On 2) healing surges represent hit point reserves, so by sapping them you are essentially doing damage to the party. For failing a skill check in a non-combat situation. If that is not the pinnacle of lame, I don't know what is.
It's not lame. It's a good solution. The loss of healing surges is a great way to explain the rigors of extended travel in harsh conditions and terrain, like a fetid swamp or scorching desert. You sound just like one of the players in my real world game that whines any time anything bad happens to their character.
Its a suspension of disbelief thing for me. "Roll endurance.... you fail, lose a healing surge." That's not interesting gameplay.
On 2) healing surges represent hit point reserves, so by sapping them you are essentially doing damage to the party. For failing a skill check in a non-combat situation. If that is not the pinnacle of lame, I don't know what is.
It's not lame. It's a good solution. The loss of healing surges is a great way to explain the rigors of extended travel in harsh conditions and terrain, like a fetid swamp or scorching desert. You sound just like one of the players in my real world game that whines any time anything bad happens to their character.
That's an oversimplification. Essentially the problem with the above model is that there is no reward for success, but rather only penalties for failure. That is not a model for fun gameplay.
A more important question is, "Why are the PC's traversing the scorching desert?" You then adjust the results of the challenge to be appropriate. Have success represent the party receiving bonuses in the next encounter for being well-rested and well-fed. Have failure represent that they just barely get there with no bonuses. Only abject failure (through a combination of bad rolls AND bad player planning, not just the former) should result in some direct penalty like the loss of healing surges.
Three bad rolls equaling "hurf durf party'z ded" is terrible DM'ing.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Whole lot of people apparently have seen too many skill challenges taken straight from the rules introduction of them.
I wouldn't be playing D&D at all if the DM was so transparent with the system overall like yours apparently are with skill challenges.
The problem is that some DMs are going "oh hey, 4e, lets do a skill challenge now guys!" No, bad DM, bad. Of course that is going to turn people off.
Skill challenges are just formalizing what pretty much every DM since forever in D&D that I have played with has been doing. Ever track someone? Navigate a jungle? etc.
The problem, for me, is that they have rules for a system that works best when abstracted. The entire concept of a "skill challenge" is backwards, D&D doesn't support it. You can have a fun, skill-focused encounter where players do plenty of interesting and exciting things, but the best way to do that is by completely ignoring the skill challenge rules. They're detrimental to the game.
If a system is going to have a rules mechanic more complicated than "roll some skill checks to do stuff," that mechanic should be worthwhile.
Regardless, I'd really like to see a D&D-esque take on skills that focused on what D&D does best: teamwork. Almost every RPG falls into the trap of "party sits around while specialist does cool stuff." How about introducing mechanics that ensure characters without the highest appropriate skill are still relevant to the encounter?
Your last paragraph is pretty funny because that was going to be my response. That's what skill challenges do, make it a party affair rather than the specialist...
On 2) healing surges represent hit point reserves, so by sapping them you are essentially doing damage to the party. For failing a skill check in a non-combat situation. If that is not the pinnacle of lame, I don't know what is.
It's not lame. It's a good solution. The loss of healing surges is a great way to explain the rigors of extended travel in harsh conditions and terrain, like a fetid swamp or scorching desert. You sound just like one of the players in my real world game that whines any time anything bad happens to their character.
That's an oversimplification. Essentially the problem with the above model is that there is no reward for success, but rather only penalties for failure. That is not a model for fun gameplay.
A more important question is, "Why are the PC's traversing the scorching desert?" You then adjust the results of the challenge to be appropriate. Have success represent the party receiving bonuses in the next encounter for being well-rested and well-fed. Have failure represent that they just barely get there with no bonuses. Only abject failure (through a combination of bad rolls AND bad player planning, not just the former) should result in some direct penalty like the loss of healing surges.
Three bad rolls equaling "hurf durf party'z ded" is terrible DM'ing.
Where in the system of skill challenges does it say they aren't like that already?
That's an oversimplification. Essentially the problem with the above model is that there is no reward for success, but rather only penalties for failure. That is not a model for fun gameplay.
It's not over-simplified. It's useful without being too complex. Their reward is staying alive, avoiding dangerous encounters, and making it through the desert to their goal.
A more important question is, "Why are the PC's traversing the scorching desert?" You then adjust the results of the challenge to be appropriate. Have success represent the party receiving bonuses in the next encounter for being well-rested and well-fed. Have failure represent that they just barely get there with no bonuses. Only abject failure (through a combination of bad rolls AND bad player planning, not just the former) should result in some direct penalty like the loss of healing surges.
Good planning would result in bonuses on the skill check, making failure less likely.
Three bad rolls equaling "hurf durf party'z ded" is terrible DM'ing.
If the loss of three healing surges is enough to kill the party, the DM is terrible even without a skill challenge and you should be questioning why you're still letting them run.
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
We conned donuts into turning our current encounter into a skill challenge. I think everyone's had a go at doing challenge relevant tasks, and we even got some co-op skill attempts going on.
It's gonna suuuuuck if we fail it though.
Tofystedeth on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
I think we're conflating the ideas of poor and uncreative DMing to come up with some definition of Skill Checks.
Your worst fears aren't necessarily the way it has to happen.
On 2) healing surges represent hit point reserves, so by sapping them you are essentially doing damage to the party. For failing a skill check in a non-combat situation. If that is not the pinnacle of lame, I don't know what is.
It's not lame. It's a good solution. The loss of healing surges is a great way to explain the rigors of extended travel in harsh conditions and terrain, like a fetid swamp or scorching desert. You sound just like one of the players in my real world game that whines any time anything bad happens to their character.
That's an oversimplification. Essentially the problem with the above model is that there is no reward for success, but rather only penalties for failure. That is not a model for fun gameplay.
A more important question is, "Why are the PC's traversing the scorching desert?" You then adjust the results of the challenge to be appropriate. Have success represent the party receiving bonuses in the next encounter for being well-rested and well-fed. Have failure represent that they just barely get there with no bonuses. Only abject failure (through a combination of bad rolls AND bad player planning, not just the former) should result in some direct penalty like the loss of healing surges.
Three bad rolls equaling "hurf durf party'z ded" is terrible DM'ing.
Where in the system of skill challenges does it say they aren't like that already?
Right around where it says that three failed skill checks result in failure of the skill challenge, along with the suggestion that failure should have some detriment for the party (like loss of healing surges, penalties in the next combat, etc.).
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
That's an oversimplification. Essentially the problem with the above model is that there is no reward for success, but rather only penalties for failure. That is not a model for fun gameplay.
It's not over-simplified. It's useful without being too complex. Their reward is staying alive, avoiding dangerous encounters, and making it through the desert to their goal.
A more important question is, "Why are the PC's traversing the scorching desert?" You then adjust the results of the challenge to be appropriate. Have success represent the party receiving bonuses in the next encounter for being well-rested and well-fed. Have failure represent that they just barely get there with no bonuses. Only abject failure (through a combination of bad rolls AND bad player planning, not just the former) should result in some direct penalty like the loss of healing surges.
Good planning would result in bonuses on the skill check, making failure less likely.
Three bad rolls equaling "hurf durf party'z ded" is terrible DM'ing.
If the loss of three healing surges is enough to kill the party, the DM is terrible even without a skill challenge and you should be questioning why you're still letting them run.
1) "The DM doesn't dick-punch you," is not a reward.
2) Yet failure is still a possibility, one which comes down not to creative thinking on the part of the players, but rather, quite trivially, to the results of three die rolls. Unless you're hand-waving some of the rolls, in which case, why even use a skill challenge?
3) If the loss of those three healing surges comes after a rough combat encounter and just before a solo fight, then it can very well be enough to kill the party.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
I'm not sure what you mean about defense bonuses, Zed...
The fighter stances are +1 to attack or +2 to damage and are basically At-Will powers that you can sustain until the end of the encounter or switch each turn.
Edit: They're minor actions, with the standard being the MBA/RBA
Whole lot of people apparently have seen too many skill challenges taken straight from the rules introduction of them.
I wouldn't be playing D&D at all if the DM was so transparent with the system overall like yours apparently are with skill challenges.
The problem is that some DMs are going "oh hey, 4e, lets do a skill challenge now guys!" No, bad DM, bad. Of course that is going to turn people off.
Skill challenges are just formalizing what pretty much every DM since forever in D&D that I have played with has been doing. Ever track someone? Navigate a jungle? etc.
The problem, for me, is that they have rules for a system that works best when abstracted. The entire concept of a "skill challenge" is backwards, D&D doesn't support it. You can have a fun, skill-focused encounter where players do plenty of interesting and exciting things, but the best way to do that is by completely ignoring the skill challenge rules. They're detrimental to the game.
If a system is going to have a rules mechanic more complicated than "roll some skill checks to do stuff," that mechanic should be worthwhile.
Regardless, I'd really like to see a D&D-esque take on skills that focused on what D&D does best: teamwork. Almost every RPG falls into the trap of "party sits around while specialist does cool stuff." How about introducing mechanics that ensure characters without the highest appropriate skill are still relevant to the encounter?
Your last paragraph is pretty funny because that was going to be my response. That's what skill challenges do, make it a party affair rather than the specialist...
But they don't!
Look at combat. If you're a striker, you deal big damage, but you need the defender to keep you alive. If you're the defender, you can take damage the striker couldn't, but need the rest of your party so you aren't overwhelmed. The controller helps everyone but relies on the party to do the damage they can't, the leader directs the party to do what they can't alone. Teamwork!
Skill challenges don't do that. At worst, they discourage actual teamwork because of the failure mechanic: better to have only the safest player make a check in order to avoid losing the challenge because the fighter doesn't have a high charisma. At best, they only provide a codified way to measure success or failure for an encounter, but they don't do it in a compelling or unique way that changes how players should act.
Its entirely possible to create skill challenges that require teamwork, but that is a result of a DM creating a scenario that specifically requires teamwork. The skill challenge rules didn't provide any benefit.
And you're prevented from running them by the book with a positive outcome for success where?
I'm not prevented in any way from doing that, but I am a skilled DM with over a decade of experience. The point is, that is not how it is presented in the book. When there is a fundamental flaw in a presented set of rules, I can always house rule them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still fundamentally flawed.
My point is that skill challenges are broken, and that they need to be changed. Your response is that there is nothing wrong with skill challenges, because I can change them myself. That is wholly counterintuitive. If there was nothing wrong with them, I wouldn't have a need to change them.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Its entirely possible to create skill challenges that require teamwork, but that is a result of a DM creating a scenario that specifically requires teamwork. The skill challenge rules didn't provide any benefit.
Or detriment.
It's a system, people are conflating bad DMs with bad system. That's what everyone is trying to point out on this side.
I think it's stuff that comes out in a later book.
There was the one that was a +2 bonus to Reflex in Heroic that scaled, and gave you a start of turn save against specific effects. It might not be in the red box.
Honestly, I kinda think the whole skill system--challenges included, of course--is kinda not good. "Serviceable," if I'm being generous.
Aegof on
I'm providing ambience.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
Oh, another oddity about the Essentials kit... it comes with dice... and the d20 has the corner worn down next to the 1... which I would imagine makes it less likely to roll a 20...
Probably an individual shoddy product and not by design, but amusing.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited August 2010
Zed ran a really good adventure once that was basically one long skill check.
And you're prevented from running them by the book with a positive outcome for success where?
I'm not prevented in any way from doing that, but I am a skilled DM with over a decade of experience. The point is, that is not how it is presented in the book. When there is a fundamental flaw in a presented set of rules, I can always house rule them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still fundamentally flawed.
My point is that skill challenges are broken, and that they need to be changed. Your response is that there is nothing wrong with skill challenges, because I can change them myself. That is wholly counterintuitive.
No, I didn't change a damn thing. What did I change?
If you want to quote the book then look at the Goal and Context of skill challenges. "Success at the challenge should be important to the adventure, but not essential. You don't want a series of bad skill checks to bring the adventure to a grinding halt. At worst, failure at the challenge should send the characters on a long detour, thereby creating a new and interesting part of the adventure."
Which means "don't make trivial challenges, don't make game ending challenges." If a challenge itself wipes the party like you worry about so much, then that was an ill-designed challenge against the intention of the rules.
It's perfectly doable to make fun and balanced skill challenges to both the intent and the letter.
Its entirely possible to create skill challenges that require teamwork, but that is a result of a DM creating a scenario that specifically requires teamwork. The skill challenge rules didn't provide any benefit.
Or detriment.
It's a system, people are conflating bad DMs with bad system. That's what everyone is trying to point out on this side.
Well, they can be detrimental, but if you're going to use a system more complicated than "just abstract everything and wing it" there should be some kind of benefit.
There is a benefit with combat in D&D 4E. The rules for combat encourage tactics, planning, and teamwork.
There isn't a benefit with skill challenges. The rules don't encourage anything positive at the table, at best they are on equal footing with "meh, whatever, just wing it!" They're mechanics that don't encourage any particular type of gameplay, and they're not required in order for skills to function. There's no merit to "have an encounter where the party uses skills to overcome a challenge--if they succeed 6 times they win, if they fail 3 times they lose" instead of just "have an encounter where the party uses skills to overcome a challenge."
I'm not conflating bad DMs with a bad system. I'm examining a system, seeing that it provides no benefit, and wondering why it should exist instead of just handling skills in an abstract manner.
Its entirely possible to create skill challenges that require teamwork, but that is a result of a DM creating a scenario that specifically requires teamwork. The skill challenge rules didn't provide any benefit.
Or detriment.
It's a system, people are conflating bad DMs with bad system. That's what everyone is trying to point out on this side.
I'm not conflating anything. It's a bad system. Having a bad DM run it only compounds the problem. Requiring a good DM to rework the system before it becomes useable still means it's a bad system.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I think it's stuff that comes out in a later book.
There was the one that was a +2 bonus to Reflex in Heroic that scaled, and gave you a start of turn save against specific effects. It might not be in the red box.
Oh, yeah... the Red Box is "adventure content for heroes level 1-2"... it's really just a primer.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited August 2010
I have to say I do find skill challenges more trouble than they are worth. Reskinned trap mechanics make for better skill challenges than the actual skill challenge system.
And you're prevented from running them by the book with a positive outcome for success where?
I'm not prevented in any way from doing that, but I am a skilled DM with over a decade of experience. The point is, that is not how it is presented in the book. When there is a fundamental flaw in a presented set of rules, I can always house rule them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still fundamentally flawed.
My point is that skill challenges are broken, and that they need to be changed. Your response is that there is nothing wrong with skill challenges, because I can change them myself. That is wholly counterintuitive.
No, I didn't change a damn thing. What did I change?
If you want to quote the book then look at the Goal and Context of skill challenges. "Success at the challenge should be important to the adventure, but not essential. You don't want a series of bad skill checks to bring the adventure to a grinding halt. At worst, failure at the challenge should send the characters on a long detour, thereby creating a new and interesting part of the adventure."
Which means "don't make trivial challenges, don't make game ending challenges." If a challenge itself wipes the party like you worry about so much, then that was an ill-designed challenge against the intention of the rules.
It's perfectly doable to make fun and balanced skill challenges to both the intent and the letter.
And yet we don't see that in published examples.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Zed ran a really good adventure once that was basically one long skill check.
It was also a skill challenge that was impossible to "fail" in the traditional sense. You were going to make it to the end regardless of your success or failure. How you did was just going to determine what kind of shape you were in when you got there, and what time of day it was.
Which is something I borrowed from the Saga skill challenge system; a pre-decided overall outcome with the skill challenge determining degree of success.
Dropping this unless an actual argument there is presented.
This pistol is broken because I can shoot myself with it is not going to convince me how the firearm design is faulty.
Nowhere in the RAW does it suggest to include bonuses for a successfully completed SC. Nowhere in any published adventure does it suggest to include bonuses for a successfully completed SC. In both the RAW and in every published adventure there is a direct penalty for failing a SC.
In order to add bonuses for a successfully completed SC and to remove trivial penalties for failing a SC, we need to change/add to the RAW, or, in other words, to rework it.
Yet you still argue that this is all somehow inherently implied in the rules without providing one concrete example.
Edit: I have to go to class now. I'll return this evening to continue this discussion.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
Wow... I've never heard of a Rules Lawyer advocating the game suck for him before.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
I don't use a lot of skill challenges and when I do they are usually run like a combat encounter, but with skills to attack defenses (set DCs) instead of anything else. The result is just logical from there, so if you fail to avoid slamming into a wall you take damage, if you miss what street the enemy ran down he gets further away and such. I don't bother with limited successes vs. failures unless the situation warrants it, like a trap. Mess up on the trap, ritual circle or whatever else too much and it explodes in your face violently. This is where the traditional system works best by far.
Otherwise I don't think having fixed failures is a good idea, because it results in an absolutely terrible system. In my Dark Sun game especially I am working very hard on environmental skill challenges that can be quite significant if failed, but aren't some binary success = okay and failure = you're dooooomed thing.
In both the RAW and in every published adventure there is a direct penalty for failing a SC.
The tomb of horrors has an interesting skill challenge that is basically a combat encounter, so no fixed failures and it works extremely well. Elsewhere though they do silly things like have fixed failures for the undead rising skill challenge, which makes no sense because the penalty for failing in the skill challenge is simple: You just have to keep fighting more undead. That skill challenge is actually a good example of a poor one, because not only does it prevent success if you fail to much you also have to fight more undead - a double whammy penalty.
That's kind of pedantic delro, skill challenges are obviously put in the game for PCs to "do things" and those "things" can involve "getting good stuff." The rules don't need to explicitly say "The Duke likes you and gives you a +1 sword!" if your skill challenge is "convince the Duke to give you a +1 sword."
I still don't see skill challenges providing any game benefit, but intentionally reading them in the worst possible way doesn't strike me as a compelling argument against them.
Wow... I've never heard of a Rules Lawyer advocating the game suck for him before.
If you're referring to me, I consider myself more of a Rules Accountant, in that I will correct rules mistakes even if it is detrimental to my own character. 8-)
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Wow... I've never heard of a Rules Lawyer advocating the game suck for him before.
If you're referring to me, I consider myself more of a Rules Accountant, in that I will correct rules mistakes even if it is detrimental to my own character. 8-)
I have to agree with the oppinion that skill challenges are quite simplistic. Especially when you compare them to the combat aspect of the game. I also understand the argument that a good DM can make them fun though.
Now I don't know enough about past D&D games or other publishers to really comment here but are there other games that have done it better? How did non combat encounters look there? Maybe Wizards could take a leaf out of their book or atleast the DMs out there could do so on their own time?
I remember for example reading that someone brought out an interesting system for simulating chases (which are extremely hard to do with the current skill challenge system!).
Pure role playing encounters with no skills checks at all are another way to go but bring their own set of problems.
Then I've read about games which give you a random deck of cards at th beginning and allow you to play them at critical moments throughout the game to change outcomes. Once they're played they're spent though, adding a bit of a strategic layer to the game.
Providing examples of skill challenges that do not pass step 1 of the skill challenge system in the DMG is not demonstrating how the system is broken, even if Wizards created the skill challenges.
People whine about showstoppers that are explicitly against the intent of the system as stated on the first page.
Official fuckups of encounters over at X does not demonstrate a broken Y, there needs to be some connection shown.
That's kind of pedantic delro, skill challenges are obviously put in the game for PCs to "do things" and those "things" can involve "getting good stuff." The rules don't need to explicitly say "The Duke likes you and gives you a +1 sword!" if your skill challenge is "convince the Duke to give you a +1 sword."
I still don't see skill challenges providing any game benefit, but intentionally reading them in the worst possible way doesn't strike me as a compelling argument against them.
Well considering 4E is very rules- and detail-oriented, I don't see how that is pedantic at all. Skill challenges, as designed, are a gatekeeper system. Fail to satisfy the gatekeeper, and you suffer. Succeed, and the only benefit is that you get to pass through the gate. "Answer me these questions three..."
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Wow... I've never heard of a Rules Lawyer advocating the game suck for him before.
If you're referring to me, I consider myself more of a Rules Accountant, in that I will correct rules mistakes even if it is detrimental to my own character. 8-)
Second Edition Rules Accountant?
"You apply the negative bonus penalty to your attack check as a credit against your positive THACO modifier unless your opponent applies a positive penalty to your negative attack roll modifier."
That's kind of pedantic delro, skill challenges are obviously put in the game for PCs to "do things" and those "things" can involve "getting good stuff." The rules don't need to explicitly say "The Duke likes you and gives you a +1 sword!" if your skill challenge is "convince the Duke to give you a +1 sword."
I still don't see skill challenges providing any game benefit, but intentionally reading them in the worst possible way doesn't strike me as a compelling argument against them.
Well considering 4E is very rules- and detail-oriented, I don't see how that is pedantic at all. Skill challenges, as designed, are a gatekeeper system. Fail to satisfy the gatekeeper, and you suffer. Succeed, and the only benefit is that you get to pass through the gate. "Answer me these questions three..."
Calculating THAC0 is what separates the men from the animals.
Infidel: Combat encounters are more complex, wherein each member of the party has something to contribute every round. Plus you have tactical movement, positioning, terrain elements... SC's have none of these, and as-written boil down to, "Do you have this skill? Roll it. Good. How about this one? Roll it. Good."
And now I REALLY have to go...
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Posts
Its a suspension of disbelief thing for me. "Roll endurance.... you fail, lose a healing surge." That's not interesting gameplay.
That's an oversimplification. Essentially the problem with the above model is that there is no reward for success, but rather only penalties for failure. That is not a model for fun gameplay.
A more important question is, "Why are the PC's traversing the scorching desert?" You then adjust the results of the challenge to be appropriate. Have success represent the party receiving bonuses in the next encounter for being well-rested and well-fed. Have failure represent that they just barely get there with no bonuses. Only abject failure (through a combination of bad rolls AND bad player planning, not just the former) should result in some direct penalty like the loss of healing surges.
Three bad rolls equaling "hurf durf party'z ded" is terrible DM'ing.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Your last paragraph is pretty funny because that was going to be my response. That's what skill challenges do, make it a party affair rather than the specialist...
Where in the system of skill challenges does it say they aren't like that already?
I'm really curious about those defense boosters.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Good planning would result in bonuses on the skill check, making failure less likely.
If the loss of three healing surges is enough to kill the party, the DM is terrible even without a skill challenge and you should be questioning why you're still letting them run.
I can look for specific stuff... it has a ton of cards though... like 63
It's gonna suuuuuck if we fail it though.
Your worst fears aren't necessarily the way it has to happen.
Right around where it says that three failed skill checks result in failure of the skill challenge, along with the suggestion that failure should have some detriment for the party (like loss of healing surges, penalties in the next combat, etc.).
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
1) "The DM doesn't dick-punch you," is not a reward.
2) Yet failure is still a possibility, one which comes down not to creative thinking on the part of the players, but rather, quite trivially, to the results of three die rolls. Unless you're hand-waving some of the rolls, in which case, why even use a skill challenge?
3) If the loss of those three healing surges comes after a rough combat encounter and just before a solo fight, then it can very well be enough to kill the party.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
The fighter stances are +1 to attack or +2 to damage and are basically At-Will powers that you can sustain until the end of the encounter or switch each turn.
Edit: They're minor actions, with the standard being the MBA/RBA
But they don't!
Look at combat. If you're a striker, you deal big damage, but you need the defender to keep you alive. If you're the defender, you can take damage the striker couldn't, but need the rest of your party so you aren't overwhelmed. The controller helps everyone but relies on the party to do the damage they can't, the leader directs the party to do what they can't alone. Teamwork!
Skill challenges don't do that. At worst, they discourage actual teamwork because of the failure mechanic: better to have only the safest player make a check in order to avoid losing the challenge because the fighter doesn't have a high charisma. At best, they only provide a codified way to measure success or failure for an encounter, but they don't do it in a compelling or unique way that changes how players should act.
Its entirely possible to create skill challenges that require teamwork, but that is a result of a DM creating a scenario that specifically requires teamwork. The skill challenge rules didn't provide any benefit.
I'm not prevented in any way from doing that, but I am a skilled DM with over a decade of experience. The point is, that is not how it is presented in the book. When there is a fundamental flaw in a presented set of rules, I can always house rule them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still fundamentally flawed.
My point is that skill challenges are broken, and that they need to be changed. Your response is that there is nothing wrong with skill challenges, because I can change them myself. That is wholly counterintuitive. If there was nothing wrong with them, I wouldn't have a need to change them.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Or detriment.
It's a system, people are conflating bad DMs with bad system. That's what everyone is trying to point out on this side.
There was the one that was a +2 bonus to Reflex in Heroic that scaled, and gave you a start of turn save against specific effects. It might not be in the red box.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Probably an individual shoddy product and not by design, but amusing.
No, I didn't change a damn thing. What did I change?
If you want to quote the book then look at the Goal and Context of skill challenges. "Success at the challenge should be important to the adventure, but not essential. You don't want a series of bad skill checks to bring the adventure to a grinding halt. At worst, failure at the challenge should send the characters on a long detour, thereby creating a new and interesting part of the adventure."
Which means "don't make trivial challenges, don't make game ending challenges." If a challenge itself wipes the party like you worry about so much, then that was an ill-designed challenge against the intention of the rules.
It's perfectly doable to make fun and balanced skill challenges to both the intent and the letter.
Well, they can be detrimental, but if you're going to use a system more complicated than "just abstract everything and wing it" there should be some kind of benefit.
There is a benefit with combat in D&D 4E. The rules for combat encourage tactics, planning, and teamwork.
There isn't a benefit with skill challenges. The rules don't encourage anything positive at the table, at best they are on equal footing with "meh, whatever, just wing it!" They're mechanics that don't encourage any particular type of gameplay, and they're not required in order for skills to function. There's no merit to "have an encounter where the party uses skills to overcome a challenge--if they succeed 6 times they win, if they fail 3 times they lose" instead of just "have an encounter where the party uses skills to overcome a challenge."
I'm not conflating bad DMs with a bad system. I'm examining a system, seeing that it provides no benefit, and wondering why it should exist instead of just handling skills in an abstract manner.
I'm not conflating anything. It's a bad system. Having a bad DM run it only compounds the problem. Requiring a good DM to rework the system before it becomes useable still means it's a bad system.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Oh, yeah... the Red Box is "adventure content for heroes level 1-2"... it's really just a primer.
And yet we don't see that in published examples.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Dropping this unless an actual argument there is presented.
This pistol is broken because I can shoot myself with it is not going to convince me how the firearm design is faulty.
Which is something I borrowed from the Saga skill challenge system; a pre-decided overall outcome with the skill challenge determining degree of success.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Nowhere in the RAW does it suggest to include bonuses for a successfully completed SC. Nowhere in any published adventure does it suggest to include bonuses for a successfully completed SC. In both the RAW and in every published adventure there is a direct penalty for failing a SC.
In order to add bonuses for a successfully completed SC and to remove trivial penalties for failing a SC, we need to change/add to the RAW, or, in other words, to rework it.
Yet you still argue that this is all somehow inherently implied in the rules without providing one concrete example.
Edit: I have to go to class now. I'll return this evening to continue this discussion.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Otherwise I don't think having fixed failures is a good idea, because it results in an absolutely terrible system. In my Dark Sun game especially I am working very hard on environmental skill challenges that can be quite significant if failed, but aren't some binary success = okay and failure = you're dooooomed thing.
The tomb of horrors has an interesting skill challenge that is basically a combat encounter, so no fixed failures and it works extremely well. Elsewhere though they do silly things like have fixed failures for the undead rising skill challenge, which makes no sense because the penalty for failing in the skill challenge is simple: You just have to keep fighting more undead. That skill challenge is actually a good example of a poor one, because not only does it prevent success if you fail to much you also have to fight more undead - a double whammy penalty.
I still don't see skill challenges providing any game benefit, but intentionally reading them in the worst possible way doesn't strike me as a compelling argument against them.
If you're referring to me, I consider myself more of a Rules Accountant, in that I will correct rules mistakes even if it is detrimental to my own character. 8-)
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Silly accountants :P
Now I don't know enough about past D&D games or other publishers to really comment here but are there other games that have done it better? How did non combat encounters look there? Maybe Wizards could take a leaf out of their book or atleast the DMs out there could do so on their own time?
I remember for example reading that someone brought out an interesting system for simulating chases (which are extremely hard to do with the current skill challenge system!).
Pure role playing encounters with no skills checks at all are another way to go but bring their own set of problems.
Then I've read about games which give you a random deck of cards at th beginning and allow you to play them at critical moments throughout the game to change outcomes. Once they're played they're spent though, adding a bit of a strategic layer to the game.
What else is there?
People whine about showstoppers that are explicitly against the intent of the system as stated on the first page.
Official fuckups of encounters over at X does not demonstrate a broken Y, there needs to be some connection shown.
Well considering 4E is very rules- and detail-oriented, I don't see how that is pedantic at all. Skill challenges, as designed, are a gatekeeper system. Fail to satisfy the gatekeeper, and you suffer. Succeed, and the only benefit is that you get to pass through the gate. "Answer me these questions three..."
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Second Edition Rules Accountant?
"You apply the negative bonus penalty to your attack check as a credit against your positive THACO modifier unless your opponent applies a positive penalty to your negative attack roll modifier."
How is this different from combat encounters?
Infidel: Combat encounters are more complex, wherein each member of the party has something to contribute every round. Plus you have tactical movement, positioning, terrain elements... SC's have none of these, and as-written boil down to, "Do you have this skill? Roll it. Good. How about this one? Roll it. Good."
And now I REALLY have to go...
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23