Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ipissimus" data-source="post: 4303481" data-attributes="member: 41514">This is a good point. I think, more than any other mechanic I've seen, Skill Challenges will require superior design work.If the fighter's sitting around scratching his butt during the negotiations that's partly the fault of the challenge and a little bit of fault goes to the player for being lazy. Ok, no, the fighter doesn't have skill training in Diplomacy, so he's not much good at the table, but if the fighter has bested the Duke's champion in a game of physical skill then the Duke is going to give the party more respect by association. The wizard without Athletics is going to hold back the party in a chase sequence unless he uses Mage Hand to tip over an apple cart and block the passage of his persuers.I'm not advocating the 'pick any skill as long as you've got a good reason' style, though that had some merit it could quickly get ridiculous. But I think it will pay when designing a skill challenge to build in as many factors as possible and maybe even non-skill related bonuses, which will also partly eliminate the 'guess what the DM is thinking' aspect. Quest items, for example, could give bonuses on future skill challenges with certain people. The example challenges I've seen so far are far too simplistic, I think it'll behove most DMs to tailor challenges to his players more than we're used to with combat.Back to the original question though, yes, as a player I severely dislike failure. But then I like RPing for the ability to waltz around being cool and competent. Failing, particularly in one of my core skills, is a blow to the ego. I think that 3e might have spoiled us all in some respects, though the only evidence I can point to for that is that I remember back in 1e players (myself included) seemed to take failure in our stride. I've also noticed that we've gotten into alot of hot water in 4e because we're much less willing to run away.</blockquote>

Verification