
World's most interesting Pan |

Sooooo... Im joining an Abomination Vaults game on roll20 this week. This is the first time I've looked back at PF2 since the playtest. Im starting to get a sense of the things I didnt like then. Specifically, having a thousand options at level 1, that basically become 1-2 choices every level from there on out.
Speaking in terms of systems, do you like systems that silo the character progress? Or do you prefer big open lists with rules to manage how you chose them? Do you like systems that encourage hype specialization or general specialization?
The two concepts in D&D/PF from the last 10-20 years seem to be around proficiency. The more balanced math games keep characters close to one another in power terms. Though, only being 10-20% better at something can feel like nothing on a D20 roll. On the flip side, if someone chooses specialization and they have 80,90,100+% better chance, why even bother trying to compete with them?
Personally I like characters standing out from each other. I know that makes GMing a bit of a chore. For example, the rogue being able to apply stealth and sneak past a guard encampment is pretty typical. Then, you have the paladin in full plate that cant do stealth at all without a miracle roll. That limits the ability of a group check but when everybody can reasonably do it, that does feel great when you have invested in it either.
Conundrums.

Haladir |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Sooooo... Im joining an Abomination Vaults game on roll20 this week. This is the first time I've looked back at PF2 since the playtest. Im starting to get a sense of the things I didnt like then. Specifically, having a thousand options at level 1, that basically become 1-2 choices every level from there on out.
Speaking in terms of systems, do you like systems that silo the character progress? Or do you prefer big open lists with rules to manage how you chose them? Do you like systems that encourage hype specialization or general specialization?
The two concepts in D&D/PF from the last 10-20 years seem to be around proficiency. The more balanced math games keep characters close to one another in power terms. Though, only being 10-20% better at something can feel like nothing on a D20 roll. On the flip side, if someone chooses specialization and they have 80,90,100+% better chance, why even bother trying to compete with them?
Personally I like characters standing out from each other. I know that makes GMing a bit of a chore. For example, the rogue being able to apply stealth and sneak past a guard encampment is pretty typical. Then, you have the paladin in full plate that cant do stealth at all without a miracle roll. That limits the ability of a group check but when everybody can reasonably do it, that does feel great when you have invested in it either.
Conundrums.
I was in a PF2 "Age of Ashes" game for about eight months. I got all the way through Book 2 and into the start of Book 3 when I came to the conclusion that PF2 just wasn't doing it for me. I felt the small nods toward narrative-style play were completely overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the rules. While the weight falls a bit differently, PF2 is just as rules-heavy as PF1, while providing less flexibility than its ancestor. I definitely prefer D&D 5e to PF2... and I think I preferred 4e as well, but if I'm going to play a D&D-family game these days, I'd rather go with some flavor of OSR. (My favorite OSR system at the moment is Mörk Borg, which is D&D-adjacent rather than a D&D retro-clone.)
To your question...
I generally prefer RPGs with a much higher level of mechanical abstraction, where your character's area of specialization isn't necessarily baked in mechanically, but rather implied by narrative prompts.
Here is an example of a character class from Mörk Borg:
Class: GUTTERBORN SCUM
An ill star smiled upon your birth. Poverty, crime, and terrible parenting didn't help either. In your community, an honest day's work was never an option. Not that you ever tried... what are you, some kind of mug? A razor and a moonless night are worth more than a week of chump-work.Bad Birth: Roll d6:
1. Dumped into a moving dung-cart
2. Whelped during your mother's public execution
3. Raised by rats in the sewers
4. Used as a vile lordling's whipping-boy
5. Escaped from a cruel orphanage
6. Educated by bandits in a leaky hovelBegins with 1d6x10 silver and d2 Omens.
HP: Toughness +d6Abilities:Roll 3d6-2 for Strength, others as normal.
Stealthy: All Presence and Agility tests have their DR reduced by 2 [i.e. normal tests are DR10 instead of DR12.]
Equipment: Roll d6 on the Weapons table and d2 on the Armor table.
Specialties: Pick 1 OR roll d6:
1. Coward's Jab: When attacking with surprise, test Agility DR10. On a success, you automatically hit once with a Light one-handed weapon, dealing normal damage +3.
2. Filthy Fingersmith: Your snaky little fingers get into pockets and pick locks with a DR8 Agility test. You also begin with lockpicks!
3. Abominable Gob-Lobber: Your spittle is particularly vile and accurate at short range. You can spit d2 times during a fight; test Agility DR8. Victims are blinded and retching for d4 rounds.
4. Escaping Fate: Every time you use an Omen, there is a 50% chance it is not spent.
5. Excretal Stealth: You have an astounding ability to hide in muck, filth, and debris. When hiding in these conditions, a DR16 Presence test is needed to notice you.
6. Dodging Death: You are so revolting and irrelevant that even Death would rather avoid you. When you would die, if there is even the slightest possibility that you could have survives, there is a 50% chance that you did. If successful, after 10 rounds, you pop back up with d4 HP and an unlikely explanation of your escape.Getting Better: The first time a Gutterborn Scum gets better, roll a second Speciality. When getting better a second and subsequent time, re-roll either or both of your Specialties.[/b]
And that's it. Character creation takes five minutes, tops, and there isn't really much by way of character advancement, at least mechanically. Your character improves through play by the narrative consequences of actions, resulting in gaining new weird Specialties, Conditions, Omens, and items.

dirtypool |

Speaking in terms of systems, do you like systems that silo the character progress? Or do you prefer big open lists with rules to manage how you chose them? Do you like systems that encourage hype specialization or general specialization?
I think my favorite character advancement was in Exalted where there were vast trees of charms that could be explored, some manifested in ways similar to feats in D20 while others manifested in ways similar to magic in D20 and you could build in nearly any direction you wanted but it still required a linear progression of choosing along a tree.
Coupled with the essence system to power these abilities it felt boundless in terms of choice, even though there was a fixed number of options.

Interesting Character |
I'll respond to dirtypool tonight when I can lookup all the page numbers and c&p relevant quotes.
In the meantime,
Speaking in terms of systems, do you like systems that silo the character progress? Or do you prefer big open lists with rules to manage how you chose them? Do you like systems that encourage hype specialization or general specialization?
I much prefer versatile and open progression systems, though having requirements or small groups that have a more restricted order such as PTU's classes, are a good addition when done right.
I don't like specialization all that much, though I do see how it can be beneficial to a game.
I much prefer using things in creative ways, and specialization tends to favor using things only as designed rather than put players in a position where they need to be creative with using things in unexpected ways to achieve success. Less specialization tends to better for this type if creativity because it tends to be designed with the idea that no one knows ahead of time what will be used as a solution.

World's most interesting Pan |

I'll respond to dirtypool tonight when I can lookup all the page numbers and c&p relevant quotes.
In the meantime,
Quote:Speaking in terms of systems, do you like systems that silo the character progress? Or do you prefer big open lists with rules to manage how you chose them? Do you like systems that encourage hype specialization or general specialization?I much prefer versatile and open progression systems, though having requirements or small groups that have a more restricted order such as PTU's classes, are a good addition when done right.
I don't like specialization all that much, though I do see how it can be beneficial to a game.
I much prefer using things in creative ways, and specialization tends to favor using things only as designed rather than put players in a position where they need to be creative with using things in unexpected ways to achieve success. Less specialization tends to better for this type if creativity because it tends to be designed with the idea that no one knows ahead of time what will be used as a solution.
I wonder how a simulation rules system with lots of influence on combat rules effects this? I can say for certainty I see a difference in my players system to system. In D&D they see specialization as IC mentions here, a sort of, "mother may I?" style of game. Over in Traveller the same group is faced with a problem looks at their skill distribution and starts thinking of creative ways to solve that problem with things the character is good at. In D&D its a very binary do or do not there is a lack of narrative vagueness because the rules try and eliminate it. YMMV

Interesting Character |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is literally your last chance to get a real engagement from me before I just start ignoring you as Haladir VERY wisely recommends.
Give me a page number in either the 3.0 PHB, 3.5 PHB, or the PF1 CRB that describes the degree of success mechanic.
(note, quotes come from the d20 srd for c&p, then crossreferenced with the book for page numbers. Will also include the srd links. Also, quotes are listed in ooc blue to distinguish from quoting dirtypool)
Okay, part 1,
page 63 in discussing skills establishes what I initially said about check results being how good a character performs, first by establishing the simulationist nature in that the check accounts for things in the narrative world as being the things to impact the check,
A skill check takes into account a character’s training (skill rank), natural talent (ability modifier), and luck (the die roll). It may also take into account his or her race’s knack for doing certain things (racial bonus) or what armor he or she is wearing (armor check penalty), or a certain feat the character possesses, among other things.
And second, a table establishing an objective scale of what the numbers of a check result actually mean,
Table: Difficulty Class Examples Difficulty (DC) Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0)___Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
Easy (5)________Climb a knotted rope (Climb)
Average (10)____Hear an approaching guard (Listen)
Tough (15)______Rig a wagon wheel to fall off (Disable Device)
Challenging (20)Swim in stormy water (Swim)
Formidable (25)_Open an average lock (Open Lock)
Heroic (30)_____Leap across a 30-foot chasm (Jump)
Nearly impossible (40)_Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall (Survival)
Basically, this table says that if you got a 30 on your check, then you did a heroic Olympic athlete scale show of skill, and that getting a 40 on a check is unbelievable level of awesome.
(some detractors say this is stupid and obviously a dumb part of the rules because high level characters can routinely get over a 40, but quite honestly, that presumes the system was designed for all characters to be merely real world human level of ability, but actually, many design features, such as this table, indicate that high level characters are supposed to be superhuman demigods, and I see nothing wrong with that. It's like LOTR with one system handling everyone from hobbits to Sauron.)
Now that you know how good a character did, then you can compare to the DC to see if how good you did was good enough, as measured by the same table. In fact, that table is all about setting the DC, so you might ask how I can say it is how good a character did, and that is simple, because the scale is objective. If you take everything to be the same except DC, the scale tells you what DCs your check result would beat and what those mean, and therefore, setting a DC is not setting chances for success, it is establishing how good a character has to perform in order to succeed. A DC of 40 is borderline supernatural, not "how difficult for character of X level" but objectively "nearly impossible" by the standards of normal people, and thus is borderline supernatural even for characters of high level. This can inform how the narrative develops, because rolling above a 20 is doing well enough to succeed at a challenging task, even if it wasn't enough to succeed at the task at hand, or vice-versa, getting a 40 even if only a 20 is needed means that the character didn't simply do well enough to succeed, they did well enough that it seems nearly impossible to most people. This shaping of the narrative is what degrees of success is all about.
Note how this The higher the result of the skill check, the better. says higher result is better, not beat the DC by more the better. Clearly, the check result is intended as an objective measure of how well a character performed. And if the check result is an objective measure, then obviously it is intended to be considered in the description of the results of the check.
Next, several checks list additional details on results and effects based not on raw DC, but by how much one succeeds or fails, and thus even if the above is too vague and soft for you to feel comfortable about calling it "degrees of success," and you want rules making very explicit results set by how much one succeeded or failed, well these examples have you covered,
The first is strangely missing from 3.5, but is a whole section in the 3.0 version titled "Extraordinary Success" and says, (page 61)
If you have at least rank 10 in a skill and beat your DC by 20 or more on a normal skill check, you've completed the task impossibly well. For example, Devis the bard has reached 10th level and has rank 13 in Perform. He has increased his Charisma score by 2 points (once at 4th level and again at 8th level), so he now has an ability modifier of +3, giving him a total skill modifier of +16. He goes on stage in front of a receptive audience, so the DM assigns a DC of 15 to the skill check. Devis's player rolls a 19 on the 1D20 and adds the +16 skill modifier for a result of 35--the audience likes the performance so much that Devis is now considered a star, and from now on whenever he performs in front of this audience he can command and get twice the usual fee for his services.
This is the book's example and even tried to get the weird wrong things as written in the book.
Clearly, it is intended in the design that the GM not only account for how well the check result is rather than merely pass/fail (since crits aren't a thing in skill checks) but to even accept radical results when the check result is sufficiently far from the DC.
Now, several skill descriptions,
Balance: A failure by 4 or less means you can’t move for 1 round. A failure by 5 or more means you fall.
Climb:A Climb check that fails by 4 or less means that you make no progress, and one that fails by 5 or more means that you fall from whatever height you have already attained.
Bluff: an interesting one here, as this isn't merely a listing of what happens if failed, but also is an example of the fact that the GM is expected to use the results of the check to help shape the narrative description of results, at least in cases where the GM deems it pertinent, If it’s important, you can distinguish between a bluff that fails because the target doesn’t believe it and one that fails because it just asks too much of the target. For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn’t so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it. A target that succeeds by 11 or more has seen through the bluff.
Craft: Too much to quote here, but check them out and you'll see that check results impact how long it takes to craft something and can even raise the cost by ruining some materials for failure, resulting in a net effect of mechanical results based on degrees by which you fail/pass in terms of time and materials over potentially multiple checks.
Disable Device: If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you spring it. If you’re attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.
There is just so much, I could write a whole pamphlet and not get even most of them. DO you really need me to list out more instances of where the rules assign mechanical effects to different levels of failure/success?
Yes, it is a ridiculous thing, but we do it because when we do just ignore you - you repost your question or stated opinion repeatedly in multiple threads until someone bites.
Generally not, but different threads have different people who will respond differently and sometimes I'm curious because it tangentially relates to something said there. Or in the case of a certain AMA thread, it is very on topic to ask questions about a certain person's opinion on things, which is even more valuable when that person was not part of the original discussion and therefore is not biased by how that discussion progressed, especially since I'm often looking for how people respond to the presentation of ideas.
Like you did with the multiple postings about three-dragon ante character creation in this thread
The only time I did that (that I know of) and I actually thought it hadn't gone through the first time (it didn't show up after the page reloaded but I didn't have time to repost just then) and I didn't even realize it had posted the first time after all until the day after.
before you took it to the Ask James Jacobs thread.
Something wrong with a discussion sparking my curiosity about other opinions? I was curious.
If you are ignored you just hector everyone until they respond - which is a ridiculous thing to the rest of us.
Ha. Whatever makes you think that? This one single example of a mistaken double post and the totally legitimate curiosity about James?
I ask him questions from time to time, usually inspired by something that came up either here or elsewhere. I do not see the problem with that. Especially since there is far less risk of things becoming uncivil in discussions with him. He also is more than happy to state when he wants to stop, which you might note I respect.
Also note, that I respond here and other threads to what other people say. I do not pester people about their opinions when they ignore me.
Usually stop when asked too, but occasionally, I'll get through a lot of a post where they responded before coming to the end where they say they're done, at which point I'll often just post what I had gotten so far since I already went through the work of typing that much up (which is often hours of work because cellphone) and often there are bystanders who may be reading even if not participating or even other actual participants who are still active in the conversation.
Yeah, it has been suggested to read the whole post first before starting a response, but I just like they way I go through a response and it doesn't happen often enough to bother changing that. No one is perfect, so if you don't like it, okay, I'm not what you'd call perfect, but you already think that anyway most likely.

Interesting Character |
You consider skills a mere 1/3 or less of the game? Really? What in the world do you do all session, nothing but combat where you run blindly at enemies and do nothing but roll attack rolls? I mean, if that's how you play, okay, but it seems odd to have so little use of skill checks. I noticed this in pfs especially, but I thought it was just the pfs nonsense about wanting to make gms interchangeable in pursuit of uniformity of experience that resulted in so little skill use (to say nothing of how amateurish most of them feel), but seriously, most ftf games I've played saw extensive skill use.
Part 1,
Now, it might sound nice to consider the attack roll to have degrees of success beyond crits, but it doesn't make sense for a simulationist system since the attack roll only dictates whether you hit.
If you are trying something fancy, then that is usually handled by a skill check not the attack roll, and hitting your opponent is another binary thing where there isn't really room for degrees of success beyond affecting dmg output (which is already encoded with criticals) without granting narrative powers to the check which works against the design being simulationist.
Now this is different for many modern systems, which include so much of the other stuff in the attack roll. PBtA doesn't even really call it an attack roll, it's explicitly what a movie would call a shot kind of thing and thus, if you wanted to drop on an opponent from above, well in PBtA or the new star wars/genesys, that would likely be a single roll (Now, I'm inferring here about PBtA from what I've read of the system and the system design blog posts. Haladir can probably clarify this much better. I've played the new star wars though.) but in d20 that is multiple rolls, so in the end, for the single choice of deciding to drop on the opponent from above, d20 has significant degrees of success through the multiple checks, even if each individual check was pure binary, so, judging within the same scope of the single decision to attack from above, d20 has a great deal of points that affect the outcome in a greater number of degrees of outcome than many other games. In d20, dropping from above would entail a couple skill checks which would likely have degrees of success within their own right, but even without that, the multiple checks result in a wide variety of possible outcomes from that singular choice of dropping from above, which in many other systems would be a single check with simplified yet more explicit degrees of success.
(if you program, you could think of it like assembly vs c++. C++ might have one line of code that is multiple lines of assembly code, but assembly is more fundamental and simplistic in each line, yet the scope of possibility between equivalent code between assembly and c++ is still there, thus metaphorically, a single c++ line of code might have more degrees of success than a single line of assembly, but when compared to the multiple lines of assembly code that equal that single line of c++ code, assembly can sometimes actually achieve greater degrees of success.)
Part 2,
Environment also has degrees of success/failure, such as stairs. For example, upon entering the first space of steep stairs at a run or charge, one must make a skill check or fall down, and failing by 5 or more also does dmg.
And poisons/disease typically require multiple saves, if time delayed, which is a single event with more than two possible outcomes.
Part 3,
Abilities also create variations in degree of success, though again usually through multiple checks, such as cleave which basically has the chance to hit multiple targets with the same attack (yes, it's the same attack as the same bonus and effects apply), multiple rolls are used but it's still a single attack with a variable outcome, etc.
Same goes for many combat maneuvers, such as overrun, which you might knock the opponent down, or you might get stalled, or you get knocked down yourself, which is multiple different outcomes from the single choice to try an overrun.
Now, there's not a lot of spells that need degree of success, but there are cases with non-binary or variable results. Dispel Magic for example might not stop the most powerful spell effect on the target but still has a chance to dispel one of the lesser effects. Baleful polymorph requires two saves for a variable set of outcomes, admittedly with a 24 hour period in between, but still, there is a difference between failing one vs failing both.
Granted, this is mostly because you don't make checks to cast a spell. Many of the spells would make sense to have degrees of success if you rolled for them (which I do in my system btw), but since you don't, there is nothing to base degrees of success on very often. Not even for saves against spells. For example, a sleep spell could vary the number of HD of enemies it affects if the caster had to roll to cast the spell, but since the spell is a binary sleep or don't sleep, there isn't any room for a save to have variance here.
This is one area where things have improved in later editions, with things like sleep/paralysis/etc being slower over multiple rounds with multiple saves, but that is mostly a save-or-suck improvement.
TLDR,
So, to recap, if you exclusively consider a single dice roll only, then yes d20 has degrees of success mostly in skills but with limited instances elsewhere, but if you consider choices and the ensuing events from those choices and compare between systems that way, then d20 is more varied at times with fewer degrees of success and at time more degrees of success, generally by requiring more checks of multiple types.

captain yesterday |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

If you want a game of skills, Palladium is the system for you! They straight up say in explaining experience points to award most experience points from the use of roleplaying or using skills because their combat system is so convoluted and confusing you won't really be getting in enough fights to level up that way.

dirtypool |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Table: Difficulty Class Examples Difficulty (DC) Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0)___Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
Easy (5)________Climb a knotted rope (Climb)
Average (10)____Hear an approaching guard (Listen)
Tough (15)______Rig a wagon wheel to fall off (Disable Device)
Challenging (20)Swim in stormy water (Swim)
Formidable (25)_Open an average lock (Open Lock)
Heroic (30)_____Leap across a 30-foot chasm (Jump)
Nearly impossible (40)_Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall (Survival)Basically, this table says that if you got a 30 on your check, then you did a heroic Olympic athlete scale show of skill, and that getting a 40 on a check is unbelievable level of awesome.
No those are example DC’s. DC stands for Difficulty Class and is the target number of the check you’re making to complete a task. In this case it is an example list so that GM’s have an idea how difficult a given task might be.
That chart isn’t saying if you roll a 30 on any of your checks you succeeded in a heroic Olympic athletic style feat, it’s saying that if you want to attempt an Olympic athletic style feat you HAVE TO roll a 30 or better.
There is no mechanic for saying that if you roll a 30 on your check to climb a rope that you climb faster or succeed better than if you merely rolled the 5 suggested on the example chart.
A Degree of Success mechanic, the thing we were referring to with the man topic, determines what happens if and when you roll better or worse than the DC and would include a chart like the on you posted AND a description of what happens if you roll low and what happens if you roll high.
There is a rule there, not just your misunderstanding of an example table.
I thought you claimed that you understood this better, like in your earlier example where you think of all the constituent components of a house.
I’m seriously doubtful of that now when it seems you can’t properly explain what a DC is and how to read an example table. DC’s are after all a major component of the core mechanic of the game you keep telling all of us we’re all playing wrong.

World's most interesting Pan |

Soooo... Here is a good one. How do you like a system to handle NPCs? Create them just like PCs, use their own rules, or something in-between?
For example, 3E/PF1 uses the same ruleset to create NPCs. This creates some semblance of a universal world with the same expectations for everything living in it. A simulation perspective. Other systems like 4E, PF2 let NPCs use their own rules. Sometimes this is a shortcut to make building NPCs easier for the GM, sometimes it gives NPCs abilities, shortcuts, and power ups that the PCs couldn't get in the name of challenge.
Im curious in storytelling games what the approach is?

dirtypool |

Soooo... Here is a good one. How do you like a system to handle NPCs? Create them just like PCs, use their own rules, or something in-between?
For example, 3E/PF1 uses the same ruleset to create NPCs. This creates some semblance of a universal world with the same expectations for everything living in it. A simulation perspective. Other systems like 4E, PF2 let NPCs use their own rules. Sometimes this is a shortcut to make building NPCs easier for the GM, sometimes it gives NPCs abilities, shortcuts, and power ups that the PCs couldn't get in the name of challenge.
Im curious in storytelling games what the approach is?
My preference would depend on the role the NPC's are going to be taking on in my session. If they're largely there to act as the people who support the adventuring party and provide them with insight and information but are going to be less active on the narrative itself - then I'd rather have a simplified stat block mechanic that isn't as fully detailed as player character facing mechanics.
If I'm running a game where those NPC's are tangled in the same political web as my players and they can directly spike the ball toward each other - then I want that NPC to be able to be fully fleshed out with access to the same types (if not level) of abilities as my PC's.
If you're meaning you're curious how it is done in story games like those Haladir speaks of - I can't provide much insight. If you're asking about storytelling system games - it's usually a full stat block.

Haladir |

World's most interesting Pan wrote:If you're meaning you're curious how it is done in story games like those Haladir speaks of - I can't provide much insight. If you're asking about storytelling system games - it's usually a full stat block.Soooo... Here is a good one. How do you like a system to handle NPCs? Create them just like PCs, use their own rules, or something in-between?
For example, 3E/PF1 uses the same ruleset to create NPCs. This creates some semblance of a universal world with the same expectations for everything living in it. A simulation perspective. Other systems like 4E, PF2 let NPCs use their own rules. Sometimes this is a shortcut to make building NPCs easier for the GM, sometimes it gives NPCs abilities, shortcuts, and power ups that the PCs couldn't get in the name of challenge.
Im curious in storytelling games what the approach is?
I am very much a fan of not using the same rules for NPCs as for PCs. My general rule of thumb is to keep them as vaguely-defined as possible and then fill in specifics as the PCs interact with them.
How NPCs are statted out in story-games really depends on the specific game in question. (In some story-games, not even the PCs have traditional stats!)
But in general, NPCs in story-games don't use the same mechanics as the PCs. They're not "built" in any sense of OGL.3.x games. Your NPC only needs descriptions of their physical person and their personality; a motivation (i.e. what they're trying to do); and any notable things they have or can grant access to. If they're in the game to be fought, then you'll need whatever combat stats the game uses... but I don't bother with writing that up if I'm reasonably sure they're not going to get into a fight with the PCs.
For example, in Dungeon World, an NPC or monster just needs a description, hit points, an Armor rating, and one or more Monster Moves. In Brindlewood Bay, all you need to write down is a description and motivation: NPCs don't have any mechanical stats at all. In Trophy Gold, monsters have an Endurance rating and some descriptive Defenses that color the narrative and inform GM decisions about calling for additional Risk Rolls, complications for a miss or mixed-success result, or imposing Conditions.
One other thing about using different mechanics for PCs and NPCs in story-games: Keep in mind that in most story-games that use dice, the GM never rolls: All rolls are made by the players. That fact necessitates different mechanics for the NPCs/monsters.

Tristan d'Ambrosius |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I just wish there was a way to predict which NPCs the PCs want to interact with.
Spend hours building an NPC and tracing the lines of influence and where that NPC sits over-all and the PCs walk on by.
Throw out a one line jokey NPC spur of the moment on the spot. Suddenly they're the central figure and linchpin. Sure you can use the other NPC stats you made but it doesn't seem a proper fit.

Haladir |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

In story-game circles, there's a frequently-cited example called "The 16-hit point dragon."
In Dungeon World, the dragon stat block shows that dragons only have 16 hit points... but they're still presented as one of the most dangerous monsters out there. PCs have between 12 and 20 hp, and a combat-oriented PC could dish out that much damage on a single roll.
Here is the Dragon stat block...
Dragon
Solitary, Huge, Terrifying, Cautious, HoarderBite (2d12+5 Damage, 4 piercing); 16 HP; 5 Armor
Reach, messySpecial Qualities: Elemental blood, Wings
Dragons are the greatest and most terrible things this world will ever have to offer.
Instinct: To rule
• Bend an element to its will
• Demand tribute
• Act with disdain
Dragons are terrifying because of what their stat block implies.
Sage LaTorra, co-author of Dungeon World (and the one that isn't a creep) wrote a blog post about how to use a dragon in DW to show just how dangerous they really are.

Haladir |

I just wish there was a way to predict which NPCs the PCs want to interact with.
Spend hours building an NPC and tracing the lines of influence and where that NPC sits over-all and the PCs walk on by.
Throw out a one line jokey NPC spur of the moment on the spot. Suddenly they're the central figure and linchpin. Sure you can use the other NPC stats you made but it doesn't seem a proper fit.
Yeah... I don't spend more than 10 minutes prepping for any given session any more.
That's another beauty of story-games!

World's most interesting Pan |

The Bestiaries and NPC codex for PF1 was a godsend. If I ever needed a block id just grab one that seems appropriate.
For Traveller, stat blocks are pretty easy to spit out. There are no levels so its just an ability stat array and skill allocation.
I prefer NPCs and PCs use the same rules, but I know the crunchiness of the system will make a huge difference.

Haladir |

There's a blog post on The Gauntlet by Jason Cordova, author of the PbtA game Brindlewood Bay. The article goes very deep into the details and game design goals of two Basic Moves written for the game: the Day Move and the Night Move.
The post assumes more than a passing familiarity with PbtA-style gameplay, and really shows the nuance and artisanship of running a story-game: Most notably the aspect of negotiation between GM and players that's a big part of the core gameplay loop.
(Note: Brindlewood Bay is TTRPG where the PCs are retired older women who are members of the "Murder Mavens Mystery Book Club" in the seaside resort town of Brindlewood Bay, Masachusetts. They frequently find themselves solving real-life murder mysteries, and eventually discover that these murders are connected to a supernatural death-cult. The game is basically Murder She Wrote meets The Shadow Over Innsmouth.)
The author of that blog post makes many references to "The Keepeer." In Brindlewood Bay, the Game Master is called "The Keeper," a term borrowed from Call of Cthulhu.

thejeff |
In story-game circles, there's a frequently-cited example called "The 16-hit point dragon."
In Dungeon World, the dragon stat block shows that dragons only have 16 hit points... but they're still presented as one of the most dangerous monsters out there. PCs have between 12 and 20 hp, and a combat-oriented PC could dish out that much damage on a single roll.
Here is the Dragon stat block...
The Dungeon World Rulebook wrote:
Dragon
Solitary, Huge, Terrifying, Cautious, HoarderBite (2d12+5 Damage, 4 piercing); 16 HP; 5 Armor
Reach, messySpecial Qualities: Elemental blood, Wings
Dragons are the greatest and most terrible things this world will ever have to offer.
Instinct: To rule
• Bend an element to its will
• Demand tribute
• Act with disdainDragons are terrifying because of what their stat block implies.
Sage LaTorra, co-author of Dungeon World (and the one that isn't a creep) wrote a blog post about how to use a dragon in DW to show just how dangerous they really are.
I'm not sure how true that is. I suspect much of it is that 5 Armor. :) That means the combat PC can't actually kill it in one roll, even if they can do 16 points of damage. And the fact they can do well over any PC's hp in one attack.
It's not the implications or the descriptions used, if the mechanics don't back them up. Which they do, even if the numbers are smaller than in D&D.

thejeff |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no mechanic for saying that if you roll a 30 on your check to climb a rope that you climb faster or succeed better than if you merely rolled the 5 suggested on the example chart.
There is however an Accelerated Climb mechanic:
You try to climb more quickly than normal. By accepting a –5 penalty, you can move half your speed (instead of one-quarter your speed).
Note that this isn't "roll 5 above the DC and you climb faster", but "take a penalty to try to climb faster." If you fail, you don't climb slowly, you don't succeed at all. As such, it's not a degrees of success mechanic.

dirtypool |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

There is however an Accelerated Climb mechanic:
Quote:You try to climb more quickly than normal. By accepting a –5 penalty, you can move half your speed (instead of one-quarter your speed).
Absolutely, 3.X had many different unconnected and one off mechanics to try things like this. It was kind of neat in that way.
Note that this isn't "roll 5 above the DC and you climb faster", but "take a penalty to try to climb faster." If you fail, you don't climb slowly, you don't succeed at all. As such, it's not a degrees of success mechanic.
Exactly, I'm unclear if the poster just didn't understand what a degree of success mechanic is - or if it was just a way to seek attention.
I suspect the latter.

Interesting Character |
Exactly, I'm unclear if the poster just didn't understand what a degree of success mechanic is - or if it was just a way to seek attention.
I suspect the latter.
A degree of success is when you make a single choice which needs to be resolved, where the resolution of that choice has a non-binary outcome.
It is normally referenced in cases where this concept is tied to individual checks, but those systems also usually roll a lot more stuff into a single check to resolve a choice with just a single check. D20 however, often relies on multiple distinct checks to resolve such actions.
I addressed this distinction just in case you want to restrict what you consider as degrees of success to include exclusively cases where it is entirely on a per-check basis.
The question I have for you is this, can you ever accept and understand when someone has solid reasoning for having a different opinion or belief than you?
I mean really, no one has said something like "well I understand that, but I just don't agree as it doesn't fit how I define things." No one has said that. It always a claim anout how stupid and objectively wrong I am and never treated as a reasonable but alternative view.

Interesting Character |
Which wouldn’t apply to most of the skills in d20, just a few that had some additional conditions added. The Climb DC table isn’t an example of degrees of success, Acrobatics and Disable Device are.
I didn't bring in the climb DC table. Tje other guy and then stated the exact readons I didn't bring it in.
The two aspects I referenced that actually do apply to climb, is the fail by 5 clause which breaks failure into two possible consequences, and the exceptional success which applies to all skills, climb included, which adds a category of exceptional results for getting real high numbers but lets the GM define the exact narrative outcome, but does give an example of how that outcome should be well beyond the standard success.
Thus, without bothering the climb specific DCs, it was shown that a single climb check has four distinct possible outcomes,
<DC-5
<DC
>=DC
>DC+20

avr |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

The Bestiaries and NPC codex for PF1 was a godsend. If I ever needed a block id just grab one that seems appropriate.
For Traveller, stat blocks are pretty easy to spit out. There are no levels so its just an ability stat array and skill allocation.
I prefer NPCs and PCs use the same rules, but I know the crunchiness of the system will make a huge difference.
A lot of NPCs just need a description and one skill or similar. Still, I prefer that they could be justified as characters in the same world when you want to put in the work (or steal someone else's); PF2's assumption that none of them could, and a that an NPC ally shouldn't have stats even in the same range as an NPC enemy because PC-side math is different from enemy-side math is actually the single most irritating decision in that game to me.

Interesting Character |
World's most interesting Pan wrote:A lot of NPCs just need a description and one skill or similar. Still, I prefer that they could be justified as characters in the same world when you want to put in the work (or steal someone else's); PF2's assumption that none of them could, and a that an NPC ally shouldn't have stats even in the same range as an NPC enemy because PC-side math is different from enemy-side math is actually the single most irritating decision in that game to me.The Bestiaries and NPC codex for PF1 was a godsend. If I ever needed a block id just grab one that seems appropriate.
For Traveller, stat blocks are pretty easy to spit out. There are no levels so its just an ability stat array and skill allocation.
I prefer NPCs and PCs use the same rules, but I know the crunchiness of the system will make a huge difference.
I agree with this a great deal.

dirtypool |

Interesting Character, since you keep replying to me in order to get a response (something you claimed you don't do when it's obvious you're being ignored) I'm going to post this last response to you and then we're done. Do not ever reply to me again. You claim that you respect peoples wishes when they ask you to stop - this is me asking you to stop.
Who said we were discussing pathfinder?
I did when I asked you to find "Degree of Success Mechanics" in any of the iterative 3.X games.
The question I have for you is this, can you ever accept and understand when someone has solid reasoning for having a different opinion or belief than you?
I often accept and understand when someone has solid reasoning for having a different opinion or belief than me. This is not a conversation about beliefs - it is a conversation about a game mechanic printed in rulebooks. It IS a printed and codified rule in Pathfinder 2nd Edition. It IS NOT a printed and codified rule in D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder First Edition.
No amount of justification that you think it SHOULD BE in there or that you interpret that it is there based on your reading of the text - it is not IN FACT in there. I asked you for a page number to the rules explaining how to handle degrees of success in the 3.X iteration and you have failed to provide it.
Multiple people told you that it wasn't in there, somehow you take people telling you that something doesn't exist as some sort of assault to your agency. That we need to respect your right to determine your personal reality exists for the rest of us - that isn't true.
I mean really, no one has said something like "well I understand that, but I just don't agree as it doesn't fit how I define things."
You're right no one has said that they don't agree with your assessment of the degree of success mechanics based on their own definitions. Everyone has said that they don't agree with your assessment of the degree of success mechanics based on the way the core books themselves define things. If the 3.X iterative D20 system included a codified degree of success mechanic - when I asked you to provide a page number for it you would have been able to do so. You were not able to do so, because it is not a codified mechanic in that game.
A degree of success is when you make a single choice which needs to be resolved, where the resolution of that choice has a non-binary outcome.
No a degree of success is the gradation of either success or failure on either end of the success threshold target number.
I honestly don't understand how this does not show you at the very least that there is enough there for someone to legitimately disagree you.
Because my contention is that there isn't a specific mechanic for degrees of success in that game, and the only thing that could be enough to show me that my contention is wrong would be if you were able to produce a degree of success mechanic published in any of the three version of the core book for that version of the game. Which you have failed to do.
And it is all straight from the book, in black and white for everyone to read.
No it isn't, because it all proceeds from your interpretation that the DC Example table is both an example of what DC's should be set as and how DC results should be interpreted - which is not stated in the book.
The question I have for you is this, can you ever accept and understand when someone has solid reasoning for having a different opinion or belief than you?
Coming back to this for my final statement. Why should you expect that you be given the courtesy of your opinion and belief being accepted and understood when you often do not provide that courtesy to others? When someone says something that disagrees with YOUR OPINION you accuse them of being too simple to grasp what you're saying. You don't offer counterpoint you just flat out tell them that they are wrong, you've done it to me and that was in a conversation that actually was about opinion.
This conversation was about which systems published degree of success mechanics people like, what matters is whether there actually is a published mechanic or not. There isn't in the case of the game you championed. You call peoples opinions wrong in discussions about opinion but demand your opinion be called correct in discussions about fact.
You always shift the onus to the other party. When they disagree with you, they're not being fair to you. If you disagree with them, they're not capable of understanding what you're saying. If you fail to communicate yourself clearly it is their fault for not interpreting your words correctly. If you offend someone it is their fault for bringing their emotional response to your statement. Your arrogant behavior does not win you any friends on this board, and I highly recommend you amend your behavior if you wish to engage in these forums meaningfully. If you keep on this way you will make more and more people unwilling to communicate with you, but you knew that already. People don't shift from a main to an alt to another alt to another alt as often as you do without recognizing that it partially comes down to you and your own behavior.
Now. This concludes our conversation. Do not ever speak to me again - using this or any of your other alts. If you do I will flag it as abuse.

Interesting Character |
Interesting Character wrote:Well, by your own admission it's also not a part of 3.5 either.TriOmegaZero wrote:Exceptional successes are not a part of the Pathfinder rule set however.Who said we were discussing pathfinder?
True, but 3.5 is part of d20 and therefore the distinction was important to note.
PF1 is based on d20 and has a great deal of similarity, but it is debatable whether it should count. In some cases I think it does but in other cases, not so much. Paizo has a very different philosophy of gameplay compared to 3.x, and pf1 is this weird amalgamation of 3.x and paizo's contrary philosophy, which is almost the inverse of 3.x's philosophy.

Tristan d'Ambrosius |

I knew Interesting Character would claim PF1 didn't count as d20. I called it. I called it. Shifting sands. Moving goalposts.
And no answers to direct questions. Like Interesting Character can you please explain the melee touch attack roll for Rusting Grasp in Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 when you said spells require no checks?

Interesting Character |
I knew Interesting Character would claim PF1 didn't count as d20. I called it. I called it. Shifting sands. Moving goalposts.
And no answers to direct questions. Like Interesting Character can you please explain the melee touch attack roll for Rusting Grasp in Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 when you said spells require no checks?
I didn't say it was totally not, I said it kinda depends on the context, in some contexts it is close enough, in others it is not. You should pay closer attention. If it is different enough to warrant it's own name, then it is different to occasionally have those differences matter.
As for rusting grasp, it is an attack roll, not a spellcraft roll.
Even you should know the difference. Disregarding that difference when I explicitly dealt with that difference is equal to taking my words out of context to suit your own own narrative.
You don't like me, therefore, you are looking for whatever victory you can find to further justify your dislike and bad behavior.

Tristan d'Ambrosius |

So the spell doesn't work without the check. I mean you cast it, but it does nothing. The spell is toothless without the check. So attack spells are contingent upon checks. So some spells, not all spells, but spells nonetheless need a check. So the statement that spells don't need a check isn't 100% correct. And if it can have a check it could conceivably have a degree of success on that check. But doesn't in d20 games.

Interesting Character |
So the spell doesn't work without the check. I mean you cast it, but it does nothing. The spell is toothless without the check. So attack spells are contingent upon checks. So some spells, not all spells, but spells nonetheless need a check. So the statement that spells don't need a check isn't 100% correct. And if it can have a check it could conceivably have a degree of success on that check. But doesn't in d20 games.
Incorrect. You cast the spell and the spell is cast, no check required. To hit a target is a separate issue entirely, and hitting targets requires a check, a combat check addressed as a combat check, not a spell check.
To claim the spell does nothing completely ignores the narrative. What happens when you are holding the target when the spell is cast? Then there is no need to hit the target and therefore no check to hit required, and therefore no check at all, because casting the spell itself requires no check, only to hit a target, which is not a spell check, nor a magic check. Hitting a target is a combat check, handled like a combat check, and therefore discussed with combat checks.
And combat checks have degrees of success, they are called criticals. They do not need to be named "degree of success" nor referred to they way to actually be degrees of success.
Now, the other one wanted to claim that non-binary outcomes don't count as degrees of success, but that is really the best description that fits well with all the explicitly named degree of success mechanics I've seen, not to mention also being a fitting description of the phrase "degrees of success," but maybe you are like them and think that it only counts if the rules themselves explicitly name it as a degrees of success mechanic. But if that is your contention, then that is where you should target your remarks. And if that is not your contention, you should put a bit more thought into your remarks and try to come up with something that isn't going to have a glaringly obvious flaw.
Unless the whole point is to just drag this on, in which case, I might ask what the point of that would be?

Steve Geddes |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Soooo... Here is a good one. How do you like a system to handle NPCs? Create them just like PCs, use their own rules, or something in-between?
I definitely prefer their own rules - only generating whats needed for potential, player-visible interactions.
To my tastes nothing is gained by pretending to build PCs and NPCs the same way and a whole lot of time is wasted.
I went through a phase of trying to run my DM characters as if they were PCs and I honestly don't understand why I ever bothered.
As a player I find it dull to watch the DM grapple to get things "right". If anything it pulls me out of the game to supposedly treat the rules as modelling laws of nature.

Haladir |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Haladir wrote:In story-game circles, there's a frequently-cited example called "The 16-hit point dragon."
In Dungeon World, the dragon stat block shows that dragons only have 16 hit points... but they're still presented as one of the most dangerous monsters out there. PCs have between 12 and 20 hp, and a combat-oriented PC could dish out that much damage on a single roll.
Here is the Dragon stat block...
The Dungeon World Rulebook wrote:
Dragon
Solitary, Huge, Terrifying, Cautious, HoarderBite (2d12+5 Damage, 4 piercing); 16 HP; 5 Armor
Reach, messySpecial Qualities: Elemental blood, Wings
Dragons are the greatest and most terrible things this world will ever have to offer.
Instinct: To rule
• Bend an element to its will
• Demand tribute
• Act with disdainDragons are terrifying because of what their stat block implies.
Sage LaTorra, co-author of Dungeon World (and the one that isn't a creep) wrote a blog post about how to use a dragon in DW to show just how dangerous they really are.
I'm not sure how true that is. I suspect much of it is that 5 Armor. :) That means the combat PC can't actually kill it in one roll, even if they can do 16 points of damage. And the fact they can do well over any PC's hp in one attack.
It's not the implications or the descriptions used, if the mechanics don't back them up. Which they do, even if the numbers are smaller than in D&D.
The big thing about fighting a dragon in DW is getting close enough to hit it: A fire-breathing dragon is going to be, um, breathing fire everywhere and setting things on fire... and then that fire obeys what the dragon wants it to do. And it can fly. And it has reach. And id does 2d12+5 damage, 4 Piercing (i.e. it ignores 4 points of armor).
So for the fighter to even get close enough to swing a sword at it, I'd be calling for multiple Defy Danger moves, with the consequence of getting set on fire, or being picked up and carried off, or being blown back by a wing buffet.
But with only 16 HP, if the PCs can find a way to bypass its armor and hit it at range (like when Bard slew Smaug at the end of The Hobbit), it could be possible to kill a dragon in one shot!

Mark Hoover 330 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
World's most interesting Pan wrote:Soooo... Here is a good one. How do you like a system to handle NPCs? Create them just like PCs, use their own rules, or something in-between?I definitely prefer their own rules - only generating whats needed for potential, player-visible interactions.
To my tastes nothing is gained by pretending to build PCs and NPCs the same way and a whole lot of time is wasted.
I went through a phase of trying to run my DM characters as if they were PCs and I honestly don't understand why I ever bothered.
As a player I find it dull to watch the DM grapple to get things "right". If anything it pulls me out of the game to supposedly treat the rules as modelling laws of nature.
For me it doesn't matter the system. I prefer NPCs the way writers handle Superman's powers - they do whatever I need them to for the scene at hand.
I run a lot of PF1. For that system I'm SUPPOSED to use an array, follow wealth guidelines and so on to build an NPC. Some NPCs however I never stat out, just make any arbitrary rolls I would based on the averages for monsters of the appropriate CR under the Monster Creation rules. Other NPCs, when I really want to milk as much danger out of the encounter as I can, I actually USE those rules and the "heroic" array to see just how brutal I can make an enemy.