Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

[The Ugly One]

I could be wrong, but again, DnD has this. At least if you're playing it fast and loose. The DCs for a check are 8, 10, 12, 15, 18. In CoC terms, Normal would be 12, Hard 15, Extreme 18.

No, D&D doesn't have "this," because "this" is the ability to set a task difficulty that actually has a meaningful risk of failure for everyone in the party without knowing people's character sheets or destroying the coherence of the world. When I say "make a task hard," I don't mean "select whatever value the book says is hard," I mean make a task be actually hard, and always be hard.

An extremely difficult task in Call of Cthulhu has a success chance of 2%-12%, depending on the party member. A DC 20 task in 5e has a 0%-85% chance of success. It's not the same at all.

 

[Judge Dredd]

No, D&D doesn't have "this," because "this" is the ability to set a task difficulty that actually has a meaningful risk of failure for everyone in the party without knowing people's character sheets or destroying the coherence of the world.

So why build a character in a specific direction if the best you can hope for is a 12% chance of doing something?

Going to a completely different thread, but this is why I don't like roguelikes, or playing Xcom on Impossible difficulty. The die rolls are so weighted against you that even playing completely optimally, the end result comes down a die roll that's out of your hands.

 

[The Ugly One]

So why build a character in a specific direction if the best you can hope for is a 12% chance of doing something?

Because the vast majority of rolls are Normal difficulty. Someone who puts no points in Persuasion has only a 10% chance of succeeding at a Normal persuasion check. Someone who goes all-in has a 100% chance. You build your character around Normal tests.

As a Cthulhu GM, something is Normal if a skilled person should do it effortlessly, but an unskilled person is highly likely to fail. Something is Hard if a skilled person will struggle. Something is Extreme if succeeding is mostly a matter of luck, regardless of skill.

There are certain things in life that are so hard that doing them is mostly luck, like hitting a target at 20 yards with a handgun while galloping on a horse. Those are Extreme difficulty in Cthulhu. Such a concept is basically nonexistent in D&D. You don't have the tools.

 

[Ghostse]

Sorry not sorry, systems that give the target a chance to parry/deflect/dodge/mitigate damage by way of a die roll are better than just "roll to hit" systems. Rolling poorly to dodge > being completely helpless as the adversary rolls to hit. You can add this into D and D by simply replacing AC with AC - 10 + 1D20. 45% of the time, the defender does poorly and is easier to hit. 5% of the the odds of the attacker are unchanged. 50% of the time, the defender is in a better position than RAW. As long as you apply it to both PCs and NPCs, the playing field is kept even with defenders benefitting equally across the board. The effect is marginal, as hits will land slightly less often on both sides, but to an equal degree.

This just drags out combat. The idea going against a to-hit number is so combat can be resolved without back and forth every attack, especially when there is the GM running all the monsters.
Additionally most systems/classes give a target various ways to change up their to-hit numbers, they often can't just be activated in the moment and need to be done strategically.

This is meant to prevent the anticlimatic lucky shot resolving the epic showdown in a single round and keep players rolling and rolling before they can possibly accomplish their objective, to emulate the final climactic scene of a movie. This would only be kicked in in critical battles to prevent massive slugfests with mooks.

As @Corn Flakes says

That's just HP without rolling for damage.

An better way to do this is give the BBEG a "sacrifce a mook" reaction. If he's next to one of his minions/mooks, when he'd be hit the mook takes it instead. Give the PCs divine protection that degrades.

It also just sounds like it artifically drags out combat.

If you are the GM and you want to run this system behind the screen for you set peice there is nothing stopping you, but I wouldn't tell my players about it.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

This just drags out combat. The idea going against a to-hit number is so combat can be resolved without back and forth every attack, especially when there is the GM running all the monsters.

Had a DM more than a decade ago do this for his games. Combat for one encounter lasted hours. Didn't take long for the group to split.
This sort of thing however does work for dogfights in smaller games that are solo or up to two other people in science fiction games.

 

[p1138]

It also just sounds like it artifically drags out combat.

If you are the GM and you want to run this system behind the screen for you set peice there is nothing stopping you, but I wouldn't tell my players about it.

It definitely sounds like that, especially if you don't go out of your way to ensure the combat actions for the players aren't going to amount to more than just running up and hitting the guy, and the BBEG just doing the same to them. For an extended combat that's actually engaging, characters need to be doing something beyond the norm since it's not supposed to just be a dragged out version of fighting 2 spiders and a troll that were hiding in a closet in a dungeon.

Hell, having a mook knock over a big ass brazier toward the party creating difficult/damaging terrain they can't stand in(hot coals, burning oil, doesn't matter) would add more to the experience for everyone than having an additional stat pool for the DM to track.

 

[Rick Nekieta]

Had a DM more than a decade ago do this for his games. Combat for one encounter lasted hours. Didn't take long for the group to split.
This sort of thing however does work for dogfights in smaller games that are solo or up to two other people in science fiction games.

I've never had trouble with this arithmetic. I have +6 to hit, the other guy has + 8 to block. I rolled a 7, he rolled a 4. My modified 13 beats his 12 to modified block, he failed to block. This is no different than "based on your bonus and his AC, you'll hit on a 12 in all cases." I've never had a problem with keeping the flow going. As long as all players know their relevant skill level in advance and they know to report their modified result, I just have to know who has the higher numbers. Whether the tie goes to attacker, defender or results in a half damage blow depends on the system of use (Palladium, for example, has defender winning ties, but I house ruled it to a half damage graze). I've been at tables where people report a number, receive a result and then they clarify after the fact whether the reported result was modified or unmodified.

I also have a 30 second maximum on turn dictation. If you fail to give an answer in 30 seconds, you are in defensive mode and have the appropriate defense bonuses, but otherwise succumbed to shock. Have your proposed action at the ready. Know the relevant mechanic. Roll the die quickly. Report the result. If you have to research the nuances of your abilities or the mechanics at play, do it on other people's turns. There is no pausing the game to weigh spell A vs. spell B for 15 minutes. There is no pausing the game to engage a 20 minute debate/discussion on ideal strategy. You just toss, report, plan and act. I'm generous with the 30 seconds. Others might give real time 6 seconds. I'm only slightly kinder because I give people a few seconds to wage a silent internal debate (should I run towards them and stab or kneel and shoot, arguments exist for both, let me weigh the issue internally for a few seconds and decide). I have never had a combat last hours in any system that all players were familiar with. I've been at tables where the moment it isn't their turn, players go to cell phones, side dialogues and such, then it takes 30 seconds to even get their attention, 30 seconds for them to even categorize their options, 5 minutes of research, 3 seconds of rolling, 60 seconds to clarify "modified or unmodified" multiply times 5 or 6.

Rant aside, if modifiers are known, it is equally fast for both parties to roll one die and do one simple calculation as it is for one. Stay focused, keep it moving. I'll give you a little room to plan, but just that, a little. Resolve all arithmetic immediately because it is literally elementary school math.

 

[Tri-Tachyon'sClown]

Have a bunch of "quantum troll" planets ready to go.

I know this was a while ago but this is a nice writeup. I'm probably retarded so I don't know what "quantum trolls" are. Can you elaborate?

 

[Alabama Gamer]

I know this was a while ago but this is a nice writeup. I'm probably retarded so I don't know what "quantum trolls" are. Can you elaborate?

It's me misremembering the term "quantum ogre". A quantum ogre is a prepared encounter that will take place no matter which direction the players travel. Done properly, it's efficient GMing. Done poorly, it's railroading. It's sort of necessary for a game with a large sandbox.

 

[Corn Flakes]

I know this was a while ago but this is a nice writeup. I'm probably retarded so I don't know what "quantum trolls" are. Can you elaborate?

To elaborate on @Alabama Gamer's explanation, the "quantum" part is based on quantum superposition. Extremely long story short, you have an encounter planned for the players. In this case, they get to fight an ogre. Where and when they fight the ogre aren't pre-defined parameters. So if the players take a right and go into the dungeon, they'll find the ogre there. If the players take a left and go into the ruined castle, they'll find the ogre there. And after finding the ogre in either location, the ogre does not appear anywhere else. The waveform function has collapsed when the time and place of the ogre are defined during gameplay.

Another example would be the players finding a magic item that's necessary for their future adventures. If they somehow miss it where it was originally meant to be found, you can always put the item somewhere else for them to find. So long as the new location is also believable, they won't even notice it. Sure, they missed the Great Orb of Kalazablam in Kalazablam's Crypt, but they might find it in a dragon's hoard, or in the study of a cultist leader who didn't know she had such a valuable artifact in her hands.

It's a stupidly nerdy etymology but the principle is simple enough: you can be flexible with your encounters and you don't have to "waste" them if your players didn't take the path you intended, so long as you make them believable.

 

[Judge Dredd]

This just drags out combat. The idea going against a to-hit number is so combat can be resolved without back and forth every attack, especially when there is the GM running all the monsters.

A bit off topic, but I saw a discussion on Discord recently about dedicated healers. Basically complaining that in certain systems, healing is worthless because enemy damage output always outstrips healing in the long run. People try to explain that it's a design choice to stop infinate combat or stop the party from being unkillable, but they don't like that answer.

Similar discussion happened about a dedicated tank. Complaining that only paladins can do it. People try to explain you can go full armour fighter or other builds like a high dodge monk or a high con barbarian. But they aren't "pure" tanks.

It feels like a MMO way of looking at RPGs.

Rant aside, if modifiers are known, it is equally fast for both parties to roll one die and do one simple calculation as it is for one. Stay focused, keep it moving. I'll give you a little room to plan, but just that, a little. Resolve all arithmetic immediately because it is literally elementary school math.

I don't have a problem with modifiers. What I have a problem with is stacking modifiers. Same with multiple die rolls for the same action. On the surface, it's just a few seconds, if that. d20 + 2 + 1 + 1? Easy. d20 + 5 vs d20 + 8. Easy. The problem is these 3 second delays begin to pile up, and before you know it a round of combat is taking 20-40 minutes. Things like turn timers cut down the fun parts of the game to make more room for math, instead of the other way around.

Unpopular opinion, but this is why I loved 5es Advantage/Disadvantage system, and why it's been used in other system despite claims from the grognards that it should just be + or - 4 that stacks or that it dumbs the game down. It's why I like dice pools where you count successes.

I remember playing Knave via VTT, and while my players hated it, I liked it in part because turns were so fast. People kept getting up to take a piss or browse twitter or whatever only to get a bunch of pings telling them to take their turn already. They weren't used to 30-60 second combat rounds.

"quantum ogre".

I never heard this term, but it's the same concept I've used for a while. I've heard of similar concepts. It's one of things players are best off not knowing as it can break the illusion.

"Floating clues" goes by various names but is the investigation version. If the players need to find a receipt from the wax museum on the person, it can be in his jacket pocket, his desk drawer, in the waste paper bin, even in his car glove box. Where ever the PCs search where it makes sense to be.

"Secrets and clues" is the name I've heard given to the plot version. From the lazy DM guide, in prep you lay out the information the PCs need to learn over the adventure, and then have it presented in any way that makes sense. Same with items they need.

 

[Tri-Tachyon'sClown]

A quantum ogre is a prepared encounter that will take place no matter which direction the players travel. Done properly, it's efficient GMing. Done poorly, it's railroading. It's sort of necessary for a game with a large sandbox.

Oh, that's neat. A forced encounter but done when it makes sense? I've probably done and had this been done to me few times but never knew the term, cheers.

To elaborate on @Alabama Gamer's explanation, the "quantum" part is based on quantum superposition. Extremely long story short, you have an encounter planned for the players. In this case, they get to fight an ogre. Where and when they fight the ogre aren't pre-defined parameters. So if the players take a right and go into the dungeon, they'll find the ogre there. If the players take a left and go into the ruined castle, they'll find the ogre there. And after finding the ogre in either location, the ogre does not appear anywhere else. The waveform function has collapsed when the time and place of the ogre are defined during gameplay.

Another example would be the players finding a magic item that's necessary for their future adventures. If they somehow miss it where it was originally meant to be found, you can always put the item somewhere else for them to find. So long as the new location is also believable, they won't even notice it. Sure, they missed the Great Orb of Kalazablam in Kalazablam's Crypt, but they might find it in a dragon's hoard, or in the study of a cultist leader who didn't know she had such a valuable artifact in her hands.

It's a stupidly nerdy etymology but the principle is simple enough: you can be flexible with your encounters and you don't have to "waste" them if your players didn't take the path you intended, so long as you make them believable.

Even better, I'll add this to my notes. I've definitely done this before, don't remember when and how, but given how easy it is to do I or what few DMs I've had have probably done this by accident. But explained like this makes it more likely for me to do intentionally and properly in the future.

 

[ZMOT]

It feels like a MMO way of looking at RPGs.

it's just the age old discussion between specialization (and possibly pigeonholing yourself) or go more with jack of all trades. there are good arguments for both, there isn't really a "right" answer.

Unpopular opinion, but this is why I loved 5es Advantage/Disadvantage system, and why it's been used in other system despite claims from the grognards that it should just be + or - 4 that stacks or that it dumbs the game down. It's why I like dice pools where you count successes.

it makes things simple (too simple imho), but fucks up elsewhere. all the gains mean nothing if combat starts to drag somewhere else.
unless you really simplify it across the board you'll never get rid of AP players, especially if they don't pay attention which only gets worse the longer at turn takes.

 

[Judge Dredd]

it makes things simple (too simple imho), but fucks up elsewhere. all the gains mean nothing if combat starts to drag somewhere else.

It depends on the system. And yes, 5e does that. However, as we saw with @Rick Nekieta and @The Ugly One talking about math, it can be well researched, well reasoned, and make complete logical and mathmatical sense. But no one plays games because the math is good. If something is completely broken, that's a problem.

Some games are simple and lack depth. Some games are far too slow. It's deminishing returns the benefits you get from crunch.

 

[Rick Nekieta]

It depends on the system. And yes, 5e does that. However, as we saw with @Rick Nekieta and @The Ugly One talking about math, it can be well researched, well reasoned, and make complete logical and mathmatical sense. But no one plays games because the math is good. If something is completely broken, that's a problem.

Some games are simple and lack depth. Some games are far too slow. It's deminishing returns the benefits you get from crunch.

I can see that most people here prefer quick resolutions, which I understand fully. My thing is, I run combat scenarios with Soup Nazi levels of protocol and efficiency. My whole thing is that if everyone hates drawn out combat scenarios, everyone needs to cooperate and coordinate to make that happen. If you think it's annoying that someone else is doing 15 minutes of research and weighing options on their turn, which you are right to think, you lose all high ground if you do the same thing DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN DOING YOUR 15 MINUTES OF RESEARCH AT THE SAME TIME. Highly inefficient tables tend to ALSO have the players who contribute to the problem, WHILE COMPLAINING AS IF THEY DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE OUTCOME. I rarely see an efficient player at an inefficient table. Efficient players who prize efficiency will give tips and tricks to make others a bit more efficient, or at minimum, not PAINFULLY inefficient.

For the record, despite the fact that I compared myself to the Soup Nazi, the results are generally appreciated and it only happens with cooperation and participation. Basically, if you want it efficient, do everything in your power to make it efficient. Help others be more efficient because there is no defense for being apathetic towards matters of efficiency. It is one thing to say "Okay, it took me 90 seconds to make a decision, sorry, I was doing my best" as opposed to "Fuck off, who cares about efficiency?" One is from the position of someone who is trying to do better and the other is from the position of someone who doesn't care. If people want to portray my attempts at efficiency as excessive, they're certainly free to hold that perspective. While I tell everyone to aim for a 30 second turn and will force them into a defensive action if they go over (I often fudge this by a few seconds if the person is close, but I only fudge it ONCE, this doesn't escalate), most players go way under that without feeling the pressure to reduce an 18 second turn to a 12 second turn or anything like that. When the players have good habits, stalls are rare. The only stall that happens from time to time is a last minute weighing of options that results in 20 seconds of deliberation and an uncertain decision being made (shoot bow or close distance and stab, for example). After a while, it is second nature and you have alert players, not the chaotic scenario where everyone takes a RIDICULOUS amount of time on their turn.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

I've found it's rather easy to break such defense rolls in games. When my group did it it was in Pathfinder. We decided that when we started a new game we would break it. Everyone had +10 to +20 to defense before even level 7 so the GM had to cheat and hide his rolls just to beat us. Pretty sure he passed away. Obese and alone because it became too hard for him to find players.

 

[AnOminous]

It's a stupidly nerdy etymology but the principle is simple enough: you can be flexible with your encounters and you don't have to "waste" them if your players didn't take the path you intended, so long as you make them believable.

All good GMs save their players from the results of their retardation if the results of their retardation wouldn't be fun. Yeah okay, whatever, you get to find the Amulet of Funkytown in this other Funkytown instead because you were SO FUCKING DUMB you missed it where it was supposed to be.

 

[Rick Nekieta]

All good GMs save their players from the results of their retardation if the results of their retardation wouldn't be fun. Yeah okay, whatever, you get to find the Amulet of Funkytown in this other Funkytown instead because you were SO FUCKING DUMB you missed it where it was supposed to be.

The counterpoint is if the active threat to the players simply has a goal of "hit them at their most vulnerable point in the next week, wherever that happens to be" the "quantum ogre" becomes a "quantum assault squad" which actually makes sense. If your villain has acquired certain information and intends to ambush the party at position A, if it is feasible that he learns that they adjusted course, he can change his own plans and have them ambushed at position B, which might be a more favorable, less favorable or equally favorable scenario from his point of view. If the villain is somehow aware that the players changed course, it makes sense that the hit squad would change course. But, at the end of the day, we are all guilty of a clandestine secret adjustment here and there.

My boss at location A might have a shield ring that I intend the players to acquire, but if they adjust course to location B, that shield ring might show up on a similarly powered boss at location B.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

All good GMs save their players from the results of their retardation if the results of their retardation wouldn't be fun. Yeah okay, whatever, you get to find the Amulet of Funkytown in this other Funkytown instead because you were SO FUCKING DUMB you missed it where it was supposed to be.

Quests/plots in my games always have multiple solutions. Maybe the REAL Amulet of Funkytown were all the friends and sick dance moves you learned along the way and the real power to defeat Count Funkenstein, Lord of the Bat Dance was inside the party bard the whole time.

 

[Ah ha']

Similar discussion happened about a dedicated tank. Complaining that only paladins can do it. People try to explain you can go full armour fighter or other builds like a high dodge monk or a high con barbarian. But they aren't "pure" tanks.

It feels like a MMO way of looking at RPGs

This is the worst tbh, I hate how videogames have retroactively influenced tabletop rpgs. I mean its also other genres that have been affected as well, but I remember for the longest time there was no “dedicated tanks” just strong adventurers or weaker ones.