An Essay to Wizards of the Coast

[keterys]

My first exposure to a skill challenge, in any system, was the Escape from Sembia adventure at DDXP before 4e came out.

It was glorious - we had people leaping rooftops, toppling carts, finding ways to ancient sewer passages, etc.

In hindsight, I'm amazed it went so well, since I can easily imagine how it could have gone wrong instead - I suspect we got a fantastic DM who really grokked skill challenges. Skill challenges really suffer when people approach them too seriously as dice rolling exercises, instead of the improvisational framework for encouraging RP and rewarding investment in non-combat abilities that they can be.

At any rate, that initial fantastic showing has really aided me to enjoy them more since, and to work within the framework. I'm a little more jaded nowadays, though, and more likely to avoid using skill challenges.

 

[Dannager]

Also, low level combat really should be 'he who hits first wins'.

Think about it. In a sword fight, the guy that lands the first solid blow wins. Real Sword fights from the middle ages resemble BraveHeart much more then they resemble a Star Wars lightsaber duel.

The use of the word "should" here needs to be reexamined. You're using it in the sense that things that should be are things that mimic real life. I would argue that such reasoning really doesn't have much of a place in a discussion of game design.

Adventurers should be classified as mentally disturbed and maniacally suicidal, but they are not, because for the sake of the game we accept that the risk of near-certain death for a share of the loot is something that otherwise rational individuals consider a worthwhile profession.

Similarly, we typically accept that combat in RPGs consists of something more dynamic and cinematic than running up to your enemy and lopping their arm off in a swing. This is done because it makes for engaging gameplay, and the idea that this goal should be set aside in order to satisfy the goal of mimicking real life is something that I think we ought to put to rest.

 

[MarkChevallier]

Similarly, we typically accept that combat in RPGs consists of something more dynamic and cinematic than running up to your enemy and lopping their arm off in a swing. This is done because it makes for engaging gameplay, and the idea that this goal should be set aside in order to satisfy the goal of mimicking real life is something that I think we ought to put to rest.

Yes, but the tension and danger of low-level play is a great deal of fun for many people. I think it should remain for two main reasons - first of all, I enjoy it; and secondly, it gives the game variety and better fits with the experiences of most editions of the game.

 

[Dannager]

Yes, but the tension and danger of low-level play is a great deal of fun for many people. I think it should remain for two main reasons - first of all, I enjoy it; and secondly, it gives the game variety and better fits with the experiences of most editions of the game.

"Dangerous" low-level play (and, let's be honest here, "danger" in this context refers to the non-trivial possibility that the DM will roll a die and then tell you that your character has died) is something that needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. It's a big potential turn-off to new players, it goes utterly against the grain of the typical fantasy saga where the greatest dangers arise towards the end of the narrative, and the reasons in favor of it typically boil down to, "It's more realistic," or "It's more like how it used to be," neither of which is itself a compelling argument.

I'm all for risk and danger, but that's not really what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the very real possibility that your character will be yanked out from under you with as much dramatic flair and personal meaning as being struck dead by a meteorite.

Then again, if I had my way no PC would ever die without their player signing off on it.

 

[Wormwood]

Then again, if I had my way no PC would ever die without their player signing off on it.

That's how my groups have played for years. Give it a try!

 

[Incenjucar]

If you want more danger at low levels, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use more challenging encounters, environments, and other hazards. This can be accomplished at any level in any edition.

 

[MarkChevallier]

"Dangerous" low-level play (and, let's be honest here, "danger" in this context refers to the non-trivial possibility that the DM will roll a die and then tell you that your character has died) is something that needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. It's a big potential turn-off to new players, it goes utterly against the grain of the typical fantasy saga where the greatest dangers arise towards the end of the narrative, and the reasons in favor of it typically boil down to, "It's more realistic," or "It's more like how it used to be," neither of which is itself a compelling argument.

I'm all for risk and danger, but that's not really what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the very real possibility that your character will be yanked out from under you with as much dramatic flair and personal meaning as being struck dead by a meteorite.

Then again, if I had my way no PC would ever die without their player signing off on it.

Right, you don't like it - you can start at level 2, or 3 or whichever level you prefer. I do like it, and I want to be able to have that experience.

But you are mis-stating the arguments for it that I have just given: I enjoy it because it encourages a feeling of tension and danger that brings with it a very different, usually more cautious, type of play than at higher levels. Nothing about realism or nostalgia in that argument, is there?

Of course, if WoTC are seeking to unify D&D players, they must pay some credence that the "zero-to-hero" format of the game is how it has gone for editions 0 through 3; edition 4 went with the "eternal sweet-spot" model. I think you can get the eternal sweet spot by restricting play to levels 4 to 12 (or whatever personally suits your tastes). That leaves other levels available for a different kind of game experience for them that like it.

Not everyone wants a game where players need to sign off on characters dying - if you do, it's a very straightforward optional rule to introduce. I want a game with a risk of death, a risk that meaningfully changes as the game progresses and my character becomes more powerful or faces more dangerous enemies. And yes, for me that means starting weak and playing a game where I am cunning, resourceful and most importantly heroic even in the face of genuine, real danger of death at the roll of a dice.

If you want more danger at low levels, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use more challenging encounters, environments, and other hazards. This can be accomplished at any level in any edition.

It's not the same kind of danger; it doesn't actually have that edge-of-death feel if everyone's got 30 hit points but the monsters hit you more often and you hit them less often. The nature of the game changes with low hit points and fragile characters.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's not the same kind of danger; it doesn't actually have that edge-of-death feel if everyone's got 30 hit points but the monsters hit you more often and you hit them less often. The nature of the game changes with low hit points and fragile characters.

If hit points are the problem, give the monsters and environments more damage.

 

[El Mahdi]

The use of the word "should" here needs to be reexamined. You're using it in the sense that things that should be are things that mimic real life. I would argue that such reasoning really doesn't have much of a place in a discussion of game design.

Adventurers should be classified as mentally disturbed and maniacally suicidal, but they are not, because for the sake of the game we accept that the risk of near-certain death for a share of the loot is something that otherwise rational individuals consider a worthwhile profession.

On this we completely agree. When it comes to game design, I don't believe that anything, whether concept, playstyle, mechanic, etc. should ever be phrased in terms of should or should not...as in this style should be what the game focuses on, this style should not be included, etc. It's a concept of exclusion, rather than inclusion.

However...

Similarly, we typically accept that combat in RPGs consists of something more dynamic and cinematic than running up to your enemy and lopping their arm off in a swing. This is done because it makes for engaging gameplay, and the idea that this goal should be set aside in order to satisfy the goal of mimicking real life is something that I think we ought to put to rest.

...you've essentially just made the same kind of statement here.

First, it's not a universal acceptance that combat in RPGs ought to consist of something more dynamic and cinematic than real life combat. Some players and groups do prefer and attempt to be as realistic as possible, even to the point of eschewing things that are unrealistic to them even if they are more dynamic and cinematic.

Cinematic and dynamic is not more engaging gameplay for everyone, and therefore should not be put to rest simply in favor of other elements. All play styles and all elements need to be acknowledged universally as fair, equal, and acceptable things, and nodded to in game design - unless, and only unless, a game is being designed for a specific type of feel.

D&D is a universal game. The First universal game. And needs to address all styles going forward.

 

[Dannager]

But you are mis-stating the arguments for it that I have just given: I enjoy it because it encourages a feeling of tension and danger that brings with it a very different, usually more cautious, type of play than at higher levels. Nothing about realism or nostalgia in that argument, is there?

Again, I believe that there are very good ways to encourage cautious play that don't involve the threat of losing a character to a single roll of the DM's die.

When you create a situation where even the most cautious player runs the risk of losing his character to a set of circumstances that are beyond his control and are not even that uncommon, you are creating more than just a sense of danger.

It's fine if some prefer that sort of play. I don't think that it should be part of the default assumptions of a system designed to be accessible, however.