Since this is a separate issue than the original thread, I'm splitting it off onto its own thread.
mith wrote:
DeadZone wrote:
This is extremely important. As I was reading through this thread, this thought was running through my mind a lot. (I won't take sides on the main crux of the argument, yet. I'm still trying to decide where I stand on it, and whether or not that's colored by my primary being a martial.) Anyway, in the d20 days, most adventures seemed to scale their TNs (or DCs at the case may be) with APL. As you played at higher and higher APLs, the DCs got bigger to keep it challenging. I've always been of the belief that this should have been unacceptable. I understand that it was a common practice, and was not limited to LA. I also understand that 18th level PCs could easily get skill checks that would blow away the "amazing" DC level, and it was, to a certain extent, necessary. But PCI can avoid that arms race and is no longer beholden to a rules set that encouraged such behavior. If a lock is incredibly well made and takes a TN of 30 to pick it, then it should always take a TN of 30, no matter who is trying to pick it. The tier 5 PC with maxed out Larcceny should have an easier time of it than the tier 3 PC. If you are writing an adventure and you're introducing the lock in order to make a challenge for a PC to overcome, then you're going to need to think a little harder. The lock should be there to facilitate the story, not to to be a skill challenge. Appropriate TNs are spelled out in the book. We, as adventure authors, need to be cognizant of this. And campaign staff and editors need to also keep an eye out for this. Stop the arms race before it begins.
I'm usually pretty good at finding *something* to argue against - not just because I can be an ass, but because I'm very good at being the Devil's Advocate... With this post and the bit John posted, I can find no fault with. I am 100% agreed. There are better, more interesting ways to challenge players and their characters.
I'm glad you both feel this way, and I hope other people do as well. However, the truth of the matter is that most people don't want challenge. People want to *win*, and its a lot easier to win when everything is based on a numbers game. They want to get 100% of the experience, 100% of the loot, 100% of the story, and getting anything less often leads to very pointed (often angry) questions of "What did we miss? Why didn't we get that?" or assertions that the experience/loot/story ought to have been handled differently. Or the arguments of "My character would have been able to talk my way into/out of that if you'd just let me roll instead of role playing." Or the "I misunderstood, and I shouldn't be penalized for misunderstanding." Hmmmm... I may be a little bitter tonight. Nonetheless.
We're already starting to do this in combats: They will no longer be designed for optimized parties of 6/7. Instead, we are going to stat them two ways: First to the needs of the story (if you're facing a real dragon, a Voiceless One, etc... in straight out up front combat, you're going to get destroyed. Stupidity leads to character creation.) After those rare cases, everything will be designed for an average level party of 5. Parties of 6/7 optimized players are going to completely run rampant over the combats unless the Chroniclers step up the challenge level. We'll have hints and tricks to do that in a general document, and generally in each module as well.
What I'm interested in is whether this should be applicable to everything. If we as authors truly write to the needs of the story, there are going to be places not everyone can get. A table with two Orthodoxy members may be able to talk to an NPC that won't talk to non-Orthodoxy members, while a table with no Orthodoxy members will not. A table without someone skilled at picking locks will not be able to get into some rooms without smashing down the door (and essentially advertising their skullduggery to other people at the party that evening. I'm looking at you, As Cold and Gray As Stone). But if we have to proceed on the feeling that everyone should be able to get everywhere and get everything... a lot of story opportunities become a lot less viable. So, this is no longer going to be about how high the TN is, which will be determined by the story. It's going to be about the consequences of success and failure, about the opportunities afforded by either, and about who the Heroes are instead of the numbers of their stats. At least, to the best of our ability.
In brief: We are stopping the arms race (at the very least in the Soft Points, which I have control over). We are replacing it with what will hopefully be a more engaging game.
Which brings me back to the errata that's going around, and all the discussion about it: I want to thank everyone who has been participating in the attempt to make the rules of the game clearer for everyone. At the end of the day, we are not trying to screw anyone over. We're trying to bring balance to something that is still in development. D&D didn't get to where it is without going through many previous iterations. Sometimes they made many steps forward (3.5, in my opinion), sometimes they took steps back (4.0, in my opinion). We're doing the same thing.
Thoughts?