Link to Legends & Lore article on Next here.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130729
...
OK my personal rant...Reading all the recent 'The Math Is Wrong' arguments on rpg.net has I think helped me make sense of the new D&D/old D&D divide. Underpinning the bitching about Next having wrong math, rulings vs. rules and various 3.x spherical cow discussions (whether Pathfinder grapple checks for the purple worm are too high), there's a very similar basic attitude; the idea that The Numbers Must Align so that a high level character has a set chance of success on 'level appropriate' actions. So if you're a high-level character, your numbers should auto-protect you from challenges. This also seems to be aligned with the whole RAW argument in that for there to even be numbers that are 'level appropriate' there has to be systems in place to use them.
I contrast that with the older-D&D idea where levels are just a reward for good playing, but not something that is expected to 100% solve any problem you come across.
An experienced character is a hero and you are rewarded with more durability and a few numerical increases, but there's no expectation that as a 20th level fighter you will be given numbers that explicitly safeguard you against 20th level monsters or traps, or keep the % success rate at an approved 50% or whatever. Instead, you're expected to use your playing ingenuity, magical items and so on, to avoid being dissolved by green slime, turned to stone, level drained by succubi, or whatever, with better armour/saves/hit points as just another weapon in your arsenal.
I think at this point I'm seeing the 'the maths must be right' argument as another expression of the argument that everything has to be RAW, and that the rules should be set up so that PCs have the right set of push-buttons on their character sheet to solve any problem they stumble across.
Discuss.
I play my rpgs with people, not calculators. If the RPG provides the experience I like, the math doesn't have to be perfectly balanced. High level characters shouldn't be de facto invincible, IMO.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;675793Link to Legends & Lore article on Next here.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130729
...
OK my personal rant...Reading all the recent 'The Math Is Wrong' arguments on rpg.net has I think helped me make sense of the new D&D/old D&D divide. Underpinning the bitching about Next having wrong math, rulings vs. rules and various 3.x spherical cow discussions (whether Pathfinder grapple checks for the purple worm are too high), there's a very similar basic attitude; the idea that The Numbers Must Align so that a high level character has a set chance of success on 'level appropriate' actions. So if you're a high-level character, your numbers should auto-protect you from challenges. This also seems to be aligned with the whole RAW argument in that for there to even be numbers that are 'level appropriate' there has to be systems in place to use them.
I contrast that with the older-D&D idea where levels are just a reward for good playing, but not something that is expected to 100% solve any problem you come across.
An experienced character is a hero and you are rewarded with more durability and a few numerical increases, but there's no expectation that as a 20th level fighter you will be given numbers that explicitly safeguard you against 20th level monsters or traps, or keep the % success rate at an approved 50% or whatever. Instead, you're expected to use your playing ingenuity, magical items and so on, to avoid being dissolved by green slime, turned to stone, level drained by succubi, or whatever, with better armour/saves/hit points as just another weapon in your arsenal.
I think at this point I'm seeing the 'the maths must be right' argument as another expression of the argument that everything has to be RAW, and that the rules should be set up so that PCs have the right set of push-buttons on their character sheet to solve any problem they stumble across.
Discuss.
Level-appropriate challenges is a very good idea for tournament play or for some types of open gaming tables. It allows players to judge their ability to compete on pure small unit tactics versus expected threats. It's moving back to the days of Kampfgruppe and squad leader.
These games can certainly be fun to play and may be fine for some settings. But as a general principle of RPGs it breaks my general rules about verisimilitude -- you shouldn't be at all confident about whether or not a given encounter is going to be dangerous or not.
Smaug wasn't a level appropriate encounter.
also keep in mind that the usual suspect's don't actually play the game, so all they have is to microanalyze the math as if every encounter is in an arena where you always go back to max resources between every encounter
A solid mathematical framework helps me enjoy the game.
QuoteSince the gap doesn't grow too large, you don't have to rely on system mastery—your mastery of how to manipulate the game system—to make an effective character. You can make a better character (character optimization is fun for many gamers) but it isn't an "I win!" card.
This is the crux of the issue for me.
Isn't it a double edged sword though?
You don't want the math to be so out of whack that a 1st level Rogue can beat any trap given x rounds or by spending their skills in a certain way.
Likewise I wouldn't want to see a 10th level PC being totally unafraid of a bunch of a dozen orcs with swords becuase they had mathematically no chance to hit him.
So math can be important. I have seem some math problems in my own game as I have playtested it and will adjust those.
My feel was that 1e/2e D&D hit a sweet spot from 5th - 9th level it was there that the balance of risk to reward, the levels, the spells, the blend of the game was at its most rewarding.
I personally felt some of the math wasn't quite right for 1-2 levels and after 12th its too hard to play without access to lots of magic.
I think some smoothing of the math would have helped.
Now I don't want good math to equal perfect CR challenges or the MMO feel of some creatures no longer being a hazard so my definition of good math might be out of whack with many but I certainly feel having a 2 ton rock dropped on your head if you trigger a certain trap should be deadly whatever level you are as should falling off an 80 foot cliff or drinking a pint of cyanide.
I guess it depends on what you want out of the game.
Personally, no, I don't want a 10th level fighter (or 10th level anyone) to be afraid of a dozen orcs. Not unless they were exceptional orcs.
Look at Conan. He rarely shied away from a fight when vastly outnumbered by men or the like. In the Phoenix on the Sword, he took on 20 opponents and won. (Okay, he didn't expect to win, and didn't have a choice, but he did)
But on the flip side, he had no qualms about fleeing from monsters he knew he couldn't handle, and either come up with an alternate solution, or just keep on running.
And in my experience with thieves, even with a high chance of finding or removing a trap, they are still going to get caught in them some of the time.
It's like the critical hits in rolemaster. They were a good idea on paper, but in my experience with the game, in the long run (and sometimes short run), they hurt the PCs far more than their opponents.
Because the PCs were in every combat, eventually they will hit a bad run of luck. And bad luck with critical or fumble tables means it's magnified. Save or Die stuff and traps are very much like those, since the stakes are so high.
Or maybe more like Russian Roulette. The odds are in your favor, but you just have to fail once...
The game should punish you for being stupid, but it should protect your character somewhat, from just bad luck.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;675797also keep in mind that the usual suspect's don't actually play the game, so all they have is to microanalyze the math as if every encounter is in an arena where you always go back to max resources between every encounter
This.
In this style of play a wizard apprentice with a grease spell has zero chance of killing a high level wizard. There's no such thing as circumstance, craftiness, surprise, etc. Setting context is irrelevant; only numbers matter.
Goblins and kobolds can never be tricky little sonsabitches who exploit their advantage. Poison tricks, murder holes, bivouac harassment, kiting, small crawl spaces, strategic retreats, etc. none of that really figures into it. High level characters are buffered by numbers as a safety net and the world does not matter.
The two playstyles (one being mostly theoretical, and if played artificially reinforced through metagame rules -- often in organized play) may never meet because of their fundamental disagreement about the game's nature. Discussion across the aisle is essentially pointless.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;675801A solid mathematical framework helps me enjoy the game.
Mearls quote: Since the gap doesn't grow too large, you don't have to rely on system mastery—your mastery of how to manipulate the game system—to make an effective character. You can make a better character (character optimization is fun for many gamers) but it isn't an "I win!" card.
This is the crux of the issue for me.
I think people (edit: well, rpg.net) are mostly complaining the math isn't working because its too 'flat', even though the flat-ness is to prevent charop.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;675808I think people (edit: well, rpg.net) are mostly complaining the math isn't working because its too 'flat', even though the flat-ness is to prevent charop.
they are complaining if their high level character doesn't always succeed at near impossible tasks. Even the best NBA dunkers often have to take several attempts at their dunk in a contest. It all really comes down to some people wanting to narrate their character actions like a story without the risk of failure.
RPG.net and the SomethingAwful squad are really just pissed that the 5e developers are backing away from the 4e system and trying to woo the 3e crowd.
Quote from: jibbajibba;675802Isn't it a double edged sword though?
You don't want the math to be so out of whack that a 1st level Rogue can beat any trap given x rounds or by spending their skills in a certain way.
Likewise I wouldn't want to see a 10th level PC being totally unafraid of a bunch of a dozen orcs with swords becuase they had mathematically no chance to hit him.
Finding what's 'broken' is pretty tricky though. The same math gets used for lots of different situations.
The 20 orcs might do a decent job on the fighter even if it takes 20s to hit him, since it'll take him a while to kill them all. Also, is it a problem if they could take him down by wrestling him down for a coup de grace instead?
What if we replace the 20 orcs with 20 dark elves with sleep poison arrows; now if you've upped the chance to hit, the fighter needs to make a tonne of poison saves and will nearly certainly die, so fixing the math for the orcs just broke it for the dark elves.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;675815Finding what's 'broken' is pretty tricky though. The same math gets used for lots of different situations.
The 20 orcs might do a decent job on the fighter even if it takes 20s to hit him, since it'll take him a while to kill them all. Also, is it a problem if they could take him down by wrestling him down for a coup de grace instead?
What if we replace the 20 orcs with 20 dark elves with sleep poison arrows; now if you've upped the chance to hit, the fighter needs to make a tonne of poison saves and will nearly certainly die, so fixing the math for the orcs just broke it for the dark elves.
See I think 20 orcs shoudl always be a problem, but a beatable one.
The figther should emerge having taken a few HPs damage, but been hit.
In my game where defence scales with level, AC absorbs damage, but HPs stay very flat (fighter gets 1 HP per level). The Orcs will get "advantage" from surrounding the fighter and he will get hit maybe 6 or 7 times in taking them all down and will end up with a handful of HPs. So he wins and is unwounded but its close and a crit or two would leve him in real trouble.
In 3e D&D the typical 20th level fighter could litterally ignore the orcs and read a book and no threat.
Now 20 Dark elves with sleep arrows should easily take down a 20th level fighter so I don't think the math there is at all broken.
Now I think it is a question of play style without a doubt. I have a pet gripe about the 'goblinoid treadmill' where there is always a level appropriate goblinoid race for your PC to fight, kobold, goblin, orc, hobgoblin, gnoll, bugbear, ogre, ..... and much prefer a more S&S feel where the low level guys fight a couple of orcs and the high level guys take on a squad of them but the level of risk is probably close in both cases.
Quote from: Opaopajr;675806The two playstyles may never meet because of their fundamental disagreement about the game's nature. Discussion across the aisle is essentially pointless.
This.
Quote from: jibbajibba;675827See I think 20 orcs shoudl always be a problem, but a beatable one.
The figther should emerge having taken a few HPs damage, but been hit.
In my game where defence scales with level, AC absorbs damage, but HPs stay very flat (fighter gets 1 HP per level). The Orcs will get "advantage" from surrounding the fighter and he will get hit maybe 6 or 7 times in taking them all down and will end up with a handful of HPs. So he wins and is unwounded but its close and a crit or two would leve him in real trouble.
In 3e D&D the typical 20th level fighter could litterally ignore the orcs and read a book and no threat.
Now 20 Dark elves with sleep arrows should easily take down a 20th level fighter so I don't think the math there is at all broken.
That's fair enough I guess. Maybe the dark elves were a bad example, though :) Partly I see the problem with the math-ing as being that usually it stops at one dice roll without looking at all the surrounding conditions.
A gaming den example: a recent thread there was complaining Mearls' +6 to save for the 17th level fighter is too low, dropping a 50% chance of saving against paralysis to 20%, but then someone else pointed out that the ghoul has to hit first before it triggers a save, so with say +6 to AC as well then in total the fighter's chance of going down from a ghoul drops from (50% x 50% = 25%) at 1st level to about (20% x 20%) = 4% at level 17...
You can see another math-fixing problem there if you were to compare, say, an invisible poison gas trap against the ghouls; if that didn't need an attack roll but had the same DCs as the ghouls, it would still be killing the 17th level fighter 20% of the time. Do you accept that, or make sure a rogue is searching for the trap, or make sure area effects (including spells, probably) always have lower DCs?
QuoteNow I think it is a question of play style without a doubt. I have a pet gripe about the 'goblinoid treadmill' where there is always a level appropriate goblinoid race for your PC to fight, kobold, goblin, orc, hobgoblin, gnoll, bugbear, ogre, ..... and much prefer a more S&S feel where the low level guys fight a couple of orcs and the high level guys take on a squad of them but the level of risk is probably close in both cases.
Yep, tastes vary.
I can sort of understand Mearls' wanting to set 'feel' first before maths, since one set of numbers could mean 10th level characters are only slightly heroic while another makes them semi-demigods.
" The math" is only good for running simulation models without actual players.
I am not interested in running simulation models that feature the player as an add on. I want the fucking game to fall completely apart without thinking human beings keeping it afloat.
Because then you know the contributions of the players matter.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;675793the idea that The Numbers Must Align so that a high level character has a set chance of success on 'level appropriate' actions. So if you're a high-level character, your numbers should auto-protect you from challenges.
I feel that you're failing to recognize a difference between low-level play and high-level play. If at 1st level you're fighting goblins and at 4th level you're fighting ogres and at 12th level you're fighting dragons, maybe it doesn't matter for you.
But for a lot of people, high level characters do very different things than low-level players. The planes themselves are their playgrounds - they keep company with the gods. If that's not your concept of 'high level play' (or anything that is fundamentally different from low-level play) slightly bigger numbers will allow for fights with slighly bigger monsters and everyone will be happy.
But it wouldn't be D&D if every 20th level fighter had an equal chance of being killed by a 1st level thief. Level matters.
The math should support that.
It's also worth pointing out that the Usual Suspects complain about the math when the math isn't the problem, so take whatever they say with a grain of salt.
For example, take this quote (emphasis mine):
QuoteTo add a concrete example. I'm running the B1-9 module using the next rules and bestiary. Party of 6 is in the middle of Elwyn's Sanctuary. They are going down this corridor and find a 30' by 20' spot of hallway with a young black dragon. The dragon tries to extort some gold from them, but they decide to fight. I use the level 10 Black Dragon from the Bestiary (I only found out there was a better one in one of the adventure conversions on Saturday morning, and did not have time to print it out.) I figure I will just cut it down to 85 hit points or so. The party is level 2. Dwarven Paladin, Half-Orc Paladin, Dwarven Fighter, Elven Ranger, Elven Druid, and Halfling Rogue. Breath weapon hits 4 of them the first use, does not recharge the rest of the fight. Paladins have no Smites left. At the end of round three, I have dropped the dwarf fighter, but the party has dished out 88 points or so to the dragon. Dropped the dwarf paladin briefly, but even with a +9 I have a really hard time hitting their AC 18s. In about five rounds, the party has killed a 10th level black dragon. So, um, yeah, in my opinion, the math needs some fixing.
If a level 2 party kills a level 10 dragon, either a) this guy is lying, b) he's one of the worst DMs in history, or c) he rolled so horribly bad that it defied statistical probability.
Neither of which is an actual math problem. Did anyone call this out or mention it? Nope, they all "OMG! That's horrible maths!"
Why? Even if you take their criteria and look at this from an arena style combat, there is no way a level 2 party under those conditions should have won, let alone so definitively.
For one, if a dragon has a +9 to hit and is trying to hit AC18 (assuming it's only attacking the most armored fighters, which is odd), that's a hit on a roll of 9 or better. That's a 60% chance to hit. So if he's having a really hard time hitting the AC, that's not a math problem. That's a dice rolling problem.
Secondly, level 2 characters are going to have about 20-23 hit points, even fighter types with good Con. The average damage for the breath weapon is 18 points. Even if all of them saved (unlikely), that's still almost half of the party hit points right in one shot.
Thirdly, the dragons bite/claw/claw attacks do an average of 33 hit points of damage each round.
By the math, against an AC 18, that's roughly 20 points per round. Or killing one PC each round.
Fourthly, even if the dragon decides not to use it's claws, it can use it's tail to knock targets prone. It takes a full action to get back up, and you take damage on top of that.
Fifthly (is that even a word?), level 2 paladins don't have their courage ability, so each character would have to make a DC 14 save vs. fear
every round. Even if you grant them a +4 bonus due to high attributes,
by the math, half the party fails each round and it lasts one minute (6 rounds)
So no, the math is not wrong. They are at a point where they are just making shit up, or completely ignoring the math, to complain about the math. That's the level of credibility you're dealing with here.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;675885Fifthly (is that even a word?),
Dickens used it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;675870I feel that you're failing to recognize a difference between low-level play and high-level play. If at 1st level you're fighting goblins and at 4th level you're fighting ogres and at 12th level you're fighting dragons, maybe it doesn't matter for you.
But for a lot of people, high level characters do very different things than low-level players. The planes themselves are their playgrounds - they keep company with the gods. If that's not your concept of 'high level play' (or anything that is fundamentally different from low-level play) slightly bigger numbers will allow for fights with slighly bigger monsters and everyone will be happy.
But it wouldn't be D&D if every 20th level fighter had an equal chance of being killed by a 1st level thief. Level matters.
The math should support that.
that is true to a degree. Its partly play style as I think we all agree, but even the 20th level character if faced with 20 dark elves shooting poison arrows should have issues. It doesn't actually matter if the 20th level PC doesn't end up in that situation because he is playing a very different game, it should matter that if they did there would still be risk.
Effectively that means that your high level Pc might well be running a kingdom dealing with politics and dark arts and so on, but the risk that the evil courtier might hire an assasin to poison them is still a risk. No one is saying a 20th level fighter should be scared of a 1st elvel thief in a stand up fight but maybe he ought to be a little woried if the thief has a poisoned blade and has managed to get behind him silently.
The 4e math is so bad out of the box that WotC issued copious errata to deal with the problem. PCs became
worse at hitting same-level monsters as they gained levels. However, this guy has a "hard time" hitting the PCs with an attack bonus that hits on a 9+.
:rolleyes:
EDIT: To be fair, there are some reasonable posts.
QuoteThe game couldn't really have any fundamental math problems. The dice probabilities are so transparent that it just comes down to tweaking specifics.
QuoteIn my experience, this has less to do with math and more to do with the fact that we don't play the same encounters arena style. Each group I'm in plays very differently, with different tactics. Same with the DM and monsters. The first group of orcs might do one thing, and the next group has learned and is using tactics and strategy to approach combat differently.
QuoteThe reason I bring it up is that the DCs should vary by campaign. Some may want 1st level characters to be much more potent, and so decrease the DCs, others may want more of a FFV experience, and have a high DCs. Having the DCs being the tweakable thing seems reasonable. I'd still probably have a tightrope be DC 20 in the example table, though. Plus I'd like to see a non-skilled rule kinda like Fantasy Craft: if you don't have a skill, you can't beat anything better than a DC of 15. Make it optional, obviously.
They are doing another iteration on the math now that they've pinned down more of the elements they want in the game, so I'm seeing what I'd expect at this stage, albeit that expectation has been tweaked for the somewhat glacial pace they have set out on.
QuoteYeah, this feels very nitpicky to me. It's not really an issue with the underlying system math. It's more about carelessly assigned skill DCs.
The rest of the thread is a trainwreck. You could tweak the numbers by a few points and solve the problem.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;675808I think people (edit: well, rpg.net) are mostly complaining the math isn't working because its too 'flat', even though the flat-ness is to prevent charop.
There is no unified feeling on rpg.net about 5e, but there was a huge thread (which I won't link to) about the maths recently. The problem really boiled to the fact that they set the DC for walking a tightrope at 25, and that even an expert thief, who dedicated everything to tightrope walking, couldn't amass enough bonuses to guarantee walking a tight rope more than 60% of the time.
They compared this situation to performers in the
Cirque du Soleil, who do things like unicycle while juggling on a tightrope, and manage it several hours a day without falling.
These people are not near demi-gods, and yet they somehow manage it, so why can't you do the same in 5e? Answer: flat maths.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;675897The 4e math is so bad out of the box that WotC issued copious errata to deal with the problem. PCs became worse at hitting same-level monsters as they gained levels. However, this guy has a "hard time" hitting the PCs with an attack bonus that hits on a 9+.
The maths is not that bad at all.
A naive person looks at it and says "the monsters get +1 per level, while the PCs get slightly less than that (ending up roughly 3 behind by level 30), and this somehow equates to the maths being broken, and the game unplayable. This completely ignores the various situational bonuses they'll accumulate, and the better play through teamwork (plus higher bonuses from people like the warlord). You should easily be getting that +3 back, and more, if you play the way the game wants you to.
I'll admit that I didn't enjoy 4e much and left the game after nearly two years of play just before we even reached paragon tier (let alone epic tier) so I have very little experience of high level play (plus our group were so hopeless at tactical play that we'd suffer greatly from that -3) but other groups I know say the game was almost too easy at high levels.
The real 4e maths issue was the monster HP and defences, and they corrected that in the later monster manuals. In fact the late 4e monster manuals are the some of the most highly regarded design among all editions of D&D. A lot of people are hoping that WotC use what they learnt in late 4e design to inform the monster design in 5e.
Quote from: spaceLem;676189There is no unified feeling on rpg.net about 5e,
Yeah there is. They hate it. But I suspect you're a bit biased, but however shall I prove it?
Quotebut there was a huge thread (which I won't link to) about the maths recently. The problem really boiled to the fact that they set the DC for walking a tightrope at 25, and that even an expert thief, who dedicated everything to tightrope walking, couldn't amass enough bonuses to guarantee walking a tight rope more than 60% of the time.
They compared this situation to performers in the Cirque du Soleil, who do things like unicycle while juggling on a tightrope, and manage it several hours a day without falling.
These people are not near demi-gods, and yet they somehow manage it, so why can't you do the same in 5e? Answer: flat maths.
Oh yeah, this is how. Because you are conviently ignoring the other posts in that thread that point out that
a) how the tightrope walk DC was assigned is the problem, not that the DC mechanic math is off
b) the part where it was pointed out that for these circus guys, 1 out of every 100 attempts results in injury. No mention on how many times there was a failure that didn't result in injury, but I imagine it's more frequent than those that do.
As I mentioned earlier, IMO this comes down to some people wanting high level character to auto-succeed at everything they do with little or no risk.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;676192Yeah there is. They hate it. But I suspect you're a bit biased, but however shall I prove it?
Oh yeah, this is how. Because you are conviently ignoring the other posts in that thread that point out that
a) how the tightrope walk DC was assigned is the problem, not that the DC mechanic math is off
b) the part where it was pointed out that for these circus guys, 1 out of every 100 attempts results in injury. No mention on how many times there was a failure that didn't result in injury, but I imagine it's more frequent than those that do.
As I mentioned earlier, IMO this comes down to some people wanting high level character to auto-succeed at everything they do with little or no risk.
Not to mention the dreaded "DM judgement" for when you even have to roll.
60% chance for a master thief under extreme stress (combat, hail of arrows, on fire, chased, etc...) to cross a tight rope? Sounds about right to me.
Or just change the DC if that doesn't sit with you (I know I know, "WAAAHHHHH IT'S BROKEN IF I HAVE TO THINK IN ANYWAY TO ADJUST IT TO MY PREFERENCES!!! WAHHHH!")
But these people can't think of in-game context (known to us as "the game"). It's an established pattern.
Quote from: spaceLem;676189The problem really boiled to the fact that they set the DC for walking a tightrope at 25, and that even an expert thief, who dedicated everything to tightrope walking, couldn't amass enough bonuses to guarantee walking a tight rope more than 60% of the time.
They compared this situation to performers in the Cirque du Soleil, who do things like unicycle while juggling on a tightrope, and manage it several hours a day without falling.
These people are not near demi-gods, and yet they somehow manage it, so why can't you do the same in 5e? Answer: flat maths.
Actually, it sounds to me like the problems is three-fold:
a) The DC of walking a tightrope is set way too high
b) WOTC D&D's insane handling of skills: that is, if you have a skill, normal usage of it under normal circumstances should not require a skill roll at all, the character should just succeed at the task. (And no, take 10 and take 20 do not actually do this). Otherwise, even a 1% chance of failure comes means failure happens more often than it does in real life.
c) skill failure and skill fumble should be two different things. Failure at walking a tightrope should just mean you have problems and it takes you longer; or you have to make a DEX check to avoid dropping something as you flail around trying to regain your balance; or you can't make it across for some reason and have to go back; or the like. You shouldn't have to worry about falling unless you fumble the skill check and therefore have to save to grap the rope before you fall off or something.
As for the
Cirque du Soleil, those folks are doing routiness they have planned out and practiced a long time in advance. Doing that routine is therefore a "normal" use of the skill for such a performer and assuming normal show conditions or better. Sure, a certain higher level of skill might be required to do the routine at all, but once that is met and one learns and practices your routine for a couple of months, it should become a normal thing to do.
If I were running a skill-based game and had a
Cirque du Soleil group of PCs, I'd probably still require a tightrope skill skill roll when the character performs his routine but for the performance. A success means you did well enough that any minor missteps aren't noticed by the audience (a critical success would mean even your fellow performers/trainers don't notice any). A failed roll would mean that you had a problem that the audience could not help but notice. A fumble means you had real problems and have to make a second skill roll. Success on the second means just a really bad personal performance that sort of ruins the entire show for the audience, while a failure means you also suffered a minor injury and a second fumble means you also suffered a major injury.
Summary: The problem isn't the math, IMHO, but the inane way you have to roll for almost everything in WOTC D&D and the fact that the DC for tightrope walking is set way too high.
Quote from: Piestrio;676199Not to mention the dreaded "DM judgement" for when you even have to roll.
.
Exactly. The Next packet literally tells you that the DCs are just examples and to assign values for what you feel works. I don't know how they could be more clearer without resorting to fingerpainting. If you don't want a tightrope walk to be a DC 25, make it a DC 20. But something that is rated as "near impossible" should have a DC of 30, because a maxed out character can still achieve it, but not all that often. That seems right to me. The DC steps seem right to me. So IMO, there's nothing wrong with the math. All of their complaints are about preferences.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;676203All of their complaints are about preferences.
Moreso that their preferences run toward being told by the rulebook exactly what to do in every moment of a game presumeably of their own imagination.
The Balance DC's do look out of whack.
Hard (DC 20): Cross a wildly swaying rope bridge
Very Hard (DC 25): Walk across a tightrope
Very Hard (DC 25): Slide down a staircase while standing on a shield
Compared with some similar activities.
Moderate (DC 15): Swing from a chandelier
Hard (DC 20): Climb a sheer surface with scant handholds
Hard (DC 20): Throw a grappling hook in the middle of a long jump
I would probably drop it down to 20. Although I am really not seeing how one dodgy target number a broken system makes...
Well, it's the d20 – do you want untrained (or basically untrained) people to ever be able to walk a tightrope? I think the idea of DC 25 is that tightrope-walking is one of those feats you just can't run up and do with a stroke of luck.
I dunno about climbing a sheer surface, though...
Quote from: Imp;676219Well, it's the d20 – do you want untrained (or basically untrained) people to ever be able to walk a tightrope? I think the idea of DC 25 is that tightrope-walking is one of those feats you just can't run up and do with a stroke of luck.
I dunno about climbing a sheer surface, though...
I've done both, and the chances of someone untrained/unpracticed doing either are virtually nil.
Quote from: Bobloblah;676220I've done both, and the chances of someone untrained/unpracticed doing either are virtually nil.
I haven't done tightrope walking, but I've done my fair share of mountain and rock climbing. Without the training on how to do something like that, most people would just try to muscle it, and all that does is make your arms like jello after about 10 feet of climbing. Proper technique and training cannot be underestimated.
Examples of recommended values are canonical!
So shall it be written, so shall it be done!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;676222I haven't done tightrope walking, but I've done my fair share of mountain and rock climbing. Without the training on how to do something like that, most people would just try to muscle it, and all that does is make your arms like jello after about 10 feet of climbing. Proper technique and training cannot be underestimated.
Exactly. While there might be issues with a DC25 for a tightrope, it's not on the side of untrained individuals. I also agree with the earlier points about a Cirque performer's act being very controlled, rehearsed conditions.
I've seen this kind of pedantry in other areas, such as movies, and I've watched even "domain experts" get things wrong (
my pilot friend who asserted, while watching Alive, that planes didn't have warning systems that said "Pull up!" when approching terrain. Turns out nothing he'd flown to that point, after years of flying, did, but plenty of other planes do. It ruined his experience of the movie). It still hurts their suspension of disbelief, whether they were right or wrong.
RPG Geeks certainly seem to have this penchant for attempting to pick apart the games they play in spades (the issue of, "That's not realistic!"), as well as a tendency to do so on nothing more than something they read online once. This often, in my experience, stems not from an inability to suspend disbelief based on prior knowledge, so much as from a desire to appear smart.
In truth, very little of what's in RPGs is realistic, but all the things one has no knowledge or experience of are easy to accept, while even a shred of second-hand knowledge apparently makes it impossible to shut up about a particular topic.
There are an awful lot of topics that I feel I've had far more knowledge of than game or module designers, but I've never felt the need to disrupt the game or others enjoyment over that fact. Moreover, I've rarely had issues suspending my disbelief. Some of that is no doubt the fantasy environment, but some of it is also the
vagueness of described events and tasks; I can always imagine what I believe to be a realistic scenario over top of the vague descriptions provided. I also feel no need to try and prove I'm smart by ruining the RPG session for everyone else.
Well I think we can all agree that sliding down a staircase while standing on a shield should be a DC 20 check.
Assuming you've done it, I'd buy that.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;676192Yeah there is. They hate it. But I suspect you're a bit biased, but however shall I prove it?
I'm not biased. Ill informed, forgetful, or bad at arguing perhaps (I hope not), but not biased. As for the rest of rpg.net, it's a forum and comes with different opinions as standard.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;676192Oh yeah, this is how. Because you are conviently ignoring the other posts in that thread that point out that
a) how the tightrope walk DC was assigned is the problem, not that the DC mechanic math is off
b) the part where it was pointed out that for these circus guys, 1 out of every 100 attempts results in injury. No mention on how many times there was a failure that didn't result in injury, but I imagine it's more frequent than those that do.
As I mentioned earlier, IMO this comes down to some people wanting high level character to auto-succeed at everything they do with little or no risk.
There were loads of posts, I don't have a photographic memory (there's nothing convenient about that), my enduring memory was discussion about whether or not circus people should be able to walk a tightrope with falling most of the time (when these guys are doing things much more complicated).
Personally I'm with those who say the DC is too high, but there's only so much you can do when your randomiser is a d20 and you're trying to keep things flat. The best bet would be to lay off getting people to roll all the time. If you've put all the points into your character, I'm going to make sure that character passes unless there's a good reason not to.
It's almost as though the d20 system doesn't accurately model reality and that it doesn't try to do so.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;676240It's almost as though the d20 system doesn't accurately model reality and that it doesn't try to do so.
No, no, no, no! If it doesn't, then we just need to fix the math so it does!
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Bobloblah;676242No, no, no, no! If it doesn't, then we just need to fix the math so it does!
:rolleyes:
That's something that still baffles me.
"The DC to tightrope walk is too high! The system is broken!"
"Why not just lower the DC?"
"No! The math is broken! The system doesn't work!"
"Wouldn't it be easier to just lower the DC for that task? The actual math is pretty sound."
"No! No! No!"
I don't get it.
You know why, you are just disheartened by the answer. Like I said, never the twain shall meet. Modeling the impossible is a game unto itself; let them enjoy their fun.
(And let's nip this in the bud before it starts: collecting empirical data from imagination land is fruitless; contorting empirical data into imagination land suffers loss in translation. But have fun persisting anyway.)
Quote from: Bobloblah;676232RPG Geeks certainly seem to have this penchant for attempting to pick apart the games they play in spades (the issue of, "That's not realistic!"), as well as a tendency to do so on nothing more than something they read online once. This often, in my experience, stems not from an inability to suspend disbelief based on prior knowledge, so much as from a desire to appear smart.
In truth, very little of what's in RPGs is realistic, but all the things one has no knowledge or experience of are easy to accept, while even a shred of second-hand knowledge apparently makes it impossible to shut up about a particular topic.
The absolute worst I've come across this (both inside and outside of rpg games), are younger individuals who are in college majoring in something like engineering, physics, chemistry, math, etc ... with a huge chip on their shoulder (for whatever reasons).
It's even annoying watching Star Trek episodes with such individuals.
Quote from: ggroy;676275The absolute worst I've come across this (both inside and outside of rpg games), are younger individuals who are in college majoring in something like engineering, physics, chemistry, math, etc ... with a huge chip on their shoulder (for whatever reasons).
It's even annoying watching Star Trek episodes with such individuals.
Sounds to me like someone wallowing in their ignorance.
There are so many ways to get the science right (or at least, explain away apparent contradictions easily enough) that for a movie or TV show to make a major error in basic Netwonian physics is pretty inexcusable. It certainly distracts from the plot for those who understand why something like that won't work - and if the plot relies on that element, it can ruin the whole movie.
I'm not talking about something like Time Travel in Back to the Future - you accept the premise that time travel is possible so you don't have to worry too much about the physics - and they don't try to explain them in a stupid way. But in a movie version of the Time Machine the moon explodes because they removed too much of the core - I mean, explodes like they dynamited the whole thing with more nuclear bombs that have ever existed on Earth. I found that difficult to accept.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;676278Sounds to me like someone wallowing in their ignorance.
For somebody at a relatively young age, I usually chalk it up to youthful enthusiasm and naivety. Many will grow out of it eventually as they get older.
The ones who don't grow out of it, typically become one of those individuals that nobody wants to socialize with. (Or they join groups like Mensa :rolleyes: ).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;676278There are so many ways to get the science right (or at least, explain away apparent contradictions easily enough) that for a movie or TV show to make a major error in basic Netwonian physics is pretty inexcusable. It certainly distracts from the plot for those who understand why something like that won't work - and if the plot relies on that element, it can ruin the whole movie.
Over the years I've come to the realization that most of the scientific ignorance in tv shows and movies (especially sci-fi stuff), is largely an ingrained status quo. I largely don't care anymore about the writers being complete idiots when it comes to science. If I'm not enjoying something on the screen for whatever reasons, it's easier to just change the channel on the tv (or walk out of the theater), than constantly griping about the same scientific ignorance that is repeated constantly in numerous tv shows and movies.
If one removes all the scientific inaccuracies from many tv shows or movies, it probably won't be much different than a generic police show and/or a soap opera.
These days I mostly judge tv shows and movies on whether they keep my attention, regardless of how ignorant and lazy the writers are. If I get bored while watching (for whatever reasons), I'll just change the channel.
For example, I really liked watching the tv show Fringe, largely because it kept my attention for the first four seasons. This is all in spite of the "science" being completely bogus and crackpot. (In hindsight, I still don't know why exactly I liked the show).
To go back to the actual Wizards' post, I do like the idea of flattening the math and the ranges so the gulf between high and low is not so fast. That's something the older editions did well, and the 3e and later seemed to deliberately suck at.
Fuck this bullshit about 'level appropriate challenges' both ways. I want the PCs to potentially be able to score a hit on the dragon at level 2, and at the same time, I want that fuckin' Kobold to still have a chance to knife the fighter who's level 12.
One of the reasons I went to a roll under system in H&H was that it confined the ranges so that this was more possible. The older editions worked this through the to-hit tables and through using roll-under for non-combat challenges. I like it. I like that it lets powerful characters be powerful, but not inhuman gods. It also means that lower level creatures don't become useless at later levels, they can still put up a fight and by a fun challenge without necessarily having to 'roid them up.
Quote from: ggroy;676292If one removes all the scientific inaccuracies from many tv shows or movies, it probably won't be much different than a generic police show and/or a soap opera.
Maybe.
Good science fiction has just enough scientific basis to create a willing suspension of disbelief to allow the story or game to happen. At least that is my opinion.
I'd just lower the Balance DCs a bit.
Quote from: RPGPundit;676530I'd just lower the Balance DCs a bit.
Get out of here with your simple, common sense solution. How are the masses supposed to maintain their rage unless the math is horribly broken!
I'm not even really sure the DCs are off...the Cirque example is comparing ideal conditions with the rogue who happens upon a slim wire that needs to be traversed in a dungeon (or whereever). What should the chances of success for someone who has dedicated themselves to such a task be? Should the DC try and emulate some kind of real world odds? I don't think the haters are going to like that, as the results would likely be grim. There's a reason people practice these things for years before doing them under controlled conditions. Should it be "cinematic," whatever that means (main characters rarely fail these things in movies)?
I think there's also an underlying problem others have alluded to that confuses what a skill check represents, and hence, when a skill check is required.