Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.
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="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6075221" data-attributes="member: 58416"><p>I think, in hindsight, I might now create the gondolas without cables at all. Instead, they would float on some sort of magic current which propelled them and caused them to hover. That seems more in line with some of the assumptions of 4E. I had considered that originally, but I did want breaking the enemy's gondola to be possible.</p><p></p><p>The skill challenge idea is interesting, but I have some issues with how similar ideas have worked out in the past. In particular, one of the early pieces of advice for how to add a skill challenge to a combat was by using a trap which needed to be disabled. Unfortunately, what I found was that it rarely made sense for the PCs to engage in the skill challenge, and it was often far better (and faster) for the PCs to simply use brute force to smash the trap. I feel as though I'd have to rule that doing damage to the object in question without engaging in the skill challenge simply doesn't work, but I'm not normally comfortable with the idea of arbitrarily making something immune to damage. I don't have a problem with saying a certain kind of attack or tactic is ineffective, but I dislike saying the only way to interact with something is by using the one specific way (skill challenge) that I as DM have decided upon. It's ok to me to say something works poorly, but to say that nothing at all has a possibility of working isn't a style I usually like. </p><p></p><p>You're right though. My players didn't mind too much at the time. I just had wanted to try something which I otherwise wouldn't have in previous editions. 4E seemed to encourage the idea when I was designing it. In actually play, I expected things to pan out in a manner which was more dramatic. I had more success with later attempts at similar things, but it took me quite a while until I got to a point where I felt comfortable being as creative as I normally like to be with encounters. Once I got to that point, I had a lot of fun.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 6075221, member: 58416"] I think, in hindsight, I might now create the gondolas without cables at all. Instead, they would float on some sort of magic current which propelled them and caused them to hover. That seems more in line with some of the assumptions of 4E. I had considered that originally, but I did want breaking the enemy's gondola to be possible. The skill challenge idea is interesting, but I have some issues with how similar ideas have worked out in the past. In particular, one of the early pieces of advice for how to add a skill challenge to a combat was by using a trap which needed to be disabled. Unfortunately, what I found was that it rarely made sense for the PCs to engage in the skill challenge, and it was often far better (and faster) for the PCs to simply use brute force to smash the trap. I feel as though I'd have to rule that doing damage to the object in question without engaging in the skill challenge simply doesn't work, but I'm not normally comfortable with the idea of arbitrarily making something immune to damage. I don't have a problem with saying a certain kind of attack or tactic is ineffective, but I dislike saying the only way to interact with something is by using the one specific way (skill challenge) that I as DM have decided upon. It's ok to me to say something works poorly, but to say that nothing at all has a possibility of working isn't a style I usually like. You're right though. My players didn't mind too much at the time. I just had wanted to try something which I otherwise wouldn't have in previous editions. 4E seemed to encourage the idea when I was designing it. In actually play, I expected things to pan out in a manner which was more dramatic. I had more success with later attempts at similar things, but it took me quite a while until I got to a point where I felt comfortable being as creative as I normally like to be with encounters. Once I got to that point, I had a lot of fun. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.
Top