Search results

(emphasis mine) As I mentioned a page or two back, I think this is the key "tweak" making the entire system work, and even making it a lot of fun. Based on those numbers, Keith Baker's parties aren't succeeding on skill challenges much more than the math would indicate. It's just that failure...

The example skill challenge as a sample for us to learn from presented in DMG pg 77 is absolutely brutal too. A single +2 circumstance bonus to one of the player's checks, and one check that was an autofail because the player chose the wrong skill (intimidate) to use.

You wouldn't know that the system needed you to be generous with the DCs, allowance of aid another and profligate with the circumstance bonuses without the mathematical analysis presented here. The problem is the system presented is so obtuse that even DMs that genuinely want to help the party...

I think the key thing making skill challenges work in Keith's games isn't the many different bonuses he adds, but that a failure isn't really a failure. Keith has "total success" "partial failure" and "total failure." Let's describe it as "total success" "partial success" and "total failure"...

You have run a skill challenge, and experienced a certain result. Other people have run skill challenges, and experienced certain other results. You have certain intuitions about skill challenges (what you describe as an /understanding/ of the rules), others have certain other intuitions. How...

So you'll take anecdotal evidence over stats then? Good to know. Hope to play cards with you sometime.