|
1 year ago ::
Apr 25, 2012 - 4:08PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
why not reserve failure for when it can be interesting?
I agree, but even 4e skill challenges tended to have uninteresting failures (i.e. you lose a healing surge and then continue with the adventure as normal).
If they were going to get through it some how, why was it made an obstacle?
Realism? Resource management? Role-playing? Dunno... isn't it assumed that 4e PC's will get through all obstacles somehow? It's the how they do it that evidently must be the interesting part.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 25, 2012 - 4:23PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
why not reserve failure for when it can be interesting?
I agree, but even 4e skill challenges tended to have uninteresting failures (i.e. you lose a healing surge and then continue with the adventure as normal).
That's sadly very common, but it's not inherent to the rules.
It's hard to make failure of a lone locked door interesting, so I tend not to use them, or to gloss over them.
If they were going to get through it some how, why was it made an obstacle?
Realism? Resource management? Role-playing? Dunno... isn't it assumed that 4e PC's will get through all obstacles somehow? It's the how they do it that evidently must be the interesting part.
Realism and roleplaying can be handled with mere description: "The duke clearly wanted to protect his estate, but his defenses are little match for (you/me)."
Resource management only works if there are resources at risk. If your choices are "pick the lock" or "smash the door," there's nothing to manage. It's better if its "pick the lock for surprise and an easy fight" or "smash the door for a tough fight," but even that isn't always in the offing.
It's not necessarily assumed that the PCs will get past all obstacles. Anyway, it doesn't have to be, even if it generally is. I regularly stymie the PCs in my campaign.
Automatic, no risk success isn't interesting, which is part of why the original post was written. Non-automatic success can be interesting, but if failure is boring then it might just be boring. If you're braving risk to accomplish it (such as disarming a trap in the middle of a pitched battle), even automatic success can be interesting and failure definitely is. In Dungeon Delve 11, there's a portal that empowers the solo in the room and can bring in more monsters. In my game, the wizard couldn't fail the necessary Arcana checks, but he had to be clever about using them, and expose himself and the party to some risk.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 25, 2012 - 8:43PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
Detteret, pg 39 PHB 2nd ed: The amount of time required to pick a lock is 1d10 rounds. A thief can try to pick a particular lock only once per experience level. If the attempt fails, the lock is simply too difficult for the character until he learns more (goes up a level).
Put him in situations such as the floor starts falling out from underneath, or traps on the wall (Raiders of Lost Ark) shoot out arrows while picking locks.
Lock Quality pg 36 DMG has % modifications for types of locks, that can alter the high % of his abilities.
You could also try 3 lock boxes, where multiple locks have to be opened before the chest opens. This could cause more traps to go off, be affected by the number of rounds, combat occuring around the thief.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 9:28AM
#14
|
|
|
Maybe to give either the thief a sense of accomplishment,
Only if he makes it.
Right. There must be some chance of failure.
But why not reserve failure for when it can be interesting? That's one key lesson I've learned from 4E.
I dunno, perhaps because the bad guy that put the lock on the door didn't put it there just so the thief could wave his hand at it and it falls off?
If you just want to tell a story then there is no need for rules or mechanics. If however you're going to actually use dice and let the DM and Player be "surprised" by the results and the adventure that evolves from that then... usem.
I find DMs that just sit and tell me a story dull and boring. Perhaps that's how the modern games are designed but then I tend to not play those. I play AD&D to create a story, not be told one.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 12:37PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I dunno, perhaps because the bad guy that put the lock on the door didn't put it there just so the thief could wave his hand at it and it falls off?
If you just want to tell a story then there is no need for rules or mechanics. If however you're going to actually use dice and let the DM and Player be "surprised" by the results and the adventure that evolves from that then... usem.
I find DMs that just sit and tell me a story dull and boring. Perhaps that's how the modern games are designed but then I tend to not play those. I play AD&D to create a story, not be told one.
It's not about dice vs. no dice, or story vs. surprise, it's about interesting vs., for lack of a better term, dull.
The OP was talking about the character always succeeding. That's pretty dull, even for the successful player
If the PC was always failing, that would probably be pretty dull too. DMs tend not to put in things that the characters can't possibly pass, so I'll ignore this for now.
The typical response to the PC always succeeding is to increase the challenge until there's a chance of failure. Ok, fine, but that, in and of itself, is not necessarily interesting. That's only part of it.
The other part of it is being able to say "Ok, that didn't work, guess we have to try Plan B and take the consequences?" if you fail and "Thank goodness that worked, because Plan B was going to carry consequences" if you succeed. If the party can just bash through the door or ignore what's behind it with impunity, that's not very interesting. If alternate methods of ingress carry consequences (e.g. guards are alerted, time is wasted, the party is separated) or ignoring the room carries consequences (e.g. a villian's plan comes to fruition), that tends to be interesting.
It's also interesting if simply performing the automatic skill check carries a consequence. If opening the door is a cinch, but the rogue will stand a chance of injury or death for even trying it, there's the potential for lots of heroism, tension and cleverness.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
