Could you elaborate on this, please? I've done a read-through of the rules and I'm not sure where this comes from -- not that I doubt that it works this way for you! Which pieces of the design bring this out in your game?
How many people do you know who haven't switched to 5e, and why haven't they?
Could you elaborate on this, please? I've done a read-through of the rules and I'm not sure where this comes from -- not that I doubt that it works this way for you! Which pieces of the design bring this out in your game?
Manbearcat
Legend
Sure.
Skill Challenges are a universal noncombat conflict resolution framework. They're meant to be applied to resolve everything from a parley, to a chase (whether the PCs or the NPCs are the pursuit), to a perilous journey (through malevolent ruins, through a city where you're wanted, through untamed wilderness, etc), to a mad escape from a collapsing mine, to the infiltration of the capital building to secure sensitive documents, to any other sort of caper or genre trope.
What is at stake is outlined. The GM uses the framework by level (typically of-level but maybe within 1 - 3 levels of the PCs) and complexity (1-5). (a) The GM frames the PCs into the conflict and plays the adversity, (b) the players (or a particular PC if the heat is on them) make fictional-positioning-relevant action declarations for their PCs by telegraphing intent to the GM and leveraging their resources (Primary Skills buffed by Secondary Skills and Advantage, Healing Surges, Coin, Rituals, applicable Powers), (c) the resolution mechanics are invoked, (d) the GM then evolves the fiction (by continuously escalating things, dramatically arc-wise, until the PCs reach 3 failures or n successes - contingent upon complexity) toward its ultimate climax and denoument (a- d repeats until that takes place).
Very akin to the scene-based, noncombat conflict resolution mechanics of other systems (Dogs in the Vineyard or Cortex+ for instance) though made more generic to accommodate the broad spectrum of conflicts/tropes in a D&D game.
Last edited:
Neonchameleon
Legend
To jump in here, I think [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is talking about Skill Challenges. Now the official guidance for Skill Challenges sucks. It's not the mechanics that are the problem, it's that the guidance amounts to a fly on the wall recording what the DM does without ever actually explaining why they are doing so, which leads to people copying the actions in inappropriate ways. I think a much better writeup is the one for my retroclone - Three Strikes Plans.
The Fighter-Cricket
Explorer
I like the name "Three Strikes Plan" - a skill challenge is in its core exactly that. Kudos.
Nibelung
First Post
And IMO, it was a prime example of why 4e works much better in combat situations than outside combat situations.
Yes, the system tell you to give out XP for it, but the quantity is very low compared to combat (requires a Complexity 5 SC to match a same-level combat), and have the potential to end up being a game of guess until you figure out the correct skills that can achieve successes, and then the party focus on the 1-2 players who have those skills at high values while the rest roll Aid Another or stay out of the way.
I like the idea of Skill Challenges. But I think that 4e's execution of that particular idea just didn't hit the target the way it intended. The fact that the system also had troubles with the universal DC table just piled up on the problems as well (The DC table was "fixed" two or three times during 4e's lifespam). I fixed it on my table with a bunch of house rules, but that do not mean Skill Challenges "by the book" are not broken or badly written.
Manbearcat
Legend
Hey Nibelung. Continuing the topic is too much thread drift and, suffice to say, the nuance of our disagreements (and the nuance of our agreements) would require a meaty response from myself (and I've had a lot to say on this subject in the last 3 + years on this board). If you (or anyone else) would like to have a(nother) dedicated Skill Challenge topic under which we could discuss various issues, grievances, techniques, please go ahead and start one or PM me about it and I'll start one with a lead post discussing the various issues.
Tony Vargas
Legend
They're comparable, actually. A complexity 5 SC is the same exp as a combat vs 5 same-level standard monsters, a baseline encounter for a 5-PC party.
I guess there's always a potential to 'do it wrong' with any system, but that's not how SCs were ever presented (while, OTOH, I'll agree that they were initially presented very badly, indeed...).
SCs were an interesting idea with a lot of potential, and some real design failings as initially presented (they actually became /easier/ the greater the complexity, for instance). While their full potential was never explored, the mechanics were fixed, but only really completely resolved two years in, and coinciding with Essentials, so easy to miss.
Last edited:
So far, nobody in my extended group of 10-14 players has expressed any interest in the game. AFAIK, I'm the only one who has even given it a look.
FWIW, we seem to be mostly in the 2nd category.
Last edited:
What edition is that Danny?
Gilladian
Adventurer
Well, I'm running a 5E campaign right now; my PCs are pushing 7th level - and we're not particularly enamored of it. I don't know why. One person dislikes the advantage/disad mechanic; another dislikes the skill system (and I'm not in love with tools). We all prefer 3e gridded combat and AoO's and the old saving throw system. I think after this campaign we'll be reverting to 3e (NOT Pathfinder), probably E6 variant, and limiting to mostly just PH classes, with a judicious addition of races, feats, and spells. It worked for us for years, and I think it will continue to do so.
Similar Threads
