It's not about knowing in advance what the target number should be as much as it is a target number being defined by the rules and not arbitrarily chosen by the DM.
If you're still baffled by this distinction, forget saving throws and think about skill checks: Do you not see the difference between two systems, one in which skills are represented by percentages and resolved with percentile rolls, and the other in which skills are ranked with increments of percentiles to then be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the GM just choosing what the chance will be in order to succeed or fail?
On the surface, these might seem to be essentially the same thing. They are not. One player knows his or her character has a # percent chance of doing something in most situations. The other only knows what would be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll that needs to beat a target number the GM will arbitrarily choose. The former provides a much more concrete and less abstract representation of a character's abilities. At least in my view. And I prefer that.
I have to say that I have never experienced the issue you seem to have. You keep saying that the DM just arbitrarily makes up the target number (with the intent of insuring an intended outcome) but that really shouldn't be the case. Most things that happens have a set DC, either from the spell, item, class feature or from whatever rule it is that forces/allows you to do the thing you are doing. For example you mentioned poisons before, there are quite a lot of effects that can poison a character but they say what the DC is. A Potion of Poison has a DC 13 to save, a Dagger of Venom has a DC 15 and a Giant Coral Snake had a DC 12 while a Acererak has a DC 20 (against being paralysed). A standard Lock is a DC 15 to pick (but better locks can have a higher DC) while a Lock of Trickery has the same DC but adds disadvantage and Manacles also has the same DC (but a DC 20 to get out of them through strength or dexterity].
This is just a small sample of things where the rules gives us a clear DC to beat, for stuff that doesn't have a specified DC then the "easy" - "hard" - "impossible" table that has been linked already gives clear guidance on what an appropriate DC would be. Sure any DC (specified or not) can be changed by the DM if he feels that is necessary but that rarely happens in my experience, giving out advantage/disadvantage when it fits the circumstances is far more common. The only time I can remember that a DM have decided completely arbitrarily on a DC is when a player has done some completely improvised and inventive shit that the designers never imagined someone would do.
So I guess I have to ask the same as most others have, if the DM in your games are intentionally railroading you/other players how can that be a problem with the system and not a problem with the DM?
Who decides whether a task is easy, hard, or impossible for all those things we want to do for which there is no specified DC? Which is most things. The DM does. You don't think those decisions are ever informed by a DM's desire to see a character succeed or fail? "I can't really let that character take that thing from that NPC. So I'll just make the DC 30." That's not about how "easy," "hard," or "impossible" something is, is it? It's much more about the impulses of the DM. I'm not saying it's objectively better if the player simply knows what his or her thief's chances are of pickpocketing someone in most situations because the rules tell him or her what that is. Not the DM. Only that I prefer this than the way skills are now handled.
Who decides whether a task is easy, hard, or impossible for all those things we want to do for which there is no specified DC? Which is most things. The DM does. You don't think those decisions are ever informed by a DM's desire to see a character succeed or fail? "I can't really let that character take that thing from that NPC. So I'll just make the DC 30." That's not about how "easy," "hard," or "impossible" something is, is it? It's much more about the impulses of the DM. I'm not saying it's objectively better if the player simply knows what his or her thief's chances are of pickpocketing someone in most situations because the rules tell him or her what that is. Not the DM. Only that I prefer this than the way skills are now handled.
That isn't about anything other than a crappy DM, though.
I mean, like, super crappy. I have a word for that kind of DM, but it's use was ruined in 2015.
Someone out there has probably made a whole slew of tables and such that would work for more specific situations (like the hardness of a door or such) but, really, even 1e and 2e didn't have nearly the kinds of in depth stuff that would be required for that -- they just said the same thing: roll against a score determined by the DM.
That takes us back to the percentage/probability issue I mentioned earlier -- 1e and 2e used straight percentages, and, ultimately, sucked just as much.
That DM sucks. I'd get the F outta that game. Or start bribing the hell out of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Who decides whether a task is easy, hard, or impossible for all those things we want to do for which there is no specified DC? Which is most things. The DM does. You don't think those decisions are ever informed by a DM's desire to see a character succeed or fail?
I'm sure they sometimes are, but you could do the same thing in AD&D. The only difference between roll-over and roll-under systems is that a roll-under system clearly specifies a default difficulty.
On the surface, these might seem to be essentially the same thing. They are not. One player knows his or her character has a # percent chance of doing something in most situations. The other only knows what would be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll that needs to beat a target number the GM will arbitrarily choose. The former provides a much more concrete and less abstract representation of a character's abilities. At least in my view. And I prefer that.
In AD&D, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Poison please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "5". The player looks at their sheet and sees "Poison Save 12". They roll a d20, add 5, and have to get 12 or under. A success requires rolling 7 or under, a 35% chance.
In D&D 5E, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Constitution please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". The player looks at their sheet and sees "CON Save +6". They roll a d20, add 6, and have to get 20 or over. A success requires rolling 14 or over, a 35% chance.
What's the difference?
Edited to add: I have just found one difference - the 5E books tells us that easy is 10, medium is 15, hard is 20, and so on. The AD&D 1E book does not, just says, "You may assign modifiers to any saving thvows as you see fit, always keeping in mind game balance." So 1E ends up being more arbitrary, with no guidance for the GM on what "easy" and "hard" mean. One GM might say hard means +2; another might say hard is +6.
On the surface, these might seem to be essentially the same thing. They are not. One player knows his or her character has a # percent chance of doing something in most situations. The other only knows what would be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll that needs to beat a target number the GM will arbitrarily choose. The former provides a much more concrete and less abstract representation of a character's abilities. At least in my view. And I prefer that.
In AD&D, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Poison please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "5". The player looks at their sheet and sees "Poison Save 12". They roll a d20, add 5, and have to get 12 or under. A success requires rolling 7 or under, a 35% chance.
In D&D 5E, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Constitution please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". The player looks at their sheet and sees "CON Save +6". They roll a d20, add 6, and have to get 20 or over. A success requires rolling 14 or over, a 35% chance.
What's the difference?
In the paragraph that proceeds that paragraph, in which I provide examples of two systems using percentile rolls to mimic the old way and the new way to demonstrate why I find the concept of DCs much too abstract, I specifically said to forget saving throws and instead think about skills.
What do you do? Give examples using saving throws. Forget saving throws and think about skills:
You see no difference in a player being able to say my thief has a # percent chance of doing this thing in most situations and a player only being able to say I get to add or subtract this number to or from a roll but my actual chance of succeeding or failing at that something in most situations I really can't tell you without doing the math? And when I've done that math it won't really matter if the DM impulsively decides on a DC greater or lower than what I'd call easy, hard, or impossible?
You see no difference?
Functionally these might seem to be the same thing. They are different. In how they represent and resolve skills.
You see no difference in a player being able to say my thief has a # percent chance of doing this thing in most situations and a player only being able to say I get to add or subtract this number to or from a roll but my actual chance of succeeding or failing at that something in most situations I really can't tell you without doing some serious ******* math?
Subtraction is serious math? Your chance of success is 5% x (skill bonus + 21 - DC); at a typical DC of 15 that's 30% + 5% x skill bonus.
Yes, I am a sociologist and I deal in statistics and numbers and data manipulation all day long. Even while on here. That isn't math. That is insanity. Insanity is what you get to when you start having to do something like basic algebra and geometry. Yeah, we all have fancy names for it, but have you ever talked to us while we are in the middle of a analysis?
DD&D doesn't involve math. If adding and subtracting numbers typically under 30 is a problem, then you need an assistive device. They are called Calculators. If you can read this, you have one.
Moved it again, lol. Gotta say, I am impressed. I have seen games from 3rd graders that moved posts less.
Just say you are mad at your DM, lol
I only mentioned math to point out the calculation that would need to be done to determine how a bonus or penalty against a static DC rolled on a d20 could be rendered a percentage because someone else did that when comparing two identical situations for a save to be made to show that there was functionally no difference between the two systems. How is that my shifting the goalposts?
What you've done is entirely misrepresent my mention of math, acting like I'm talking about just having to add or subtract something to or from a number less than 30. Which isn't what I was talking about. There is a word for the fallacy you've just performed.
I'm not shifting the goalposts to make this all about math. I am saying there is a difference between knowing that thief has a # percent chance of doing something in most situations and only knowing what would be added or subtracted to or from a roll and just hoping the DC is what they think it will be in most situations were they to want to calculate the equivalent chance because someone else said they could.
The goalposts remain in the same place: I prefer a character having a fixed target number determined by class and level to allowing a DM to decide what that target number will be. And I prefer sub-systems that make use of more than one die to not render some in a set of seven completely redundant. Having to explain things over and over and articulate the difference between having a fixed target number and one chosen by the DM and having to stray here and there to help people see that difference because people kept insisting there is no difference between the two isn't shifting the goalposts.
What you are calling "shifting the goalposts" here would be like calling it "shifting the goalposts" during a debate because one team provided a rebuttal to something the other team said. That something in no way conflicts with their overall position, with whether they agree or disagree. They've just had to say something else because the other team has presented an argument that isn't one.
OP, are you unsatisfied by 3.5e's tracking table? Here's a little summary of it for reference.
You start with a base DC for the type of ground (try to figure out the difference between firm and hard yourself). Modify it for the number of creatures you're tracking. Modify it again for their size. Once more for the amount of time since the tracks were made. Then, modify it for the weather during that time, and again for the weather now. Finally, modify it based on whether your quarry was attempting to hide their tracks.
It's a pretty in-depth table, which gives the DM a hard and fast number to use as the DC. There are a lot of tables like that in 3.5e. It's the most rigorous edition of the game, as far as I'm aware. If you're playing by all the rules, it's very, very uncommon for the DM to just make up a number.
OP, are you unsatisfied by 3.5e's tracking table? Here's a little summary of it for reference.
You start with a base DC for the type of ground (try to figure out the difference between firm and hard yourself). Modify it for the number of creatures you're tracking. Modify it again for their size. Once more for the amount of time since the tracks were made. Then, modify it for the weather during that time, and again for the weather now. Finally, modify it based on whether your quarry was attempting to hide their tracks.
It's a pretty in-depth table, which gives the DM a hard and fast number to use as the DC. There are a lot of tables like that in 3.5e. It's the most rigorous edition of the game, as far as I'm aware. If you're playing by all the rules, it's very, very uncommon for the DM to just make up a number.
Tables like this that provide a more in-depth guide for DCs are fine. My complaint is more about when the DM has to decide how difficult something will be. This to me seems more about what the DM would rather the PC not be able to do than it is about how difficult the task may actually be. If the player doing that thing gets in the way of what the DM has in store for his or her players. With actual context, for example if the Duke has guards observing the room, then yes it makes sense that the DC to steal something from him is going to be more difficult than were the party's thief just stealing something from someone out on the street. But how often does a DM just make it more difficult to do so by virtue of nothing more than its being the Duke or his or her not wanting the player to steal the object in question?
As others have pointed out, that arbitrary an approach to what is easy, difficult, or impossible would be bad DM-ing. But bad DM-ing in a world already with too few DMs is abundant.
As a matter of preference, I prefer the rules to tell me how much of a chance that thief has to rob the Duke if there are no conditional factors at play than for the DM to get to decide. There's rulings over rules. And then there's leaving so much up to the DM's discretion it feels as if the game may as well be diceless.
In D&D 5E, a moderate difficulty task has a DC of 15.
So you could look at all your skill modifiers and decide how easy that would make a roll against a DC of 15. This gives you a fixed chance of success for each skill.
When the task has a difficulty different from Moderate, then you will add or subtract from your assumed chance of succeeding at a DC of 15.
Who decides whether a task is easy, hard, or impossible for all those things we want to do for which there is no specified DC? Which is most things. The DM does.
In my experience that isn't true. The wast majority of DC's come as a set number from the skill, spell, feature, rule or adventure (or is a contest). Usually the ones the DM has to decide is the non-normal stuff that I'm glad I don't have to search through page after page of tables to find the one line that corresponds to this exact improvised idea I had.
You don't think those decisions are ever informed by a DM's desire to see a character succeed or fail? "I can't really let that character take that thing from that NPC. So I'll just make the DC 30." That's not about how "easy," "hard," or "impossible" something is, is it? It's much more about the impulses of the DM. I'm not saying it's objectively better if the player simply knows what his or her thief's chances are of pickpocketing someone in most situations because the rules tell him or her what that is. Not the DM. Only that I prefer this than the way skills are now handled.
Can't say I've ever had that happening tbh. I've had a DM say "no" for functional reasons but not for story reasons. Not as I know at least, it has probably happened at some point but certainly not enough that it would be considered a problem. And even if it was I just can't see how it would be a problem with the system, to me it would be a problem with the DM and thus an issue that would persist regardless of system.
Besides you say that you favour a system that have fixed target numbers but allows for the DM to add modifiers when needed and I just can't see how that is different. Both systems use a dice roll, modifiers to that roll and a target number to achieve. How is having a fixed target but variable modifiers different to having fixed modifiers and a variable target?
Who decides whether a task is easy, hard, or impossible for all those things we want to do for which there is no specified DC? Which is most things. The DM does.
In my experience that isn't true. The wast majority of DC's come as a set number from the skill, spell, feature, rule or adventure (or is a contest). Usually the ones the DM has to decide is the non-normal stuff that I'm glad I don't have to search through page after page of tables to find the one line that corresponds to this exact improvised idea I had.
You don't think those decisions are ever informed by a DM's desire to see a character succeed or fail? "I can't really let that character take that thing from that NPC. So I'll just make the DC 30." That's not about how "easy," "hard," or "impossible" something is, is it? It's much more about the impulses of the DM. I'm not saying it's objectively better if the player simply knows what his or her thief's chances are of pickpocketing someone in most situations because the rules tell him or her what that is. Not the DM. Only that I prefer this than the way skills are now handled.
Can't say I've ever had that happening tbh. I've had a DM say "no" for functional reasons but not for story reasons. Not as I know at least, it has probably happened at some point but certainly not enough that it would be considered a problem. And even if it was I just can't see how it would be a problem with the system, to me it would be a problem with the DM and thus an issue that would persist regardless of system.
Besides you say that you favour a system that have fixed target numbers but allows for the DM to add modifiers when needed and I just can't see how that is different. Both systems use a dice roll, modifiers to that roll and a target number to achieve. How is having a fixed target but variable modifiers different to having fixed modifiers and a variable target?
I've used the example of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, and other games that use percentages to represent a character's mastery of skills (i.e. fixed target with variable modifiers) and an imaginary system that would turn that on its head and instead rank skills with increments of percentiles to be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll that then needs to beat a percentage that represents the task itself (i.e.fixed modifiers with a variable target) to try to make clear the difference. Functionally they may be the same. But in terms of how skills are represented and resolved? Those are two very different games.
Neither is objectively better because, assuming the DM is being fair in his or her assessment of what is easy, difficult, or impossible to determine those variables, the probabilities should line up, shouldn't they? I still prefer the first of these as I feel it is much more concrete and less abstract.
Maybe you're right and what I fear might be happening isn't happening all that much. But it's not hard to imagine a DM who has something in store for his or her players is likely to make a perfectly possible task next to impossible if its being achieved is going to ruin his or her plans. Particularly a DM who is more about the storytelling than about just allowing players to explore and to interact with the environments and the objects in his or her sandbox setting. Others have pointed out it's a DM issue more so than a system issue. And that's fair enough.
in reading this, many of the issues are DM related. A bad DM is going to be bad, regardless of the type of die you roll (d6, d20, d100).
For me, the issue with today's focus on D20 is two parts: the 5% increments and the reliance on the plus/minus of ability score.
first - 5% is just too small of a change for some things. 1AD&D used d100 (percentile) a lot for various checks on abilities. that allows for more flexibility in play and success/failure. (33% / 66% chance or even a 1% chance of success) - one of the best games i had was trying to kill a character who made 3 successful 1% die rolls. It's a bigger laugh than just 3 20s.. and much harder. You feel better giving them the win (stupid enough to be 'almost' swallowed by a dragon). The game is too built around 5% sets and failure 2.
second - ability scores only care about even numbers. that makes the d20 issue even greater and game choices of players smaller. You are hurt when you don't have even ability scores and, with d20's 5% jumps, an additional +1 is more powerful than ever (especially when there is little else to add/subtract). Focusing on those pluses or minuses have a major impact. Again, 1AD&D (and 2AD&D) actually cared if you had a Dex of 14 or 15. It matter towards success and failure. Now? Little happens in that direction unless the DM decides to do something different.
In the end, it's the 5% rule (and the ubiquitous 1=failure, 20=success) that causes the d20 issue. Expanding past that opens up the game. I understand why they may have moved for simplicity reasons. Yes, THAC0 and others had more range but seems... gnostic. But d20 is too limiting and overused.
Neither is objectively better because, assuming the DM is being fair in his or her assessment of what is easy, difficult, or impossible to determine those variables, the probabilities should line up, shouldn't they? I still prefer the first of these as I feel it is much more concrete and less abstract.
Okay, that's cool. I feel like there isn't anything more to say. (Let's see how many more pages this goes.)
What do you do? Give examples using saving throws. Forget saving throws and think about skills:
OK.
In AD&D 1E, the GM says, "Roll to Climb a Hard wall please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". ¹ The player looks at their sheet and sees "Climb 85%". They roll a d%, add 20, and have to get 85 or under. A success requires rolling 65 or under, a 65% chance.
(Unless of course the character is not a thief, in which case they stand at the bottom of the wall looking wisfully upwards.)
In D&D 5E, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Constitution climb check please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". The player looks at their sheet and sees "CON Save STR (Athletics) +6". They roll a d20, add 6, and have to get 20 or over. A success requires rolling 14 or over, a 35% chance.
_____
¹ In practice... the GM answers, "I don't know what hard means, the book doesn't say, umm, let's say a hard wall is +20. Is that too low? Should it be +30?"
And then the player asks, "Do I have to roll under or over?" and everyone has to think about which parts of the game use roll-under and which use roll-over. After all, this is the game where +1 armour subtracts 1 from your armour class.
What do you do? Give examples using saving throws. Forget saving throws and think about skills:
OK.
In AD&D 1E, the GM says, "Roll to Climb a Hard wall please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". ¹ The player looks at their sheet and sees "Climb 85%". They roll a d%, add 20, and have to get 85 or under. A success requires rolling 65 or under, a 65% chance.
(Unless of course the character is not a thief, in which case they stand at the bottom of the wall looking wisfully upwards.)
In D&D 5E, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Constitution climb check please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". The player looks at their sheet and sees "CON Save STR (Athletics) +6". They roll a d20, add 6, and have to get 20 or over. A success requires rolling 14 or over, a 35% chance.
_____
¹ In practice... the GM answers, "I don't know what hard means, the book doesn't say, umm, let's say a hard wall is +20. Is that too low? Should it be +30?"
And then the player asks, "Do I have to roll under or over?" and everyone has to think about which parts of the game use roll-under and which use roll-over. After all, this is the game where +1 armour subtracts 1 from your armour class.
Functionally these might seem to be the same thing. They are different. In how they represent and resolve skills.
What do you do? Give examples using saving throws. Forget saving throws and think about skills:
OK.
In AD&D 1E, the GM says, "Roll to Climb a Hard wall please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". ¹ The player looks at their sheet and sees "Climb 85%". They roll a d%, add 20, and have to get 85 or under. A success requires rolling 65 or under, a 65% chance.
(Unless of course the character is not a thief, in which case they stand at the bottom of the wall looking wisfully upwards.)
In D&D 5E, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Constitution climb check please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". The player looks at their sheet and sees "CON Save STR (Athletics) +6". They roll a d20, add 6, and have to get 20 or over. A success requires rolling 14 or over, a 35% chance.
_____
¹ In practice... the GM answers, "I don't know what hard means, the book doesn't say, umm, let's say a hard wall is +20. Is that too low? Should it be +30?"
And then the player asks, "Do I have to roll under or over?" and everyone has to think about which parts of the game use roll-under and which use roll-over. After all, this is the game where +1 armour subtracts 1 from your armour class.
Functionally these might seem to be the same thing. They are different. In how they represent and resolve skills.
What's the big difference? With a little experience, a DM will have a fair idea of what the odds of 10, 15, 20, etc. mean relative to a given bonus, and can apply them accordingly. There is no way to preemptively assign ratings to the majority of ideas players will come up with, so consequently there's not a good system for preemptive transparency. Plus revealing the DC on certain checks could provide meta knowledge to players, particularly for stuff like social or stealth rolls. Any tabletop system is predicated on the players trusting the GM to treat them fairly, and will have far too many moving and subjective parts to realistically create hard "this DC for this particular circumstance" tables as opposed to "for something about this difficult we recommend DC 15". And it's not that awful hard to work out the general application of 5e DCs. 10 is a token challenge for anyone proficient and usually better than 50/50 otherwise, 15 is a token to experts, challenge to profs, and just possible for everyone else, 20 challenge for experts, just possible for profs, and about 1-in-20 for the rest, if at all.
My friend has a genius idea when it comes to rolling die, and I've been dying to try it out in one of my campaigns.
Observe. The average rolls of a D20
As you can see, you have an equal chance to roll an number from 1-20 with the roll of 1 dice.
This makes the game incredibly luck based, and cane sometimes feel unfair, because it can be quite easy to fail even in a skill you have a lot of bonuses for.
Observe. The average rolls of 2D10
When you roll 2d10, you are rolling two dice instead of one, which makes some wonky things happen mathematically. As you can see on the graph, you are far more likely to roll a 7-15 than incredibly low or high numbers, although the chances of rolling a 1 are removed, the chances of rolling a 2 or a 20 become a 1 in 100 chance instead of a 1 in 20 chance. The same is true for the higher and lower a number gets. This allows you to play the game more to your character's skill, rather than random luck while still retaining the ability to roll high or low numbers. If you understood all that, bravo to you, and this is my case for rolling 2d10 instead of 1d20.
What do you do? Give examples using saving throws. Forget saving throws and think about skills:
OK.
In AD&D 1E, the GM says, "Roll to Climb a Hard wall please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". ¹ The player looks at their sheet and sees "Climb 85%". They roll a d%, add 20, and have to get 85 or under. A success requires rolling 65 or under, a 65% chance.
(Unless of course the character is not a thief, in which case they stand at the bottom of the wall looking wisfully upwards.)
In D&D 5E, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Constitution climb check please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". The player looks at their sheet and sees "CON Save STR (Athletics) +6". They roll a d20, add 6, and have to get 20 or over. A success requires rolling 14 or over, a 35% chance.
_____
¹ In practice... the GM answers, "I don't know what hard means, the book doesn't say, umm, let's say a hard wall is +20. Is that too low? Should it be +30?"
And then the player asks, "Do I have to roll under or over?" and everyone has to think about which parts of the game use roll-under and which use roll-over. After all, this is the game where +1 armour subtracts 1 from your armour class.
Functionally these might seem to be the same thing. They are different. In how they represent and resolve skills.
What's the big difference? With a little experience, a DM will have a fair idea of what the odds of 10, 15, 20, etc. mean relative to a given bonus, and can apply them accordingly. There is no way to preemptively assign ratings to the majority of ideas players will come up with, so consequently there's not a good system for preemptive transparency. Plus revealing the DC on certain checks could provide meta knowledge to players, particularly for stuff like social or stealth rolls. Any tabletop system is predicated on the players trusting the GM to treat them fairly, and will have far too many moving and subjective parts to realistically create hard "this DC for this particular circumstance" tables as opposed to "for something about this difficult we recommend DC 15". And it's not that awful hard to work out the general application of 5e DCs. 10 is a token challenge for anyone proficient and usually better than 50/50 otherwise, 15 is a token to experts, challenge to profs, and just possible for everyone else, 20 challenge for experts, just possible for profs, and about 1-in-20 for the rest, if at all.
I've explained more times than I can count how they are different. Read the thread.
My friend has a genius idea when it comes to rolling die, and I've been dying to try it out in one of my campaigns.
Observe. The average rolls of a D20
As you can see, you have an equal chance to roll an number from 1-20 with the roll of 1 dice.
This makes the game incredibly luck based, and cane sometimes feel unfair, because it can be quite easy to fail even in a skill you have a lot of bonuses for.
Observe. The average rolls of 2D10
When you roll 2d10, you are rolling two dice instead of one, which makes some wonky things happen mathematically. As you can see on the graph, you are far more likely to roll a 7-15 than incredibly or high numbers, although the chances of rolling a 1 are removed, the chances of rolling a 2 or a 20 become a 1 in 100 chance instead of a 1 in 20 chance. The same is true for the higher and lower a number gets. This allows you to play the game more to your character's skill, rather than random luck while still retaining the ability to roll high or low numbers. If you understood all that, bravo to you, and this is my case for rolling 2d10 instead of 1d20.
Interesting!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Who decides whether a task is easy, hard, or impossible for all those things we want to do for which there is no specified DC? Which is most things. The DM does. You don't think those decisions are ever informed by a DM's desire to see a character succeed or fail? "I can't really let that character take that thing from that NPC. So I'll just make the DC 30." That's not about how "easy," "hard," or "impossible" something is, is it? It's much more about the impulses of the DM. I'm not saying it's objectively better if the player simply knows what his or her thief's chances are of pickpocketing someone in most situations because the rules tell him or her what that is. Not the DM. Only that I prefer this than the way skills are now handled.
That isn't about anything other than a crappy DM, though.
I mean, like, super crappy. I have a word for that kind of DM, but it's use was ruined in 2015.
Someone out there has probably made a whole slew of tables and such that would work for more specific situations (like the hardness of a door or such) but, really, even 1e and 2e didn't have nearly the kinds of in depth stuff that would be required for that -- they just said the same thing: roll against a score determined by the DM.
That takes us back to the percentage/probability issue I mentioned earlier -- 1e and 2e used straight percentages, and, ultimately, sucked just as much.
That DM sucks. I'd get the F outta that game. Or start bribing the hell out of them.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'm sure they sometimes are, but you could do the same thing in AD&D. The only difference between roll-over and roll-under systems is that a roll-under system clearly specifies a default difficulty.
In AD&D, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Poison please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "5".
The player looks at their sheet and sees "Poison Save 12". They roll a d20, add 5, and have to get 12 or under. A success requires rolling 7 or under, a 35% chance.
In D&D 5E, the GM says, "Roll a Hard save vs Constitution please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20".
The player looks at their sheet and sees "CON Save +6". They roll a d20, add 6, and have to get 20 or over. A success requires rolling 14 or over, a 35% chance.
What's the difference?
Edited to add: I have just found one difference - the 5E books tells us that easy is 10, medium is 15, hard is 20, and so on. The AD&D 1E book does not, just says, "You may assign modifiers to any saving thvows as you see fit, always keeping in mind game balance." So 1E ends up being more arbitrary, with no guidance for the GM on what "easy" and "hard" mean. One GM might say hard means +2; another might say hard is +6.
In the paragraph that proceeds that paragraph, in which I provide examples of two systems using percentile rolls to mimic the old way and the new way to demonstrate why I find the concept of DCs much too abstract, I specifically said to forget saving throws and instead think about skills.
What do you do? Give examples using saving throws. Forget saving throws and think about skills:
You see no difference in a player being able to say my thief has a # percent chance of doing this thing in most situations and a player only being able to say I get to add or subtract this number to or from a roll but my actual chance of succeeding or failing at that something in most situations I really can't tell you without doing the math? And when I've done that math it won't really matter if the DM impulsively decides on a DC greater or lower than what I'd call easy, hard, or impossible?
You see no difference?
Functionally these might seem to be the same thing. They are different. In how they represent and resolve skills.
Subtraction is serious math? Your chance of success is 5% x (skill bonus + 21 - DC); at a typical DC of 15 that's 30% + 5% x skill bonus.
I only mentioned math to point out the calculation that would need to be done to determine how a bonus or penalty against a static DC rolled on a d20 could be rendered a percentage because someone else did that when comparing two identical situations for a save to be made to show that there was functionally no difference between the two systems. How is that my shifting the goalposts?
What you've done is entirely misrepresent my mention of math, acting like I'm talking about just having to add or subtract something to or from a number less than 30. Which isn't what I was talking about. There is a word for the fallacy you've just performed.
I'm not shifting the goalposts to make this all about math. I am saying there is a difference between knowing that thief has a # percent chance of doing something in most situations and only knowing what would be added or subtracted to or from a roll and just hoping the DC is what they think it will be in most situations were they to want to calculate the equivalent chance because someone else said they could.
The goalposts remain in the same place: I prefer a character having a fixed target number determined by class and level to allowing a DM to decide what that target number will be. And I prefer sub-systems that make use of more than one die to not render some in a set of seven completely redundant. Having to explain things over and over and articulate the difference between having a fixed target number and one chosen by the DM and having to stray here and there to help people see that difference because people kept insisting there is no difference between the two isn't shifting the goalposts.
What you are calling "shifting the goalposts" here would be like calling it "shifting the goalposts" during a debate because one team provided a rebuttal to something the other team said. That something in no way conflicts with their overall position, with whether they agree or disagree. They've just had to say something else because the other team has presented an argument that isn't one.
OP, are you unsatisfied by 3.5e's tracking table? Here's a little summary of it for reference.
You start with a base DC for the type of ground (try to figure out the difference between firm and hard yourself). Modify it for the number of creatures you're tracking. Modify it again for their size. Once more for the amount of time since the tracks were made. Then, modify it for the weather during that time, and again for the weather now. Finally, modify it based on whether your quarry was attempting to hide their tracks.
It's a pretty in-depth table, which gives the DM a hard and fast number to use as the DC. There are a lot of tables like that in 3.5e. It's the most rigorous edition of the game, as far as I'm aware. If you're playing by all the rules, it's very, very uncommon for the DM to just make up a number.
Tables like this that provide a more in-depth guide for DCs are fine. My complaint is more about when the DM has to decide how difficult something will be. This to me seems more about what the DM would rather the PC not be able to do than it is about how difficult the task may actually be. If the player doing that thing gets in the way of what the DM has in store for his or her players. With actual context, for example if the Duke has guards observing the room, then yes it makes sense that the DC to steal something from him is going to be more difficult than were the party's thief just stealing something from someone out on the street. But how often does a DM just make it more difficult to do so by virtue of nothing more than its being the Duke or his or her not wanting the player to steal the object in question?
As others have pointed out, that arbitrary an approach to what is easy, difficult, or impossible would be bad DM-ing. But bad DM-ing in a world already with too few DMs is abundant.
As a matter of preference, I prefer the rules to tell me how much of a chance that thief has to rob the Duke if there are no conditional factors at play than for the DM to get to decide. There's rulings over rules. And then there's leaving so much up to the DM's discretion it feels as if the game may as well be diceless.
In D&D 5E, a moderate difficulty task has a DC of 15.
So you could look at all your skill modifiers and decide how easy that would make a roll against a DC of 15. This gives you a fixed chance of success for each skill.
When the task has a difficulty different from Moderate, then you will add or subtract from your assumed chance of succeeding at a DC of 15.
In my experience that isn't true. The wast majority of DC's come as a set number from the skill, spell, feature, rule or adventure (or is a contest). Usually the ones the DM has to decide is the non-normal stuff that I'm glad I don't have to search through page after page of tables to find the one line that corresponds to this exact improvised idea I had.
Can't say I've ever had that happening tbh. I've had a DM say "no" for functional reasons but not for story reasons. Not as I know at least, it has probably happened at some point but certainly not enough that it would be considered a problem. And even if it was I just can't see how it would be a problem with the system, to me it would be a problem with the DM and thus an issue that would persist regardless of system.
Besides you say that you favour a system that have fixed target numbers but allows for the DM to add modifiers when needed and I just can't see how that is different. Both systems use a dice roll, modifiers to that roll and a target number to achieve. How is having a fixed target but variable modifiers different to having fixed modifiers and a variable target?
I've used the example of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, and other games that use percentages to represent a character's mastery of skills (i.e. fixed target with variable modifiers) and an imaginary system that would turn that on its head and instead rank skills with increments of percentiles to be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll that then needs to beat a percentage that represents the task itself (i.e.fixed modifiers with a variable target) to try to make clear the difference. Functionally they may be the same. But in terms of how skills are represented and resolved? Those are two very different games.
Neither is objectively better because, assuming the DM is being fair in his or her assessment of what is easy, difficult, or impossible to determine those variables, the probabilities should line up, shouldn't they? I still prefer the first of these as I feel it is much more concrete and less abstract.
Maybe you're right and what I fear might be happening isn't happening all that much. But it's not hard to imagine a DM who has something in store for his or her players is likely to make a perfectly possible task next to impossible if its being achieved is going to ruin his or her plans. Particularly a DM who is more about the storytelling than about just allowing players to explore and to interact with the environments and the objects in his or her sandbox setting. Others have pointed out it's a DM issue more so than a system issue. And that's fair enough.
in reading this, many of the issues are DM related. A bad DM is going to be bad, regardless of the type of die you roll (d6, d20, d100).
For me, the issue with today's focus on D20 is two parts: the 5% increments and the reliance on the plus/minus of ability score.
first - 5% is just too small of a change for some things. 1AD&D used d100 (percentile) a lot for various checks on abilities. that allows for more flexibility in play and success/failure. (33% / 66% chance or even a 1% chance of success) - one of the best games i had was trying to kill a character who made 3 successful 1% die rolls. It's a bigger laugh than just 3 20s.. and much harder. You feel better giving them the win (stupid enough to be 'almost' swallowed by a dragon). The game is too built around 5% sets and failure 2.
second - ability scores only care about even numbers. that makes the d20 issue even greater and game choices of players smaller. You are hurt when you don't have even ability scores and, with d20's 5% jumps, an additional +1 is more powerful than ever (especially when there is little else to add/subtract). Focusing on those pluses or minuses have a major impact. Again, 1AD&D (and 2AD&D) actually cared if you had a Dex of 14 or 15. It matter towards success and failure. Now? Little happens in that direction unless the DM decides to do something different.
In the end, it's the 5% rule (and the ubiquitous 1=failure, 20=success) that causes the d20 issue. Expanding past that opens up the game. I understand why they may have moved for simplicity reasons. Yes, THAC0 and others had more range but seems... gnostic. But d20 is too limiting and overused.
Okay, that's cool. I feel like there isn't anything more to say. (Let's see how many more pages this goes.)
OK.
In AD&D 1E, the GM says, "Roll to Climb a Hard wall please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20". ¹
The player looks at their sheet and sees "Climb 85%". They roll a d%, add 20, and have to get 85 or under. A success requires rolling 65 or under, a 65% chance.
(Unless of course the character is not a thief, in which case they stand at the bottom of the wall looking wisfully upwards.)
In D&D 5E, the GM says, "Roll a Hard
save vs Constitutionclimb check please." The Player asks, "What does hard mean?" and the GM answers, "20".The player looks at their sheet and sees "
CON SaveSTR (Athletics) +6". They roll a d20, add 6, and have to get 20 or over. A success requires rolling 14 or over, a 35% chance._____
¹ In practice... the GM answers, "I don't know what hard means, the book doesn't say, umm, let's say a hard wall is +20. Is that too low? Should it be +30?"
And then the player asks, "Do I have to roll under or over?" and everyone has to think about which parts of the game use roll-under and which use roll-over. After all, this is the game where +1 armour subtracts 1 from your armour class.
Functionally these might seem to be the same thing. They are different. In how they represent and resolve skills.
What's the big difference? With a little experience, a DM will have a fair idea of what the odds of 10, 15, 20, etc. mean relative to a given bonus, and can apply them accordingly. There is no way to preemptively assign ratings to the majority of ideas players will come up with, so consequently there's not a good system for preemptive transparency. Plus revealing the DC on certain checks could provide meta knowledge to players, particularly for stuff like social or stealth rolls. Any tabletop system is predicated on the players trusting the GM to treat them fairly, and will have far too many moving and subjective parts to realistically create hard "this DC for this particular circumstance" tables as opposed to "for something about this difficult we recommend DC 15". And it's not that awful hard to work out the general application of 5e DCs. 10 is a token challenge for anyone proficient and usually better than 50/50 otherwise, 15 is a token to experts, challenge to profs, and just possible for everyone else, 20 challenge for experts, just possible for profs, and about 1-in-20 for the rest, if at all.
My friend has a genius idea when it comes to rolling die, and I've been dying to try it out in one of my campaigns.
Observe. The average rolls of a D20
As you can see, you have an equal chance to roll an number from 1-20 with the roll of 1 dice.
This makes the game incredibly luck based, and cane sometimes feel unfair, because it can be quite easy to fail even in a skill you have a lot of bonuses for.
Observe. The average rolls of 2D10
When you roll 2d10, you are rolling two dice instead of one, which makes some wonky things happen mathematically. As you can see on the graph, you are far more likely to roll a 7-15 than incredibly low or high numbers, although the chances of rolling a 1 are removed, the chances of rolling a 2 or a 20 become a 1 in 100 chance instead of a 1 in 20 chance. The same is true for the higher and lower a number gets. This allows you to play the game more to your character's skill, rather than random luck while still retaining the ability to roll high or low numbers. If you understood all that, bravo to you, and this is my case for rolling 2d10 instead of 1d20.
Quokkas are objectively the best animal, anyone who disagrees needs a psychiatric evaluation
I've explained more times than I can count how they are different. Read the thread.
Interesting!