forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Mytholder wrote: You can expand the model to other, similar interactions, but Encounters work best when the PCs are in need and they're on the home ground of the person whose Tolerance is being tested.

Agree, it’s essential the PCs have a clear goal/need but the Encounter structure is basically just a way to objectively determine how successful a series of extended checks is (agree the Introduction part is a nice bit of tailoring to this specific use). 4e Skill Challenge outcomes follow exactly the same mechanics (minus the Intro part) and have been successfully used to model social conversations, chases, assassination attempts, espionage, defense of a castle, etc., etc. Some people hate the structure but for those that like it and make it work, it can be an extremely flexible tool.

Tolerance is sort of unique to the kind of situations you are talking about but Tolerance can easily be swapped for another Failure Number, something else more appropriate to another type of “Encounter” – say using the spread in Perception scores to set the “Tolerance” for how many failures the party can endure in a chase scene (representing how far away they were in the beginning). Even = 3 failures, Party +1 = 4 failures, Party -1 = 2 failures.

SirKicley wrote:

bert1000 wrote:

Hermes Serpent wrote:Those probability numbers do, I believe, take into account the eye and gandalf runes. However you are correct in that they are for a single roll only. You can easily apply them to a D&D like skill challenge by noting the chance of failure and working it from that.

Great, glad those probabilities include the eye and gandalf rune. I still don't think this is enough, but please let me know if I'm missing something.

The issue is that for Encounters a single attempt can result in multiple successes (2 successes with at least 1 tengwar, and 3 successes with 2+ tengwar). This throws off the math and doesn't allow you to just use the 4e skill challenge tables which are made for only 1 potential success per attempt.

Please let me know if there is a way around this or if TOR tables exist similar to the one posted by Hermes Serpent that also include probability of great and fantastic successes.

I can solve this for you easily. It's a 50/50 probability outcome.

You either succeed or fail. 50/50 chance.

Robert

I think you folks are dismissing the math too lightly. Since it’s so obscured you might have situations where the Loremaster thinks he is setting up a “tough but not too tough” Encounter and it’s actually extremely hard. I don’t care about exact percentage. I‘m not that particular. But I care about the numbers actually approximately matching the situation I’m trying to set up in the fiction.

What I do care about is the following situation:

Let’s take a Loremaster who is thinking about setting up an Encounter. Hmm, the party needs to get friendly with the head of the local village who can at the least give them lodging and with some good conversation can give them hints on how to protect themselves in the swamp where they are headed next. The chief is wary of strangers but always looking for news from outside his area so it should be fairly easy to get him to lodge them and tough but not too tough to get him to open up about the swamp dangers.

The Loremaster sets it up as average TN14 checks, TN12 for Lore if they talk about news from other places. 1-3 successes and they get Lodging, 4+ successes and they get swamp help as well. The village head values Valor and the party has highest Valor of 2 and no other modifiers apply. The Party has an average of 2 in relevant social skills.

So it’s basically a 4 successes before 2 failures to get swamp help. (let’s ignore the Tolerance/Tolerance +1 confusion). Sounds ok right? Pretty reasonable thought process for a Loremaster reading the books without any knowledge of the probabilities.

Well, let’s pretend there are no Tegwar extra successes. Then the 4e math tells us that this party would get swamp help 9% of the time. 9%! That doesn’t sound like “tough but not too tough”. If the party has average applicable social skills of rank 3 however, this shoots up to 53%! Sounds much more like “tough but not too tough”.

Why bother using an objective structure if the Loremaster can’t easily understand what parameters constitute an easy, moderately hard, and extremely hard situation? Note: I’m not saying the system is broken (it may or may not be). I’m saying it’s impossible to easily match up challenges as envisioned in the fiction with the mechanics without more information.

bert1000 wrote: Why bother using an objective structure if the Loremaster can’t easily understand what parameters constitute an easy, moderately hard, and extremely hard situation?

That's easy to determine. TN14 is the status quo. Anything more is harder. Anything less is easier. On a sliding scale somewhere between 10 and 20 I imagine.

Note: I’m not saying the system is broken (it may or may not be). I’m saying it’s impossible to easily match up challenges as envisioned in the fiction with the mechanics without more information.

And I say - I'm not interested in making sure it matches up. EL "Encounter Levels" and APL "Average Party Levels" and CR "Challenge Rating" is popular in D20 settings as the whole system is built on math. Even the "wealth by level" charts!

This game doesn't need all of that. Characters do not advance in levels. Their advancement is much more subtle. Challenges do not automatically escalate as they do in D20 to match an APL.

TN14 is the "status Quo".

Convincing Eomer that Aragorn was no foe of the Riddermark - Status Quo.
Convincing Tree Beard that the hobbits were not orcs - status quo.
Convincing Farimir not to take the weapon of the enemy to his draconian father. much harder. (TN 18).

This is based off of what the LM wants. How hard he wants it to be. If the group of players opts to dump all of their 10 starter skill points into Travel and Weapon skills and no one has social situation skills....you're setting yourself up for failure. I'm not interested in dumbing down the encounters based off some algorithm of how hard it should be for the group just because only one person has a 2 in a social skill and no one else has above a 1.

It's merely much harder or simpler than status quo should it be based on the LMs consideration of the situation. This is based off the status quo of TN14; not based off of what the party's average skill level is.


Finally - alot of the math goes right out the window once you add in the creative roleplaying of players who use their traits and distinctive advantages to the extent of their imaginations. D20 algorithms cannot equate for this because it doesn't exist. Thus it's much easier to quantify the exact math and algorithms because you do NOT have that "chaos theory" aspect to deal with in D20 games.

At least that's my take on the whole thing. That and $2.00 will get you five nasty chicken wings from McDonalds.

Robert

Stormcrow wrote:

SirKicley wrote:despite Stormcrow's often brusque or curt tone of text

There's a reason I don't call myself Lalaith!

My educated guess is that you bring tides of strife from faraway lands and speak truly, no matter the dread or the cost.

bert1000 wrote:Let’s take a Loremaster who is thinking about setting up an Encounter. Hmm, the party needs to get friendly with the head of the local village who can at the least give them lodging and with some good conversation can give them hints on how to protect themselves in the swamp where they are headed next. The chief is wary of strangers but always looking for news from outside his area so it should be fairly easy to get him to lodge them and tough but not too tough to get him to open up about the swamp dangers.

The Loremaster sets it up as average TN14 checks, TN12 for Lore if they talk about news from other places. 1-3 successes and they get Lodging, 4+ successes and they get swamp help as well. The village head values Valor and the party has highest Valor of 2 and no other modifiers apply. The Party has an average of 2 in relevant social skills.

And here is where I find the rule about counting successes to be a problem. The goal of an encounter is not what you get by accumulating successes. The goal simply guides you in choosing tasks.

In your example, the goal is twofold: obtain lodging, and obtain information. A party spokesman or member might logically ask to try a Persuade task to get lodging. They roll and succeed. Now they've got lodging, right? Not if you're basing it on the number of successes obtained during the encounter. To do it that way, you've got to perform tasks based on anything but a direct approach. It makes no sense.

The only way that the number-of-successes rule makes any sense is if the reward is something that the NPC offers the characters simply because they like/are impressed by/pity/etc. them. It's not something you are trying to get—for that you'd roll for a specific task.

So the probabilities involved here aren't actually vital to the game. Encounter rewards are about things you don't ask for. They represent how much the NPC appreciates you, not a task you've achieved.

For instance, you can ask a woodman for lodging with a roll of Persuade, but it's your number of successes during the encounter that determines whether he puts you in the barn or invites you into his longhouse.

Bert1000

SirKicley is correct - what both he and myself in my earlier message was trying to say was that u can't duplicate the maths in this situation? How can u duplicate when player X fails their roll but they succeed due to player y giving them a bonus die?

All u need to do as LM is ask - what is the bare minimum I want the Pcs to obtain from the Encounter? That is what happens with an Eye result and Tolerance exceeded, say,'and then work up from there

Robin S.

Stormcrow wrote: So the probabilities involved here aren't actually vital to the game. Encounter rewards are about things you don't ask for. They represent how much the NPC appreciates you, not a task you've achieved.

BINGO! FTW!


Like in my previously stated anecdote with (that store with lots of construction supplies with the big orange sign logo), my "goal" was only to see if I could get order the carpet now with cash, and later pay for it on a merchant credit card and be reimbursed the cash (to cover closing costs of my escrow and to get the 18month no finance deal!

My successes in the encounter granted me the guy waiving the measuring fee. I had no intention of asking for this. But I was pleasantly surprised and thanked the guy.

For instance, you can ask a woodman for lodging with a roll of Persuade, but it's your number of successes during the encounter that determines whether he puts you in the barn or invites you into his longhouse.

Using Stormcrow's example - with enough successes, the Woodman could potentially not only let you sleep in the guest room, but may offer his daughter as a suitor!

Robert

Robin Smallburrow wrote:Bert1000

SirKicley is correct - what both he and myself in my earlier message was trying to say was that u can't duplicate the maths in this situation? How can u duplicate when player X fails their roll but they succeed due to player y giving them a bonus die?

OR spending a point of Hope! Or invoking a trait!

All u need to do as LM is ask - what is the bare minimum I want the Pcs to obtain from the Encounter? That is what happens with an Eye result and Tolerance exceeded, say,'and then work up from there

Robin S.

And then put a SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) of a difficulty threshold in comparison to the status quo of TN 14 and go from there.

Robert

Elfcrusher wrote:

Mytholder wrote:(Heh, and you could arguably count the Unexpected Party as an Encounter, only Bilbo's so polite his Tolerance is through the roof).

Bombur: "Instead of using Courtesy, I'm going to juggle plates with Bifur and Bofur."
LM: "Ok....roll Athletics, with a TN of 18"
Bombur: (Looking at his character sheet with Athletics:0) "I'm invoking my Cooking trait."
LM: "Take an AP."

No knock on the content, but the mechanics were a bit misreprented just to be sure that we're all following the same intended rules.

One does not gain an AP merely for invoking a trait for an auto-success.

If Bombur had rolled his skill check despite having a 0 in Athletics, and succeeded (by rolling an auto success STAFF) AND THEN went on to explain how his "cooking trait" played a role in his miraculous success, THEN the LM awards an AP.

It's worth noting: just succeeding in a TN 18 may grant an AP, trait being invoked or not.


Robert

SirKicley wrote:

Stormcrow wrote: So the probabilities involved here aren't actually vital to the game. Encounter rewards are about things you don't ask for. They represent how much the NPC appreciates you, not a task you've achieved.

BINGO! FTW!

That's not completely true, the first couple of tiers relate directly to what's at stake:

First entry (usually corresponding to 0-1 successes): The encounter can barely be considered a success. Something
didn’t go as well as hoped, or the companions got what they were looking for but at the price of some unexpected complication.

Second entry (usually 2-3): The companions achieved the goal they set for the encounter, but nothing else.

Therefore at 0 to 1 success the LM can give the characters what they were after (eg, lodging or information) but with an added complication (eg, you just get the barn, rough night ahead, or we want a favour for this information we're going to give you). At 2 to 3 successes they get what they wanted with no strings attached (eg, lodging in the Great Hall, and a decent night's sleep, or the information with no strings attached). ... Beyond those though and you're likely into the additional/unlooked for rewards and "Bully's Star Prize". Great, smashing, super, 'triffic.

So, like Robin stated, start from the bare minimum of what the LM is happy to give the characters and work up from there.