| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But failure can certainly create difficulty.
A lower success rate on any d20 roll doesn't make succeeding on the check more difficult, it just makes success less likely. The distinction is that the player doesn't have any agency as part of the roll. Whether they are likely to succeed or unlikely to succeed, all they can do is make their roll and see what happens.
However, failing a roll does create difficulty in two ways. One source of difficulty is dealing with the consequences of a failed roll. A failed roll often results in a new problem (I slipped and am now at the bottom of the pit, I failed my save and now I can't hear what my allies are saying, etc) that requires a new solution. Having more problems to solve makes the game more difficult. The player/character has agency and shows skill by solving these new problems. The less likely a roll is to fail, the less likely it is to create difficulty. No chance of failure then means no chance of difficulty.
The other way failed rolls create difficulty is in the form of decisions and methods of achieving goals. A given problem often can be solved by many different methods that vary in how likely they are to succeed. A better plan should have a higher chance to succeed than a worse one (In PF1, for example, a plan that only required a minor request required a much lower Diplomacy DC than one that required a major request). Coming up with plans that are more likely to succeed is a form of difficulty, and deciding whether a given method of solving a problem is worth the risk is also a form of difficulty. A player/character has agency and shows skill by finding and choosing better methods that are more likely to succeed or have lower risk. If even a bad plan has no risk or chance of failure, then the quality of the method used to solve a problem doesn't matter and no difficulty is created.
As a character levels up, there are only three possibilities for their success rate relative to level-appropriate challenges: their success rate increases, decreases, or stays the same. A decreasing success rate relative to appropriate challenges feels pretty disheartening, so I think most agree that isn't a good idea. The two other possibilities imply different ways challenge can grow as a character levels.
If success rate stays the same, the number of challenges created by failure remains the same. It is likely that increasing difficulty will take the form of harder problems as consequences of a failure or increasing difficulty in finding low-risk solutions to problems.
If success rate grows higher, the number of challenges created by failures decreases. This usually means that an opponent's success rate has also increased, so the majority of challenges will be created by the opposition succeeding. When everyone has powerful abilities they usually succeed in using, rocket tag can result. However, I don't think it has to. What caused rocket tag in PF1 was that high level abilities didn't usually create new problems; they created endings. Dropping someone to -100 HP from full HP in a round isn't a problem that can usually be solved in combat. Failing a save against Phantasmal Killer, or worse, being hit with Power Word Death, wasn't solvable either. Baleful Polymorph having a permanent duration rendered it unsolvable. However, being polymorphed for a duration or being mind controlled were solvable problems (though possibly not solvable enough).
If success rate is going to increase with level, then counterplay must exist and be suitably accessible, both in and out of combat. Higher level foes would have more abilities and more challenging abilities to counter, and higher level players would have more tools at their disposal to solve problems and create problems for the opponent. This creates a feeling of advancement and increasing difficulty even with gradually increasing rates of success. One caveat, though, is that skill rolls are much less frequently opposed and so increasing success rates can potentially make combat the only real source of challenge.
Neither of these two possibilities for rate of success and their accompanying methods of increasing difficulty are inherently better, nor are they entirely mutually exclusive. It just a matter of what kind of game the designers want to create. I would prefer either of these possibilities, though, to a game where increasing difficulty is supposed to come from the numbers.
My ultimate point of this very long post is that when discussing difficulty, the numbers are largely beside the point as long as there is a chance of failure. As playtesters, we should focus on making sure the tools needed to create and solve difficult situations are a part of this ruleset because the numbers cannot give difficulty or depth on their own. If success rates are to increase, we also need to make sure adequate counterplay exists so that high level play isn't plagued by rocket tag like in the previous edition.
This topic is only slightly adjacent to the existing +1/level discussions, so please keep discussion along those lines in those threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a character levels up, there are only three possibilities for their success rate relative to level-appropriate challenges: their success rate increases, decreases, or stays the same. A decreasing success rate relative to appropriate challenges feels pretty disheartening, so I think most agree that isn't a good idea. The two other possibilities imply different ways challenge can grow as a character levels.
The possibilites have another dimension in gameplay for my players: the players improve their tactics and make fewer rolls of that kind, the same number of rolls of that kind, or more rolls of that kind.
Suppose that the wizard is terrible at climbing and the enemy has many walled forts. He could either invest in more climbing skill as he levels up, which might not do any good as the enemy walls get taller and smoother. Or he could learn and prepare Spider Climb and stop making climb checks.
One advantage of the PCs learning to avoid previous kinds of checks is that if the new technique fails, the obsolete technique is likely to provide a backup plan. The fighter had learned a trip technique that is his most effective combat method, but against the four-legged centaur it fails too often, so he switches back to his 1st-level Power Attacks.
In contrast, if the character got better at the first technique, he or she doesn't necessarily have a backup technique. The enemy wizard finds partial cover against the archer's ranged strikes, but the archer lacks another combat technique, so the archer continues shooting with the lower success rate. The enemy wizard's Flaming Sphere, in contrast, is not affected by the wizard partially hiding behind a wall.
If success rate grows higher, the number of challenges created by failures decreases. This usually means that an opponent's success rate has also increased, so the majority of challenges will be created by the opposition succeeding. When everyone has powerful abilities they usually succeed in using, rocket tag can result. However, I don't think it has to. What caused rocket tag in PF1 was that high level abilities didn't usually create new problems; they created endings. Dropping someone to -100 HP from full HP in a round isn't a problem that can usually be solved in combat. Failing a save against Phantasmal Killer, or worse, being hit with Power Word Death, wasn't solvable either. Baleful Polymorph having a permanent duration rendered it unsolvable. However, being polymorphed for a duration or being mind controlled were solvable problems (though possibly not solvable enough).
I like this analysis.
The possibilites have another dimension in gameplay for my players: the players improve their tactics and make fewer rolls of that kind, the same number of rolls of that kind, or more rolls of that kind.
Absolutely. This is part of the difficulty that comes from finding better methods of solving problems. Leaning into your strengths and away from your weaknesses is a huge part of that. Your point that finding a new way to be effective when your normal tactics are countered is another source of difficulty is a good one too.
I appreciate the playtest's focus on choosing abilities for new things you can do rather than numerical advantages. A major reason for that is that optimizing for numerical effectiveness is a form of difficulty, but it mostly shifts that difficulty into character creation rather than actually playing the character. That might be appropriate when building a deck in a CCG or something, but I prefer use of a character in play to be more important than building them, and that only happens when you have a lot of different options for what you can do in play. It also means that when your favorite tactic is countered, you're more likely to have other options, as you said.
Martial characters are definitely a bit better in the playtest compared to PF1 in terms of the number of options they have during play, but I think they could still use some help. Casters have had the options I describe in previous editions, and martials tended to be built with care and then played in a single way. I don't think it's coincidence that martials had far more ways to optimize for numbers than casters did.