D&D 5E How to GM a huge ruin?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

As you're fond of saying, 5e does have DM Empowerment, and that can sound an awful lot like 'skill challenges' if the DM wants it to.

You can certainly call for a series of checks, from the party, in response to a comparatively general group declaration of actions, or more likely, a goal. That'd be getting close. Or you could have a SC-like checklist, and as the players declare the right actions to fill it out, they get closer to the 'goal'/success it accomplishes...

 

[Ovinomancer]

You can certainly call for a series of checks, from the party, in response to a comparatively general group declaration of actions, or more likely, a goal. That'd be getting close. Or you could have a SC-like checklist, and as the players declare the right actions to fill it out, they get closer to the 'goal'/success it accomplishes...

I'm confused, what's the distinction between these methods and a skill challenge? They seem like the same thing to me. Is this a semantic argument -- 5e doesn't have anything called a "skill challenge" so, even if you do everything just like a skill challenge, that can't be a skill challenge in 5e? Seems needlessly baroque.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm confused, what's the distinction between these methods and a skill challenge? They seem like the same thing to me. Is this a semantic argument -- 5e doesn't have anything called a "skill challenge" so, even if you do everything just like a skill challenge, that can't be a skill challenge in 5e? Seems needlessly baroque.

Skill Challenges were a formal structure. That's the only major difference.

Ok, that and the ed they were part of played better 'above board,' and SCs were likewise, that way - they worked best when you were fairly open about needed successes, whether a given roll succeeded, what the DCs (at least generally) were, etc, making them a sort of game-within-the-game - while 5e runs better, IMHO, with more of that sort of thing kept behind the screen, and posits the players declaring actions and the DM determining results or calling for checks, at that time. (That is, players decide on actions without knowing the odds or underlying mechanics or 'success conditions' ahead of time. Part of 5e being 'less gamist' I suppose.)

 

[BookBarbarian]

Anybody else read the title as "How to ruin a huge GM?"

For a moment I was worried my players had joined the boards and were conspiring against me. Not to mention being a little rude about my body issues.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Skill Challenges were a formal structure. That's the only major difference.

So, yes, needlessly baroque semantic argument.

Ok, that and the ed they were part of played better 'above board,' and SCs were likewise, that way - they worked best when you were fairly open about needed successes, whether a given roll succeeded, what the DCs (at least generally) were, etc, making them a sort of game-within-the-game - while 5e runs better, IMHO, with more of that sort of thing kept behind the screen, and posits the players declaring actions and the DM determining results or calling for checks, at that time. (That is, players decide on actions without knowing the odds or underlying mechanics or 'success conditions' ahead of time. Part of 5e being 'less gamist' I suppose.)

But, then, if I flex my Empowerment, I can still use skill challenges? Or, no, my Empowerment doesn't stretch to skill challenges?

 

[schnee]

I'm confused, what's the distinction between these methods and a skill challenge? They seem like the same thing to me. Is this a semantic argument -- 5e doesn't have anything called a "skill challenge" so, even if you do everything just like a skill challenge, that can't be a skill challenge in 5e? Seems needlessly baroque.

Why not just add Skill Challenges? It's a great mechanic.

http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/2016/08/16/skill-challenges-in-5th-edition-dd/

The DMG has a legit 'skill fail forward' optional rule ripped off from FATE, why not add another modern mechanic?

 

[The Human Target]

Give your player characters total control over a huge city.

Wait three to five sessions.

 

[aco175]

I try to combine several rooms into one encounter and make several set encounters. I try to blow over the dozen empty rooms and halls and bring the PCs to a set encounter at a temple room or armory. I also try to give height and opportunity to observe higher and lower levels. You can have a giant hall and have part of it collapsed leaving a precarious column as the only means to cross. Place monsters here to slow the PCs down. You can also have groups of monsters that run away in several directions leaving the party to decide to follow some or split up. Also have groups passing through and not concerned about the PCs like they are on their own mission to explore the underdark. These can be monsters or other adventurers.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Ok, that and the ed they were part of played better 'above board,' and SCs were likewise, that way - they worked best when you were fairly open about needed successes, whether a given roll succeeded, what the DCs (at least generally) were, etc, making them a sort of game-within-the-game - while 5e runs better, IMHO, with more of that sort of thing kept behind the screen, and posits the players declaring actions and the DM determining results or calling for checks, at that time. (That is, players decide on actions without knowing the odds or underlying mechanics or 'success conditions' ahead of time. Part of 5e being 'less gamist' I suppose.)

Anecdotal as it is, my experiences with skill challenges in 4E is that they played infinitely better when kept behind the screen and playing them 'above board' sucked the life out of them by turning them into a series of dice rolls and spoiled invest in the narrative.