|
3 years ago ::
Feb 01, 2010 - 2:01AM
#171
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2005
|
It would be easier to write adventures if we didn't have an XP budget or a requitement of two combats every adventure.
Now, I occasionally have to add a combat because, well, we *have to*.
Skill challenges are tough, too. Working on an investigative skill challenge atm that is very extensive (written to faciliate replay, and covering a lot of bases).
For those, I am taking another approach, which basically says: if you find out what is wrong, and you have not gathered 3 failures, you win, regardless of nr of successes. Over all games, I expect the actual successes will average out.
There will eb a lot of opportunity for roleplay in those encounters, though of course that is up to the DM: he can also just let players roll the dice...
I was also fairly happy with the skill challenges in CORE2-2. I think I managed to cover various sklills there (it is a lot tougher to do in an investigative encounter though).
Gomez
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 01, 2010 - 8:00AM
#172
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2003
|
Rather, the PC should have to role play the encounter, along with a dice roll. Something like this:
"My half-orc friend, my compatriats and I meant you no harm, and surely we do not wish to do battle with a warrior as mighty as yourself. I beg you, put down your axe, and let us speak to each other as equals, so that we might settle this without bloodshed and violence" *Then roll a diplomacy check*.
. . .
One suggestion I do have, put in enemies that are way overleveled, that would be a very serious challenge for a party to take out. But if they are non-violent, they can talk there way out of it, get more story rewards etc.
Really, I just hate to see mod's where the first 45 minutes is roleplaying, and then the rest is railroaded combats.
Quick edit:
Waterdeep mod's are awesome. There should be more like that.
1. Extensive role-playing instructions to the DM in skill challenges has been nixed in my experience. This isn't in the writer guidelines, but it's something I've consistently seen. I think the desired effect is that the DM is expected to run skill challenges with descriptions - but of course, the DMs do NOT DO IT.
I do think the role of roleplaying needs to be addressed for skill challenges, but I think it's more an issue of including more specific instructions in DME telling the DM to create descriptive passages that let a player understand the situation and how certain skills may apply.
2. Putting in "way overleveled" enemies is something that simply isn't allowed by the writer guidelines. It totally encourages metagaming of the line "hey, it wouldn't be here if we couldn't beat it!", but it *is* there.
Anyways, given the right terrain, combination of monsters, and effects, it's pretty easy to give players a horribly tough time of it. And yes, I know about Blood Pulse and Bloodiron and halfling rings and all that cool jazz.
3. WATE adventures are a bit light on the combat side for me, but I've certainly found them to be consistently high quality in terms of flavor and role-play content. 'Course, I don't know as much about the Forgotten Realms setting as some.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 01, 2010 - 8:44AM
#173
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2005
|
We put in overleveled 'opponents' in cases where a powerful monstrous creature appears but is not ment to be fought. In those cases, we put in stats to give PCs the freedom to fight - even though that would generally not yield anything. PCs tend to attack everything, so you need the stats.
Whether a figth actually is run is up to the DM. My advice is normally, for time sake, to just say 'you loose' , and have the monster walk off after having beaten up the PCs. Scratch a healing surge and continue on, occasionally with a failure in a skill challenge earned.
The idea that *everyone* encountered needs to be fought and slain is rather silly, imo - though in general you should expect to be able to survive.
Gomez
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 01, 2010 - 9:52AM
#174
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2008
|
Skill challenges should be based partly on skill and partly on role playing. If you are attempting to talk down the axe-weilding barbarian, you shouldn't be allowed to say "I make a diplomacy check to calm him down". Rather, the PC should have to role play the encounter, along with a dice roll. Something like this:
"My half-orc friend, my compatriats and I meant you no harm, and surely we do not wish to do battle with a warrior as mighty as yourself. I beg you, put down your axe, and let us speak to each other as equals, so that we might settle this without bloodshed and violence" *Then roll a diplomacy check*.
It feels a bit weird at first, but this works a LOT better if you reverse the order of the actions you just described. Have the PC roll a Diplomacy check, and then give him the opportunity to RP the result. It's like taking some complicated acrobatic action -- it doesn't make sense to describe everything you're trying to do ("I leap from the landing and catch the nearby chandelier, swinging across the room and performing a dazzling tumbling maneuver as I leap from the chandelier on to the dinner table below") only to roll a 1 ("I fall on my face").
The other key component from above -- give him the option to RP. Some players just aren't in to prose. If you require the player to roleplay out diplomatic situations, you're punishing folks that aren't as charismatic as their characters.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 01, 2010 - 10:09AM
#175
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2008
|
I second the notion that skill challenges need a bit of mixing-up. Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Streetwise seem to dominate the skill challenges; if you're not playing a charismatic soul, it's easy to feel left out.
Also, a big "yes, please" to those that suggest that the time estimates need some reworking. Two or three combat encounters plus two or three skill challenges plus table talk and roleplaying is one heck of a lot to ask for in just under four hours.
|
|
|
