Difficulty values in HQ2 and HQG

[Corvantir]

I have just spotted a major difference between HQ2 and HQG, the value of the Very High Difficulty level is Base +9 in HQ2 whereas it is Base +M in HQG.

While GMing with HQG, the huge gap between the High difficulty (Base +6) and Very High difficulty (Base +M) values in HQG gave me a balance problem. The High Difficulty value wasn't challenging enough while the Very High Difficulty proved to be too high for the group of characters. A Very High Difficulty value around Base +9 or Base +12 would have been perfect actually.

Why such a change between these two editions ?

Have you met the same issue ? Am I missing something ? Are you using the HQ2 or the HQG values ?

[Ian Cooper]

The change occurred because in play for many of the authors it had proved hard to provide a climatic challenge with +9  that felt that different to a +6. and using a +M was more likely to provide a challenge the PCs might fail at. Consider that a PCs primary ability is often as high as 7M and against a +9 you only get 3M resistance meaning that most PCs will beat a Very High resistance.  Nearly Impossible was too much

TBH, I do wonder if we do actually need the full +3, +6, +9, +M range for resistance instead i.e. Moderate = 0, Routine +3, High +6, Very High +9, Extreme +M, Nearly Impossible +2M instead

I suspect the Pass-Fail notation is too hard with this range of values, but as it is indicative, it could point to a range of resistances to use over one.

[Corvantir]

18 minutes ago, Ian Cooper said:

The change occurred because in play for many of the authors it had proved hard to provide a climatic challenge with +9  that felt that different to a +6. and using a +M was more likely to provide a challenge the PCs might fail at. Consider that a PCs primary ability is often as high as 7M and against a +9 you only get 3M resistance meaning that most PCs will beat a Very High resistance.  Nearly Impossible was too much

TBH, I do wonder if we do actually need the full +3, +6, +9, +M range for resistance instead i.e. Moderate = 0, Routine +3, High +6, Very High +9, Extreme +M, Nearly Impossible +2M instead

I suspect the Pass-Fail notation is too hard with this range of values, but as it is indicative, it could point to a range of resistances to use over one.

Thanks for the explanations @Ian Cooper, I agree that the Base +9 value for a High Difficulty is not challenging enough for higher capacity scores.

I am not sure that a new difficulty scale would solve the issue though. A test could prove me wrong though.

I am inclined to test a Base +12 value for a Very High Difficulty before meddling with the number of difficulty levels.

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Corvantir said:

While GMing with HQG, the huge gap between the High difficulty (Base +6) and Very High difficulty (Base +M) values in HQG gave me a balance problem. The High Difficulty value wasn't challenging enough while the Very High Difficulty proved to be too high for the group of characters. A Very High Difficulty value around Base +9 or Base +12 would have been perfect actually....

Have you met the same issue ? Am I missing something ? Are you using the HQ2 or the HQG values ?

I've encountered the issue and I added more difficulty levels. I kept High at base +6, added in Quite High at +12 (IIRC), and then there's Very High at base +W.

[Corvantir]

Just now, jajagappa said:

I've encountered the issue and I added more difficulty levels. I kept High at base +6, added in Quite High at +12 (IIRC), and then there's Very High at base +W.

Thanks @jajagappa, reading from you and @Ian Cooper, I think I will try something like that in my next game :

Moderate: Base

High Difficulty: Base +6

Very High Difficulty: Base +12

Extreme: Base +M

Nearly Impossible: Base +M2

I agree that the gap is somehow too great between the Very High difficulty value and the Nearly impossible difficulty value, something between appears to be needed.

[Ian Cooper]

2 hours ago, Corvantir said:

Thanks @jajagappa, reading from you and @Ian Cooper, I think I will try something like that in my next game :

Moderate: Base

High Difficulty: Base +6

Very High Difficulty: Base +12

Extreme: Base +M

Nearly Impossible: Base +M2

I agree that the gap is somehow too great between the Very High difficulty value and the Nearly impossible difficulty value, something between appears to be needed.

Let us know how it goes, it's something we could pick up on for the next version if it helps.

[Corvantir]

I will let you know, but you will have to wait for a few weeks as we are playing once a month or so.  

Edited April 7, 2019 by Corvantir

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Ian Cooper said:

Let us know how it goes, it's something we could pick up on for the next version if it helps.

I've been using for some time and find it effective. It's a good level of difficulty vs. augmented breakouts as it cancels out the masteries, but tends to be very even as to who gets success/fail.