Do you like rolling to beat a variable target number more or rolling to beat a static target number more?
Same operation in the end, but I think they give off a different senses in the fiction. Rolling for a variable target number makes it feel like you are dealing with degrees of magnitude in the world as a whole. You know something is much more advanced if it has a higher target number like a dragon who is hit on an 18 on a d20 as compared to a kobold on a 12, even if your bonuses are now much higher too. While rolling for a static number feels like you are averaging the pluses and minuses out comparatively between you and the object. Lets say the static number to beat is 11 and you have a plus 7 to hit a dragon which has a + 7 defense in return
So basically how tough is this thing in the world's general scaling of things vs how tough is this thing relative to you.
I think both have their advantages. and many games choose one or the other.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Variable, with extensive benchmark DCs and modifiers, and explicitly spelled out rules for when not to roll (or bonuses that get big enough to slide tasks below your minimum roll, take your pick).
Static target number is a deal breaker.
Like metacurrencies.
Both have roughly the same outcome, so we have to look beyond logistics and into the psychological element.
Maluses feel like punishment, even if they're just intrinsic to balance the difficulty of affecting a monster. A high difficulty feels more like the 'law of the land' and 'fair' by comparison.
How does
>you always roll vs 11
Equal to
>you roll with different odds as makes sense in context
?
Because he means
>difficult tasks have a higher target number; verses
>difficult tasks have a penalty to your roll with the same target
Which is mathematically equal.
I prefer the former as it lends itself better to interpreting the result as how well you performed, rather than meaningless beyond pass/fail. Which seems to be almost everyone's default interpretation for roll over systems whether it's stated or not.
Does he mean that? Okay. My experience with shit like 5td is it gets run with no difficulties or modifiers, its always against the same target number. Which is garbage.
Whether you raise the DC like 3.5e, or give a penalty like GURPS, those are the same to me.
I just care that designing a rocket and jumping over a 5ft hole are different in ways that seems reasonable, and the game rules spell it out in depth in a sensible manner, providing for consistency and player agency in being able to plan around the Target Numbers or Difficulty Modifiers, by learning how the game works.
Yah this is what I meant, sorry I explained it in a weird way.
I can definetly apreciate that part, it gives you a nice sense of scale. Though I do think there is something to be said for the static model if you are going to engage with things of vastly different scale and you dont really want a "focal point" for how universally tough rolls are and instead want it to be perceived as more comparative between you and whats in front of you.
>variable TN vs static TN
I incorporate a little of column B in with a little column A.
The defense checks of a character, once decided at character creation, are mostly static throughout the entire adventure, and rolls for loot are relegated to static tables. Every other difficulty check is fluid, based on equipped gear or passive skills.
>Do you like rolling to beat a variable target number more or rolling to beat a static target number more?
Assuming the math is worked out to be the same? Both are fine. I think rolling against a static number is easier to work with since you eventually just remember what rolls mean success and which don't (Which is especially good if you're bad at on the fly quick math), but if you can do math just fine, then the difference is probably negligible.
I will say though, the more "parts" a system has, the more fine tweaks you can make to better fit the scenario.
In a typical DnD skill check, you have 4 "knobs" to turn.
>The Attribute used, the
>Skill used
>DC
>Circumstantial modifiers to the players roll (advantage / disadvantage, +1d4 from bless, etc)
Those 4 knobs or "variables" as I'll call them are tuned by the DM to best represent what the PC is attempting to do. This system is very well suited to simple "pass or fail" checks where there isn't any degree's of how hard you succeed or fail, like picking up and moving a heavy boulder or "roll to see if you know this", but it is not well suited to tasks that have a wide variance in how well you succeed or how badly you fail, like in performing surgery or navigating based on a crummy old map.
In a "static DC" system, you have one less variable for the DM to adjust, which makes it ever so slightly more difficult to represent certain tasks, but not by a huge amount.
Whichever convient for the designer results in a single die roll to do anything. No plethora of different dice, no multiple rolls back to back. Whichever they want to result in a single die roll.
sliding
I prefer static, because it gives you more of a perspective of your character (and leads to marginally better immersion)
IDK, I think the immersion piece goes both ways. I think variable gives you a sense of just how chalanging the act is in the world as a whole. And as a denizen of the would you compare yourself to the world in general too.
Like how if two roughly equal gods fight, there is an intrinsic massiveness in a variable system, while it feels like much more like two normal men fighting in a static system.
Absolute weight vs relative weight. Not that either is wrong, but there is a sort of merit to both.
Idk, to me the god’s eyes view makes sense for world-immersion, but not character-immersion, if that makes sense.
It should be a mix of both. Some things are better represented with static targets (Inherent abilities of the one making the actions) and some are better represented with variable targets (The interactions of the action depending on who you are performing that action onto)
Numbers should go up, that's how I know I'm playing RPG.
For me it's dice pool systems with varying degrees of success depending on how many hits against a variable target number you've made. I do not care for single pass/fail checks, far too swingy.
That's a good one, finding an excuse to dump big piles of dice on the table is always a plus.
Traits are defined by their Rank, which indicate how competent / experienced / powerful a character is in that area or with that Power. Trait Ranks are represented by dice, so the more Ranks you have, the more dice you roll when using that Trait. Ranks are represented by Nd, where N is both your rank and the number of dice you roll. Generally, for Abilities and Talents, normal humans have up to 5d, and 6d is considered the boundary between normal and superhuman.
All actions are resolved as challenge rolls. You roll a number of six-sided dice equal to a relevant trait. Discard odd numbers. Each 2 and 4 are worth one success. Each 6 is worth two successes. Subtract the roll's Threshold from your successes : this is your net successes. For an opposed roll (which is the usual case), your threshold is just the number of successes your opponent gets.
Usually "actor" means whoever initiated the action, and "opponent" is their target. In a fight, this means "attacker" and "defender".
If you're not obviously acting against some other being, like is usually the case for most Talent rolls, the GM will assign a Threshold instead. In this case, the GM is considered the opponent for the purposes of narration.
>Do you like rolling to beat a variable target number more or rolling to beat a static target number more?
I generally prefer variable target numbers, static numbers inevitably lead to silly situations and there's seriously awkward moments where something is hard enough it shouldn't simply be an auto success (which these systems tend to make liberal use of for straight forward tasks) but not so hard that it should literally have the same target number as seducing the queen of the fae into lending her army to help your kingdom, or parkouring through a collapsing ruin while a giant Indiana Jones boulder chases you. And shit like boons and banes only goes so far, if there's any flat bonuses or ways to boost your roll against adverse circumstances you can usually make it so a legendary feat of heaven defying significance was like, 15-20% harder than if you were just trying to jump higher than you're normally allowed to jump.