Sorry, hsi379. Last night I found a bug in my code and I fixed it, but I had no time to make a new table.
Thank you for doing it yourself. So your original numbers were correct, and your point stands the same.
Thanks for confirming! Great we can feel confident with those numbers by multiple methods, and your code makes it much easier to run future scenerios.
Unfortunately, as this thread is showing the point of the 3 , 6 , 9 length = difficulty math not working is just one of many problems with Councils I think!
Even if we fix this issue, there is still the issue with the "step function" of adding and subtracting d6s. This is somewhat true throughout the whole game (+/- d6s are cruder than adjusting TN) but because of multiple rolls and the importance of multiple Tengwars in Councils/Skill Endeavors the issue just gets magnified.
Then, there is the seperate but related issue of the fact that Councils are not very strategic and from a 'game' perspective don't give the players many choices vs. say combat (stance, weapon, do something other than a strike, etc.).
I actually think a simple system with the right math can work. D&D4e skill challenges / Stalker0 Obsidian version
https://www.enworld.org/threads/stalker ... -2.241440/ (even better, see pdf in post) are very abstract and are basically die rolls with a codification of success. There are also not many strategic choices but the math works, and LMs are encouraged to set different TNs for different skills which adds some variety. Obsidian also has tiered success --- failure, partial success, and success built in. And players have some limited resources that can use (e.g., powers which let them reroll skills) but not many.
IMO, the key to making these simple / abstract systems work is to vary the fictional positioning along the way so that the same skills are not always relevant and new challenges are presented so the "scene" doesn't feel static (all towards the same end goal). Having a penalty for "failure" or "success at a cost" that is interesting and a real narrative cost is also important.
Would it be great to also have more strategic choices for the player? Yes. But I think the primary value of these non-combat systems is in the
resolution part. Something important is decided over multiple roles using an objective system instead of 1 roll or "X rolls and LM stops it when they feel like it", and the LM knows approximately what the difficulty actually is (when the math works) of the challange and can more easily match or adjust this to the fiction.
So, I'd love to start with a design where the math works and go from there. I think the key is setting the difficulty of the request relative to the kinds of things a 2S party could reasonably expected to do vs. say a 5S party, and then modify from there based on other factors. There is just too much difference in "power" with different dice pools and the multiple success mechanic.
So say start with the design principle of -- "equal level" situation should succeed 60% of the time without modifiers -- and go from there.
Trying to convince a woodsman tribe to guide you to a shuned cave not far from the edge of Mirkwood -- that's a 3S challenge -- so a party of average 3S skills has a 60% of succeeded without spending resources or gaining some other advantage (and not counting disadvantages of prejudice, etc.)
Trying to convince Theoden to lend a patrol of riders to assault X stronghold -- that's a 5S challenge. 3S don't have much of chance. 4S parties can maybe do it spending a lot of resources (hope) or working for an advantage. 5S can just walk up and have a decent chance or can almost guaruntee it using resouces -- which is fine since a party with an average of 5S skills are movers and shakers of middle earth now...