Forum

[dkyle]

Originally Posted by Neubert

I really like the idea behind this system, but some of the rules were a little hard to grasp, as Stalker0 said. I suppose that may help with trying out the system. Keep in mind I haven't had a chance to look over version 0.2 (except for the gameplay example), so this might be clarified in the new version.

I did change things quite a bit, so hopefully it'll be clearer now

One thing that bugs me however, is that not everyone needs to participate if they don't have any skills suited towards any of the challenges. It is not as bad as the original Skill Challenge system which move the group towards failure on a failed roll, but when you only have three checks per round, it is best to let the player with the best check modifier roll.

Of course, the GM can make sure that each conflict benefits a different player, but it: a) may not always be possible to do this
and b) just means that some players will "shine" in the beginning of the challenge and others later in it.

I don't think it's really as essential to have all players directly involved in a skill challenge as it is in a combat, mostly because SCs take so little time. Your b) seems like a perfectly fine situation.

In practice though, I've never had a player not roll at all. Usually there's at least a logical secondary skill for everyone.

It might be nice to see some "complications" that was to the benefit of the party.

Good point... any ideas?

I would actually like to work a little on the system, perhaps trying to change it so each player makes a skill check per segment. Would that be alright?

Originally, I had four checks per segment. After running it like that, I felt like there was too much lag between the players' actions, and the world's reaction. Three seems like the sweet spot in my experience, so I'd be reticent to change that. But if you'd like to try it out, I'd like to hear how it turns out.

Originally Posted by BobTheNob

...and then. Complicated. I tried putting together some scenarios and playing through with my parties characters, and pretty quickly hit the "Wha? wall".

Difficulty understanding the rules, or difficulty telling a coherent story that follows the rules?

Im still going through it, but my problem was that if I hit the wall, I can guarantee my players will just not lock on to this (1 in the group is a powergamer, the others are more casual), and that is an important facet. One of the things that is that makes combat fun is transparent to the player with dynamics and interplay, and my fear is that to make this transparent would end up in alot of head scratching.

I'd suggest trying it with the worksheet in the open. The system is certainly a lot less complicated than the rules for 4E combat.

I think you are on the right track, but as far as my group is concerned, I would focus on
1) Simplify

I could trim the Insight part, perhaps move it to an "advanced options" section, but I'm not sure what else. Any suggestions?

2) Build in controllable dynamics

Do you mean incorporating run-time DM decisions, like running monsters in combat?

b) Your design had the keywords with consequences built in. I would be more tempted to tie consequences to the aspect of the challnce that is actually being tested. Leaves the GM more room to get creative

Are you referring to Complications? I'm not sure what you mean.