tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post1734298715031776735..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: How to Write a Rule: Framing the SolutionAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-65796079067699798092017-11-26T11:58:28.839-07:002017-11-26T11:58:28.839-07:001) The major roll would be for the trailblazer; th...1) The major roll would be for the trailblazer; that part of the string would then be reduced in difficulty for those following behind. Thus, while the trailblazer made the "tricky" roll, the others would only have to manage "tense."<br /><br />2) Ah, yes, death. But that would depend on the difficulty of the passage, yes? We could implement a 3d6 roll, with a bell curve, for failures ... and that bell curve could be adjusted easily, so that failure on an "easy" part of the string would mean something different from failure on an "improbable" part.<br /><br />As an aside, I just finished watching The Eiger Sanction from 1975: THE mountain climbing movie, in my opinion. You can watch it <a href="http://movieocean.net/watch/7e7b4f-the-eiger-sanction-1975.3YmRIt?pass=c79844" rel="nofollow">on this site</a>, though you'll have to turn off your adblocker and it's basically a pirate link. If heights freak you a little, as they do me, it's a good, tense, often scary film. Eastwood took lessons and then trained to climb so that he could do the work personally ~ he does not use a stunt double in the film, and this is obvious from quite a lot of the close up shots, made in a time when it was impossible to get this level of realism from a mat-painting. It's a particularly good film in many ways.<br /><br />Near the end, without spoiling it, there are several points at which the expert climbers must manage "improbable" sections of the Eiger. One expert climber died during the shoot due to poor weather and other factors ~ the danger the actors and climbers faced making the movie is absolutely real. IMDb says that, in the film, when Eastwood cuts his safety line, he really is over a 1,000 foot drop.<br /><br />Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-23013170194874220892017-11-26T10:26:52.179-07:002017-11-26T10:26:52.179-07:00This post really got my headjuices bubbling over.
...This post really got my headjuices bubbling over.<br /><br />Two things, <br /><br />1) Would every single climber be expected to roll or just the trailblazer, with mitigation for those who follow?<br /><br />2) How would this system deal with deadly consequences of failure? You speak of lost tools and survivable falls which I have to assume would be results returned by simple failure, I am to assume that, in accordance with your previously exposed thoughts, the dice would have to fatefully come up 1-1-1 (downright impossible once you start adding expertise dice), before anything lethal would be on the cards, correct?Drainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09724863160300686402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-26511803024325642202017-11-16T18:44:27.633-07:002017-11-16T18:44:27.633-07:00Tim,
The additional items that you mention, weath...Tim,<br /><br />The additional items that you mention, weather, tools - or I might propose season or altitude - can be rolled into the difficulty scale I proposed. A climb that might be "tense" in clear weather would be "tricky," or even "risky" in a storm. A lack of the right tools could increase the difficulty up the scale; so could virtually any other element you might name. Thus, the original scale stands and doesn't need modifiers or a second system to manage the difficulty of rolls.<br /><br />The roll itself could be a bell-curve based on 3d6. "Safe" wouldn't require a roll, "easy" might need a 5, "chancy" a 7, "tense" a 9 ... and then things get scarier as "tricky" needs a 12, "risky" a 14, "hazardous" a 16, "improbable" an 18 and "impossible" means literally that, the climb can't be made. Impossible is a dead end.<br /><br />Then, for an amateur climber (sage ability), we could add an extra d6, the character having the benefit of "the best 3 out of 4" dice. An authority would enjoy the best out of 5d6, an expert the best out of 6d6 and a sage the best out of 7d6. That way, even a sage couldn't very well rely on making an 18 out of seven dice, but might feel safe chancing a hazardous passage and would be virtually sure to manage something risky.<br /><br />Other dice might then be added for specific, hard to find tools ~ which might then be lost along the way if one is dropped. Failures might include stat checks that enable a "recover" from a fall or not dropping a tool so far that it can't be recovered (though the recovery might be a dangerous climb in itself).<br /><br />Finally, regarding stat effects. I think that the experience of climbing should be far more important than the character's stats. Stats are used too much as a "solve-all" feature that makes much of the game's play very grey, as character's with high stats can do virtually anything by rolling their way through every obstacle. Moreover, persons with different high stats would naturally navigate up a mountain differently: someone wise would select their footing; someone with constitution would brave slow and stolidly; someone with dexterity would rely on their balance to carry them through while someone strong could support their weight better or feel less swayed by their equipment.<br /><br />Thus, everyone climbs differently, using the stat that is best for them; in effect, eliminating the importance of stats (we could simply say "use the stat that works best for you") by recognizing that they'd likely range from 16 to 18 for every player. No, I think experience is the thing: and experience could be partly gained by just climbing successfully. Each successful roll of "tense" adds 10% of one knowledge point; a successful roll of "tricky" or better adds 20% of a point ~ and only fools court "risky" rolls, so we don't award better knowledge for stupidity. Then, if a character, any character, wants to be a better mountain climber, they only have to climb mountains.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-12618623708712926492017-11-16T13:02:58.440-07:002017-11-16T13:02:58.440-07:00Well, I hope the series doesn't culminate here...Well, I hope the series doesn't culminate here, as I'd be interested in seeing how you add additional information to the rule structure without causing the whole thing to topple over or become difficult to use.<br /><br />Say we start with this basic system involving trail assessment, we produce a reasonable method of calculating the wager and the cost/benefit (e.g. you determine how long a slope might take to climb based on character abilities, and what chance of failure there would be at each "checkpoint") and then want to incorporate more elements, like weather (precipitation and muddy terrain versus intense sunlight, for instance) or tools (connected to the preparation component: how should having certain tools affect the climb? Can we recover from failures, or take more dangerous routes?)<br /><br />Perhaps tools can be added in easily since the players see their own ability to control the situation by bringing along extra equipment; on the hand, weather effects could simply <i>dampen</i> the players' hopes or cause them to <i>burn out</i> (pun intended), because the corresponding preparation or adjustment aspects aren't as clearly established as "buy a grappling hook in town so you can take an extra save vs falling". Obviously, that work then falls to the DM in how the rule is incorporated within the rest of the system, but the point would then be how to integrate new rules successfully.<br /><br />One element that is obviously connected is the psychological response to the wager the DM proposes. Does an extra roll provoke more tension compared to a +3 bonus? Is one more <b>fair</b> than the other? That would make an interesting topic for discussion (heck, someone could write a doctoral thesis on it): are there common responses to different kinds of randomness, and do players tend to evaluate some forms of randomness differently, perhaps overestimating or underestimating their odds? If we produce a set of mathematically-calculated odds, how does a gambler respond?<br /><br />One example might be a critical hit system (since we're using a combat system as our basis): whereas some tabletops will give an additional damage die roll every time a critical hit roll is achieved, others will instead give flat bonuses or multipliers, say the maximum possible on damage dice. Some systems will allow extra hit rolls to provide the possibility for chaining rolls. In this context, critical hits can also work against the player (since an opponent can use the same system). How the players interact can also have a big effect on how these systems connect to one another: what if our hikers chain together, or choose routes independently? When do we consider hikers a unit (cf. initiative rolls) versus independent participants (cf. attacking and defending)?Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496502173819113887noreply@blogger.com