Community

Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:11PM, anjelika wrote:

Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:09PM, Shasarak wrote:

Jul 4, 2012 -- 2:12PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jul 3, 2012 -- 7:19PM, MrChamp wrote:

Unfortunately, I think it was Monte Cook (no longer involved in 5th ED) who said "I hope skill challenges die in a fire" because they really need to.

The same Monte Cook who said that trap options to reward system mastery were a good idea in 3e?  Forgive me if I don't take his every word on game design as gospel.

Monte did say that he has changed his mind re: Ivory Tower game design, so I expect that it is possible for people to learn things from past experiences.

I had suspected he might have seen the idiocy that lay at the heart of that thought module.  Do you by any chance have a link to it or something?  I'd be interested in reading more about his reasoning and so forth if you knew where it was.

If you read Monte's blog posts you can read that he has been talking a lot about game design and his take on it (good and bad) - particularly here: www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/2429...

There was also this interview by The Id DM: theiddm.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/ego-che... where The Id DM specifically asks him about system mastery:

The Id DM: At least with 3rd Edition D&D, it seems that mastery was more than a psychological aspect of the game.

 Any game – video, tabletop or otherwise – has exploits, optimal builds or movesets for characters. Mastery may be a psychological aspect for some players, but you previously mentioned it has been used as a built-in reward for experienced players. I imagine it’s a challenge to create a variety of character-customization paths that are equally effective during gameplay, which would seem to be a positive goal for game design.

 It reminds me of a quote from Alice In Wonderland, “At last the Dodo said, `EVERYBODY has won, and all must have prizes.’” How can you design a game so all character builds can get their prizes?

Monte Cook: No, I would say that mastery is entirely a psychological thing. Lots of good game design actually has to do more with psychology than mechanics. You want people to be glad they’re playing your game. You want them to be happy about their choices, particularly when those choices are good for the game. Getting a cool new thing at each level isn’t about game balance, it’s about psychology. You want people to think, “I am glad I kept playing, because now I’ve gained a level and got this cool new ability.” That’s why the whole concept of levels is so brilliant.

System mastery is the same thing. It’s a reward for being really invested in the game, long-term. “I feel smart because I have read the rules twice and have been playing for nine years.” People who are that invested are likely to want to keep playing. And player retention–getting people to continue to play–is as important as getting new players. In fact, it’s a great way to get new players, because existing players teaching new people is the #1 way new players are recruited.

Mastery can be a huge problem for new players if handled poorly. The idea should work this way: the game works fine “out of the box,” but there are rewards for people who really get invested. If the latter gets in the way of the former, the idea of mastery has been probably mishandled. It’s tricky, though, because one helps new player acquisition, and the other helps old player retention. Both are important for a game’s long-term success.

Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, lokiare wrote:

Jul 4, 2012 -- 7:46PM, Shasarak wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Guess what, that was a skill challenge...

What would happen if the Wizard just used Web to stop the Thief right from the start?

The wizard was never in range until he figured out where the Thief was going with a few well placed skill checks...

He should have just moved then cast - if the Fighter can get close enough to tackle the Thief, then Wizard should have been able to hit with a burst 2 within 20 squares.

Jul 4, 2012 -- 9:19PM, Shasarak wrote:

Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, lokiare wrote:

Jul 4, 2012 -- 7:46PM, Shasarak wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Guess what, that was a skill challenge...

What would happen if the Wizard just used Web to stop the Thief right from the start?

The wizard was never in range until he figured out where the Thief was going with a few well placed skill checks...

He should have just moved then cast - if the Fighter can get close enough to tackle the Thief, then Wizard should have been able to hit with a burst 2 within 20 squares.

Yep, this is an option that skill challenges (as written) don't allow.  'Game on rails' is how it feels.  If you then allow people to break skill challenges mid cycle or want to consider things like range or the success rates of varied opponents then the skill challenge becomes pointless for the sake of immersion, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Jul 5, 2012 -- 3:03PM, MrChamp wrote:

Which pretty much sums up my position on 4th ED transitioning to 5th Ed and why the majority felt that 4th Ed went in the wrong direction.

Always this majority. Tends to switch sides all day long. It is, for argument's sake, also the majority that liked 4th edition, you know? :o

Jul 5, 2012 -- 3:44PM, rampant wrote:

Wait a second since when do skill challenges prevent you from using powers?

They don't.  But, they don't exactly integrate them, either.

The way it'd probably play out is that said thief runs off into the labyrinthine alleyways of the city and with the party hot on his trail, catching occassional glimpses at best.  Casting web or otherwise taking a shot at him probably isn't an option, you never have a clear shot.  That's not the skill challenge rules, that's the line of effect rules when you're dealing with buildings and narrow streets with lots of twists and turns.  Partial success on the challenge might give one or more players a shot at the thief before he gets a way for good, though, that'd be a reasonable thing by the RC SC rules, anyway.