Challenge rating
 

Onto automating stuff and for those purposes should I renormalize a starting human fighter as a 3200 "challenge point" thing worth 10 XPs for defeating?

Re: Challenge rating
 

I imagine that trying to quantify the value of all things built into a figure (using The Fantasy Trip in whole) will be a challenge. Yes, the stats are simple numbers related to bell curve statistical dice roles, but Talents, Spells, Equipment, may be hard to normalize.

Re: Challenge rating
 

You can just apply the rules from page 45:

A 36 point hero with $6k in equipment and two extra skill points is then CR 3200(base) +700(attributes) + 500(gear) + 1000(extra talents) = CR 5400

Add the total CR you defeated, square the sum then divide by a million. That's the XP to divide across the party, adjusted for roleplaying. Easy enough to automate.

Re: Challenge rating
 

So if you want to tie earned XP to this approach in some mathematically consistent way, maybe the simplest solution is to divide your CR figure by 100 (i.e. defeating the character described above is worth 54 XP)?

P.S. And I also like this for the reason that it creates scaling XP awards. More advanced and enhanced opponents should provide more XP for defeating them.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Why not multiply by 20 then divide by the party's total CR?

So you get 20 XPs each for defeating an equal match, or 10 XPs for each of the party of four on page 129 that defeated a troll they were clearly twice as powerful combined as.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Too much math (I hate doing math). ;)

Re: Challenge rating
 

Hence the automation.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Which is great, but if you can come up with a system that doesn’t require a bunch of long division and formulae, so much the better, right?

Re: Challenge rating
 

I posted the system we came up with circa 1986 for awarding experience based on relative threat value. I think that system works very well for the typical sorts of fighters, and some monsters.

But it's not an easy task, and I have some even better ideas for it now, but ya, it's a hard problem.

Re: Challenge rating
 

I liked Skarg's method, actually.

Though philosophically, I still abhor the idea of a "challenge rating;" it's so "metagamey."

Re: Challenge rating
 

Going through and setting CRs for all the critters with a base of 24 for a Melee Warrior and 32 for a full up starting ITL character.

For Long Lankin I'm assuming they always go for HTH to justify their CR, because otherwise they're rather wimpy all alone.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Can you provide a link to this?

Re: Challenge rating
 

I'm tempted to use the Firepower formula from Ultracorps.

In which case we get (With adjustments such as the 14-hex Dragon using swipe and fly tactics.)

Firepower Name
22 Shadowight
28 Human Skeleton
28 Human Zombie
30 1-hex Dragon
32 Night-Gaunt
35 Neanderthal
37 Ghoul
37 Wizard Wraith
44 Human Ghost
44 Human Wight
45 Diatryma
45 Pegasus
46 Unicorn
46 Wyvern
49 Ogre
51 Giant
52 Sasquatch
53 Basilisk
55 2-hex Dragon
62 Yeti
71 Long Lankin
72 Troll
80 4-hex Dragon
90 Apep
101 Indricotherium
117 Octopus
120 4-headed Hydra (w/poison)
132 Woolly Mammoth
137 7-hex Dragon
217 14-hex Dragon
268 7-headed Hydra (w/poison)

Re: Challenge rating
 

I think the concepts are very valuable, but the terms and exact ratings are not, except for being clear and providing good numbers to use.

Once the concepts are there, and the GM feels good about the sense of how much XP to award for something, the formulas and numbers aren't really needed.

But I think it is really helpful to get a good sense of how much XP should be given for an easy fight versus a very hard one, and not to just give piles of XP for wiping out foes who posed hardly any challenge, which unfortunately is what the RAW did.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Yep, I managed to dig it up.

The post about the system is here.

Another post with some explanation that may be helpful is here.

Most of the rest of the thread they are in is Jim Kane and I getting into a long obscure theoretical conversation where he wanted to try to invent another system and eventually it fizzled out so I don't recommend reading the rest of that thread.

Re: Challenge rating
 

I am finding odd tactics for monsters to maximize their FP.

14-hex dragons should use claw swipes on the wing, all smaller dragons should land and use all of their attacks against a group of humans.

I'm assuming that the Sabertooth Tiger can use both attacks in HTH at -4 DX each, otherwise it is the wimpiest of the 2-hex cats.

Seven headed poison hydra is still the top firepower rating.

The formula is:

T = turns the monster survives against one optimal starting character attacking it each turn.

D = Average damage the monster does per turn.

FP = 10 * sqrt(T * D) rounded to the closest integer.

Re: Challenge rating for scenario
 

I wanted a rough way to let the potential player know how hard the ITL "dungeon" or scenario will be. How about this?

• 0 Level Dungeon: No real fighting expected unless the players do something really stupid. Or fighting is against a few, 'under 32 point' characters.
  
  
• 1st Level Dungeon: Fighting is against 32 - 33 point characters or simple monsters.
  
  
• 2nd Level Dungeon: Fighting is against mostly 32 - 33 point characters, with some 34 - 36 point characters or simple monsters with one or two complex monsters or simple traps.
  
  
• 3rd Level Dungeon: Fighting is against mostly 34 - 36 point characters, with some 37 - 38 point characters or several complex monsters or some complex traps.
  
  
• 4th Level Dungeon: Fighting is against mostly 38+ point characters, with some 40 point characters or difficult monsters or difficult traps.
  
  
• 5th Level Dungeon: Fighting is against mostly 40 point characters, monsters and traps difficult and constant.

Doesn't have to be this nomenclature. Could be:
Easy; Beginner; Average; Hard; Very Hard; Killer.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Blind attribute points have the problem that the characters can load up with gear, talents, mana, etc. without increasing their attribute totals.

At least my firepower ratings are based on abstract combats, which give some clues as to the tactics each beast should use. For example a party of four novice PCs should be able to take on two trolls, especially if two of those PCs are combat builds.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Okay, I've got 105% of all monsters in my tables.

Here's my proposed output format. Any changes needed?

21x Rat(pg 100) ST:1 DX:10 IQ:6
Nibble(1)
Can be stomped

Re: Challenge rating for scenario
 

I think there's a fundamental issue with framing what's in a game world based on difficulty level. It tends to lead to the difficulty framework actually being a primary cause of what is and isn't in the world, where things are, etc.

Difficulty is important to be able to assess so that characters can have an idea who is likely to kill them in a fight, and to award appropriate experience. We developed our alternate experience awards system because we noticed it was vastly more efficient (in terms of EP for risk) to slaughter nearly-harmless shadowights or untrained hobgoblins than it was to defeat someone more formidable than you were, which was clearly very backwards/wrong/unfun.

I think it's far more interesting and immersive if a GM plots out what is where in their gameworld based on what makes sense to be where, and then later observes how dangerous places are, than if he places threats based on an idea that there should be places which have certain strengths of opponents because they are supposed to be a certain level of difficulty.

In particular, looking at the above categories, it might or might not be literally what you meant, but I'm worried by the wording that there would be only five categories of place, and that several of them say that "most" people in them would be outside the most common normal categories (i.e. 28-33 points). That is, I would not expect that many of even the most dangerous adventure locations would have a majority of exceptionally skilled people, unless it's the stronghold of some elite group.

And of course, in TFT the situation tends to be even more important that the point totals. Not just in terms of characters' talents and equipment, but in terms of what ends up happening, how many foes get met at once, and in what layout, how the foes behave and what tactics they use, etc.

Re: Challenge rating
 

How often do you get a TPK from bad planning or bad luck rather than the players not having the right tools for the job?

You don't have any magic weapons? Well too bad, you can't hurt this critter that's killing you.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Since I avoid D&D-like games, extremely few deaths are from not having the right magical solution/ability/puzzle-piece. Unless you count the droves of TFT NPCs who died trivially because they only had an ordinary weapon and some high-powered opponent was stacking armor and Stone Flesh...

Re: Challenge rating for scenario
 

OK, that may be. But how do you let the guy who is 'purchasing' your module know how difficult it is before they buy it?

There is nothing like sending in a newbie into the 'Tombs of Horror' or the reverse, sending a grognard TFT player into a training wheels game.

Perhaps using the Crossword Puzzle method: Easy, Average, Hard, Very Hard.

But then again, it may not be needed. GURPS doesn't have any difficulty ratings for their material.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Yeah, you could try basic categories, or just verbal descriptions, and/or mention of the sort of groups the adventure had in mind.

However, if an adventure / location is described in a dynamic way, and GM'd that way, then PCs and NPCs can react accordingly. Tollenkar's Lair is a good example of that, where you can attempt it with a small inexperienced party, and survive if you're clever and willing to retreat when the going gets rough - you're just unlikely to get all that far before needing to go regroup. But that could provide the context for a whole campaign where the PCs get better, acquire more allies, and return and wage a campaign of many missions against the lair.

Easy adventure situations met by powerful PCs can be more challenging for GMs to figure out how to handle. In fact, that development was part of our eventual waning interest in TFT, when we had some surviving powerful characters and much of the world started not being much of a challenge or very interesting to interact with in the way it was interesting when common people were dangerous. That's one of the reasons I like the new plateau around 40 points, though magic items could still be accumulated to make people really powerful (another reason why attribute-totals don't seem sufficient to me to rate difficulty level).

I think high-powered play can still be interesting if it shifts towards more powerful conflicts, and doesn't become about playing out many one-sided massacres. That is, the NPCs should notice the powerful PCs are horribly powerful, such PCs should get reputations, and overpowered NPCs should tend to flee, surrender, beg, run to more powerful protectors, offer to serve the PCs, use special tactics, etc., instead of trying to fight to the death. The more powerful forces in the game world can then start to notice the PCs and react in interesting/challenging ways, although that can be challenging to GM, too, and probably requires letting go of many typical GM attachments.

Re: Challenge rating for scenario
 

Dark City Games handles that question with the simple expedient of stating the recommended number of Attribute Points the character should have to effectively compete -- e.g., "this adventure is suitable for four 36 point characters." Seems to me that would still work. And, of note, they use an XP buy system for Skills versus Attribute Points very similar to the one now in place in TFT. We've never had any problem with that system of rating things, or felt that we were unfairly misled by it.

If you feel really strongly about it, clearly state that each Talent or Spell is equivalent to half an Attribute point and say "this adventure is suitable for a four 40 point characters," and let the players figure out where the points fall.

Re: Challenge rating for scenario
 

Dark City Games handles that question with the simple expedient of stating the recommended number of Attribute Points the character should have to effectively compete -- e.g., "this adventure is suitable for four 36 point characters." Seems to me that would still work. And, of note, they use an XP buy system for Skills versus Attribute Points very similar to the one now in place in TFT. We've never had any problem with that system of rating things, or felt that we were unfairly misled by it.

If you feel really strongly about it, clearly state that each Talent or Spell is equivalent to half an Attribute point and say "this adventure is suitable for a four 40 point characters," and let the players figure out where the points fall.

Re: Challenge rating
 

Sorry with the double post thing -- there was a problem with the website for about 15 minutes there, and I didn't realize it until I'd hit "submit" again. I'd delete, but apparently that's yet more functionality I am not permitted while "on notice."

Re: Challenge rating
 

I like how Steve tends to word recommended PC point levels for an adventure in terms of a party that "might" be able to survive. To me this seems very appropriate to not set expectations that you will survive, as bad use of those points, bad tactics, bad situations, and/or bad die rolls can (thankfully) lead to death and destruction.