is there a place for set difficulties?

[apeloverage]

The thing I liked most about 3rd edition D&D was that the rulebook can tell you exactly how hard it should be to do particular things. Eg tracking has a set difficulty, depending on whether you're doing it in snow, soft ground etc.

Is there a place for similar set difficulties in T&T? I can see the downside ie having to look stuff up all the time...

[troll66]

I would imagine that one could probably do a straight conversion of DC to SR - no?

[khaydhaik]

Arrgghh, nope, T&T is too much of a free-wheeling game for those sort of rules. After running a few T&T games, a GM just gets a sense of what level the SRs should be, given just how difficult the GM wants a particular scene to be.

When you think about it, there are so many factors that could go into realistically figuring out the exact difficulty of any action, it's almost pointless to make rules for it. And making a rule for it is just ammunition for rules lawyers -- why encourage them?

But I'm sure that the enterprising young GM with a D&D rulebook could come up with some kind of conversion to a T&T SR level, as troll66 has pointed out, if such rules are to your liking.

[apeloverage]

troll66 said:

I would imagine that one could probably do a straight conversion of DC to SR - no?

d20 describes it's DCs (difficulty classes) as follows:

0 = Very easy eg Notice something large in plain sight
5 = Easy - Climb a knotted rope
10 = Average - Hear an approaching guard
15 = Tough - Rig a wagon wheel to fall off
20 = Challenging - Swim in stormy water
25 = Formidable - Open an average lock
30 = Heroic - Leap across a 30-foot chasm
40 = Nearly impossible - Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall.

All these are 'numbers you have to equal or beat on a d20 once you add your bonuses'. So an untrained, normal character would succeed on an 'average' task on half of their attempts, and on a 'tough' task on one quarter of their attempts.

Which means a DC10 task is very roughly the same as a level 1 saving roll.

I can totally see the argument that it creates too much to look up / get wrong / argue about - but on the other hand I'd like to be able to say (either as a player or GM) that "tracking animals across soft ground is a level 2 saving roll on the higher of Luck or Intelligence".

[troll66]

ah can't resist this silliness ;D I reckon a SR1 is harder than DC10

DC10 for mr average (no stat bonuses) would reuire a 10+ roll to succeed on the d20 that is 50%

In T&T an SR1 for mr average would require rolling 10 on 2d6 thats about 17% you would need to roll on a or more to have an equivalent 50% (well about 58 %chance to succeed). So I reckon D&D DC15 is more like a T&T SR1...ish...

Dice Roll - Individual Probability

2 - 2.78%
3 - 5.56%
4 - 8.33%
5 - 11.11%
6 - 13.89%
7 - 16.67%
8 - 13.89%
9 - 11.11%
10 - 8.33%
11 - 5.56%
12 - 2.78%

[apeloverage]

troll66 said:

ah can't resist this silliness ;D I reckon a SR1 is harder than DC10

DC10 for mr average (no stat bonuses) would reuire a 10+ roll to succeed on the d20 that is 50%

In T&T an SR1 for mr average would require rolling 10 on 2d6 thats about 17% you would need to roll on a or more to have an equivalent 50% (well about 58 %chance to succeed). So I reckon D&D DC15 is more like a T&T SR1...ish...

Dice Roll - Individual Probability

2 - 2.78%
3 - 5.56%
4 - 8.33%
5 - 11.11%
6 - 13.89%
7 - 16.67%
8 - 13.89%
9 - 11.11%
10 - 8.33%
11 - 5.56%
12 - 2.78%

Ah, but it's higher because doubles add and re-roll.

[troll66]

ah true indeedy!

[apeloverage]

(resurrects thread using dark magic)

the best formula I've been able to find is

T&T difficulty = ((D&D difficulty / 2 rounded down) + 12)-attribute)

So something with a 'DC' (difficulty) of 1, ie very easy, works out to (12-attribute) ie for a character with 10 in the relevant attribute, they'll make it unless they get a critical failure.

Something with a 'DC' of 20, ie almost impossible, works out to (22-attribute) ie for a character with a 10 in the relevant attribute they'll have almost no chance of making it, but not literally no chance.

Whatever formula you use, T&T is always going to give more weight to the relevant attribute compared to D&D (which seems to me to be a good thing).

The other main component of D&D task resolution is skills, and I would NOT give characters skills, but come up with a set bonus eg +5, for tasks related to the character's profession. eg warriors get a bonus when they're trying to work out how valuable a weapon is, wizards get a bonus when they're trying to work out how valuable a magic item is.

[Mhegrrrim Skulltosser]

I found this description of SR difficulties back on an old site a long, long time ago. (I no longer remember which site)

SAVING ROLLS

Level Description
0 automatic
1 commonplace
2 deed that requires some ability
3 challenging
4 very, very hard to do
5+ very, very unlikely to truly impossible

You can also tie this together with FBInc's Citybooks:
Level Description
0 Poor (0-40%)
1 Average (41-59%)
2 Fair (60-74%)
3 Good (75-84%)
4 Very Good (85-95%)
5 Excellent (96-100%)
6 Legendary (101%+)

[Fenris]

I probably shouldn't even resurrect this thread again, but I can't resist.

My house rule regarding SRs is, I use 2d10 rather than 2d6 for Saving Rolls. All other rules regarding SRs stay the same (DARO, Minimum 5 required).

This means that higher level rolls are a little easier to obtain, plus you still get the benefit of doubles.

To make higher level SRs mean something, I "flip" the SR scale on it's back so players add their total roll to the attribute in question, and then give me a total, which I compare to SR number to hit. If they exceed the required number by a whole level (or more), I try to make an additional benefit in game terms.
(For example, a SR to notice a trap might only mean that I let them know something is "wrong somewhere" if they make only the minimum SR, but making higher level SRs give additional information... three or more levels higher usually reveals everything).

Mathematically, this means that an Average Character (Attribute of 10) trying to make a L1SR still has to roll 10 or better, but now on 2d10 DARO, he has better than 50% chance of success (about 50% without DARO).

Using this system, then yeah, the DC scale comparison (posted earlier) probably would work just about perfectly (you would want to add +20 to the numbers given though). I'm not sure if I like that or not....

[Mhegrrrim Skulltosser]

Well that is an approach to make SRs easier. Using only d6 is what I like most about T&T. I applaud you giving a bonus to characters for SR that exceed the requirements. I too like giving an extra umph! to SRs exceeded by one, two, or three levels. I've been using that concept since buying City of Terrors. That solo blazed a lot of trails for me.

[Fenris]

Talonfire, my problem is, and has always been, that no one I've ever played with (or even me, for that matter) is ever able to roll blasted doubles on 2d6! Failed SRs have killed far more characters than the fiercest Dragon ever has!

Mathematically speaking, an average character (rating of 10) should make a first level (average) SR approximately 50% of the time, which would be a minimum 10 on the 2d6. That just never happens for me. (I read somewhere that the average roll of 2d6 DARO is only 8.4. I don't know if that's true, but I can believe it).

Rolling five, ten, or fifteen points beyond that? (15, 20, or 25 on 2d6)? Nonsense! Never gonna happen (or very rare, to say the least!) The 2d10 also reduces the amount of "fumble" rolls (usually when I see failure, it's only because of the "minimum 5" rule).

Rolling 2d10 makes the averages fall where they should, allowing DARO bumps those averages just a bit, which I think is fair for heroes, who really should succeed more than average.

One final note: I also like the d6ishness of T&T, and I tried a variety of other options before settling on 2d10. Actually, it was an ex who pointed out that I was already using 2d10 in T&T-- when using the language chart during character creation! (Which is actually d%, but she just sees two ten-siders! )

Assuming you already have the dice set aside for use on the language chart, why not go ahead and use them for SRs, too?

PS: Thank you for the applause, Talonfire! Did I mention that I love this board?

[gwindel]

fenriswulf said:

Talonfire, my problem is, and has always been, that no one I've ever played with (or even me, for that matter) is ever able to roll blasted doubles on 2d6! Failed SRs have killed far more characters than the fiercest Dragon ever has!
...
(I read somewhere that the average roll of 2d6 DARO is only 8.4. I don't know if that's true, but I can believe it).

Eeeerrh! There are 36 possible dice rolls with 2D6, 6 are doubles, which means that you should roll doubles once in six rolls. With D10, you only rolls doubles once in ten rolls.

The most important difference is the 5 minimum for succeding that is proportionnaly more present with 2D6 than with 2D10.

If the characters fails too many rolls, wouldn't it be simpler to reduce the SRs levels?

[Fenris]

gwindel said:

fenriswulf said:

Talonfire, my problem is, and has always been, that no one I've ever played with (or even me, for that matter) is ever able to roll blasted doubles on 2d6! Failed SRs have killed far more characters than the fiercest Dragon ever has!
...
(I read somewhere that the average roll of 2d6 DARO is only 8.4. I don't know if that's true, but I can believe it).

If the characters fails too many rolls, wouldn't it be simpler to reduce the SRs levels?

Sure, and that's how I played it for years... but when the most difficult task you can imagine is only a third or fourth level SR, there's just not that much variation in results.

Also, as noted elsewhere, I like to "flip the SRs on their backs," and have the characters roll, get the total, and apply it to the relevant attribute. Higher results mean better success. In that case, being able to roll higher results, in particular, is to be desired.

Try an experiment: Assume two characters both have an attribute of 10. Since both have the same attribute, the attribute no longer matters for this experiment.

Now, roll 2d6 DARO twenty times, and 2d10 DARO twenty times, and see which set rolls the higher number more on average.

Generally, not counting for doubles, the 2d6 guy will roll 7, and the 2d10 guy will roll 11, giving a total of 17 and 21, respectively. This means that, on average, the Average Guy (attribute 10) making an Average Difficulty roll (difficulty 20) will fail more than half the time, unless he lucks into doubles. That seems wrong to me... I think an average character doing an average task should succeed about half the time (or "about average"), before accounting for doubles. (Note also that the 2d10 guy makes it, before accounting for doubles, with a point to spare... that matters in a paragraph coming up).

The double-rule, in this case, simply makes for more heroic action, because the odds increase beyond the expected numbers... an effect I like. I try to set my numbers based on the idea that doubles won't roll up... if they do, then that's just a bonus.

Further, I like to give higher results more success, when possible. For example, if I have a room with a trap in the floor, I might make a second level SR required for any success.

If a PC makes the second level SR, he is told "something is not right here, but you aren't sure what."
If he makes a third level SR, he is told, "something is not quite right about the floor."
If he makes a fourth level SR, he is told, "there is a crack in the floor that looks a whole lot like it might be a dropping floor pit trap."
And if he makes a fifth level SR, he is told, "there is a crack in the floor that looks like it is probably a dropping floor pit trap... it looks pretty simple, though, and appears to be based simply on the weight put on it."

Each level of SR adds to the information given before, so higher level SRs (and therefore, higher level rolls and/or higher level attributes) actually mean something. The best (or sometimes the luckiest) characters have the most success.

In any event, I definitely want my PCs to be able to make dice rolls in the 20+ range, at least occasionally. My experience with T&T has led me to feel that 2d6 simply doesn't give me the range of results I enjoy in my games. Basically, for me 2d6 gives me a very basic Pass/Fail experience... the players are pretty much required to have attributes as high or higher than the required SR number... if they don't, they will fail; if they do, they will succeed as long as they don't roll less than five.

Sometimes this skewers my gameplay, because I have to build my SRs around the player's abilities when playing that way... instead of setting the difficulties and letting them take their chances, I'm actually looking at each character's attributes and setting the difficulty based on what I think they have the likelihood of making. A seven foot lava pit may require a first level, second level or third level SR, depending on whether your relevant attribute is 10, 15, or 20.

I'd like to just set it at what seems right to me (the above lava pit would be L2SR), but on 2d6, only the guy with the 20 has a real chance of making it... on 2d10, the 15 guy will probably make it, and even the guy with the 10 has a good chance of success. And, yes, I want them all to make it... they are heroes, after all, and how many heroes die by accidentally falling into a lava pit?

More likely, though, I have a wooden board on the other side of the lava pit, so only one guy has to make it... then he'll put the board over the pit and the others can just walk across. That's fine, but still one guy (the one with 20) has to make the roll... and when the minimum five fails to come up as often as it does on 2d6, it's not a given that he'll make it... and honestly, it should be.

[gwindel]

Well, I suppose it depends what you prefer to change.
By shifting to D10 instead of D6, you go from average 7 to average 11. A bonus of +4 on average is worth one SR level. I would prefer to keep D6s and reduce SRs levels by one, but that's probably because I love the six-sided dices and I prefer to use the same dices for all the rolls. You certainly have the same effect by using D10s.
One reason I prefer D6 is that it produces more doubles, which gives players the impression that they have succeded at an impossible task when it happens.