We generally agree on this topic, but I disagree with you here.
Yeah and that’s perfectly okay! I appreciate your perspective.
As far as I'm concerned with 1e, you shouldn't have been keeping the TNs secret anyway. There's literally a section that talks about everything being TN14, and if you change it you should explain the reason for that change.
The normative TN 14 as I understand it is the “average” difficulty of a task, rated such that those with significant training in a Skill 3+ pips should be confident in passing. Everything is TN 14 by standard difficulty but, of course there are many circumstances where a basic task is complicated and made harder, and there are some tasks that are just more daunting. I liked the flexibility built into that (which that part of the system, flexing the TN by circumstances, has not changed it’s just shifted to +/- d6s).
I didn’t feel particularly bound to reassure players that a task was always TN 14. If they inquired, I’d let them know “this should be a little harder than normal,” or “that would be a very difficult task.” In practice, I never told them “that’s a TN 18 task.” That would encourage meta-gaming and, frankly, break immersion in the game in my opinion.
Secretly changing the difficulty of the role to make the players succeed or fail is much more a GMing practice discussion than a comparison of these rules, but to summerise- I don't agree with it. If they need to pass or fail then you find a way without calling for a roll, and a roll should only take place where there are consequences. The method of setting a TN has no impact on this.
To quibble, secretly setting a difficulty is different from secretly changing a difficulty on the fly. Failure and success are “real” in my games, it isn’t as though I am constantly putting my hands on the scales so that they succeed or fail. However, I absolutely reserve the right to do that as the game runner. I think for a few reasons that’s valuable:
1. As a corrective if I have made a mistake (not the player). It’s possible I misjudged the math behind a difficulty, and upon momentary reflection I judge that this roll either shouldn’t have been called or it should be well within this character’s ability, something like that.
2. To reward a player whose efforts reflect a wonderful story innovation but whose agency is reduced/constrained by the rules of the game. (IE They would have been able to slay the dragon, if only they could spend Hope, and their roll is within 1 point of success/failure. Or if their solution to a sensitive issue is brilliant and innovative, but their poor skill would make success mathematically very unlikely.)
3. To speed along an inevitable result, especially in combat. Once an outcome has become a foregone conclusion, there is no need to prolong an engagement if players are certain to triumph and/or fudging a roll considerably shortens a combat whose meaningful choices are basically over (this is less prevalent in TOR because the suddenness of piercing blows can make combat interesting and dangerous until late in the battle).
I agree with you that it is the game runner’s job to make sure all rolls are meaningful, and that tilting the scales shouldn’t be the norm. But I don’t think it is an inherently bad practice; knowing when to tilt things to ensure interesting outcomes and correct mistakes on-the-fly seems like an important aspect of running a roleplaying game to me. I don’t really believe the purist idea that the dice always inject just the perfect amount of randomness and nothing more or less. Dice can in fact disappoint players - they
must sometimes, in order to make them suspend their disbelief. That is both an advantage and a disadvantage to their use, as opposed to a diceless system that preserves perfect choice and intentionality, but which tend to lose the randomness factor from which many players derive satisfaction.
Preserving the story and suspense values of uncertainty is therefore important to me. It isn’t so much about cooking the books for/against players on particular rolls, but ensuring that they have a narrative experience which is seamless and cohesive. If I have to pop the hood on the target for every roll, I lose some control over that. I prefer to have as much responsibility on myself for the overall player experience, not entrust everything purely to math.