Well, this is priceless for Ari Marmell to come into this thread and say that skill challenges were solidly playtested. By the way, before we get into arguments, let's stick to precision. What I said, paraphrasing Frank Trollman, was roughly this:
Quote:
|
Not a single version of skill challenges that WotC RELEASED in June 2008-June 2009 was solidly playtested.
|
Enter Ari: "Hogwash".
Well, basically, no it isn't Hogwash when the DM in Ari's group, Massawyrm, himself demonstrated - for everyone to see - that Ari didn't playtest a version that
WotC ever released. Here's the proof (from the
same page I linked in the post mentioned in the OP):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank Trollman on RPGNet Remember when Massawyrm gave that glowing review at the beginning of this edition? Quote: |
Originally Posted by Massawyrm It all just works. Fluid, intuitive and fun. | or his description of skill challenges? Quote: |
Originally Posted by Massawyrm The DMG has a lengthily description of “non-combat challenges.” These include social encounters, chase scenes, library research, etc. They aren’t handled by 1 or 2 dice rolls, but instead involve multiple checks over some period of time in the game to see an outcome. Andy Collins says that the closest thing to it is the Complex Skill check from Alternity. Their goal is to have more people at the table involved in social situations. Player 1 might make diplomacy check, as Player 2 makes a bluff check to support him, and Player 3 makes an intimidate check to drive the point home. (If done correctly, these checks should aid each other, not counter.) An NPC might counter with the support of a Knowledge roll, and Player 1 counters with other knowledge and a second diplomacy check. This makes it more of a back and forth between players and GMs. Collins noted that they don’t want to penalize players who’s own ability doesn’t match their characters, but they still want to inject roleplaying into social encounters. The result is a range of results from a social situation instead of a simple pass/fail. | Right. That's what they promised. What did they deliver? They delivered a system that not only is a binary pass/fail, but also didn't even work. Like mathematically, it was unplayable. Despite the fact that they guaranteed us repeatedly and in so many words that "everything just works" in 4e, this was not true. And more importantly, it was obviously not true. Anyone who played through a skill challenge even once would have seen that immediately.
So either they sincerely believed that rules that they had never tested or played with would magically work perfectly or they rushed something to print that they knew full well was completely nonfunctional expecting to patch it later with something that worked at all. I don't even know which option is worse, but I do know that neither really fills me with confidence when they say that they are tinkering with it and they'll have something that works properly "real soon."
So yeah: when mearls tries to play it off as hypocrisy on my part that I simultaneously lambaste him for both his product and his methodology, I remain unmoved. The methodology created the product. Frankly, I'm being generous by chalking it up to the effects of an insular design bubble on a complete lack of proofreading or meaningful playtesting. The alternative is deliberate deception coupled with a callous disregard for their consumers.
-Frank |
I've bolded the final line because after seeing Mike Mearls' behaviour on that RPGnet-thread (going for Frank's "ego" instead of the issues that he, along others, raised in the thread) and listening to his recent podcast I'll be hugely surprised if
WotC really intends to publish a fully playtested version of skill challenges. Ever.
And yet another word from our sponsors
