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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Roxlimn" data-source="post: 4303893" data-attributes="member: 11878">If I may, I have to ask why the community is expecting so much of this skill challenge framework.  I mean look at it!  The Skill Focus benefit seems to have been pulled out of nowhere, and the power benefits are much too rounded-off to have been done with math to any considerable degree.  Contrast that to the numbers for the combat damage and it's obvious that the math here wasn't done with any kind of exhaustiveness or polish.This skill challenge thing isn't actually new.  Snippets of it started appearing in adventure design around late 2005, IIRC, and definitely was included in the Red Hand of Doom superadventure.  Certain frameworks of obtaining crucial information appeared in adventures as early as Tears for Twilight Hollow and The Dead Gate.So really, it was a good thing this was codified in the 4e for all of us to have a common reference point, but this is really passe at this point.These days, I'm doing variations on the skill challenge structure, also using partial successes as Baker does.  This was actually the norm for when you used multi-Knowledge checks and Gather Information in 3e to root out important clues.I'd like to smooth out the math on it, but winging it has so far worked for me.  The fundamental problem with the basic skill challenge structure outlined on page 72 is that its length and ultimately its chances for success are based on failure rates.  This lead to extremely swingy mathematical models where you either have massive success or massive failure just based on a few moderate skill adjustments.  It's like a test that's graded with right answers-wrong answers.  You either get really, really high, or your grade plummets like a rock.The solution I've found to counteract this is to NOT base the length of the challenge on failures but on complexity itself and time constraints.  If you only have 10 minutes to fast talk a bugbear out of attacking you, for instance, you only get so many checks.  Each failure counts against you, but only in that it's not a success.  There's no chance that a string of failures will end the encounter prematurely, and each successful check has some small measure of consequence.  Figured this way, success rates are more stable and easier to manage.Moreover, you can adjust that.  If the players are really getting into the challenge, I reward clever ideas not only with bonuses on certain checks, but sometimes with the opportunity to make MORE checks.  Since failure doesn't kill the encounter, each chance is another swing at the treasure and players are well motivated to look for ideas to extend their chances at success.Again, this is easy to manage.  Each additional check has a flat rate of success and it's easy to figure on the fly how much successes on average a given number of checks will add.There is also the "reverse challenge."  You can use these for extremely high DC challenges.  It creates the atmosphere of "we barely made it."  Essentially you swing the thing around.  You only call for a small number of successes which will then end the challenge.  Failures likewise do not count towards ending the challenge, but there's only a certain number of chances you get, modified again by whatever clever idea you can come up with.This mode of success manipulation and management is actually nothing new.  Game shows have been using this forever.  You just need to select the manner of framework you want to evoke the mood that you want.</blockquote>

Verification