I wasn't sure where to put this, so here it is in RPG Theory...

So, Sorcerer and Donjon use variations of the same dice mechanic - each participant rolls a number of dice, ties are discarded, and the person showing the highest die wins. This is an oversimplification, I know, but I'm not here to discuss the details of the mechanic. What I'm curious about is the different implementations of this mechanic in the two games mentioned.

When the PC is engaged in a contest vs. an inanimate, static, or unresponsive opponent, say, jumping over a pit or solving a riddle, the GM chooses a number of dice to roll against the character's score.

In Sorcerer, this number of opposing dice is directly related to the character's score. For a mildy challenging conflict, the GM chooses a number of dice between 1 and the character's score. For significant challenge, the GM rolls a number of dice equal to the character's score, and for greater challenges, piles on some more dice, etc.

Donjon, on the other hand, lists some guidelines for static numbers of dice to roll, depending on either the difficulty of the task, or the degree of narrative control the GM wants to have in the task's outcome. The numbers are something like 3 = medium diff, 6 = hard, 9 = very hard, 12 = crazy.

So, static and relative target numbers using the same die mechanic. The question is, what effects do these differing systems have on play? Unfortunately I've had no opportunities to play either of these games, and I'm curious as to which method is preferable for what style of play, and why.

Hopefully, that's a general enough question that nobody will have a clue how to answer it... :) Basically, Sorcerer is Narrative, Donjon is Gamist, and I'm working on a Sim game that will potentially use the dice mechanic because it's pretty cool, as this thread made me realize. Any insights would be greatly appreciated...

The difference seems solely mathematic to me. The curves can't be summed up easily, but it should suffice to say that nothing general can be said of either curve that makes it unique from the other. In some cases each mechanic will produce the same number of dice on each side. In others they won't.

The only difference I see is that the Sorcerer version makes a particular task as attractive to one player as it is to the next. That is, if I'm rolling 5 dice against 4, and you therefore would roll 4 dice vs 3, that seems about the same (it's somewhat different, but doesn't seem very different). Wheras with the Dunjon version if I'm rolling 5 vs 4 and you're rolling 4 vs 4, that could be seen as substantively different (me with an advantage, and you with only even odds). And that assumes that for the Sorcerer game that you're not recalculating the die pool each time. If you are, then depending on how much more or less lenient you are, even this difference might not appear.

What differences in play this perception may create I can't fathom. Seems too similar to have an effect. The only thing that I can think of is that the "set" value of Donjon might seem to have a more "fair Gamist" or Sim feel. Whereas the relativity of the Sorcerer version might be seen as relating the conflict to the character, which might support a more Narrativist mindset.

But even that would be minimal, and based on not understanding the math well. IMO.

Mike

Well, of course both methods are mathematically similar - it's the same roll mechanic...!

I was more looking for some insight on how the different systems impact the feel of play. I agree with the assessment that static target rolls are more Sim in feel than Sorcerer's relative target rolls. I'm just not sure why, since as you point out, they're mathematically very similar.

I haven't had the opportunity to play either game yet. That said...

Relative rolls are saying "the difficulty is decided abstractly (this is challenging, this is standard, this is easy) and then numbers are derived according to the person taking on the challenge". This suggests that challenges will continue to grow with characters (if, indeed, their sheets "grow" over time), and places a lot of emphasis on knowing who is coming to the party before deciding what dice you're going to throw at the table.

Static rolls are saying "there is a universal absolute for difficulty, and as characters grow, things of a particular level of difficulty will become easier". This certainly has a more traditionally familiar feel to it, where the deadly goblins of today are tomorrow's lunchmeat. Long-running games may result in characters who routinely take on the impossible and beat it because their dice pools have exceeded that "rung".

So talking about the ideas solely in the abstract, it would seem that the differences are pretty palpable and on the surface -- but I'll leave it to the folks who've actually played the two to comment as to whether or not this bears up.

For a Sim game, I'd actually go with the relative difficulty.

Something about static target numbers grates on me in what I identify as my more simulationist moments. On occasion, when a person is a beginner in a particular area, there are tasks that they find rather difficult which a person who is just slightly more advanced than them does automatically. Similarly, there may be tasks that someone with a little bit of skill has no clue how to do, but which someone with only a little more skill has a decent shot at. A static target number system doesn't take these into account (though it can do the second if you tack on a minimum skill level for specific tasks).

Stuart

Stuart a.k.a. szilard wrote: For a Sim game, I'd actually go with the relative difficulty.

Something about static target numbers grates on me....A static target number system doesn't take these into account (though it can do the second if you tack on a minimum skill level for specific tasks).

when he wrote: That is, if I'm rolling 5 dice against 4, and you therefore would roll 4 dice vs 3, that seems about the same (it's somewhat different, but doesn't seem very different).

Only problem there is that Sorcerer deals with conflict resolution rather than task resolution - instead of rolling to jump the gorge, you'd roll to get to the other side of the gorge. When the dice fall, someone (not sure who with Sorcerer) describes how (if at all) the character got to the other side. Maybe they jumped the gorge, maybe they found a way around, maybe they climbed down one side and up the other, etc. Donjon, on the other hand, is definitely task resolution.

As I read and digest, the more I'm beginning to think that the relative target number is more suitable for conflict resolution, and the static target number is better for task resolution. The system I'm envisioning will be using task resolution, so that would seem to indicate a static target approach. Still, Stuart has some good points. However, I don't feel that the scenario he outlines holds true for all skills, only some.

Holy shit, I just got hit by a truck from a side street. Why not let the player decide what the difficulty for their character will be? Less work for the GM, less grousing from the players when the perceptions differ on how difficult the task should be... Damn, I just gotta test this out; I'm all excited...

ethan_greer wrote: Holy shit, I just got hit by a truck from a side street. Why not let the player decide what the difficulty for their character will be? Less work for the GM, less grousing from the players when the perceptions differ on how difficult the task should be...

Hey Mike, that's a cool game you got there. I'm going for Sim, though. Are there specific aspects of Synthesis that you think I should focus on for inspiration/ideas?

Thanks Ethan,

Actually, Synthesis can be played pretty Simmy. The idea is that there are consequences for each and every action; every roll is a gamble. The player selects his difficulty. Low difficulty means safety, but not much reward. High difficulty means risk but greater potential reward. In fact, there's a sweet spot for any Trait that produces the best results.

Now, I only allow players to select difficulty when the players would reasonably have some input. That is, in a field of boulders, the strongman can pick and choose which to lift. In a barfight there will be all sorts of opponents to beat on ranging from weak to tough. When leaping a chasm...

Well, that's when the GM just makes a call. The player always has the option to turn back and face some other challenge.

But what the player choice mechanic allows is for players to do things like attempt to create works of art. The difficulty selected represents how hard they are pushing themselves. Want a magic sword? Cool, go for it. The harder you make the task the more impressive the outcome will be.

This basic dynamic is, by itself very Sim. Not traditional, but very Sim. The game only becomes Narrativist when characters are encouraged to confront their issues.

This is all stuff I'm struggling with in the design right now (ver 2.0 should nail some of it down). But the basic principle seems to ba a good one that can translate to a lot of games I'd think. Basically the idea of tasks as gambles with differing rewards.

Mike

Perhaps I'm being thick, or just unobservant, but I can't find where in Synthesis it says that players pick the difficulties of conflicts for their characters. This is based on two skims of the whole document and one thorough read-through of the Conflict section. Can you clue me in?

*looks around* Hey! Where'd everybody go? Any clarification on the above question?

Having not read Sorcerer I must be missing something important.

Relative difficulty makes me ask the question: 'Why do you even have variable dice pools (from traits or whatever source)?' Seems like every roll is reduced to pure and equal chance. If Hard is the same number of dice and Easy is less dice, why do anything except always roll 2d against 1d for Easy and 2d for Hard?

ethan_greer wrote: Perhaps I'm being thick, or just unobservant, but I can't find where in Synthesis it says that players pick the difficulties of conflicts for their characters. This is based on two skims of the whole document and one thorough read-through of the Conflict section. Can you clue me in?

Forgot in the above post to address Jason's concern.

cruciel wrote: Having not read Sorcerer I must be missing something important.

Mike, that's pretty clever. I dig it. Thanks for the clarification.