Challenge rating

[hcobb]

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.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

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.

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...

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by Skarg

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.

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.

[Skarg]

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.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

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.

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.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

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.

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.

[JLV]

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."

[Skarg]

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.