hsi379
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri 10 Sep 2021, 19:24

Re: Adjusting TN's for Skill Difficulty

Wed 19 Jan 2022, 21:21

If you never played TOR1e you won't miss the advantage of being able to be so subtle in setting the level of a task or test.

But is it really an advantage? Being more subtle doesn't necessarily mean being more objective.

Based on what can you objectively determine if a given task has TN 12, 14, 16, 18...? Of course, the table in 1ed gave some guidelines, but it could likely happen that a task that I consider moderately difficult is easy for you, or vice versa. Or, if I consider it harder than average (which was TN 14), what is "average"? And how do I determine how much harder exactly (TN 16, or 18, for example)?. And, I would add, if being "subtle" is really an advantage, then why exclude 13, 15, 17 from the range of possible TNs?

With +/- 1d6 of course you lose granularity and predictability (but is that really bad? Think of the predictability of a d20 roll... one might argue that low predictability has been the key to success of d20 games for decades - not my cup of tea, tbh, but many others love it), but it also narrows the Loremaster's choice down to simply determining whether that task is easy, medium, or difficult, which is objectively easier than arbitrarily assigning a TN.

And, as others have rightly pointed out, you always have to possibility of assigning a Success with Woe if you fear that a couple of freak rolls would radically upset the storyline.
Success with Woe is a good tool, but...

I found it easier to set the "baseline" in 1e where you know that characters with mainly 3S dice pools could handle TN14 challenges with confidence but not guaranteed success (69%) and 4S could handle TN 17/18 similarly (72-65%). Mixed pools are in between. A little higher is doable because of special abilities. Then I could figure out what fictional challenges mapped to that level of competance in my mind and go from there. That was my baseline in 1e. You can adjust TNs up and down from this "competent" baseline depending on the threat relative to a party of that calibre, which I personally found easier. Still subective of course but easier for me to make quick calls and be relatively consistent.

2e is not as easy to do this in IMO with fluctuating dice pools with the very chunky d6 modifiers. Given the usual TNs from attributes, you get more ping ponging between very high levels of success (4+ dice) and very low levels of success (2 or less dice).
 
Dunheved
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed 11 Mar 2020, 02:07
Location: UK

Re: Adjusting TN's for Skill Difficulty

Wed 19 Jan 2022, 22:38

Thanks to the responders to my earlier comments. My reading of those comments does not seem to conflict with my opinion that TOR2e is a distinctly different game to TOR1e. I can see how differences like this make the game simpler for gameplay: but I reserve my opinion that for my LM role, it is less satisfying because it is more random/ wider in result spread. (Well, certainly so far, its only been a few months!)

Without dragging out a huge response, I do enjoy TOR2e - even RAW. There are some clever and useful improvements.* But, so far, the removal of some features, and the alteration of others, make TOR2e RAW so "streamlined" that it is not an overall improvement onTOR1e for me. But don't worry, it's still great and I am very positive for it. If it goes like TOR1e, fan feedback will add to the game.



* for example, I do like the Success with Woe idea: I could easily add that to TOR1e - and have done on occasion. I like Might and Resolve.

I am grateful for the extra insights into some of the TOR2e thinking: others have said this better than me already. I am still thinking about these comments.
 
User avatar
Michele
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:58

Re: Adjusting TN's for Skill Difficulty

Fri 21 Jan 2022, 13:17

More broadly, wanted to say thanks to you and Francesco for sometimes dipping in on the forums, it's nice to have insight in to different rules that were tried or your thoughts on hate spending etc. I'm normally the one doing that for the Doomtown card game, so it is nice to be on the receiving end of information instead. :)

You're too kind, and as a fellow designer, contributor and player, I also appreciate the value of design journals as they provide a lot of insight behind certain choices made during the development of a game,which can also help you understand it better. Having had the honor, luck and the privilege to participate in this project, I can only say that between tried and abandoned development paths, discarded rules and simplified mechanisms, the "sawdust" under the design table of ToR 2e was enough to probably fill another rulebook... and some of it will probably be recovered at some point in the future. ;)

Thanks to the responders to my earlier comments. My reading of those comments does not seem to conflict with my opinion that TOR2e is a distinctly different game to TOR1e. I can see how differences like this make the game simpler for gameplay: but I reserve my opinion that for my LM role, it is less satisfying because it is more random/ wider in result spread. (Well, certainly so far, its only been a few months!)

Without dragging out a huge response, I do enjoy TOR2e - even RAW. There are some clever and useful improvements.* But, so far, the removal of some features, and the alteration of others, make TOR2e RAW so "streamlined" that it is not an overall improvement onTOR1e for me. But don't worry, it's still great and I am very positive for it. If it goes like TOR1e, fan feedback will add to the game.

You're right: ToR2 ended up being a distinctly different game from ToR1, much more than initially thought (even by Francesco, as he also stated in an interview prior to the release), while still remaining an edition similar enough to the previous one to be converted without too much difficulty. However, the challenges were many: it was not only a matter of improving an already successful game, but also of updating it for a market in rapid and constant evolution, of making its system lighter and more accessible to a new audience, and of aligning more closely with the formal elegance of the other Free League products. Add to that, perhaps, the tendency of brilliant designers like Francesco to constantly challenge their own ideas, and the need to always be able to say something new through their games without getting too bogged down in old canons. Hence the need, now evident to all long-time players, to streamline it.

It's safe to say that in changing so much, ToR took a lot of risks, for sure, and perhaps even a hit or two. But now, personally, the more I play it the more I realize how many, many things have changed for the better, to the point where I've almost forgotten how they worked in 1ed. ToR2 may leave some nostalgic regrets for fans of the 1ed, but in my humble opinion, I also find that it is a much more solid and consistent product.
It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests