Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hellcow" data-source="post: 4303752" data-attributes="member: 15800">Um... I know? As Wulf Ratbane said, I never intended - either here or in my livejournal - TO address the substance of the criticism against the skill challenge system. At the time that I wrote that livejournal entry, I hadn't even READ any of the threads about it on ENWorld. Again, not a 4E designer! My point was never to say "You're wrong! The system works fine! It's perfect, I tell you, perfect!" - but rather to explain what I've been doing, because it's worked pretty well for me. Among other things, having read some of the analyses, I agree that the complexity rule IS flawed. It's not unplayably flawed, as shown by the fact that I've been playing with it; but that doesn't mean that I think the system is perfect at is. Clearly there are issues, and from Mike Mearls' posts, it sounds as though they will be addressed at some point in time.Looking back over things, I'd say that the key is using partial successes. Action points certainly help with the odds, but the point is that my players AREN'T back to square one if they lose. Failure may put new challenges in their path, full success may give them a significant edge... but I don't expect the PCs to succeed at every challenge I set before them. Their degree of success determines the path the adventure will take. Looking to the DMG, I see now that it really doesn't suggest this; it presents things in a more binary fashion. But again, my intention was never to defend the core system; it was simply to describe what I've been doing. It's a report, not an argument.</blockquote>

Verification