Difficulty Numbers: Experiences and Thoughts

[Zulgyan]

This is a big topic, since it's at the heart of the action resolution system.

So when I began playing 1E, I said to myself "ok, let's keep things BTB until I get a good grasp of the system". This means that every action in the game that deserves a roll is governed by the following numbers:

CORE

Very Easy ------- 5

Easy ------------ 10

Moderate ------- 15

Difficult ---------- 20

Very Difficult ---- 30

This numbers work fine and are easy to remember to run the game by memory, but as the game progressed I started to feel that many times these numbers were too steep. I strongly felt this in climbing, jumping, swimming or similar situations, where every PC had to face the same challenge or suffer damage. A PC with 3D in climbing, which is a decent score, needed to roll three 5s to get a "moderate" result. That's way too hard.

In other "out of combat" situations, like hacking a computer, repairing a ship or using a knowledge skill, these numbers also seemed too high. I also found myself only assigning "very easy" or "easy" DNs, which did not seem right. In my opinion, the "moderate" difficulty should be the median challenge, but the "easy" difficulty of 10 was taking that place. That didn't sound right, considering that the average human score for an ability is 2D. The 1E DNs are considered by many one of the main problems with 1E, and that is why it was changed in 2E.

So, as many do, I began relying more on the "rules upgrade" variable numbers, that look like this:

UPGRADE

Very Easy ------- 3-5
Easy ------------  5-10
Moderate ------- 11-15
Difficult --------- 16-20
Very Difficult --- 21-30

At first I worried that applying these number would bring inconsistency in rulings. They I looked at it another way: it's just the same numbers than before, but you can ease the challenge a bit. Many times it happened that I mentally assigned a challenge as "Difficult (20)" and after a player rolled something like, 18 o 19, I just said "hmmm... ok, you succeed".  

But what worried me the most was the use of the force. Force powers seem to be balanced with the CORE difficulty numbers in mind. So I was keeping the force powers at the difficulty numbers of the CORE game, and the rest of the skills by the RU variable numbers. What do you think?

For some reason, I tend to prefer fixed numbers over variable ones, for consistency and for the players to get a better assessment of the risks of an action. So I want to experiment with the following scale.

MY OWN

Very Easy -------- 4
Easy -------------- 8
Moderate -------- 12
Difficult ---------- 18
Very Difficult ---- 26

What I like about this difficulty scale is that the numbers 12 for "moderate" and 18 for "difficult", match the numbers of another game I played a whole campaign of: Castles & Crusades by Troll Lord games. The difficulty of reaching each DN here also seems quite on the spot. Also, for some reason, my brain can remember odd numbers better than even ones.

Should I use "My Own" scale for Jedi Powers too? It will certainly beef up the force users, and I'm kinda scared of that.

Well, I haven't made up my mind completely about this subject, so I want to hear what you guys have to say.

Main issues here:

1. Core vs. RU vs. House Rule Difficulty Challenges

2. Force powers vs. all other non-combat skills.

[boot]

I prefer the basic numbers, 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. Then, if a modifiers is needed, then add it. Modifiers are typically 1 or 2 but can be any number.

This is different thinking than the variable difficulty numbers. The thinking here is the task uses a base number used in the core game, and if there is a reason for a modifier, then use it to alter the difficulty.

Compare this to figuring if the difficulty should be less than the basic number.  The thinking is a bit different.



I used the variable difficulties for years when I ran my R&E games.  With that experience under my belt, I feel like the variable numbers seem like a good idea on the surface--like a feature.  But, in reality, they are just another decision that the GM has to mess with.  They make the game messier--harder to run for the GM by making it more complicated.  Maybe that's just me.  I certainly wouldn't down a GM who really liked the variable difficulties.

When I am thinking in terms of the base numbers from the core rulebook, it is easy for me to rank rolls, too.  If a character rolls a Knowledge skill, I get an idea of how much the character knows by seeing how high the total of the throw.  When using the variable numbers, this becomes muddy.

And, oh forbid, if a player wants to argue with you over difficulty. "Why is this a 9 difficulty?  That should be a 7 difficulty, tops!"




I did use random difficulty for a long time, where the target number is rolled.  This worked well, but I felt that the game became too focused on dice rolling rather than roll playing.



So, for me, it's the base, Core numbers:

CORE

Very Easy ------- 5

Easy ------------ 10

Moderate ------- 15

Difficult ---------- 20

Very Difficult ---- 30

And, if a modifier is needed, then apply it.  But, have a good reason for the modifier.  Which is exactly how the base rules work--modifiers are listed in the charts section at the back of the book.

[boot]

Apr 23, 2019 1:35:24 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

This numbers work fine and are easy to remember to run the game by memory, but as the game progressed I started to feel that many times these numbers were too steep. I strongly felt this in climbing, jumping, swimming or similar situations, where every PC had to face the same challenge or suffer damage. A PC with 3D in climbing, which is a decent score, needed to roll three 5s to get a "moderate" result. That's way too hard.

In other "out of combat" situations, like hacking a computer, repairing a ship or using a knowledge skill, these numbers also seemed too high. I also found myself only assigning "very easy" or "easy" DNs, which did not seem right. In my opinion, the "moderate" difficulty should be the median challenge, but the "easy" difficulty of 10 was taking that place. That didn't sound right, considering that the average human score for an ability is 2D. The 1E DNs are considered by many one of the main problems with 1E, and that is why it was changed in 2E.

If you don't mind (and I figured you put this here for discussion), I'd like to challenge some of your assumptions here.

Let's talk about Climbing and Jumping.  You say a 15 difficulty is way too hard for a "moderate" task.  According to the book, a moderate Climbing and Jumping task is equivalent of leaping and grabbing the end of the ramp as your starship lifts off!!!

Your ship is off the ground.  Picture the Falcon.  The ramp is still down.  You run towards it, then jump!  You fly through the air from your jump and grab the ledge!  Hanging from the ledge, then pull yourself up to the ramp to get aboard the ship.

I don't think a 15 difficulty is too much to ask for that maneuver!

Maybe the task title of "Moderate" is making you think of an easier task.  But, as the example in the book shows, that's a hell of a maneuver!



You mention the average human attribute of 2D.  Yes, attributes are average of 2D, but that's with no skill.

If you take 2D and compare it to the Core Difficulties, that should give you an idea of how truly difficult those difficulty categories represent for an unskilled person.

An unskilled average human can attempt Very Easy and Easy tasks only.  He cannot succeed in a Moderate task without some help (a modifier).

Now, throw some skill in there, and things change.  Give the base human 1D in skill, now you're talking 3D.

3D for an Very Easy 5+ is 98% chance of success.

3D for an Easy 10+ is 63% chance of success.

3D for a Moderate 15+ is a 9% chance of success.

That looks to me to be a pretty good distribution for a skilled, average individual.



If there is something to criticize about the 1E by-the-book system, it's the difficulty titles.  What is "Very Easy"?  What is "Moderate"?  These are subjective phrases and can be argued.  To see what they mean as defined by the game, we need to look at the examples and the numbers.

"Moderate" is actually a pretty difficult category of challenge that most people can't do without superior attribute (above 2D) and/or some training in the area being tested (skill).

[boot]

VERY EASY


Let's define what "Very Easy" is in this game, according to the 1E core rulebook.  The average human has 2D in attributes.  The average trained human would have 1D in skill, giving him 3D on task rolls.

5+ for an average human means something that can be accomplished 83% of the time.

5+ for an average trained human means something that can be accomplished 98% of the time.



So, we can argue about the title, "Very Easy", as being something that an average untrained human has about a 20%, 1-in-5, chance of failure.  But, looking at all of the difficulty categories this way gives us a better idea of what is meant by the challenge in each category.



EASY

10+ for an average human means something that can be accomplished only 17% of the time!

10+ for an average trained human means something that can be accomplished 63% of the time.



Again, does a 63% chance of success sound like it is easy?  For a trained individual?

We have to align our expectations of what is "Very Easy", "Easy", "Moderate", and the rest with the actual success chance for average and trained average humans.

[Falconer]

I’ve been using the ranges per the Upgrade. How shall I put this? Skill checks suck! You know what I mean? Most of the time, I like to set the bar low, because there are only two results I like:

1. Success! You rolled the dice, you contributed your skills and helped the team move forward. Nice.
2. Dramatic, awful failure! You suck! Something awful will now happen, ha ha!

The case where I would set the bar high is when they want to try something outrageous. I want them to have a dramatically slim chance to succeed; but I’m fine with a “nope, didn’t work, try something else” result. Hope this comment is apropos to your question.

[Zulgyan]

Apr 23, 2019 10:06:47 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Skill checks suck! You know what I mean? Most of the time, I like to set the bar low, because there are only two results I like:

1. Success! You rolled the dice, you contributed your skills and helped the team move forward. Nice.
2. Dramatic, awful failure! You suck! Something awful will now happen, ha ha!

Isn't this the same with OD&D saving throws, attack rolls, thief skills or ability checks though? The results are binary. You succeed or you fail. I usually don't have a problem with this. Sometimes I can make a ruling and improvise some kind of partial success or partial failure.

[Zulgyan]

PREPARATION

We must take into account that PCs can "prepare" any action during a round, in order to get an extra 1D to the roll. This means that whenever they are not time-pressed, they get a considerable boost to their chances of success. A 3D for example, becomes a 4D after 5 seconds (1 round) of "preparation". This helps a lot to get those 10s and 15s. 

[boot]

Where The Game Lives



If you think about it, the game lives at 5, 10, and 15.  That's where most of your throws are.  I love the simplicity of that.  When a character attempts a task, the GM needs to decide about the challenge.  Is it a 5, 10, or 15 task?  Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3.

Outside of those three picks are the tasks that are so easy that they don't require a roll, like following flight procedure and warming up the shuttle, prepping it for the mission.  The other extreme are the very, very hard challenges, like traveling down a metal trench with TIE fighters on your tail, trying to hit an exhaust port with proton torpedoes--where the target is only two meters wide.  Yeah, that's a 20 or 30 task.

I've already said that I think the difficulty categories are named poorly.  I think the game would be better served if we referred to them as Level 1 challenges, Level 2 challenges, or Level 3 challenges (and, of course, higher than that, when it comes into play, would be Level 4 or Level 5 challenges).

Unless it sticks out to you that the task at hand is either very, very easy (requiring no throw) or extremely hard (as with the trench run target), then, again, all a GM has to do is decide:  How hard is this task?  Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3?

Your easier tasks will be Level 1, requiring a 5+.

Your harder tasks will be Level 3, requiring a 15+.

And, your usual tasks, in between, will be Level 2, requiring a 10+.


I actually think that's brilliant, and easy, and it exemplifies the slam, bam, thank-you-ma'am, fast paced, hair-of-your-chin Star Wars action that 1E replicates.

Unless picking an extreme (no roll or 20+), a GM's just has to decide among those three.

That's where the game lives.

[Zulgyan]

boot said:

If there is something to criticize about the 1E by-the-book system, it's the difficulty titles. What is "Very Easy"? What is "Moderate"? These are subjective phrases and can be argued. To see what they mean as defined by the game, we need to look at the examples and the numbers.

Maybe I have to change the assumptions I bring from d20-derived D&D games (3e to 5e, and derivative clones), where the "moderate" challenge is supposed to be the most common one during the course of a meaningful adventure. (If most challenges of a d20 D&D adventure are easy, it means you are too high level for that adventure).

[boot]

Apr 23, 2019 16:38:15 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

boot said:

If there is something to criticize about the 1E by-the-book system, it's the difficulty titles. What is "Very Easy"? What is "Moderate"? These are subjective phrases and can be argued. To see what they mean as defined by the game, we need to look at the examples and the numbers.

Maybe I have to change the assumptions I bring from d20-derived D&D games (3e to 5e, and derivative clones), where the "moderate" challenge is supposed to be the most common one during the course of a meaningful adventure. (If most challenges of a d20 D&D adventure are easy, it means you are too high level for that adventure).

Absolutely.  1E D6 is its own game.  In MegaTraveller, the task names are Simple, Routine, Difficult, Formidable, and Impossible.  I can't go by those titles.  What the heck is a "Formidable" task, anyway?  I can't bring in the assumptions in that game into D6 1E either. 

In MegaTraveller, a Simple task is a 3+ on 2D, and that's with no modifiers.  That will succeed over 97% of the time, and any modifier--even a +1--will make that roll 100% successful all the time.

That's not a Very Easy roll in 1E D6 Star Wars.



Many of the skills give examples at each skill category.  I would suggest spending time with Chapter Two focusing on the skill task examples, when provided.

Page 30 gives a generic over view of what a difficulty level means--what kind of challenge to expect.  But, I think what is more important are the examples provided in the skill and attribute descriptions.

Something that is common knowledge is an Easy 10+ Knowledge roll.  Does that seem high?  Not if you use my "Level" tags instead of calling it Easy.

If you are in a game, and you want to check to see if a character knows something that is common knowledge, would you say it's a level 1 task?  A level 2 task?  or a level 3 task?

Common knowledge doesn't mean that everybody knows it.  It means that many people know it.  So, I'd go with level 2.  10+.



Look at Survival.  

How would you apply the challenge if a character knows the territory like the back of his hand?  Level 1.  5+

What if he can't say that, but he has run through this territory a dozen times?  Level 2.  10+

What if the character is unsure of the area, but can take an educated guess?  Level 3.  15+

What if the character has never been to this area before, and in fact, hasn't been in an area like it?  Now, we go outside our normal three choices.  Level 4.  20+.

What if a character has absolutely no idea?  He's a babe in the woods?  Hasn't got a clue?   Yeah, Level 5.  30+.

[boot]

5 - 10 - 15


What I'm trying to drive home (and, of course, this is entirely my opinion), is that when a GM is faced with a character attempting a task, all the GM needs to do is assign one of those three target numbers.  I'm against muddying the system with variable difficulties.  Just pick one of the three:  5, 10, or 15, and keep the game going.

This is where the game lives, as I said above.



A character wants to run down the corridor, dropping down to his knees, sliding across the floor, and scoop up a blaster rifle dropped by a downed stormtrooper.  Quick, what's the difficulty?

That's a pretty coordinated maneuver.  I consider my three choices, and I gotta go with 15+.

Boom.  Done.  The game keeps on moving at break neck speed.  THIS IS STAR WARS!



Tasks that are extremely easy don't require a throw.  Just roleplay it.

Tasks that are super difficult will require a 20+...or the ultimate 30+.



And, that's it.  Easy system.  Well, it gets a little more complicated with modifiers, but I keep these to a minimum.  I will default to no modifier.  Or, I will apply a quicky modifier, usually +1 or +2.  Then, after the game, I will give it some more thought, looking at the optional modifiers provided in the charts section at the end of the book.  Doing this will make me better able to use modifiers on the fly in the future.

[boot]

From Page 89 of the 1E Core Rulebook

Don't get bogged down in rules details.  The purpose of the rules is to let you decide what happens when a player does something, in a fair and impartial way.  In other words, the rules are supposed to help you keep the game moving.  If they're getting in the way, ignore them.

If you can't quite remember the modifier for shooting at a prone target, don't spend a lot of time flipping through the rules looking for the right table.  Combat happens fast--finding rules is slow.  If you don't remember the modifier, use something reasonable and keep things moving.  You decide; which is better?:

Gamemaster One:  "Okay the target is prone.  There's a difficulty modifier for that, now what was it?  Hmmm.  Don't recall.  Let's see (flip, flip, flip).  Page 142...yeah, okay, the table is...there we go.  Aha.  Okay.  Plus five.  Now what was that range?"

Gamemaster Two:  "Okay!  Your blaster goes 'pyew-pyewpyew.'  The target's prone, so you need to roll a--oh, uh--a 15.  (Clatter of dice.)  Too bad.  The stormtrooper rolls away from your shot, brings his blaster down level and..."

[Zulgyan]

Apr 23, 2019 17:34:39 GMT -6 boot said:

5 - 10 - 15

Sometimes I would prefer those numbers to mean:

5 - Easy

10 - Moderate

15 - Difficult

It would be more in line with what I carry from D&D. But maybe I just have to change my assumptions.

[boot]

Apr 23, 2019 19:46:23 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

Apr 23, 2019 17:34:39 GMT -6 boot said:

5 - 10 - 15

Sometimes I would prefer those numbers to mean:

5 - Easy

10 - Moderate

15 - Difficult

It would be more in line with what I carry from D&D. But maybe I just have to change my assumptions.

That's why I suggested dropping the titles all together.  Go with a Level 1 threat.  A Level 2 threat.  And a Level 3 threat.

Or, use no labels at all.  Just have 5, 10, and 15 difficulty.





I see your struggle with the poorly chosen titles.  Maybe it helps to think that the categories were probably named from a PC's point of view--from a Hero's point of view.  At the top of page 85, right hand column, the game tells us that the average PC is 3D in attributes where as the average human is 2D.  This is because the PCs are BIG DAMN HEROES!

If considered from this Hero's point of view....

(3D)

Very Easy...5+ = 98%.  I'd call that Very Easy.

Easy...10+  = 63%.

Moderate...15+  = 9%



But, also remember, that's an untrained hero.  Let's add in one more die for 1D in skill.

(4D)

Very Easy...5+  = 99%+  (100% for all practical purposes)

Easy...10+  = 90%

Moderate...15+  = 44%



So, that's really what the game designers were probably going for.  They probably figured that the game centers on skilled heroes and not average joes.  So, they named the difficulty categories from that point of view.  Those numbers above, at 4D, for a skill (1D) PC (average 3D) make a lot of sense, now.

If your players ask, tell them that an "Easy" task is something that is easy from the point of view of a skilled Hero, not the average human.

Does that help?



Here are all the success chance percentages from a skilled Hero's perspective (4D)

99%+ ...  Very Easy  ...  5+

90%  ...  Easy  ...  10+

44%  ...  Moderate  ...  15+

5%  ...  Difficult  ...  20+

0%  ...  Very Difficult  ...  30+  (Not possible without minimum of +6 modifier)

[Zulgyan]

Are you sure 4D vs 10 is 98% chance of success? I'm not good at math. You need to roll two 2s and two 3s.