Chainmail Difficulty

I have continued to let my thoughts on ability check / saving throw difficulty simmer since my previous post. I've thought all of my thoughts on the subject, for now at least. Here is my take:

• Unify saves and checks around the 6 ability scores.
• Use standard target numbers. I don't mean they never change, but a default value always exists.
• Use the to hit value of chain mail armor as your default target number. For me, that's 15. Why 15?
• The cool answer: because original D&D descended from the game Chainmail, so it felt fated to be.
• The real answer: because that is the first number at which you receive favorable results in my d20 reaction roll table.
• Add a standard bonus equal to level/2 to proficient checks and attacks as well as all saves.
• Treat checks more as reaction rolls than pass / fail. 15+ gets you an unequivocal success, but 7-14 might get you varying degrees of partial success or complication.
• Saves are more black and white, pass / fail. Something bad is about to happen to you, either you avoid it or you don't.
• Always add the standard bonus to saves. Their ability bonuses will differentiate different PCs, but treat them all as proficient at reacting to danger.

A die showing a number you'll never see when you need it

And, that's that. This system results in about the same chances of success as old school saving throws without requiring a reference table, differentiates PCs slightly based on their starting ability bonuses, and stays fairly familiar to the modern gamer.

Unifying Level-Based Bonuses

I've put a lot more thought into the topic of my previous post on setting difficulty. I'm not so sure that the best answer for my table is to lower the starting difficulty.

Instead, I should keep the difficulty higher, but make it increasingly easier to accomplish tasks and feats in which you're trained. The great game Knave accomplishes this by allowing three ability score increases every level, but this approach rubs me the wrong way:

• You roll to increase your scores. This randomness makes the score increases feel detached from the fictional experience that drove the increase.

• You increase your attributes. You can go from the least nimble human adventurer to the most nimble just by gaining experience. Again, it creates a disconnect when I try to envision the fictional character. How did my innate attributes change so much?

• You tend to pick which ability scores to roll based on mechanical benefits. For instance, increasing your Constitution is a priority because it increases how much you can carry (very important in a classless, inventory-driven system!).

Here, 5th Edition might offer a possible solution: a proficiency bonus. Keep your initial attribute scores the same, but grant an increasing bonus for any action in which you're proficient: swinging a sword for a fighter, casting a spell for a mage, picking a pocket for a thief.

An adventurer with proficient feet (art from AD&D rulebook)

Set your proficiency bonus at half of your character level, rounded up. This keeps you roughly in line with old school attack bonuses and saving throws.

At least until 9th Level. After that I stopped mathing because I don't need to waste effort on something that'll never get used!

For Every Action ...

Basic Fantasy RPG does a good job translating many old-school mechanics into a standardized d20 system that modern role-players tend to find more intuitive. Yet, there are some rolls it keeps as 2d6 like reaction and morale.

A fisherman who rolled well when meeting giant frogs (art by Matt Ray)

However, adding standardized ability bonuses to a 2d6 reaction roll weights the impact of the ability too heavily. Old-school games tend to cap the impact of Charisma on a reaction roll at +2. BFRPG maxes out at +3. 5th Edition takes you to +4 and possibly beyond.

I like reaction rolls but my current games use the 5th Edition rules at their core, so I took Knave's reaction roll table and pasted it on a d20 scale so that PCs could apply their Charisma bonus.

d20 Roll	% Chance	Outcome	% Chance	2d6 Roll
1	5%	Hostile	3%	2
2 - 6	25%	Unfriendly	25%	3 - 5
7 - 14	40%	Unsure	44%	6 - 8
15 - 19	25%	Talkative	25%	9 - 11
20	5%	Helpful	3%	12

Setting Difficulty

Every scene in a game of Index Card RPG has a built-in target number (known as the difficulty class in 5th Edition). The rule book suggests 10-12 as the baseline difficulty (it's a d20 roll over system), but the mechanic has the referee increasing or decreasing the difficulty as the environment changes. 

I like how this system makes the number you have to beat obvious, but also allows for situational differences. ICRPG even has some monsters that increase the target when they appear, which signifies how terrible that monster is to behold. It's a cool concept.

ICRPG's treatment of difficulty differs greatly from other systems I've experimented with lately. Namely, systems inspired by "old school" role-playing. 

Many of these systems start 1st Level characters out with something like a 30% chance to succeed at any given check. And, in some of them, the percentages don't get that much better even if your character manages to level up a few times.

I get it. These systems mean to encourage players to not make rolls. Find some creative way to overcome an obstacle so that you don't have to risk a dice roll. And I do appreciate that approach.

As a player, though, I also like to see my efforts rewarded with improved chances - rolling with advantage, getting a bonus, or decreasing my risk. Those mechanical elements help me to see that my creativity made a difference. Then, I get to roll the dice, the physical act of which is a stand in for my character taking their action.

Role players preparing to kill their characters (art by Simo Gomez)

Some players want to roll the dice. When my players play a game designed to discourage dice rolls, they're paralyzed. They want to do something so that they can roll dice but they rightly fear doing so will just end poorly.

If you find this happening, start the difficulty at 50% for the average ability score.

So, in d20 systems where the average ability score equals 10 with a modifier of +0, this means rolling over a 10 (so, in 5th Edition terms, a DC of 11).

Then, toss in a little ICRPG if desired. When you descend into the unknown depths, full of darkness and tentacles, maybe you have to beat a 12. Maybe a certain monster cranks that up to 13. I also saw an ICRPG house rule once that an additional lit torch reduces the target number by 1, which is a fun incentive to light more than one.

Roll Your Own

I like when the players make the rolls. Knave, the rules-light system by Ben Milton, gives PCs an "armor bonus" so that they can roll armor against a monster's static value. It's quick to grok but doesn't sacrifice anything from a "normal" attack roll.

What if players rolled their own checks for random encounters, particularly during wilderness travel? It would help them to conceptualize the passage of time during wilderness turns and it would also directly reveal the consequences of spending more time: risking more checks.

The referee does give up the power to discretely adjust the encounter chance on the fly, but in my games it would not be a problem to tell the players that their normal 1-in-6 chance is a 2-in-6 because of the amount of noise they've been making. In fact, it's not even a negative. Again, it provides the players with more information on which to base their decisions.

Adventurers encounter a wandering furry (art by David Trampier)

My current travel rules include an encounter check on every wilderness turn made by the players, who take turns around the table. They roll a d20, and lower results equate to worse outcomes.

1-3 wandering monster

4-12 travel challenge

13-16 descriptive encounter

17-18 evidence of monster

19-20 discovery

I'm toying with the idea of having them add their WIS bonus as long as they're not traveling in darkness or at a fast pace. It might mean that certain characters would very rarely roll wandering monsters, but since they must alternate, in the long run it should balance out with characters who have lower WIS scores.

Unless they're all clerics, I guess. Guided by the holy light?

Spending Downtime

Last night I played a 1-on-1 session with the referee in preparation of restarting a campaign. He tried his hand at a less scripted session and it went well. We came away with a few fun new NPC hirelings that he rolled on the spot (two of whom died, but c'est la vie).

We also tried to generate some random content by rolling on downtime tables for research found in one of the 5th Edition supplements. The procedure called for the player to roll an INT check to determine if they found 0, 1, 2, or 3 leads. Then, the player rolled for a 1-in-10 chance to experience a complication. If they did, they would roll a d6 on a complications table.

Successful magical research (art from Herrmann's Book of Magic)

What a waste. The up front portion of the downtime activity - rolling to discover some lore - is as uninspired as it comes. No choice involved, just roll and hope for a high number to learn.

I wanted to roll on the complications table, but as written I was so unlikely to do so. It held a few interesting, emergent outcomes. This whole mechanic should have presented a trade-off or choice from the start. You could do that by including the complications roll in the INT check.

Roll the d20 and the d6 simultaneously. If you succeed, you discover a relevant lead. If you fail, you discover an unrelated rumor. Either way, you experience the complication. This results in fun outcomes regardless of the roll.

To take this a step further, a referee could create a unique complication for every d20 result, with worse complications tied to lower results. Then, combine the downtime roll to a single check.