New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 91 to 110 of 110
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    MN-US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    *Returns from a mountaintop holding the tablet of Numenera*

    Their DC system is fascinating to me because, to me, it carves a nice balance between "Specialist can do this easier" and "Everyone can Try".

    The way, well, Everything works in Numenera is that you assign the task a level. There's a chart giving descriptions about like, how easy a level 0 task is versus the hardest task, level 10, and every step in between. The DC for the check is Level x 3, and you roll a flat 1d20 to see if you succeed.

    Why yes, this does mean that levels 7-10 are Impossible By Default.

    Instead of adding to their roll, players modify the difficulty of the task in a few ways. First, your training. If you have an Inability at the task, it's Harder by a step. If you're Practiced (default), it's +/- 0. Trained makes it -1, and Expertise is -2. Take that Level 7 (DC 21) task you're an Expertise at, now it's Level 5 (15) for you. If you have an Asset on the task (Gear, ability or Assistance), you can lower it by an additional 2 stages: Level 3 (DC 9). If you just gotta be sure though, apply some Effort. Effort costs points out of the stat pool that's associated with the task, and you can apply up to a number of levels of Effort equal to your Effort stat. So if your character has Effort 2, you can apply 1 or 2 levels of effort. Let's say we feel comfortable with just 1, to save some points. That same task from before has now dropped to Difficulty 2 (DC 6).

    Through a combination of preparation, training, and pushing yourself, that difficulty DC of 21 is now a DC of 6 for you. The person untrained in it may only be able to get it down to 9, but they might need both levels of Effort to get it there, thus spending more of their resource for powering abilities and their health (Your health total is a combination of your 3 stat pools). And since Effort can't exceed your Level + 1, nobody can just outwork every challenge through pushing themselves.

    One shot of it I ran recently, the brawler was stuck in a room and needed to make an Intellect check. Was a Level 5 check, so he pushed himself twice, draining over half of his limited Intellect pool, and was able to use the NPC as an Asset. A DC 15 task became DC 6 and he hit an 11 on the die.

    I think the Numbers in a lot of D20 games lead to a lot of issues for me, relating to DC. I feel the need to have to scale for difficulty, which I have to resist because otherwise it just makes no sense. With a system like this, I can just say "Is this something a normal person would struggle with? OK, difficulty 4" and then it's not guaranteed they can pass, unless they want to burn the resources to bring it to 0. It puts a choice in players hands and also makes helping each other way more useful.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Aug 2022
    Location
    the other Pacific coast
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    what causes a lot of misunderstanding is that there are 2 separate 'scales' of difficulty.

    Macro difficulty - what can a low-level character do VS a high-level character

    and micro difficulty - is this task more or less difficult in the moment than another task?

    As for specialist characters just 'nuking' certain skill checks compared to 'laymen' characters, that just comes down to the GM's skill, imho.

    This mostly only becomes an issue when using the 'video game' philosophy of level, erm... sorry, campaign design, where fixed challenges exist statically in a pre-determined environment and anyone can approach them if they like.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    Yes, I would describe that, and similar systems of combining results are not DC systems because you could swap out how the component check works and the aggregate system work work the same way. Or if you want to focus on just the implementation that combines DC checks: The difference between one and multiple feels significant that should be acknowledged.

    And yeah, there are parallels between this resolution system and others, but that doesn't mean they are the same.
    A horse is not a human, but they are both mammals (and animals, and have bilateral symmetry, and…). I think, so long as we have words to explain both the differences and the similarities and to uniquely identify the individual items, it should be fine.

    I guess it says something about me, that I’m interested in naming the largest grouping, “uses DC”, more than in naming the small grouping, “only used DC”. Or maybe it just says I’ve bought WotC’s koolaid.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by MetroAlien View Post
    As for specialist characters just 'nuking' certain skill checks compared to 'laymen' characters, that just comes down to the GM's skill, imho.
    The issue isn’t that some tasks are impossible for non-trained characters—that is up to the GM and logic of the story. The problems arise when the system does this automatically, or is otherwise hard for a GM to easily correct during play. Constantly escalating DCs exacerbate this problem and don’t provide any easy mechanical solutions for the GM.

    Saying GM skill can solve the problem isn’t accurate and also implies that the issue is system-agnostic. In my experience that’s not true—for example 5e doesn’t have an airtight skill system, but because of bounded accuracy a DM has lots of ways to tweak the odds without distorting the rules. Pathfinder 2 has a much bigger issue with this because those escalating bonuses are also working as niche protection in the system.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by Zuras View Post
    The issue isn’t that some tasks are impossible for non-trained characters—that is up to the GM and logic of the story. The problems arise when the system does this automatically
    Why would that be a problem ? Many tasks should be impossible for untrained characters and if a system does that naturally instead of relying on the GM to overrule the skill rules all the time to prevent stupid results, that is a mark of quality.


    Honestly, the more often the skill sytem is ignored because it would not produce something sensible, the worse the skill system is. That is why rules stating "the GM can decide no roll is needed/possible" instead of "the GM should only have people roll if the matter is relevant" tend to be a red flag. It is as if designers know there are issues and instead of fixing them limit the use cases.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Why would that be a problem ? Many tasks should be impossible for untrained characters and if a system does that naturally instead of relying on the GM to overrule the skill rules all the time to prevent stupid results, that is a mark of quality.
    Making everything a windowed treadmill system means that every character interested in succeeding at their skill checks must become more specialized over time. Instead of a non specialist having a small chance to be useful, it drops to zero. Worse, even someone trained but not specialized will soon have no chance of success. I’d much rather have a bounded accuracy system that only specialists can break, or include special perks only available to specialists to mechanically reward their specialization, than represent excellence purely by ludicrously escalating numbers.

    Additionally, if a player has invested a significant fraction of their character build into being good at something, it might be nice to give them something a little more engaging than a single pass-fail roll.

    Now, my issues with the D&D 3.5/Pathfinder style non-bounded skill numbers are based on the criticisms I’ve read from others, not personal experience, but I’ve found 5e’s system pretty resilient, and easy to get what I want from without too much pondering. If you want something hard but not impossible, where the experts will shine, simply setting a low DC check but applying disadvantage due to the circumstances works really well.

    It also aligns with my sensibilities fiction-wise, because to me the difference between an expert and a novice is more often that the expert can do the task upside-down in the dark wearing gloves, not that the novice can’t do the task at all (especially for non-crafting adventuring tasks).

    I grant you this may be more preference for bounded systems and a bias against big numbers and lots of modifiers. I have been quite happy with 5e and Fate, where lining up more than a handful of bonuses and a re-roll for any task is generally impossible.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by Zuras View Post
    Making everything a windowed treadmill system means that every character interested in succeeding at their skill checks must become more specialized over time. Instead of a non specialist having a small chance to be useful, it drops to zero. Worse, even someone trained but not specialized will soon have no chance of success. I’d much rather have a bounded accuracy system that only specialists can break, or include special perks only available to specialists to mechanically reward their specialization, than represent excellence purely by ludicrously escalating numbers.
    Or, you know, stop increasing DCs with level. Same tasks should always have the same difficulty. There doesn't need to be a treadmill and bounded accuracy is neither the only nor a particularly elegant method to avoid it.


    Now, my issues with the D&D 3.5/Pathfinder style non-bounded skill numbers are based on the criticisms I’ve read from others, not personal experience, but I’ve found 5e’s system pretty resilient, and easy to get what I want from without too much pondering. If you want something hard but not impossible, where the experts will shine, simply setting a low DC check but applying disadvantage due to the circumstances works really well.
    Every single version of D&D has an utterly horrible skill system. Yes, 3.x+Pf are bad with making DCs and giving meaning to those rising skill level. And that is without considering nonsense like "average humans have only one level and thus only 1-4 skill points". But 5E basically gave up and uses lolrandom for everything with the DM supposed to restrict rolling to cases where randomness makes sense. It's only slightly better than one of those cointoss systems.

    Nearly every RPG system with a heavy skill systems does it better. Splittermond, TDE, SR (barely), Gurps, SIFRP ...

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Given of the 4 DC-based skill systems, at least 2 (3.P and 4) and by reputations 3 (PF2) of the 4 out there go with DCs and bonuses that can grow larger than the dice, and fail to handle it gracefully/naturally without heavy DM interference, I think it's fair to call it a problem.

    The 4th DC-based skill system that successfully handles it is the one that doesn't allow that, 5e.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by Zuras View Post
    Making everything a windowed treadmill system means that every character interested in succeeding at their skill checks must become more specialized over time. Instead of a non specialist having a small chance to be useful, it drops to zero. Worse, even someone trained but not specialized will soon have no chance of success. I’d much rather have a bounded accuracy system that only specialists can break, or include special perks only available to specialists to mechanically reward their specialization, than represent excellence purely by ludicrously escalating numbers.
    One solution to that is 4E-style skills, where non-specialists still progress by level and thus remain a fairly consistent amount behind instead of falling into irrelevance. Personally I'd make this one of three options (full skilled, partially skilled, not skilled) instead of the default for every skill, since certain things like surgery or bomb defusing should be left to the experts.

    But this is only an issue if you're using a skill check as the primary challenge of a scenario. Like yes, if the entire encounter is "run this obstacle course" and it's represented by an Acrobatics check, then some characters will find it trivial and/or others will find it impossible. Which is a sharper distinction than a combat encounter where it's more like "moderately easy" vs "moderately difficult", and where results are shared to an extent (the berserker shredding the enemy front-line makes things easier for the assassin to reach the enemy casters, for example).

    But that's because you're replacing a fairly complex situation with a lot of factors (combat) with a very simply solution that only has one factor (a skill check). Most Skill Challenge rules aren't great IMO, but they do somewhat mitigate this by adding more than one axis to be good/bad at.

    And if the skill usage is only one part of a dynamic encounter, it's much less an issue (desirable, in fact) that different characters have very different approaches. For example -

    Situation: The PCs are at the bottom of a tall icy cliff. At the top are frost giants throwing ice boulders down at them.
    * One PC climbs the cliff at full speed, which is impossible for the rest of the party
    * Another just stays on the ground and uses ranged attacks; they'll get to the top with the help of some rope once the battle is done.
    * Another teleports up to the top, getting into position instantly but vulnerable to being knocked off the edge. Lucky this one can teleport, because he'd have trouble climbing even with rope.

    The fact that the cliff is easy for one PC, difficult for another, impossible for the third isn't a problem, any more than the fact that a typical mage probably gets killed if they try to grapple the giants instead of casting spells, or that the barbarian making spellcasting gestures will accomplish nothing.

    Because after all "something that one party member auto-succeeds at, while others have literally no chance" accurately describes casting spells, or a large number of other class features.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2023-04-27 at 07:59 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Every single version of D&D has an utterly horrible skill system. Yes, 3.x+Pf are bad with making DCs and giving meaning to those rising skill level. And that is without considering nonsense like "average humans have only one level and thus only 1-4 skill points". But 5E basically gave up and uses lolrandom for everything with the DM supposed to restrict rolling to cases where randomness makes sense. It's only slightly better than one of those cointoss systems.

    Nearly every RPG system with a heavy skill systems does it better. Splittermond, TDE, SR (barely), Gurps, SIFRP ...
    I think it’s hyperbolic to call any of the 3e and later D&D skill systems terrible. They can break down at many points, but they do an adequate job of providing mechanics for the characters being skilled at various tasks related to adventuring beyond their natural talent.

    I won’t argue if you’re saying they’re terrible because they misrepresent things by appearing to provide more crunch for non-combat resolution than they actually deliver. I personally would prefer an entirely fiction-first system like 13th Age or Whitehack use.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by Zuras View Post
    I won’t argue if you’re saying they’re terrible because they misrepresent things by appearing to provide more crunch for non-combat resolution than they actually deliver.
    Mostly i think them terrible because they compare so poorly to other systems.

    I mean, if D&D skill rules were the best out there, i would be far more forgiving for their many drawbacks. But they aren't. In every edition they are only just some barely functioning clobbered together add on that didn't get any love. And it really shows.

    RPG systems steal ideas from each other all the time. If D&D writer ever would have made an effort, they would have been able to come up with something better easily. But no, D&D is mostly a combat game and most of the rest is utility spells and class abilities.


    Also i include the skill systems before 3.x in the "terrible" category. If anything those are even worse.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    So what would you consider an example of an RPG with a significantly better skill system? Because I'm thinking about those I've seen, and most I'd just call "fine" - they're unobjectionable, they work, but they're not some quantum leap over the D&D 3.x one.

    Obviously some of this comes down to preference. Many people love player-defined skills / backgrounds, like 13A uses IIRC. But personally - I don't. I don't enjoy negotiating/begging/demanding when I'm just doing basic things like making skill rolls. So I'd much rather have it settled what my skills apply to rather than hash it out each time it comes up, and being able to decide "I'll take some ranks in Bluff" and know that's ok, vs worrying about "If I say that 'Secret Agent' includes being able to hack computers, is that too much?"
    Last edited by icefractal; 2023-04-28 at 03:54 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Obviously some of this comes down to preference. Many people love player-defined skills / backgrounds, like 13A uses IIRC. But personally - I don't. I don't enjoy negotiating/begging/demanding when I'm just doing basic things like making skill rolls. So I'd much rather have it settled what my skills apply to rather than hash it out each time it comes up, and being able to decide "I'll take some ranks in Bluff" and know that's ok, vs worrying about "If I say that 'Secret Agent' includes being able to hack computers, is that too much?"
    I have similar preferences.
    And i already gave examples. Among those Splittermond is what i currently like the most but TDE(4E), having a partial English edition might be a better comparison as it still easily overshadows any D&D version in this regard.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Obviously some of this comes down to preference. Many people love player-defined skills / backgrounds, like 13A uses IIRC. But personally - I don't. I don't enjoy negotiating/begging/demanding when I'm just doing basic things like making skill rolls. So I'd much rather have it settled what my skills apply to rather than hash it out each time it comes up, and being able to decide "I'll take some ranks in Bluff" and know that's ok, vs worrying about "If I say that 'Secret Agent' includes being able to hack computers, is that too much?"
    Clearly oD&D has the best skill system ... none at all!

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    So what would you consider an example of an RPG with a significantly better skill system? Because I'm thinking about those I've seen, and most I'd just call "fine" - they're unobjectionable, they work, but they're not some quantum leap over the D&D 3.x one.

    Obviously some of this comes down to preference. Many people love player-defined skills / backgrounds, like 13A uses IIRC. But personally - I don't. I don't enjoy negotiating/begging/demanding when I'm just doing basic things like making skill rolls. So I'd much rather have it settled what my skills apply to rather than hash it out each time it comes up, and being able to decide "I'll take some ranks in Bluff" and know that's ok, vs worrying about "If I say that 'Secret Agent' includes being able to hack computers, is that too much?"
    I understand people feeling that way, but I think that’s more a higher level of comfort with an existing system. 5e can have all sorts of problems with that—what is investigation versus perception, what is covered by arcana versus religion, history or nature, when do you need acrobatics versus athletics. If the DM is going to be a jerk, or even just has a very different understanding of the skill system, you will have problems.

    Coming from the other side, I find it utterly aggravating when the skill system won’t let you cover all the competencies your character would have based on an utterly bog-standard genre backstory. I don’t play with many players where negotiating things out is an issue, though.

    I’d also argue that the fiction first/justify proficiency with backstory/tags method is more helpful for new players to effectively realize their character concepts without requiring up front system mastery. For a more complex system you need something like GURPS templates, which work fine but are going to scare off most casual players.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    A horse is not a human, but they are both mammals (and animals, and have bilateral symmetry, and...). I think, so long as we have words to explain both the differences and the similarities and to uniquely identify the individual items, it should be fine.
    Here my argument is roughly: A brick wall is not a brick.

    Now, before we move on, the example here (4e's skill challenges) is actually... it has been a long time, so if it doesn't actually work like this than this just applies to systems that do match this description. But as I recall the skill challenge just combines the results of skill checks made during the challenge. It might give you some rules about when to make them but the difficulty is still largely decided in the same way it would be for any other check and your ability to do them is. So you could replace the skill check with any non-DC-based check that outputted success or failure and it would work the same way. You could use the Powered by the Apocalypse's moves even.

    In other words, it seems that the DC is actually involved only incidentally in the skill challenge it seems strange to call it DC based. The connection seems to be one of transitivity; a brick in a brick wall, but here we could use stones and get a very similar wall out at the end.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    4e skill challenges are not a DC-based skill system. They are a X successes before Y failures system. It doesn't matter if those successes are determined by rolling d20+bonuses vs DC or not.

    It just happens to also be part of a set of rules that determines success/failure with a DC-based skill system.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    gatorized's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2023

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Nowhere View Post
    what's the alternative to dc based systems? I can't even imagine on that wouldn't have the same issues.
    Opposed rolls, and it works quite well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    Finally, there are not in between results. So if you want anything between complete success and complete failure requires multiple checks. It works, and sometimes works quite well, but now you are pretty much putting another resolution system around your existing resolution system and sometimes it is kind of awkward.
    Easy.



    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    So I'd much rather have it settled what my skills apply to rather than hash it out each time it comes up, and being able to decide "I'll take some ranks in Bluff" and know that's ok, vs worrying about "If I say that 'Secret Agent' includes being able to hack computers, is that too much?"
    Depends on what secret agent is / what you want to do. If you're only interested in hacking, then just taking some ranks in Technology would be sufficient; if you want to be able to hack anything instantly, Machine Control would be more appropriate. If Secret Agent is a class and is supposed to make you like James Bond, then this could be achieved with some ranks in Tech, Vehicles, Covert, Charm, Streetwise, possibly Command, and the rest would just be mundane gear; you likely wouldn't even need any powers.
    Last edited by gatorized; 2023-06-28 at 06:02 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Quote Originally Posted by gatorized View Post
    Opposed rolls, and it works quite well.
    Only for conflicts. And easily only for conflicts between actors who have stats ready. By far the most rolls i see in a typical RPG session don't have any opposing opponents.

    Depends on what secret agent is / what you want to do. If you're only interested in hacking, then just taking some ranks in Technology would be sufficient; if you want to be able to hack anything instantly, Machine Control would be more appropriate. If Secret Agent is a class and is supposed to make you like James Bond, then this could be achieved with some ranks in Tech, Vehicles, Covert, Charm, Streetwise, possibly Command, and the rest would just be mundane gear; you likely wouldn't even need any powers.
    That argument was clearly meant for RPGs that have customizable/open ended skill lists. Something like "career : secret agent" as a skill, not a class. Icefractal seems to prefer systems where he can just put some ranks in discrete, well defined skills like Tech, Vehicles, Covert,Charm, Streetwise and command as opposed to systems where everyone has a couple of unique skills on his sheet that are nowhere explained in detail and where people don't really agree what exactly they cover and what not.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2023-06-29 at 12:42 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Archmage in the Playground Moderator
     
    truemane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Grognardia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Common issues with DC based skill systems

    Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy
    (Avatar by Cuthalion, who is great.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •