Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Heavy Concrete Data on 4e's Skill Challenge System (long, lots of tables)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave Turner" data-source="post: 4286810" data-attributes="member: 12329"><p>My answer to you, Entropi, is a variation on this theme. Ultimately this is where you and I will probably diverge, as will most reasonable people.</p><p></p><p>Yes, a DM is free to ignore or "massage" the DCs found in the table on pg. 42. The DM is the one who determines DCs for a skill challenge and the difficulty of all challenges, skill or otherwise, that the party will face. From that perspective, all of this thunder over the flawed math can be puzzling. Why not just exercise the DM's prerogative that she's invested with by the Gods of Gaming?</p><p></p><p>Some of us in the thread aren't quite as sanguine about just deferring to DM fiat. After all, we don't expect similar approach when a DM is adjudicating combat. We simply aren't as comfortable with that level of fudging. Your response is like suggesting the following to us:</p><p></p><p>"Alright, I want you start every battle with only a rough idea of each monster's Defenses. Sure, write down some numbers for AC, Fort, Ref, and Will, but then get ready to fudge those numbers every round, depending on how the battle is going."</p><p></p><p>Our response would be:</p><p></p><p>"Wait, why did you even bother to list a monster's Defenses, if we're just supposed to key it off decisions made by the players during character creation? Why didn't you just tell us that? Why did you go through the effort of filling a Monster Manual with Defense values for monsters?"</p><p></p><p>The same goes for skill challenges. If we wanted to fudge things, we certainly didn't need WotC to tell us that. We could do that without pages in the DMG devoted to running skill challenges by a supposedly coherent, mechanical system. The greater problem is arguably with the newbie DMs that WotC covets. These guys don't have the instinct to fudge the rules. Listen to the WotC podcasts with Penny Arcade webcomic guys. In the second episode, a completely new player to D&D asks:</p><p></p><p>"How do we know that the DM isn't just cheating behind his screen when he rolls?"</p><p></p><p>That's the problem with having a flawed skill challenge system. Newbies expect that the DM will play by the rules, not fudge things for the sake of fun. A progressive attitude towards DM fudging is not necessarily the norm. If a newbie DM faces newbie players who are skeptics regarding his honesty, he's not going to fudge anything or he'll roll in the open. If the skill challenge system's DC guidelines are messed up, it might reflect badly on the system. This, in turn, might lead people to stop using skill challenges, one of the 4e innovations that WotC was particularly proud of.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave Turner, post: 4286810, member: 12329"] My answer to you, Entropi, is a variation on this theme. Ultimately this is where you and I will probably diverge, as will most reasonable people. Yes, a DM is free to ignore or "massage" the DCs found in the table on pg. 42. The DM is the one who determines DCs for a skill challenge and the difficulty of all challenges, skill or otherwise, that the party will face. From that perspective, all of this thunder over the flawed math can be puzzling. Why not just exercise the DM's prerogative that she's invested with by the Gods of Gaming? Some of us in the thread aren't quite as sanguine about just deferring to DM fiat. After all, we don't expect similar approach when a DM is adjudicating combat. We simply aren't as comfortable with that level of fudging. Your response is like suggesting the following to us: "Alright, I want you start every battle with only a rough idea of each monster's Defenses. Sure, write down some numbers for AC, Fort, Ref, and Will, but then get ready to fudge those numbers every round, depending on how the battle is going." Our response would be: "Wait, why did you even bother to list a monster's Defenses, if we're just supposed to key it off decisions made by the players during character creation? Why didn't you just tell us that? Why did you go through the effort of filling a Monster Manual with Defense values for monsters?" The same goes for skill challenges. If we wanted to fudge things, we certainly didn't need WotC to tell us that. We could do that without pages in the DMG devoted to running skill challenges by a supposedly coherent, mechanical system. The greater problem is arguably with the newbie DMs that WotC covets. These guys don't have the instinct to fudge the rules. Listen to the WotC podcasts with Penny Arcade webcomic guys. In the second episode, a completely new player to D&D asks: "How do we know that the DM isn't just cheating behind his screen when he rolls?" That's the problem with having a flawed skill challenge system. Newbies expect that the DM will play by the rules, not fudge things for the sake of fun. A progressive attitude towards DM fudging is not necessarily the norm. If a newbie DM faces newbie players who are skeptics regarding his honesty, he's not going to fudge anything or he'll roll in the open. If the skill challenge system's DC guidelines are messed up, it might reflect badly on the system. This, in turn, might lead people to stop using skill challenges, one of the 4e innovations that WotC was particularly proud of. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Heavy Concrete Data on 4e's Skill Challenge System (long, lots of tables)
Top