Why are so many games bad at balancing not just the difficulty of an action but weighing success and failure in a balanced manner? Lemme put it like this:
Some GM's think because the way a game is structured attacking an opponent with an AC of 20 is as difficult as making a Stealth Check at a DC of 20. Except they often forget that the consequences of failure in these are often magnitudes different.
If I fail an attack roll then guess what? I miss an attack and I have to wait till next turn to attack again. It sucks but unless I literally cannot take another hit or the enemy has some bullshit save or lose power (but that's a completely different discussion) then it's a minor setback at worst.
But if I fail a stealth roll the GM has no reason to assume just going "Well I guess a guard saw you and sounded an alarm" is a perfectly legitimate consequence of failure, even if it does mean my character is basically fucked and any mission we might've been on is basically doomed to failure now.
Now clearly the reaction is to just go "Just rule if you fail a stealth roll you knock over a lamp or something" but see: no book spells it out to do Stealth like that or how to actually tackle this issue. No book provides a good indication of what's a fair result of failure compared to the DC you're attempting and the action you're performing.
Why do no games even attempt to balance the results of success against the consequences of failure or try to have the difficulty class cover that? The DC is just a number you're suppose to meet, the actual important things is what happens if you hit or miss it.
>>45959101
>a
I agree with your sentiment, failing a stealth check should raise the "alarm level" by one point, giving someone sneaking around at least a chance to fix it up.
Also remember that in d20 systems rogue type are supposed to tricks like silence and invisibility, having ranks in stealth is just ranks in stealth that are unlimited use.
>>45959101
>>45959370
Aren't stealth checks and similar checks always context sensitive?
If you try to stealth in combat you probably don't vanish completely, it is more about distraction and DM could still allow dodge bonuses or free movement around battlefield even if your smoke screen fails a bit.
Out of combat it depends on situation. Maybe the rogue notices that the guards are suspicious and doesn't try to sneak past them meaning that he loses time or an angle of approach. If trying to hide in a dark nook there most likely some bonus to roll and any failure would have to be a catastrophic blunder.
>>45959101
Because if you have a balanced game people will complain that it's not crunchy enough.
>>45959593
Yes. In combat it's fail or flail, and you need cover to use stealth.
Out of combat it depends on the situation indeed, I would go so far as to let the character take 10 on planning his approach, and give him a easy or bad time based on his planning roll.
Because usually skills level up faster than your to-hit modifier, hence the same DCs but more crucial successes or failures.
+10 to (skill) item in appropriate slot
10,000 GP price
+10 to hit sword
25,000 GP price (if purchaseable).
Obviously skill bonuses are easier to come by than to-hit bonuses. After level 6 you should be hitting 25+ skill checks easily.
>>45959593
When I GMwhich us alwaysI play a failed stealth roll as either leaving a clue like a footprint or leaving a door ajar or whatever that might be noticed by someone later or I play it as a guard noticing something and going to investigate. How a player deals with or avoids the guard determines if an alarm us raised and what that alarm is (a guard shouting would only alert others in earshot, setting off a fire alarm alerts everyone but they would be looking for a fire for example).
But from stories I've heard and a couple of games I've played in most GMs see a failed stealth roll as the NPC hivemind alerting every being on the planet and spawning in a few more that weren't there before just to fuck with the PCs.
>>45959101
>Some GM's think because the way a game is structured attacking an opponent with an AC of 20 is as difficult as making a Stealth Check at a DC of 20.
Dungeon World way of GMing.
>>45959705
I have no idea why "is" autocorrects to "us" but I guess that's what I get for posting from a phone.
>>45959705
I guess the hardest part for DM.is managing the flow of time, especially out of combat when there is no turn structure.
What phase of the action fails makes a huge difference, in your case the failure is after the action has completed but it could be as well be in the middle or before it even start.
I haven't met MGS style convergence alarms though. I think players would protest if guards started to flood from under carpets and out of the vases just because rogue tripped and a guard started yelling.
Besides if the guard is not in high security zone or alert for some reason, doesn't know everyone around and the rogue doesn't look like a burglar the first reaction might just be "Who the fuck are you?"
>>45959720
>el DW boogeyman
What about all the years before DW existed
>>45959931
Say that to this new post-DW generation. They don't believe their game is just a copy paste of old ideas, with a system even a middle schooler could think alone in his room.
>>45959982
How was OP's thing anything to DO with DW? It's talking about similar DCs with different weighted results, not an unchanging DC for the system in general.
>>45960011
Anon is just 'baiting.
>>45960011
You didn't read my quote, did you?
>>45959101
There's plenty of games out there that have much better fleshed out "degrees of failure/success" or dice that adapt a curve better than the linear line of retardation that is d20+modifiers.
Stop playing D&D
>>45960401
Yeah we get it. Your homebrew is infinitely better than a system that's Been evolving and changing since it began the pen and paper genre. Go take your mess autismo.
So... what? The game should become easier when the players choose to play with higher stakes?
For that matter, your example is fundamentally flawed, because most checks don't have static DC outside crap like X World games. The DC depends on what you're up against and what advantages you manage to scrounge up, and the bonuses that apply are also quite variable. The DC to sneak past a run of the mill guard is only too high if either your bonuses suck(either because you're low level or just bad at sneaking) or you're not making the best out of circumstances. Dark hallway? Blacken any light-coloured bits of skin and clothing and make sure none of the metal on you is shiny. Easy +2 circumstance bonus. Make sure your equipment isn't making any noise because of metal clinking against metal or the like. Another circumstance bonus. Wait until the guard gets bored or arrange a distraction of some sort. Lower DC. And so on. If you're going to make a critical check and you act like it's just another dice roll, you don't get to complain when the DC is too high.
The GM chooses the DC based on what's appropriate: For AC, he counts the armour worn by the guard, the dexterity bonus, magic and other misc bonuses and so on. For stealth check, he counts the guard's perception modifier in a similar manner. Whether it's important for the PC to make the check in question is irrelevant to that calculation. It's the PLAYER'S responsibility to make sure that it's easy for them to hit the DC when it's important, or face the consequences.
>>45960446
What so many people don't seem to understand is that skills work differently than attack rolls and are treated differently because of this.
>>45959101
This is an issue with GMs who don't know how to read the parts of the book about "how to be a GM" as opposed to "how to use the rules" and novice GMs. There is no game that actually says "skills are black and white, succeed or total failure", and in fact most every module ever has, "the the roll fails by X, then Q happens; if the roll fails by Y, then R happens," and the reverse for successes. In every "how to run the game" section ever, it literally suggests that you use degrees of success and failure. The time and effort it would take to spell out every single instance would be prohibitive.
That's why xWorld games exist, to teach novice GM's and stupid people how to get past Pass/Fail mechanics, and it's literally the only thing xWorld system is any good for - any GM who has a few years experience will look at an xWorld game and realize they've not only mastered it, that the system itself is beyond useless.
Basically, you're either an illiterate who doesn't actually read the books on how to run games, or your a novice GM who can't think beyond Pass/Fail logic.
