It has been a while since I talked about skills or affinities but I settled on an approach that leads to greater balance across levels and smooths out some of the oddities of DCs by approaching them differently.
First, some vocabulary. The term “skills” is poor because it references too many things. It refers to the character’s ability to achieve an act and it refers to the act itself. This leads to a lack of precision in general that is compounded because “skill” is also used in the mechanics. “I’m good at Climb so I’ll climb the wall. [rolls d20] Seventeen with my +10 climb is 27 against the climb DC 20.” That is dumb.
In a game focusing on words, some of this will be unavoidable, but we can do better. I plan to stick with the term affinities to reference the ability of the character. I call the actions themselves stunts. The term is intended to be broad and can refer to anything from jumping a pit to training a horse to pulling some piece of knowledge from the recesses of your mind. Any action where after you succeed some grizzled veteran NPC typically short on praise might turn and say, “Nice little stunt you pulled back there” could be a stunt.
Stunts
All stunts are an ability check. The same guidelines (as presented in 4.0.1) apply in determining which ability best governs the stunt. Characters may describe how they attempt the stunt with an affinity if they so choose. Players select a single affinity and the GM adjudicates its applicability. The affinity cannot be changed after the GM adjudicates, so players are encouraged to select the most appropriate affinity in their arsenal.
Affinities
As per before, characters receive three affinities at character creation, chosen from a list provided by their first character class. Some classes provide bonus affinities chosen from the same list. If you later multiclass and select a bonus affinity as your starting feat, you can choose from any list in which you have classes. There may be other ways to add additional affinities to your list such as race or talents.
An affinity does not provide a numeric benefit. If an affinity is ‘spot on’ it allows the player to roll 2d20 and take the higher result. If an affinity is ‘related’ it allows the player to spend an action point to reroll a d20. A ‘spot on’ affinity may also spend an action point to reroll one of the d20s. At level 1-4, a single action point can be spent per check; at 5-9, two may be spent; and at 10+, up to three action points may be spent to reroll any given check.
The guidelines for determining ‘spot on’ and ‘related’ are essentially the same as last time with minor changes. Namely, ‘spot on’ is more narrowly construed and ‘related’ is more broadly construed. In this manner, the breadth of ‘spot on’ should be in line with current D&D skills and the ability to spend a resource (the action point) for related affinities encourages taking on risk and creativity.
Determining DCs
There are three DCs in the game: basic, heroic, and legendary. These DCs are then modified by a few simple concepts.
- Basic stunts are DC 10 and are standard stunts that are challenging but achievable by any character.
- Heroic stunts are DC 15 and are more challenging stunts that most common folk could not reasonably achieve. A trained hero (i.e. ‘spot on’) or a dedicated hero (i.e. spend an action point on a related affinity) will find these eminently doable.
- Legendary stunts are DC 20 and are the most challenging stunts. Common folk could never hope to achieve these stunts and they remain challenging for all but the most competent heroes. Importantly, legendary stunts always have legendary consequences. Running across a thin steel wire may be legendary, but it is not legendary if it is strung three feet above a stack of cushions.
The type of stunt does not change as the characters progress in level. A 50-foot leap over a chasm is legendary whether the characters are 1st or 15th level and regardless of their abilities, powers, or magic. While these three categories are typically sufficient, sometimes you may decide that more nuance is desired. It is perfectly acceptable to increase or decrease the DC by two. This lets you have an “easy heroic” or a “challenging basic” stunt. This level of nuance is not required for the system to function.
Once the base DC is set, determine the level of the stunt. Increase the DC by one-half the stunt’s level, just as you would for characters. Many stunts are level one and never increase. For instance, training a standard horse under standard conditions is a level one basic stunt regardless of level.
A stunt may be of a higher level for many different reasons. Quickly climbing out of a steep pit may be by all accounts a heroic stunt, but when the walls of the pit are lined with the souls of the damned who tear at your flesh in the futile hope of salvation it all of the sudden becomes a higher level. Training the aforementioned horse might be a basic stunt, but breaking it within moments of leaping onto its back while racing away from worgs brings it up a bit. How much it brings it up varies by the particular circumstances of the stunt.
Throughout play, characters will often (but by no means always) find themselves completing basic, heroic, and legendary stunts of their level. At first this may seem contrived, but what it actually entails is ensuring that characters are routinely properly challenged. The distinction between this approach and pulling a DC off of a table is that this parses out the elements of the DC such that you are forced to acknowledge the “level” of the characters. When you are pulling a DC off a table it is easy to just declare the DC without a rationale; scaling the walls of the castle is DC 19 because that is what would be an appropriate challenge for this level. This approach forces you to acknowledge that the stone blocks of the castle are a heroic stunt (DC 15), but because you want the DC to be 19, you need to make up that +4. So you come up with a reason to make it more challenging, and the reason tends to make it more cinematic. Instead of climbing the wall, now the wind whips against them and ice has filled the cracks. The characters, completing the same task, now seem more heroic by virtue of the GM being forced to justify the +4. This is the difference between a DC 19 and a level 8 heroic stunt.
Next I’ll try and compare this approach against my criticism of 4e skills and show there why and how it makes for a better play experience.
Edit--A commenter felt the DCs might be complex to calculate during play so I provided a table. Blogger, of course, hates retaining formats.
Edit--A commenter felt the DCs might be complex to calculate during play so I provided a table. Blogger, of course, hates retaining formats.
| Level | Basic | Heroic | Legendary |
| 1 | 10 | 15 | 20 |
| 2-3 | 11 | 16 | 21 |
| 4-5 | 12 | 17 | 22 |
| 6-7 | 13 | 18 | 23 |
| 8-9 | 14 | 19 | 24 |
| 10-11 | 15 | 20 | 25 |
| 12-13 | 16 | 21 | 26 |
| 14-15 | 17 | 22 | 27 |
| 16-17 | 18 | 23 | 28 |
| 18-19 | 19 | 24 | 29 |
| 20+ | 20 | 25 | 30 |
Interesting setup. Two/thoughts questions jump to mind.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, making a stunt check of my level effectively removes the bonus I get to the ability check from my level, and leaves me with my ability mod and whether I have an affinity that applies or not vs the 10/15/20 DC's. Doesn't this make failure likely even for people with an affinity that is spot on? Assumed balanced attributes I can fail even basic stunts more than a tenth of the time. Spending an AP reduces this to like 1 in 20, but that seems an awful lot of resource to have to pass just a basic check of my level with certaintiy and it gets harder with the more difficult stunts. I guess I am curious about two things. First, what is the distribution of stunt difficulty/level are you expecting? Second, how often do you want people to fail nornmally, with a spot on affinity and when they spend an action point?
My thinking with three different sources of DC'- type of stunt, easy/hard, level- is that it goes too far back in the 3.5 direction. Sure 4e has probably taken it a bit to far in terms of everything being based on the characters- but it works in play. You basically pick difficulty (easy/medium/hard) and if you want go by a level group (remembering that each level is 1-3 levels) but normally use the parties level and go with it. It might not be perfect, but it is better than having to look up the DC for every kind of wall to be climbed or what have you. I guess my point is that in the game rarely am I concearned/willing to do the math to calculate something and I want to have a fast DC system that doesn't require me to narrate extra stuff if I don't want to but provides a challenge for the party. Sure the ice in the wall example works, but are you going to do that for every nature check to keep it challenging enough for the party? Maybe stunts are only supposed to be for cinematic things- but why then is training a horse under normal conditions even a check?
The final benefit the 4e system gives, and you might want to think about, is that there isn't a list of DC's somewhere. You describe the three dificulties and leave the rest up to the GM. You might not need a list of DC's (train horse, climb basic wall) but you'd have to have guidelines more than the above to make this work in play. Otherwise how would a GM know that it is intended that a chasm has the legendary DC and training a horse is always basic and so on?
I think overall I'd like to see some examples/a better understanding of the goal with the math. If every stunt check is supposed to be something cinematic this works fine, but if skills checks are supposed to be as common as in past editions I think I need some more information before I could use this system easily.
What this does is ensure that there is always a risk of failure. If there is no risk of failure, then you are wasting time by making them roll. I would hardly describe having to roll a 2+ as making "failure likely." In fact, I think 2+ is far too easy. You might be getting thrown by terminology, but a level 8 basic stunt is basic... for a level 8 character. It is still something worth doing.
ReplyDeleteThere is not an assumed rate of stunts at this point. I suspect most things people face will be basic or heroic with only the occasional legendary. I also don't have a desire of how often they fail, but I always want failure to be possible. There is no tension if there is no chance for failure and if there is no tension, you shouldn't be rolling. Importantly, though, I do not want it to be like 4e where some auto-pass and others auto-fail. It is also strange you think 2+ makes failure too likely but 4e's system of 8+ you seem to enjoy.
I think this system actually goes past 4e headed away from 3e. Look at what you wrote, "You basically pick difficulty (easy/medium/hard) and if you want go by a level group (remembering that each level is 1-3 levels) but normally use the parties level and go with it." And now replace the difficulties with (basic/heroic/legendary) and you've described this system in broad strokes.
There are four major differences, though. First, 4e's DCs progress erratically which means you'll always need to reference the chart. These DCs are 10/15/20+ half-level. You've probably just memorized it.
Second, the DCs are set up to be inclusive of more characters. In 4e, the GM cannot just pick a skill and a DC as you suggest and provide a measured challenge to a group. Some will either auto-pass or some will auto-fail. This is how 4e skills were designed. The only time this isn't true is if you narrate a reason why many skills will work or if your players understand your style and all take the same skills.
Third, the terminology here is more useful because it references the task, not the ability of the character to achieve it. An "easy" task at level 10 might have been a "hard" task at level 1 to that character. But there is no reason for the DC of a task to differ just because the players gained a level. That problem is lessened just by different terminology.
Fourth, is the decoupling of the task and the challenge. This is a big one in my mind because it helps correct a common trap DMs put themselves in. You write, "I guess my point is that in the game rarely am I concearned/willing to do the math to calculate something and I want to have a fast DC system that doesn't require me to narrate extra stuff if I don't want to but provides a challenge for the party." You can achieve exactly this (except with more inclusion for more characters) by picking a difficulty and picking a level. What it does do is also give you a reference for narration by also noting the "level" of the stunt. You can ignore it, but you are doing your players a disservice. They deserve to have the excitement narrated and, while you can choose to ignore it, you shouldn't.
Finally--4e most certainly does have a list of DCs. They have like six lists of DCs because they keep changing the tables. I'm guessing maybe you are thinking I want a master list that says, "Train horse: L2 Basic" but I'm not sure where that comes from.
I thought of a clearer way to phrase my main point in distinguishing this system from your support of 4e.
ReplyDeleteWhat you seem to really enjoy is that you can reference a chart and say, “The wall is DC 17. Climb it, bitches.” The fact that next level the wall will be 18 is fine because it will still be an appropriate challenge (at least for those characters it is aimed to challenge—everyone else can sit quietly and wait).
I disagree with that approach because the characters *got better.* They deserve to *be* better. But because players only experience the world through the lens of the GM’s words, if your apathy just tosses out DCs from a table, they never actually experience being better. What this system does is decouple those two steps. It doesn’t expect you to know the stunt level of every wall anymore than 4e expects you to know the difficulty of every wall. You just pick what is appropriate.
Where this is an improvement is that what you pick can remain static (i.e. climbing this wall is a heroic stunt) and the remainder is reflected by circumstances befitting the player’s skill (i.e. the wind and ice in the cracks). It helps the GM define the extent to which they *got better* by making it stand out more. This helps fight the trap of GM apathy that all too many GMs fall into, and which only players seem to bear the cost.
If you find the math too complicated, I put a table up top in the post to help, but I honestly don’t think anyone would actually need a table for this.
>This approach forces you to acknowledge that the stone blocks of the castle are a heroic stunt (DC 15), but because you want the DC to be 19, you need to make up that +4.
ReplyDeleteI think the mechanic should be stated with this idea front-and-centre.
When a GM/DM uses the challenging DC he is actually _starting_ with the DC (e.g. he knows a suitable challenge would be DC19). He is then finding a minimum ballpark figure for the DC in large, easy increments (e.g. he knows climbing the stone is a heroic task, which is DC15). He then needs to add justification for the rest of the DC (e.g. he reckons wind and ice would make it 4 more difficult). At least it will be clear to the GM that this is how the game works.
The first implication is how over-complicated it is to have a special stunt level and then add half that level to DCs to try to fudge the DCs out to what you want. In my opinion, what you really need is a direct, basic-game-maths derivation of the DC required to challenge a character of a given level, and let the GM justify the difference between that DC and 10, 15 or 20. If you want to argue that it isn't that complicated, I would respond that _unnecessary_ complexity is bad, even in small amounts. I'm sure I remember you railing against in the early days of your blog. :-)
Another implication is that you have conflicting goals. You advocate routinely increasing the DC to keep the challenge level-appropriate. Every time this is done, it counteracts the effect of the character getting better. There's no wording or math formula that can change that.
I recommend you acknowledge the trade off for the benefit of GMs. Then they are choosing whether to design a unfudged heroic stunt to show the character how far they have come, or to design a normal level-adjusted heroic stunt to keep the character challenged.
Regards,
John
>In my opinion, what you really need is a direct, basic-game-maths derivation of the DC required to challenge a character of a given level, and let the GM justify the difference between that DC and 10, 15 or 20.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't see what the difference is between what you just proposed and what I wrote. The numbers on the table are a DC designed to challenge by character level. The 10, 15, 20 are the basic DCs and the difference is the little flag that tells the GM to justify the difference.
> If you want to argue that it isn't that complicated, I would respond that _unnecessary_ complexity is bad, even in small amounts. I'm sure I remember you railing against in the early days of your blog. :-)
But that presupposes it is unnecessary. I still oppose unnecessary complexity, but this is (in my mind) painfully simple with all of the payout showing up in the narrative. If someone knows they aren't going to put in the effort for the payout, then they can just look at a table. I don't see complexity, necessary or otherwise. What part of it do you see tripping people up?
> Another implication is that you have conflicting goals. You advocate routinely increasing the DC to keep the challenge level-appropriate. Every time this is done, it counteracts the effect of the character getting better. There's no wording or math formula that can change that.
Well, gaining levels *cannot* mean being less challenged. That would make an awful game. The characters need to continue to be challenged regardless of level and position. The goal here is to recognize their improvement, not stop challenging them because they improved.
> I recommend you acknowledge the trade off for the benefit of GMs. Then they are choosing whether to design a unfudged heroic stunt to show the character how far they have come, or to design a normal level-adjusted heroic stunt to keep the character challenged.
That, too, is present by selecting a stunt that is not adjusted to be level appropriate. Check out the second paragraph after the bullets.
Ok, as I understand it you are introducing a new sub-mechanic where GM has to decide a new score called the "stunt level" for each stunt. It must be decided, then applied in a new calculation or new table, and then can be used. That is what I meant by extra complexity.
ReplyDeleteAs for the difference between what you have and what I suggest, it comes down to one main observation:
The real reason the DC is a particular number is that characters of a certain level must have a certain DC or the game fails.
My suggestion is to acknowlege and use this fact. Abandon the extra "stunt level" and derived calculations/tables, and instead:
1) Find the formula which provides a challenging DC. I suspect the formula is f(x)=x+c where x is character level and c is a constant, but you would have to confirm if it is that simple.
2) Use the formula (easy to calculate) or table (harder to calculate) to show the DM what the DC should be.
3) DM works out the difference between the target DC and 10, 15 or 20 and describes extra details of the stunt to justify the difference.
Does that explain what I mean?