Difficulty, Boon/Bane, and DMs

[ShawnDriscoll]

Referees need to unlearn the bad habit of adding their own +/- DMs to players rolls. I'm not a fan of Bane/Boon pools. Just pick which roll to make (a 2D, a Bane, or a Boon roll).

It doesn't help when the rules themselves present some situation modifiers as +/- DMs eg: moving faster or slower, or cover rules.

Those are hard-wired DMs. Not player-added DMs.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Those are hard-wired DMs. Not player-added DMs.

That's the point, Shawn. There shouldn't be any 'hard-wired DMs' in the rules. They should be subsumed into either a set difficulty level or boon/bane dice.

Having them there undermines the point of having variable difficulty levels and boon/bane. It also, flatly, adds to confusion in the rules as they stand.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Those are hard-wired DMs. Not player-added DMs.

That's the point, Shawn. There shouldn't be any 'hard-wired DMs' in the rules. They should be subsumed into either a set difficulty level or boon/bane dice.

Having them there undermines the point of having variable difficulty levels and boon/bane. It also, flatly, adds to confusion in the rules as they stand.

The burden of proof is on you. Make a video describing your case.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The burden of proof is on you. Make a video describing your case.

That is an absolutely worthless thing to say. It doesn't address the point in the slightest and lowers the tone of this playtest.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The burden of proof is on you. Make a video describing your case.

That is an absolutely worthless thing to say. It doesn't address the point in the slightest and lowers the tone of this playtest.

Fine. Debate in the forum then if you won't do a video. I already know what your mechanic will look like. And it's very ho-hum.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The burden of proof is on you. Make a video describing your case.

That is an absolutely worthless thing to say. It doesn't address the point in the slightest and lowers the tone of this playtest.

Fine. Debate in the forum then if you won't do a video. I already know what your mechanic will look like. And it's very ho-hum.

I don't need to do videos at your behest, Shawn, and that is not what playtesting is about.

Moreover, I couldn't care less what you think it will look like - the burden is on you to argue your point rationally and logically. If you can't do that, then the 'Word of God' method that you have been assuming throughout these forums is prone to a disaster come publishing time. Beyond this, you are merely anti-selling the game with the tone of your responses.

When D&D introduced the advantage/disadvantage rule to it's 5E (which is really the source of the idea behind boon/bane) it did so to remove all the little modifiers with one catch all rule. When the Traveller playtest introduced Boon/Bane it argued the same reasons for it - but has since fallen back on the idea and started reintroducing DMs into the rules. This just leads to confusion - and your cussed responses are not helping the matter at all.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

When D&D introduced the advantage/disadvantage rule to it's 5E (which is really the source of the idea behind boon/bane) it did so to remove all the little modifiers with one catch all rule. When the Traveller playtest introduced Boon/Bane it argued the same reasons for it - but has since fallen back on the idea and started reintroducing DMs into the rules. This just leads to confusion - and your cussed responses are not helping the matter at all.

So show us an example of your idea. You like to put stuff out there in hopes that someone else will do the work for you. Normally, re-designing a game mechanic is not playtesting by the way.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'm criticising the mechanic as it stands, not suggesting a new one.

The suggestion I made in the other thread was to simply remove boon/bane from the core, and present it as an optional rule in the Companion when it's been thought out a bit. My view is that it can then get discussed fully about how or when to apply it in a game. If the core rules went back to the notion of just applying DMs in the meantime, as they did in the last edition, there would be less confusion overall.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Ok. So it's just circles then. No debate.

 

[TrippyHippy]

And another pointless remark from you. Do you actually read anybody else's posts here before you respond to them?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I'm watching videos on D&D 5e's Advantage/Disadvantage to see how it relates to Boon/Bane.

ADDED:
Apples and oranges is all. Two different die mechanics. Two different reasons for adding such die rolls to new editions.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'm watching videos on D&D 5e's Advantage/Disadvantage to see how it relates to Boon/Bane.

ADDED:
Apples and oranges is all. Two different die mechanics. Two different reasons for adding such die rolls to new editions.

What are those reasons, precisely?

 

[Stainless]

Good try TrippyHippy, but you're unlikely to make progress with Shawn.

I note that the fairly successful Barbarians of Lemuria uses a stacking Boob/Bane system (labelled more intuitively Bonus/Penalty die). It has DMs to modify difficulties (referenced to a constant target number) and for ranges. And that's it.

If you use a variable target number (corresponding to difficulties) as the playtest document does, then the only DMs BoL uses is for ranges. All other adjustments come through the Bonus/Penalty die which is more nuanced because you can stack those dice.

It's a great simple system that's easy to intuit dice rolls for on the fly.

Traveller is a bit more tactical and gearheaded, so I understand more DMs creep in. I get your point; with every DM that's in the system, the Boon/Bane system gets diluted and/or potentially adds confusion. So it should come down to a stylistic decision by Matt.

System with minimal DMs and Boon/Bane - may be considered too simple by the average Traveller player's aesthetic
System with more DMs and no Boon/Bane - may be considered too old school and missing the fun of Boon/Bane system
System with DMs and Boon/Bane - may be considered too confusing or a bit of an arbitrary mechanic.

Is there a sweet spot for DMs and Boon/Bane to live happily together or is it literally or effectively one or the other?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Thanks, Stainless. I was getting to the point of questioning my sanity with where the debate was heading. At least somebody recognises the point I was making - and that is all I want, basically. Yes, it is a stylistic issue but the point is raised, nevertheless.

EDIT: Just read this comment made by someone else on the drivethrurpg Traveller Beta forum:

I just saw in one of the reviews that the devs opted for the new "overnight sensation" modifier mechanics, Bane and Boons. What´s the "ratio" behind this? And please don´t tell me it´s just to make it simpler and faster, because if in other systems that was already a non-issue (having modifiers does´t equal having to have a PhD in maths or physics), on Traveller and it´s fan-base, it´s actually ludicrous. I´m not saying you should need to do 4 lines of equations to figure out a modifier for a certain degree of light to influence an attack, say "Starlight", BUT having ALL possible modifiers end up as a single Bane OR Boon (they don´t even seem to cumulate) is, and I say it from a personal point of view, ridiculous... But hey if D&D 5th (or the new sensation Shadow of the Demon Lord) has this much success one needs to ride it out, right?

Feel free to answer him over there by all means, but consider it the tip of the iceberg if the criticism isn't addressed in the playtest.

 

[Stainless]

I think Boon/Bane is a valid and useful mechanic. It skews the distribution and doesn't change the range. More subtle than a shifting normal distribution. There's no problem with what it does mathematically. It's just the criteria for its use that needs to be more rigorously qualified.

 

[NOLATrav]

I think Boon/Bane is a valid and useful mechanic. It skews the distribution and doesn't change the range. More subtle than a shifting normal distribution. There's no problem with what it does mathematically. It's just the criteria for its use that needs to be more rigorously qualified.

+1

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

DMs determined by players. TNs determined by Referee. Boon/Bane determined by the weather....

I think Trippy isn't really interested in improving Boon/Bane. And is more into creating confusion where there is none.

First, understand why a skill check is even being done. Then go from there with the skill check rules.

 

[-Daniel-]

EDIT: Just read this comment made by someone else on the drivethrurpg Traveller Beta forum:

[snip feedback]

Feel free to answer him over there by all means, but consider it the tip of the iceberg if the criticism isn't addressed in the playtest.

Just curious, why wouldn't we want them to come here to discuss? It seems odd to me that there is an official forum for discussion and feedback and yet folks do not come here. They would rather bitch and moan on some other forum.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Just curious, why wouldn't we want them to come here to discuss? It seems odd to me that there is an official forum for discussion and feedback and yet folks do not come here. They would rather bitch and moan on some other forum.

People like to spread FUD around without having seen the rules.

 

[amerginsrd]

Is there a sweet spot for DMs and Boon/Bane to live happily together or is it literally or effectively one or the other?

Whatever you express as DMs has greater weight than what you express with Boon/Bane as DMs modify the Effect as well as the chance of success. To my mind, the sweet spot lies with skill and characteristic bonuses. They should weigh heavier and therefor be expressed with DMs.