|
4 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2009 - 4:41AM
#131
|
|
|
That looks like a perfectly legitimate way to handle this and fits in the Skill Challenge rules.... so... ahm what's the problem?
It doesn't fit the Skill Challenge rules. So I'm not following what you're saying here.
-James
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2009 - 7:41AM
#132
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Slight Tangent: The idea of using an actual puzzle, but with side rules for how the party could skill challenge to get clues and/or solve it entirely might be interesting to see at some point. Anyone know if such an example is in a mod yet?
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2009 - 8:48AM
#133
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
Slight Tangent: The idea of using an actual puzzle, but with side rules for how the party could skill challenge to get clues and/or solve it entirely might be interesting to see at some point. Anyone know if such an example is in a mod yet?
Spec 1-2 had a riddle where you need to apply ritual components in the correct order and the application of various skills would yield clues to those who did not commit the 1e, 2e, and 3e spell descriptions and components to memory (or who weren't sure which edition's components were in use). As a mechanic, it seemed to work fairly well though I did not think much of the puzzle itself. Sense of Wonder has a explicit mechanics for turning its logic puzzle into a skill challenge.
Luru 1-1 also has the door puzzle which would be well suited to granting clues through skills (I got some, but that may have just been the DM at the time).
Puzzles also pose an bit of a logistical challenge in LFR because of the replay rules. A combat or a skill challenge generally works just as well as it did the first time on your second run through. Combats that depend upon developments mid combat or surprises perhaps not so much, but in general, replaying doesn't hurt the experience too much because foreknowledge can't really change anything. You still need to roll the dice for everything. Puzzles, on the other hand, tend to be something that, once the solution is known, no longer present a challenge. For replayers, this means that we have to severly limit our participation in puzzles in order not to spoil the experience for other players. On the other hand, doing so denies the party most of your mental resources so you can easily end up with a table where two players have replayed, one player hates logic puzzles, and the last player simply is no good at them and can't figure it out on his own--of course, if everyone were playing for the first time, that last player would have two people to help him, but since the two who could are replaying, he's pretty much on his own.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2009 - 10:08PM
#134
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
It doesn't fit the Skill Challenge rules. So I'm not following what you're saying here.
-James
Ah it does.
You describe each as a series of events that have consequences for failure. The Skill Challenge rules just provide a structure for deciding when failure or success has occured. Its up to the DM/author to determine the effects of such a failure or success.
Further the skill challenge rules in no way preclude the use of a real puzzle as a means to gather successes outside of direct application of skills and dice rolling.
People keep trying to force Skill Challenges into some strange little box, rather than looking at them (especially as presented in the DMG) as a foundation from which to build.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2009 - 10:48PM
#135
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Ah it does.
You describe each as a series of events that have consequences for failure. The Skill Challenge rules just provide a structure for deciding when failure or success has occured. Its up to the DM/author to determine the effects of such a failure or success.
While I don't agree that SCs need to be thrown out, I think you're missing the crux of the argument here. The Skill Challenge mechanic does indeed determine the effect of a failure - it is one of three required to fail the skill challenge.
The "Fix the boat" skill challenge could theoretically go like this:
PC1: "I try to haggle for supplies. I roll a 1. Whups there's a fail."
PC2: "I try the same thing. Whups, another 1."
PC3: "Third time's the charm!. Oh dang, another 1. I guess we fail the skill challenge."
The problem is, there's no real reason why they couldn't still buy the materials, fix the boat, and actually succeed at their task. But they still failed the Skill Challenge.
I think what folks like JM and EB are looking for is a way to gauge the effect of failure beyond the binary "counts as a failure"/"doesn't count as a failure".
There is no way to give different skills (or different applications of the same skills) more or less weight in the challenge - each roll is either 1 success*, 1 fail, or doesn't count either way**. There are any number of SCs that we've seen where there were really only 1-2 checks that were critical to the success of the challenge, but each of the 6+ checks on the way had an equal impact on the success or failure of the whole thing.
*I know that they often allow for very high check results to count for two successes. That's not what I'm talking about.
**Such as skills that are basically "aid another" by granting +2 to the next guy, even if he uses a different skill.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 3:54AM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Yes that's right the challenge could fail in the first three rolls.
The main objective can however still be completed. This is spelt out in the DMG... the effect of failing has to vary according to the needs of the module's plot. It is then the job of the DM or author to impose appropriate consequences on the PCs for failing in the skill challenge.
The issue is that JM and EB are over emphasising the nature of a failure vs failure at the challenge as a whole. A failure might even be largely invisible to the players depending on what the goal of the challenge is...
For example in any Race Against Time challenge the failure might be described as "You get the thing you are seeking, but it took much longer than you would have liked."
I've not DM'd the Fix the Boat challenge, and in playing two times there is a low sense of urgency - but I cannot state if that is caused by the author or DM. Its up to the DM (with author help) to set the tone of the challenge and indicate to the players what failure means.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 8:50AM
#137
|
|
|
I've not DM'd the Fix the Boat challenge, and in playing two times there is a low sense of urgency - but I cannot state if that is caused by the author or DM. Its up to the DM (with author help) to set the tone of the challenge and indicate to the players what failure means.
There is a time limit, although it may not be very obvious. So if you fail the three "haggle" challenges you've wasted several hours trying to get the best price. You can still buy the items but you get going later than you'd like and have to sail through the night or didn't have enough time to properly make repairs, etc as explained in the mod.
Allen.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:37PM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2006
|
There is no way to give different skills (or different applications of the same skills) more or less weight in the challenge - each roll is either 1 success*, 1 fail, or doesn't count either way**.
*I know that they often allow for very high check results to count for two successes. That's not what I'm talking about.
**Such as skills that are basically "aid another" by granting +2 to the next guy, even if he uses a different skill.
I think what makes this conversation frustrating for some of us is this continual round after round of stating "you cannot do X in a skill challenge" when not only is it possible, but has BEEN DONE in published modules.
This is a typical example -- a blanket statement "There is no way ...", amusingly followed by two footnotes that basically give those ways. It also ignores a large number of modules where successes unlock different skills, where failures do not count as challenge failures but have other effects (published examples: surges lost, NPCs drowned, skills made unavailable)
Another example of the false statement of what is not possible was made earlier:
Knowledge checks would not change mechanic. Passive perceptions/insights would be used when appropriate and the like. Penalties for failures would also be in context. You would also not 'loose a healing surge' but rather you would take an amount of damage comensurate with what occurred to your character that they could replace with a surge (or two+) as normal for out of combat if you desired (or go into the next combat injured). In essence you would not have a 'skill challenge mode'
I have been is skill challenges where passive abilities made some skills usable ("you can see X is nervous, and could be intimidated..."). Above gives examples of failures in context; as an additional one I liked one skill challenge where my bard was nearly drowned, but everyone else ended up fine, having found a secret room on the way and passed the challenge. My context was dramatically different from everyone else's. And I really cannot see the difference between " 'you lose 14 hits', 'I spend a surge to heal it' " and "you lose a surge". If that difference is causing you sleepless nights over skill challenges, I think maybe you should reconsider chess.
A badly run skill challenge is no fun. Badly run skill challenges include allowing stupid skills (athletics to impress the sailors!) and not allowing reasonable ones (athletics to move the wood faster). Badly written skill challenges, although becoming rarer, tend to have too little text and variation, making them a mathematical exercise rather than roleplaying. But I would way WAY prefer a bad skill challenge to badly run combat!
It also seems that the antagonists are over worried about the way we play skill challenges. They seem concerned that we might be so scared of failure, that we would never take non-optimal rolls. Frankly, that has not been the case with the people I have played with. We play our characters, and if that means we fail the odd skill challenge because our paladin decides to bluff someone while the bard watches astonished at his incompetence, then so be it. In general a failure is a minor setback or loss; it's not like failing to solve a puzzle or investigative scenario was in LG ("you all failed the spot check?? umm ... everyone make another check, or an INT roll ... yeah a 12 is good enough").
Every good roleplayer knows that occasional failures make better stories than continual successes. Just play your character the way you enjoy playing them, forget about the mechanics, and when the pirates ambush you just after you've lost a healing surge, take out your irritation on them ...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:52PM
#139
|
|
|
Another example of the false statement of what is not possible was made earlier:
But such would be within the general context of the rules, rather than made up for this challenge. Knowledge checks would not change mechanic. Passive perceptions/insights would be used when appropriate and the like. Penalties for failures would also be in context. You would also not 'loose a healing surge' but rather you would take an amount of damage comensurate with what occurred to your character that they could replace with a surge (or two+) as normal for out of combat if you desired (or go into the next combat injured). In essence you would not have a 'skill challenge mode' that your PCs find themselves in currently in 4e.
I have been is skill challenges where passive abilities made some skills usable ("you can see X is nervous, and could be intimidated..."). Above gives examples of failures in context; as an additional one I liked one skill challenge where my bard was nearly drowned, but everyone else ended up fine, having found a secret room on the way and passed the challenge. My context was dramatically different from everyone else's. And I really cannot see the difference between " 'you lose 14 hits', 'I spend a surge to heal it' " and "you lose a surge". If that difference is causing you sleepless nights over skill challenges, I think maybe you should reconsider chess.
Since you've called me out for making 'false statements' I figured we'd take a look at what's going on here as I'm not aware I was making any such statements.
First of all we are talking about the second half of the skill challenge in COR 1-3. I don't know what this other skill challenge you mention is, nor do I think I've played it.
All the skills listed for that challenge would not really be active checks. A knowledge arcana for example could be made by everyone in the party and any success would give a successful arcana check and hence the information. It should not matter if it's one success there and five failures or six successes.. it's the same piece of information!
As I said, I don't know the challenge where your bard almost drowned, but am I to assume that in essence the party split into 6 separate 'groups' of individuals to travel then meet back up??? I can only hope that's not the case.. yet I can see that being a result of a skill challenge as in essence that's happened in other challenges. Something that the party would never do but in 'skill challenge' mode is not only rewarded but almost mandated.
And finally on the healing surges, you are missing my point entirely. Its an arbitrary 'loss' that glosses over things. It takes decisions away from the players needlessly. And being hit for 14 might be a healing surge for one character or something to delay until being hit again for another. I've played some characters that didn't have many surges and would likely not be so cavalier with burning them.
And perhaps I am better off with a different game as 4e's 'story mode' doesn't suit me. If this discussion has made anything clear is that this is a design decision for 4e. It just happens to be a decision that goes against what I want in a role-playing game.
-James
PS: Oh and the 'scared of failure' lines.. I believe you've missed the point. The point being that the mechanics should not reward/encourage aberrant behavior- something which it currently does.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 29, 2009 - 11:20AM
#140
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2009
|
And sometimes the players can succeed with only half as many skill checks then the challenge requires. Sometimes they need twice as many successful skill checks then the skill challenge calls for. In either case a good DM will ignore the number of checks that need to be met and let the players go for it.
This is exactly what an RPGA DM should not be aiming to do; it destroys the consistency between different sessions of the same adventure that is the most basic feature of RPGA play.
|
|
|
