What "base difficulty" is this?

When I look at the rules in the book it doesn't give any such thing.

Lets take a basic situation, say that you were in a room and a zombie walked toward you and you have a pistol.

Aiming and shooting at the zombie would be 1 positive die for the pistol, one positive die for the close range and no negative dice at all. Now, if the room was dark that would add a negative dice and say that there was a hole in the roof through which rain poured in that would add another negative die.

Or am I missing something???

In the section on building the dice pool it says you add negative dice for a variety of reasons

1) Negative features that are relevant

2) Any situational modifiers such as bad lighting or bad weather

3) Traumas

4) And a base difficulty depending on how hard the task actually is.

The book then directs you to (I think...book not on me right now) page 44 where it discusses how many dice to the GM should add to a test. Situations that are just stressful in a normal day situation get on negative dice I think. Then a table says what tests would call for the addition of 1,2 or 3 negative dice as a "base" difficulty. I put base zombie encounters as 1 negative dice. This might be wrong but that's what I went with for my first session.

I can see a base difficulty coming into play when it is shooting from horseback or from driving a bike not from pointing a gun at a zombie and pulling the trigger.

What "base difficulty" is this?

When I look at the rules in the book it doesn't give any such thing.

Lets take a basic situation, say that you were in a room and a zombie walked toward you and you have a pistol.

Aiming and shooting at the zombie would be 1 positive die for the pistol, one positive die for the close range and no negative dice at all. Now, if the room was dark that would add a negative dice and say that there was a hole in the roof through which rain poured in that would add another negative die.

Or am I missing something???

In the section on building the dice pool it says you add negative dice for a variety of reasons

1) Negative features that are relevant

2) Any situational modifiers such as bad lighting or bad weather

3) Traumas

4) And a base difficulty depending on how hard the task actually is.

The book then directs you to (I think...book not on me right now) page 44 where it discusses how many dice to the GM should add to a test. Situations that are just stressful in a normal day situation get on negative dice I think. Then a table says what tests would call for the addition of 1,2 or 3 negative dice as a "base" difficulty. I put base zombie encounters as 1 negative dice. This might be wrong but that's what I went with for my first session.

According to the example in the combat section of the book there is no added dice for base difficulty in the combat role.

I can see a base difficulty coming into play when it is shooting from horseback or from driving a bike not from pointing a gun at a zombie and pulling the trigger.

Well I was getting that wrong then. I assumed they abided by the difficulty rules on page 44. That enforces what we've all been saying here though -Timfads is rolling way too many negative dice in combat encounters.

If you dont roll any negative dice for a test, then what is the point of rolling a test? Why just not say that you hit and killed the thing?

Even then, if you have ever shot a gun at something only +- 10 feet away, you can still miss. It all depends on how focused you are, how you are breathing, how much time you take to aim, etc. So there is still some level of difficulty that needs to be accounted for. For the above mentioned scenario of a single zombie at close range I would still roll 1 neg dice.

What I use for a baseline is 1 Pos. dice and 1 neg dice. Then I add extra dice depending on the situation and features. I see no point in rolling a test unless there is some change of failure=neg dice.

Well, because your success doesn’t hang on positive and/or negative dice only.

Even if you roll 3 positive dice there is still that target number you need to roll, remember? So your example of “If you ever shot a gun at something only 10 feet away, you can still miss” is then covered as well since if you roll 2 fives and a six and you have a dex of 3, then you miss no need for negative dice at all in that scenario. So using a baseline of 1 pos/ 1 neg is not needed.

Well if there was a zombie 10 ft away and I missed I would be scared out of my freaking mind=stress.

Say you're on top of a van or tall platform. You're surrounded by a few zombies. Say the zombies cannot climb up to get you. If there are no other circumstances to give you negative dice (I.E. darkness, rainy weather, weapon specifics, etc.) then you could conceivably take shots at the zombies with your gun using only positive dice. You could keep taking shots until you run out of ammo, or successfully shoot down the zombies.

But whats the point of rolling for it if there is no chance of stress? I see what you guys are talking about only rolling positive dice, but if there is no risk involved why roll for it?

As a GM any task roll that I ask for will always have a negative dice in the dice pool, why would you ask for a roll if not!?

If you don't think the dice pool should have any negative dice, then tell him he succeeds at the task (without needing to roll) and move on.

As a GM any task roll that I ask for will always have a negative dice in the dice pool, why would you ask for a roll if not!?

Because sometimes things fail and they change the story. This goes for all RPG's, ever. Imagine DnD for instance and a pc trying to open a locked chest. Or star wars and a knowledge roll.

If you only roll whenever there is chance of stress to a character then that is not "reserving tests for important moments" it is reserving tests for dangerous moments.

Both of the quotes you make give no creedence to the need for negative dice. The first one even specifically states "if there is chance of failure OR of causing stress" and the other one tells you only to roll for exciting events whith which I wholehardedly agree. Exciting is however not synonamous with stressful/dangerous. It is a means of driving the story forward.

Well if there was a zombie 10 ft away and I missed I would be scared out of my freaking mind=stress.

But adding negative dice in that example would give physical stress as per the rules as written.... So not the mental stress of being scared.

Well if there was a zombie 10 ft away and I missed I would be scared out of my freaking mind=stress.

But adding negative dice in that example would give physical stress as per the rules as written.... So not the mental stress of being scared.

Also, adding to DanteRotterdam's point, if he's only a few feet away he's going to get a chance to attack you if you A. Miss or B. hit but don't take him down, which if he succeeds can cause considerable stress......

The whole idea that any action worth doing needs to incur negative dice is quite ludicrous and the thought that you automatically succeed at a task with no negative dice shows a complete lack of understanding of the rules imho........

DanteRotterdam and Amroth make the most valid points.

Yeah failure and stress aren't the same thing at all. You can pass a test and get a load of stress from negative dice or fail a test and get no stress (either because you didn't roll any negatives, you have resistance or everything just cancelled out).

In combat this is easy to deal with. Failure with no stress just means you miss and the opponent will get to have an attack before you do. In other tests it's a little hard to work out what failures mean but that's part of the job. Just making every failure = stress is boring so it's quite fun coming up with interesting narrative explanations about what happens when you fail a test.

But whats the point of rolling for it if there is no chance of stress? I see what you guys are talking about only rolling positive dice, but if there is no risk involved why roll for it?

I would say the point of rolling it is to see if you pass or fail, not to see if you take stress from every little test.

Let's take a simple mental task. Remembering where your friend/family member keeps the hide-a-key to their locked house so that you can get in. I don't see why you would take mental stress (which leads to insanity if too much is taken) when, if you fail to remember, you could just break a window and climb in instead...

However, that doesn't mean that the same situation can't be stressful. Let's take the same scenario above and add stress. You are running from zombies (they are a little bit down the street and you don't have much time). You could break the window to get in, but the windows are a little high and it would take precious time to get in and open the door for your friends. But, if you can remember where the hide-a-key is, you can get in much faster!

This is a good time to add negative dice for possible stress. If you fail, you might be able to keep a cool head. However, even if you pass, you could still take stress because the zombies are getting ever closer while you try to remember. It is, in it's base form, the exact same test. The only difference is the situation.

As for the, "Why roll if there is no risk?" There is plenty of risk in non-stressful situations. Say you fail to remember where the key is in the first, non-stressful, situation. You now have to break a window to get in. The noise caused by this could draw unwanted (and undead) attention. Just because there is no stress doesn't mean there is no risk involved.

Just so you guys dont freak out on me, my intention is a friendly argument here. Ive never GMed before ever, so Im just trying to get your view points.

But adding negative dice in that example would give physical stress as per the rules as written.... So not the mental stress of being scared.

But my interpretation of stress is very abstract. I miss, I suffer stress, that doesnt mean that in game something physical happened to me in that moment and I must give a reason for suffering that stress right then. But rather something like, I shoot, I miss, I take stress. Then, since the zombie is still coming, I bust open the window and hop out side. If Im already on the ground floor I wouldnt roll then, but could say that the stress I suffered was caused by getting cut on the glass.

Or, like I have said before in other threads, running through a house shooting zombies and suffering stress from my own attacks. At the end I decided that the stress represented me hitting my shoulder on a door post while looking back shooting at zombies.

I do see your guys' points. And I understand better why you could roll a test if there was no risk. But Im mostly thinking of combat situations, not trying to remember the hide a key when nobody is around. I think combat itself is risky no matter what you are doing.

Just so you guys dont freak out on me, my intention is a friendly argument here. Ive never GMed before ever, so Im just trying to get your view points.

But adding negative dice in that example would give physical stress as per the rules as written.... So not the mental stress of being scared.

But my interpretation of stress is very abstract. I miss, I suffer stress, that doesnt mean that in game something physical happened to me in that moment and I must give a reason for suffering that stress right then. But rather something like, I shoot, I miss, I take stress. Then, since the zombie is still coming, I bust open the window and hop out side. If Im already on the ground floor I wouldnt roll then, but could say that the stress I suffered was caused by getting cut on the glass.

Or, like I have said before in other threads, running through a house shooting zombies and suffering stress from my own attacks. At the end I decided that the stress represented me hitting my shoulder on a door post while looking back shooting at zombies.

I do see your guys' points. And I understand better why you could roll a test if there was no risk. But Im mostly thinking of combat situations, not trying to remember the hide a key when nobody is around. I think combat itself is risky no matter what you are doing.

No problem. Also having a friendly argument. Not hating on you.

As for your examples, here is food for thought. If there is no stress needed for shooting the zombie (say it's a fair distance away and isn't going to be able to take a swipe at you just yet). Then you wouldn't need to take stress. However, for the busting open a window? You could cut yourself on the glass. Time to take a test with negative dice for possible stress!

As for running through a house shooting zombies? That makes a little more sense in that you are doing two things at once and you have to split your attention... the stress you took for hitting a door post makes more sense.

It all depends on the situation. I don't think that all combat actions should lead to stress.

Same goes for me, I enjoy discussing the rules and don’t mind opposing views or misunderstandings, in fact it helps me understand the game better myself.

I like your examples of combat because basically what you are ding there is implementing the rules as written, it is not the shooting at the zombie that is the factor that might lead to stress it is the running around a house while shooting at zombies that is. So 1 positive for the pistol, 1 positive for the close distance, 1 negative for running through a house while doing it and another from perhaps broken glass in the room you run in, so 2 pos, 2 neg. However, note there is no “base difficulty” in that case from the combat check itself.

What i meant by the "base difficulty" is I always start with at least a -1 (for combat rolls). If there are more negative dice then i count that first -1 as part of the situation.

I know what you meant… But I don’t agree with that and neither does the rulebook.

Why would you add a negative die just for shooting and pointing a gun? If the target is far away there is no stress upon missing, if it is close by then it will attack you and cause stress from its attack...

The title of this thread irritates me. LOL! "Is the End of the World a complete fail?" The answer is a resounding "NO!"

But then the title wasn't started by Eyeless1.

Also would like to apologise if my comments seemed a bit harsh, nothing wrong with a robust discussion and as DanteRotterdam said discussions on here have also helped me gain a greater understanding of the rules as well as a few helpful viewpoints.

Yeah I agree with all. This topic has actually made me realise my own mistakes with rules - specifically that combat rolls have no base negative dice.

This is a click-bait titled thread that has turned into a very good and very important discussion on dice rules. I for one am very glad for it as the wording in the book is a bit lacking IMO. But thanks to this great community I know have a clearer understanding and much happier for it. My players where not happy with the negative dice for every role interpretation and neither was I as I felt it was to punishing. What has been discussed above makes much more sense and I am happier for itas will the PCs.

Well the average roll should be 2 dice since that's literally a 'normal' difficulty roll. We normally go up to 3 dice because of prior weaknesses and / or wounds. I had a wound and was still suffering from my first day fear of zombies thing that seems automatic for a day one encounter. I also did that stupid Push it thing which added the 5th die because I wanted that terrible fight to end one way or the other. I already had the resist 1 and as far as I know you only gain resist 1.

It still doesn't change that fact that lowering dice also points to the system being broken because the dice are what's broken. Not rolling dice is safe, rolling them endangers you.

If you want to boil difficulties down to number of negative dice then that's done for you on page 45

0 negative dice - Simple (I've talked about not rolling for this but this was thought 'ludicrous')

1 negative dice - Easy

2 negative dice - Hard

3 negative dice - Daunting

4+ negative dice - Incredibly dangerous (interesting that the descriptor changes from being difficulty based to risk based)