose to have detailed crunch be a thing for character flaws beyond the immediately obvious (i.e. if you are blind you literally cannot see, but i wouldn't fiddle with modifiers beyond that). Instead, i would prefer if people were rewarded in some way for playing to their character flaws.

[kyoryu]

Well, if it is enough for you, good for you. It is not enough for me.

I think it comes down to one of two views:

1) The rules are the "physics" of the world. Interactions with the world should be done via rules, and rules drive the "machinery" of the game.

2) Rules exist to help resolve places of ambiguity. The "physics" of the game is primarily our imagination, and we use rules as aids to help when needed.

Both are valid, but they're pretty incompatible views.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think it comes down to one of two views:

1) The rules are the "physics" of the world. Interactions with the world should be done via rules, and rules drive the "machinery" of the game.

2) Rules exist to help resolve places of ambiguity. The "physics" of the game is primarily our imagination, and we use rules as aids to help when needed.

Both are valid, but they're pretty incompatible views.

And some systems lean harder into one than the other. I doubt that most Fate players think of the rules as the physics. The rules and mechanics are there to encourage and enable the type of genre and narrative the system wants, not to model anything physical.

Even editions of D&D have changed--the current 5e DMG has this to say on the matter:

Spoiler: 5e quotes

Show

Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.

[skip two sections on two different extremes, rolling for everything and rolling for as little as possible]

The Middle Path
Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best. By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world.

Remember that dice don’t run your game — you do. Dice are like rules. They’re tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character’s plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

Dice and rules, by explicit RAW, are not in charge. They're tools to help keep the action moving. That's all. That's their role. To resolve uncertainty and to be used if and when needed.

The PHB, in the How to Play section of the introduction, has this to say:

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment.

The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

2. The players describe what they want to do.

Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.

Note the phrasings "The DM...decides how to resolve those actions" and "the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die". Not always, not "the rules decide how to resolve an action", but "the DM decides, with the support of the dice if needed."

Other game systems take other paths. Which is fine. One is not better or worse globally, just for a certain group and a certain purpose.

[Telok]

Which edition of Hero was this?

3rd. Although it may not be perfectly explicit, just the way I internalized the differences.

Even editions of D&D have changed--the current 5e DMG has this to say on the matter:

That's nice and all, but... My experience with that has been a flashback to the 80s when a bunch of teens were trying to run games with just the PH & MM. It's like...

You know how people like to compare the rules to a computer UI? Well there are ones that set default options and automatically do stuff for you, and others where you have to specify everything and have no guardrails. Save a file and the first type picks a unique name, and defaults to putting the file in a 'downloads' directory. Second type you have to enter the filename & location yourself, and it will overwrite existing files without warning. D&D 5e is more like the second, there's no safe & effective default behavior built into the system.

With an experienced DM I'm sure 5e is fine. With inexperienced DMs, if they don't know whether or not to roll the system says "roll when there is uncertainty" so they call for a roll. Then they need a DC. If they don't know what DC they look to the guidance, which is "choose easy, normal, or hard". Well they already didn't know so they choose the average/normal one. Keep in mind we can't assume any knowledge of statistics, I've had a DM tell me that three 30% chances equaled a 90% chance because that's how adding worked. They don't know when a system makes a check do 20% high level expert fails & 20% random 6 year old child succeeds.

Like when I write the UI for a new program component. I can't assume the users will really understand all the interactions or even read all the instructions. I have to make the default actions and options things that just work. In D&D the default of "DM doesn't know how to adjucate PCs something" is "roll a check at the listed DC", but in 5e that isn't the good option.

[Satinavian]

I think it comes down to one of two views:

1) The rules are the "physics" of the world. Interactions with the world should be done via rules, and rules drive the "machinery" of the game.

2) Rules exist to help resolve places of ambiguity. The "physics" of the game is primarily our imagination, and we use rules as aids to help when needed.

Both are valid, but they're pretty incompatible views.

I think there is even more to. Rules can help aligning the imagination of the players. That is particularly obvious and useful in cases without preexisting realworld examples to rely on. Which is why so many games have detailed rules for magic, the supernatural, strange critters or sci-fi elements and far less for earthlike animals amd plants, activities like cooking etc or actually existing jobs.

[kyoryu]

I think there is even more to. Rules can help aligning the imagination of the players. That is particularly obvious and useful in cases without preexisting realworld examples to rely on. Which is why so many games have detailed rules for magic, the supernatural, strange critters or sci-fi elements and far less for earthlike animals amd plants, activities like cooking etc or actually existing jobs.

Oh, yeah, for sure. Rules do lots of things. I was really referring to their primary purpose in the moment-to-moment structure of the game.