Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Graf" data-source="post: 4205255" data-attributes="member: 3087">[sblock=This post is all OOC]Sorry. I'm testing out Firefox Beta and I can't seem to select anything... little bug there.I certainly didn't intend to say that success is the same as failure.With regard to easy/hard.... to my mind if something is easy then it's easy. If it's hard then it's hard. Making something sort of easy but not really because there is a two tiered conflict resolution system that punishes you for failure strikes me as weird.It seems to me that the "easy" checks either need to be "unlocked" (which I like because it lets you set up a momentum sort of thing) or are for "unattractive skills". I"ve played, am now playing 3.5 characters with ranks of knowledge in things like history and nobility. While I love doing it it's a really really suboptimal choice. As the only one with rogue levels I'm denying my party access to other important skills (the character has 7 ranks in knowledge and no disable device... obviously a "good party member" wouldn't do that).The thing with this mechanic, as I see it, is that it tries to reward you for taking skills like history by giving you an "easy" success.Think about it: Easy is really just a lower DC.So if you're a perceptive character you can probably hit a high insight check; but if you're a fighter who's trained in history? An "easy" DC may still be pretty challenging for you.I wouldn't on top of having had that poor fighter "waste" a feat to get a new trained skill, try to brutalize them for trying to use that skill by saying "sure, you can make the roll Mr. Int 9, but if you mess up you've eaten up half of the 4 failures your group can get".It just doesn't seem like a fun mechanic to me.And, I haven't seen anything that suggests that WotC is pushing that "failing an Easy check deserves an extra lump of coal".To my mind the system shouldn't punish failure to the point that that only sane choice from a probability standpoint is to play conservatively.Very cool.Generally speaking in PbP (as everybody knows) people post "when they can". And certain actions will take less time than others.If someone wants to use intimidate to bully the local priest 'cause they think they're hiding someone and someone else wants to spend a few hours at the local inn picking up rumors, one is just going to happen more quickly than the other.I think that if we create an initiative system and try to bolt it onto the skill challenge mechanic it'll get weird. And I think that it'll get even weirder online because people can't usually post consistently.I am not, btw, and do not mean to be, excessively obnoxious or aggressive. I'm just trying to wrap my head around a new system and I do it by pushing hard and "taking a side" on an issue and arguing about it.I fully concede that it may be that initiative and/or hidden DCs and/or penalties for failing "easy" checks may be the best.I just see arguments against those that I wanted to bring up and think about collectively.[/sblock]</blockquote>

Verification