A few thoughts/gripes about recent game modern game design.

[robertsconley]

But designing a game without addressing some basic activities at the core of your game, or not doing any probability system math checks for near half the game, and then claiming it's a great game because "you can Rule-0 fix anything" is bullshit.

Yes but how often it comes up and when it does is it more about personal preference about level of detail than a flaw in the game? That is what I driving at in my second reply.

On D&D's design I think it's become more and more obvious that the initial game design started from certain numbers like dex 16 = +3 ac, proficency = 2-6, normal dc = 15. Then, as they wrote more bits, when they had an issue they just added a patch or hack to fix that exact issue (rogue/bard expertise, monster legendary & lair stuff, the cr system) without revisiting the original subsystems & numbers that caused the issue. Then "but Ruke-0" or gets used as a fig leaf to excuse everything that causes issues.

So how is this relevant to adjudicating what the players want to do as their character? Sure debate the aesthetics but if it doesn't matter in terms of how the campaign is played out it is not really relevant is it?

I don't have a king's list for the Ostrobards in my Blackmarsh setting but then again King's list doesn't impact how NPCs are roleplayed or what the players encounter in Ostrobard territory so it not very relevant to the nuts and bolts of running a Blackmarsh campaign.

Similarily I enjoy systems like GURPS and Harnmaster that have hit locations and armor pieces but it is not necessary for the way I run campaigns. It is just something I have more fun with. The only issue that it causes when I use D&D is when the player needs to do something that involves attacking a specific hit location like knocking the magic crystal from the lich's hand who is about to activate it. But that is adequately handled by having the player make a disadvantaged attack roll and the lich make a dex save. Or even a normal attack roll if the object is large enough. The target still would get a save.

 

[robertsconley]

I appreciate how much thought goes into game creation these days, but I also miss a bit of that backyard mechanic era too.

Just pick up most OSR systems. How you think my Majestic Fantasy rules developed since the late 2000s? For example, it was only in the last two years I added the multiple attack rule for fighters where you get to attack a number of hit dice per level. Along with how to implement it as a referee without it being a bookkeeping exercise. And before I wrote it I play tested in actual play several times.

One reason I liked OD&D over AD&D is that it was developed through play (the Greyhawk Campaign) rather than being designed. A lot of OSR rules were developed from the author's home campaigns and then polished for publication. Which results in a system more usable at the table because it was developed at the table. If there is a flaw then likely one of presentation rather than design which is OD&D's big issue.

 

[ffilz]

I think everyone is mostly on the same page about Rule-0, just expressing it differently. It's fine to use it to cover edge cases, occasional issues, and stuff at the edge of your games' design. But designing a game without addressing some basic activities at the core of your game, or not doing any probability system math checks for near half the game, and then claiming it's a great game because "you can Rule-0 fix anything" is bullshit.

I think there are some systems where the designer didn't think about the probabilities. One suspects those didn't get much play test, or the designer doesn't actually use the system as presented. Because once the system has been reasonably play tested, if it's being used as presented, either probability stuff has been fixed, or it has become part of the expectations of the game. I'm fine with aspects of the game emerging from a "let's try this mechanic". Now it would be nice if more games had designers notes that better communicated what the ratings and probabilities mean in the game. But very few games actually do this, so is it actually fair to ding a game because the expectations don't seem to match?

On D&D's design I think it's become more and more obvious that the initial game design started from certain numbers like dex 16 = +3 ac, proficency = 2-6, normal dc = 15. Then, as they wrote more bits, when they had an issue they just added a patch or hack to fix that exact issue (rogue/bard expertise, monster legendary & lair stuff, the cr system) without revisiting the original subsystems & numbers that caused the issue. Then "but Ruke-0" or gets used as a fig leaf to excuse everything that causes issues.

Of course talking about "D&D" like this is fraught... OD&D's 3 LBB had very few modifiers and runs pretty well without any patches assuming you buy into the expectations baked into the system. Yea, the later versions of D&D where more and more kept being piled on become very susceptible to breakage. And worse, you can't fully play test it because the number of combinations becomes too large.

 

[migo]

I wanted to return to this...

Can you share some examples from real play?

I fired off a quick "mismatch of expectations" and I stand by that, but it's a valid question where the mismatch of expectations comes from.

Maybe it IS poor game design. Or maybe "poor game design" is really just the GM and/or players not taking care to evaluate the game system and understand the expectations it is tuned to. A zero to hero game is going to produce different starting characters than a game that assumes starting characters are masters of their profession.

I don't have any examples like that because I never explained away bad results like that. If the players were whiffing too much I'd say god these probabilities are shit, we need to do something about them, and would adjust them. Some mechanics made it easier to tweak than others - for instance a percentile system is the most transparent but also the most difficult to quickly fix. If I've got a 3d6 system then I can say 2d6 for easy and 4d6 for unusually hard, and guarantee success for average stuff for all but those who are exceptionally weak in a particular area.

I can do that of course, but I don't like it. Good game design is giving me a system where I can take the mechanics as they are and the probabilities work properly.

 

[robertsconley]

I don't have any examples like that because I never explained away bad results like that. If the players were whiffing too much I'd say god these probabilities are shit, we need to do something about them, and would adjust them. Some mechanics made it easier to tweak than others - for instance a percentile system is the most transparent but also the most difficult to quickly fix. If I've got a 3d6 system then I can say 2d6 for easy and 4d6 for unusually hard, and guarantee success for average stuff for all but those who are exceptionally weak in a particular area.

I can do that of course, but I don't like it. Good game design is giving me a system where I can take the mechanics as they are and the probabilities work properly.

For which systems did this occur that you refereed?

 

[ffilz]

I don't have any examples like that because I never explained away bad results like that. If the players were whiffing too much I'd say god these probabilities are shit, we need to do something about them, and would adjust them. Some mechanics made it easier to tweak than others - for instance a percentile system is the most transparent but also the most difficult to quickly fix. If I've got a 3d6 system then I can say 2d6 for easy and 4d6 for unusually hard, and guarantee success for average stuff for all but those who are exceptionally weak in a particular area.

I can do that of course, but I don't like it. Good game design is giving me a system where I can take the mechanics as they are and the probabilities work properly.

Again, what system?

I’ve been running a lot of RuneQuest lately. PCs start with low skills except a few from previous experience. I understand that and I think my players do. Our expectations natch the system. Why should the system be designed any differently?

Now granted the modern incarnation RQG starts characters with higher skills, at least for some set of skills. Different expectations.

Both games are good. I prefer the lower starting skills of RQ1. But these days I use the previous experience to give characters a bit of a boost but still let them engage with all the bits I love so much about RQ.

It’s totally find for people to have different preferences and expectations but that doesn’t mean RQ1 is poorly designed.

But again I know there ARE systems designed by folks who didn’t understand probability that thus don’t work the way he designer intended. Many of those systems probably are playable as long as you change expectations to match the system.

 

[AsenRG]

But again I know there ARE systems designed by folks who didn’t understand probability that thus don’t work the way he designer intended. Many of those systems probably are playable as long as you change expectations to match the system.

Yeah, you either set the expectations to match the system, adjust the system to match the common expectations, or hope and pray for a random good fit!

 

[Telok]

Of course talking about "D&D" like this is fraught... OD&D's 3 LBB had very few modifiers and runs pretty well without any patches assuming you buy into the expectations baked into the system. Yea, the later versions of D&D where more and more kept being piled on become very susceptible to breakage. And worse, you can't fully play test it because the number of combinations becomes too large.

My bad, I should have been more specific. Yeah, I'm talking about the last couple D&D rewrites there.

Typically anything rules or structure or dice math, that is developed through play will work fine if you're playing close to the intended style. As a bonus they often also seem to communicate that use style pretty well. At least to me. Its bits of a game (not just D&Ds this time) where some numbers got thrown down without anything more than...

You ever see a show called "The Great British Baking Show"? A little friendly baking competition. It's got a bit called the "technical challenge" where they hand the bakers a bare bones recipie and a pile of stuff. Thing is, when I say "bare bones" the step by step instructions for that recipie are really bare. It'll have something like "add butter", but it wan't say if you're supposed to fold it in, melt and pour it on top, or something else. Makes a bit of difference. ...

Anyway, that's sort of what I see in lots of game books. It'll lay out a subsystem or something in a "step 1: choose a foo, step 2: choose a bar, step 3: roll dice, step 4: describe result" style, and that's it. No examples, no alternatives, no functional advice on how/when to use it. Just a nearly minimum info of steps to do whatever. That's a dislike of mine, the "here's numbers and dice to roll, you decide everything else" style of game book.

 

[Agemegos]

In those systems, if chargen gives you a skill with a low chance of success (for example something in the 5-30% range which is common for starting characters in RuneQuest), one should understand that that is NOT a character with high competence. So if the player has a character concept of being highly competent in such a system, they have a mismatch of expectations.

Hear! Hear!

Runequest and D&D are designed to afford the opportunity of playing a character on a "zero to hero" arc, and so it suits their design purposes that starting characters and first-level characters should be incompetent tiros (and that their runelord-priests or characters over tenth level should be awesome to the point of being superhuman). Starting characters in such games fail a lot not because they keep running into rusted locks (high rolls on the dice), but because they aren't competent — they aren't meant to be.

If you want to play a competent hero (or run a game in which the PCs are competent), good ways to do that include

1. generating mid-level characters instead of first-level characters
2. using a different system, one that was designed for the game you want to play,
3. accepting that you will get what you want later on, as a reward for putting up with unpleasantness, like a child getting ice-cream after behaving nicely at the dentist, or
4. (if the GM won't agree to 1 or 2, and you can't accept 3) finding a campaign that the GM intends for competent starting characters, even if that means declining an invitation to join a campaign and finding another GM.

Generating a character with 30% chance in their signature skill, but expecting that to represent competence, is a choice that is bound to have unsatisfactory results. I advise you not to do that.

Adjust your character concept to the affordances of the system, or choose a system that affords the opportunity of playing your character concept, or politely decline the invitation to play in a game that you will not enjoy.

 

[TJS]

Hear! Hear!

Runequest and D&D are designed to afford the opportunity of playing a character on a "zero to hero" arc, and so it suits their design purposes that starting characters and first-level characters should be incompetent tiros (and that their runelord-priests or characters over tenth level should be awesome to the point of being superhuman). Starting characters in such games fail a lot not because they keep running into rusted locks (high rolls on the dice), but because they aren't competent — they aren't meant to be.

If you want to play a competent hero (or run a game in which the PCs are competent), good ways to do that include

1. generating mid-level characters instead of first-level characters
2. using a different system, one that was designed for the game you want to play,
3. accepting that you will get what you want later on, as a reward for putting up with unpleasantness, like a child getting ice-cream after behaving nicely at the dentist, or
4. (if the GM won't agree to 1 or 2, and you can't accept 3) finding a campaign that the GM intends for competent starting characters, even if that means declining an invitation to join a campaign and finding another GM.

Generating a character with 30% chance in their signature skill, but expecting that to represent competence, is a choice that is bound to have unsatisfactory results. I advise you not to do that.

Adjust your character concept to the affordances of the system, or choose a system that affords the opportunity of playing your character concept, or politely decline the invitation to play in a game that you will not enjoy.

I don't disagree, but there's a few issues here:

1) A lot of systems have historically been for games were you probably should be able to create competent characters, but because they are made for longer campaigns and in D&D's shadow they still tend to start you off too low on the scale. Often too in practical terms, there is flawed design where the game tells you what level a competent professional should have but that turns out for various reasons to be insufficient*.

2) Starting characters at higher levels, or with more experience in games designed to start at a lower point has it's own issues, as games can often only scale so far before issues arise. Character creation becomes longer and involves more complexity, and character advancement then increasingly adds even more complexity to that existing complexity. This is why people often don't play D&D at high levels, and why, if you want to play a Heroic Champion character in Warhammer, taking the basic WFRP rpg and then giving out 1000xp to the players isn't a good way to do that. (And also once you get away from the intended start point you quickly get away from the level of play where the vast majority of playtesting has usually taken place.

*Also when you create a game where people can create extremely competent characters, like in A Song of Ice and Fire rpg which lets you basically create Jaime Lanister or the Mountain as starting characters, people complain because they don't expect it and think there's something inherently wrong if the system allows you to do that - which makes me wonder if playtesting sometimes ends up with starting characters becoming less competent.

 

[Alai]

Runequest and D&D are designed to afford the opportunity of playing a character on a "zero to hero" arc

RQ used to be. But have you seen an RQG starting character lately?

I've opined on the possible thinking behind that before, so I'll refrain from further unprompted "back to the late '70s" indulgences in the "recent game modern game design" thread... (Stress on the "unprompted". I might yet go off again at the slightest excuse!)

 

[Alai]

You ever see a show called "The Great British Baking Show"? A little friendly baking competition. It's got a bit called the "technical challenge" where they hand the bakers a bare bones recipie and a pile of stuff. Thing is, when I say "bare bones" the step by step instructions for that recipie are really bare. It'll have something like "add butter", but it wan't say if you're supposed to fold it in, melt and pour it on top, or something else. Makes a bit of difference. ...

*Bake Off.

But yes, very true. Hilariously true! In both applications. And they even really lean into the trope in GBBO by making the instructions more and more like that as the series progresses. By the final it's "bake the cake". Of course partly they do that for "price of poker is going up" reasons, but partly it's for format high jinx. Reaction shots of the bakers as they read these. "Oh for flapsakes..."

Game designers don't have either of those excuses. I suspect it's a couple of different things. Firstly there's the old school plain ol' bad writing. It "just happens" at our table, isn't it obvious? Second there's lampshading: I'm not getting paid to/don't have the space for actually doing this, but I'm going to put in a nod that I know it's a thing.

 

[SJB]

I found the term 'kettling', but it's for people only.

… and it involves forcing people to wee themselves; could go very wrong in certain gaming groups.

 

[JAMUMU]

… and it involves forcing people to wee themselves; could go very wrong in certain gaming groups.

If that's wrong, then baby I don't wanna know what's right!

 

[Alai]

… and it involves forcing people to wee themselves; could go very wrong in certain gaming groups.

... or very, very right, if they share kinks with Robin Scherbatsky?

I'll get me coat.

 

[thebigh]

... or very, very right, if they share kinks with Robin Scherbatsky?

I'll get me coat.

...a raincoat?

 

[Alai]

...a raincoat?

I'm laughing it up now before we all get Benned.

 

[migo]

For which systems did this occur that you refereed?

AD&D 2nd Edition. I've done a lot of messing with probabilities at low levels to get it to work. 5th to 7th level is where I can leave it as is. I've also had it happen with PDQ, but there it was easy to handle since the target number wasn't player facing so I adjusted it until the right amount of success and failure was coming out (basically Robin Laws HeroQuest 2e, there he even gave a flow chart of increasing or decreasing difficulty depending on past success or failure, but the system was also conflict resolution based from the start, not task resolution).

Again, what system?

I’ve been running a lot of RuneQuest lately. PCs start with low skills except a few from previous experience. I understand that and I think my players do. Our expectations natch the system. Why should the system be designed any differently?

I've played in some HarnMaster games, which can be considered to be equivalent to RuneQuest, and even characters who were very competent were still failing too often. The GM was good, he didn't so much fudge the rolls, because the target number being the skill rating was player facing, but he let us re-roll until an appropriate result came up. This often happened when a failed roll meant the investigation would stall. And this is of course the point behind Gumshoe (Robin Laws coming up again as an actually good game designer), where as long as one character has the necessary skill, they can find the information.

You might say that's a mismatch between the system and the adventure, that an investigative adventure shouldn't be written for a BRP-esque system, but since investigations are fun, it's the other way around. The system should be designed so that investigations work.

 

[malc]

I've played in some HarnMaster games, which can be considered to be equivalent to RuneQuest, and even characters who were very competent were still failing too often. The GM was good, he didn't so much fudge the rolls, because the target number being the skill rating was player facing, but he let us re-roll until an appropriate result came up. This often happened when a failed roll meant the investigation would stall. And this is of course the point behind Gumshoe (Robin Laws coming up again as an actually good game designer), where as long as one character has the necessary skill, they can find the information.

You might say that's a mismatch between the system and the adventure, that an investigative adventure shouldn't be written for a BRP-esque system, but since investigations are fun, it's the other way around. The system should be designed so that investigations work.

I’ve always believed that regardless of system, if a failed roll would lead to a stalled investigation, then don’t roll. Asking the question is enough to get the information to keep the investigation going. If you do roll, it’s to get more information that makes things easier in the future, but doesn’t bring things to a screeching halt if you fail.

Had quite a lot of success using this approach in Call of Cthulhu.

 

[Alai]

I’ve always believed that regardless of system, if a failed roll would lead to a stalled investigation, then don’t roll. Asking the question is enough to get the information to keep the investigation going. If you do roll, it’s to get more information that makes things easier in the future, but doesn’t bring things to a screeching halt if you fail.

Right, this is the "two interesting outcomes" node of the Laws decision diagram. I think especially apt here as if you're running a mystery game in what you sincerely believe to be an infinite generative fractal sandbox... hobooooooooooy.

Again, this could also be a "costly success" type thing, if "grades of success" (or indeed "degraded success) don't work, or if that makes more sense in the context.

 

[migo]

I’ve always believed that regardless of system, if a failed roll would lead to a stalled investigation, then don’t roll. Asking the question is enough to get the information to keep the investigation going. If you do roll, it’s to get more information that makes things easier in the future, but doesn’t bring things to a screeching halt if you fail.

Had quite a lot of success using this approach in Call of Cthulhu.

Yes, but good game design tells you this and bakes it into the system clearly. If you shouldn't make an investigation roll because success is required for the progression of the story, that investigative skill shouldn't be presented with a pass/fail mechanic.

 

[malc]

Yes, but good game design tells you this and bakes it into the system clearly. If you shouldn't make an investigation roll because success is required for the progression of the story, that investigative skill shouldn't be presented with a pass/fail mechanic.

i would argue that its not game design that’s at fault, but adventure design. The pass/fail mechanic is still useful for that extra information I mentioned. on the other hand, no adventure should be able to be derailed by one failed roll (our even several failures).

I’ve seen so many CoC adventures where you get to the point of “make a Library Use roll to get the clue or you might as well go home and wait for the world to end”. It just strikes me as bad design.

 

[robertsconley]

AD&D 2nd Edition. I've done a lot of messing with probabilities at low levels to get it to work. 5th to 7th level is where I can leave it as is. I've also had it happen with PDQ, but there it was easy to handle since the target number wasn't player facing so I adjusted it until the right amount of success and failure was coming out (basically Robin Laws HeroQuest 2e, there he even gave a flow chart of increasing or decreasing difficulty depending on past success or failure, but the system was also conflict resolution based from the start, not task resolution).

Why were AD&D 2e RAW probabilities too low at low level? Basically what was your conception of what being 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level meant in terms of PCs and NPCs existing in the setting of your campaign.

I've played in some HarnMaster games, which can be considered to be equivalent to RuneQuest, and even characters who were very competent were still failing too often. The GM was good, he didn't so much fudge the rolls, because the target number being the skill rating was player facing, but he let us re-roll until an appropriate result came up. This often happened when a failed roll meant the investigation would stall. And this is of course the point behind Gumshoe (Robin Laws coming up again as an actually good game designer), where as long as one character has the necessary skill, they can find the information.

The way the skill system works in Harnmaster is that you only outright fail if you roll a Critical Failure. A roll that ends in a 0 or 5 that is higher than your EML.

For example Climbing
'
Even then Harnmaster is generous when players take the time and prepare.




And this is what the % skill means. You don't have average skill until your ML is above 71%.

 

[migo]

i would argue that its not game design that’s at fault, but adventure design. The pass/fail mechanic is still useful for that extra information I mentioned. on the other hand, no adventure should be able to be derailed by one failed roll (our even several failures).

I’ve seen so many CoC adventures where you get to the point of “make a Library Use roll to get the clue or you might as well go home and wait for the world to end”. It just strikes me as bad design.

The adventure presents the scenario, the system is how you interpret actions in the scenario. If the system can't handle a very normal and popular scenario (an investigation), the problem is with the system. If you have to design the adventure around the flaws of the system, that shows the system is flawed.

Why were AD&D 2e RAW probabilities too low at low level? Basically what was your conception of what being 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level meant in terms of PCs and NPCs existing in the setting of your campaign.

Because you fail more than you succeed. And that's shit. Even if you succeed most of the time, there still is some failure, and that still keeps it interesting. With the probabilities as they are you can have an adventure grind to a halt five minutes in just because of some bad rolls.

The way the skill system works in Harnmaster is that you only outright fail if you roll a Critical Failure. A roll that ends in a 0 or 5 that is higher than your EML.

For example Climbing
View attachment 57867 '
Even then Harnmaster is generous when players take the time and prepare.

View attachment 57869


And this is what the % skill means. You don't have average skill until your ML is above 71%.
View attachment 57868

That applies to Craftsmen, not characters. The character creation rules produce characters with skills that are below poor. If 51% were the lowest score a character could have, it would already be a much better system.

 

[TJS]

The issue with AD&D thieves was always "why are they are a thief"? I mean fictionally you imagine them as grown up versions of the Artful Dodger who had years of training in pick-pocketing and the like on the streets.

However, the game always seemed to feel you were like Bilbo Baggins, and someone had just come along and suggested becoming a burglar to you and there you were on an adventure as a "thief".

 

[Alai]

i would argue that its not game design that’s at fault, but adventure design. The pass/fail mechanic is still useful for that extra information I mentioned. on the other hand, no adventure should be able to be derailed by one failed roll (our even several failures).

This might be my Post-Forge Stress Disorder talking, but I wonder if there's a degree of talking at cross purposes -- or at least, of getting bogged down in the semantics -- of what's a "system", "the game design", "the mechanics", and so on. For some people the 'design' is purely abstract. In a "the tao that can be copyrighted is not the true tao" sort of way. i.e., the OSRdudebro can rip that part off, call it a 'retroclone', and apparently be fine. Or at least, able to fight extradition, to quote Mo Udall. The part that's written down is mere text, and possibly largely written by a lower-caste individual, the Developer, the Editor, and so on.

And in the broadest sense, the "system" is the core design, and the text, and the whole "culture", folklore, and oral tradition of the game too. And the scenarios. Everything that happens around the table that isn't just people sitting around a table randomly talking. (And eating snacks, and rolling objects, etc.)

But at least a forensic investigation could uncover which person is to blame, whatever their job title...

I’ve seen so many CoC adventures where you get to the point of “make a Library Use roll to get the clue or you might as well go home and wait for the world to end”. It just strikes me as bad design.

I've enjoyed playing CoC, but never really thought of it as My Thing, and haven't done so a huge amount either. But to reductio ad absurdum that criticism... in the apparently intended tone of the genre, "go home and wait for the world to end" kinda-sorta is an "interesting" outcome.

 

[Alai]

Because you fail more than you succeed. And that's shit. Even if you succeed most of the time, there still is some failure, and that still keeps it interesting. With the probabilities as they are you can have an adventure grind to a halt five minutes in just because of some bad rolls.

I think part of the Laws running thesis over several of his things was a notion/analysis/stat that in heroic fiction (I forget how he scoped the statement, this may be an excessively loose paraphrase) the protag(s) succeed(s) about 2/3rds of the time. So you get some dramatic reversals, but you're 'arcing towards success'. And then goes deep into N-corner territory by formalising that, to ensure there are periodic reversals.

In terms of the individual rolls, mind you, that's not necessarily quite the same thing. In the kingdom of the 30% skill, the 45% skill man is king! (If want to really edge-case it, in some systems you could even 'win' a conflict by consistently failing... and waiting for your even more hapless opponent to fumble.

Doesn't really seem like it's describing an especially epic and heroic performance, so the question might be rather, what is the purpose of that sort of setup. Or what purpose might you reverse-engineer from it, if the text -- as so often! -- doesn't set that out at all clearly in those terms.

 

[malc]

I've enjoyed playing CoC, but never really thought of it as My Thing, and haven't done so a huge amount either. But to reductio ad absurdum that criticism... in the apparently intended tone of the genre, "go home and wait for the world to end" kinda-sorta is an "interesting" outcome.

I would agree that “go home and wait for the world to end” is certainly genre-appropriate, and may even be interesting. But not fun. Especially in a Campaign.

(In CoCs defense, I just checked the 2nd ed rule book, and you can try again after 4 hours if you fail a Library Use roll. Which runs into another one of my personal peeves: if you’re under time pressure, then that can lead to the end of the world. If you can just keep trying until you succeed, then why are you rolling?)

 

[malc]

Doesn't really seem like it's describing an especially epic and heroic performance, so the question might be rather, what is the purpose of that sort of setup. Or what purpose might you reverse-engineer from it, if the text -- as so often! -- doesn't set that out at all clearly in those terms.

Runequest 1e/2e gave you starting characters with that sort of skill level. They were explicitly youngsters with maybe a month’s training. So it sort of set the expectations.

Of course, the book spent lots of words talking about Rune-level characters with 5 skills at 90% plus. Nobody in any of my gaming groups got close to one skill at that level, let alone five. (Well, there was my Duck character - but they start with 90% in swim).

 

[Agemegos]

I would agree that “go home and wait for the world to end” is certainly genre-appropriate, and may even be interesting. But not fun. Especially in a Campaign.

Can confirm. A friend once ran Shadows of Yog-Sothoth, during which at one point our PCs had one of the pieces of the R'lyeh disc. According to the information we had at the time the Hermetic Order of the Silver Twilight needed to re-assemble the disc to raise R'lyeh, awaken Cthulhu, and end the world. So we melted down the piece we had, mixed the melt with other molten gold, cast the result in multiple doré bars, and sold them to different refineries FTW. Unfortunately we were misinformed: according to information that we had not yet discovered, the HOST could always make another R'lyeh disc if they needed to, whereas we could not and needed one to frustrate their ritual. The only way to save the World was for us to get and use all three pieces of the original disc, which we had made impossible. Go home and wait. The GM pulled the plug on the campaign.

 

[robertsconley]

Because you fail more than you succeed. And that's shit. Even if you succeed most of the time, there still is some failure, and that still keeps it interesting. With the probabilities as they are you can have an adventure grind to a halt five minutes in just because of some bad rolls.

My question is why do you think 1st level characters should have higher odds of success?

That applies to Craftsmen, not characters. The character creation rules produce characters with skills that are below poor. If 51% were the lowest score a character could have, it would already be a much better system.

It not just craftsmen that expectations for anybody with a skill. If you have a below 51% then you know enough to be dangerous. Literally.

The problem here in both cases doesn't seem like an issue with the system. That you want to start a campaign with characters with a higher level of competence.

There is nothing wrong with starting a D&D campaign with the character at 5th level. Or Use the veteran rules in Harnmaster to boost the average skill level up. Or say that everybody gets at least four terms in generating classic Traveller characters.

In GURPS this issue is quite straight forward. The normal default starting point is at 150 pt heroic level. But GURPS Dungeon Fantasy starts out characters at the 250 pt level. Why? Because Sean Punch decided it took characters with that much skill, attributes, and advantages to have fun with dungeon crawls using the GURPS rules. Some of the SJ Games forum posters react negatively to the idea of starting a GURPS campaign at anything lower.

But in none of these cases the system is broken or gotten the probabilities wrong.

 

[JoeNuttall]

My question is why do you think 1st level characters should have higher odds of success?.

1st level fighters have reasonable odds of killing monsters, 1st level Magic Users can reliably cast their one spell. Why should it be different for Thieves?

 

[thebigh]

Unfortunately we were misinformed: according to information that we had not yet discovered, the HOST could always make another R'lyeh disc if they needed to, whereas we could not and needed one to frustrate their ritual.

Ouch! In that situation if I were the GM I'd have quickly ruled that the baddie could manufacture a new disc but it would be time-consuming and require him to go somewhere or do something that the party could interfere with. I'd hate to see it end the campaign.

One of my absolute hates in video games ending up in an unwinnable state or inescapable doom spiral because I didn't know something that I couldn't know yet. I dislike seeing it in tabletop RPGs too, particularly when GM fiat can get you out of it.

Well, I say "as GM I'd have done this or that". That's easy to say sitting here in front of my computer. If my players had pulled a sudden "Frodo mails the ring to Sauron" moment I might be too off-balance to get them out of it on the fly and probably just call an early end to the session, then work on it during the week.

 

[robertsconley]

1st level fighters have reasonable odds of killing monsters, 1st level Magic Users can reliably cast their one spell. Why should it be different for Thieves?

If it is about the thief. If so then we know why things are the way they are. Gygax made his call starting with the Thief's initial writeup in Greyhawk Supplement I. The thief percentage of success at various tasks was never meant to be D&D's skill system.

Specifically to AD&D 2e, you are allowed to distribute 60 percentage points to your starting thief abilities along with 30 pts per level afterward. That not including whatever you get for kits if that is in use. Plus there are adjustments for race, attributes, and what type of armor is being worn.

And also in AD&D 2e the actual skill system is non-weapon proficiencies.

Using Nonweapon Proficiencies​

When a character uses a proficiency, either the attempt is automatically successful, or the character must roll a proficiency check. If the task is simple or the proficiency has only limited game use (such as cobbling or carpentry), a proficiency check is generally not required. If the task the character is trying to perform is difficult or subject to failure, a proficiency check is required. Read the descriptions of the proficiencies for details about how and when each can be used.

If a proficiency check is required, Table 37 lists which ability is used with each proficiency. Add the modifier (either positive or negative) listed in Table 37 to the appropriate ability score. Then the player rolls 1d20. If the roll is equal to or less than the character's adjusted ability score, the character accomplished what he was trying to do. If the roll is greater than the character's ability score, the character fails at the task. (A roll of 20 always fails.) The DM determines what effects, if any, accompany failure.

There is nothing wrong to dislike how the default thief is setup in classic D&D. I don't like it and made the Burglar instead. But there is a difference between saying it is a system flaw versus disagreeing with the author's view of the default setting.

 

[Sharrow]

Runequest 1e/2e gave you starting characters with that sort of skill level. They were explicitly youngsters with maybe a month’s training. So it sort of set the expectations.

Of course, the book spent lots of words talking about Rune-level characters with 5 skills at 90% plus. Nobody in any of my gaming groups got close to one skill at that level, let alone five. (Well, there was my Duck character - but they start with 90% in swim).

RQ2 also had previous experience rules that would give you 50+% in a couple of skills, and made your character a seasoned 21-year old instead of a raw 16-year old. I'm not familiar with RQ1's previous experience rules, so I don't know how they went.

As for rune--level, one of my characters got to 90+% attack and parry, and also in a language. We joked that these were the 'easy three', and now he had the hard work to do.

 

[opaopajr]

Aaaand interestingly the AD&D 2e NWP is the third optional skill system just in the core book alone. First is "give yourself the skills you have, (or think your adventurer would have)", and second is selecting or rolling up a profession. It was there with oodles more in other books if one was interested.

You can tell it was more of a rhetorical kludge to people demanding more rules for rules' sake. Like saying to the audience, "Here, have a fistful of solutions you could've made yourself. Better? Can you take the hint?" But the community response was more like, " No. This half-assed example shit wasn't playtested to its event horizon. I have irrational and imaginary PCs everywhere in my campaign equation now."

And this is how we get geese in our world.

 

[Alai]

RQ2 also had previous experience rules that would give you 50+% in a couple of skills, and made your character a seasoned 21-year old instead of a raw 16-year old. I'm not familiar with RQ1's previous experience rules, so I don't know how they went.

As for rune--level, one of my characters got to 90+% attack and parry, and also in a language. We joked that these were the 'easy three', and now he had the hard work to do.

It'd be funnier if it wasn't so true.

Now of course you're pretty much at that point straight out of chargen!

 

[opaopajr]

AD&D 2e Thief's Pick Locks starts with 15%, can add 30% for first level, and you get +5% for wearing no armor. That's 50%; granted not human psychology satisfying 68%-73% golden zone levels, yet pretty solid. But you also can have up to 15% penalty for DEX lower than 12 (-5% per DEX to the class threshold of 9). It allows rewarded focus and a feeling of growth, however those lower levels probabilities will always be a matter of personal taste. By 2nd or 3rd lvl a strong PL focus will hit that goldilocks zone. It's a matter of priorities.

But Thieves' Skills are a good example of bolted on ideas to serve a need leading to confusion and dissatisfaction. It took me reading from Robert & Mike years ago, in the grognard-forensics of yesteryear at TheRPGSite, to find out they were initially a secondary 'failsafe' roll. As in you rolled something first, and if that failed take a chance with a Thieves' Skills roll. That changes things a lot, as it opens up potential for non-thief classes even trying unlikely things. Somewhere there was a cultural shift from 'it's possible but...' to 'rules grant permission' reading of the text. Which is admittedly an interesting wrench in the works as we look back on past designs -- how was it understood to be used and how we understand it now. (Reminds me of old loosey-goosey cooking recipes. "At what temperature, for how long, and how in the fuck do you 'fold the cheese'!")

 

[Alai]

Well, I say "as GM I'd have done this or that". That's easy to say sitting here in front of my computer. If my players had pulled a sudden "Frodo mails the ring to Sauron" moment I might be too off-balance to get them out of it on the fly and probably just call an early end to the session, then work on it during the week.

One might want to at least take want to take a leaf out of pro tennis in that sort of situation. Gaming the "comfort break"! Give yourself long enough to at least turn a hot take into an hopefully only warmish one...

 

[Alai]

Of course, the book spent lots of words talking about Rune-level characters with 5 skills at 90% plus. Nobody in any of my gaming groups got close to one skill at that level, let alone five.

Yes, it was very much set up with the "high-school and college players with a ton of time, slightly obsessively, and don't have the internet yet" model in mind. And then we"they" still couldn't do it. (Strictly speaking we did have a rune-level, as we'd a Runepriest of... I forget.) RQG has of course gone entirely the other way, and you're almost an Axe Maiden or a Storm Khan before session one (except those rules aren't quite out yet). The last bit will of course be the slowest, but it does have the vibe of making the normative campaign length in line with what you'd expect of a bespoke custom Indie game. Or equally, a "we used to have time for this, now we have kids and jobs, but it looks good on the coffee table, and we hope to get a few sessions in" setup.

(Well, there was my Duck character - but they start with 90% in swim).

I think RQ3 might have spoiled your fun there, as for some aquatic species they eliminated Swim as a skill entirely. i.e. it was now an omni-autosuccess.