Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dungeoneer" data-source="post: 5435549" data-attributes="member: 91777">To me, having the general at death's door is great.&nbsp; That adds the kind of time pressure that is perfect for skill challenges.&nbsp; Not only that, but I actually think the general's death would be an acceptable consequence for failure, since it moves the plot forward (although not in the way the PCs might prefer!).&nbsp; But it's your NPC.You are right that skill challenge failures that just result in combat are a bit... dull.&nbsp; Combat in 4e is fun and many players might consider it a reward instead of a punishment.&nbsp; A nice twist can be that failure results in combat... with the odds stacked heavily against the players.&nbsp; &quot;Oh crap, we've attracted the attention of the lizardfolk, and we're waste deep in sludge!&quot;Good consequences for failure are ones that the players care about.&nbsp; If you threaten to take something away from them that will really get their attention.&nbsp; Example: negotiation with the lizard men fails, and they start demanding large amounts of gold in exchange for the antidote.&nbsp; I honestly think letting the NPC die is far and away the best consequence for failure, though.&nbsp; It's got drama, pathos, gives the players a clear cut consequence for failure and adds urgency to whatever they're doing.&nbsp; For instance, while they're negotiating with the lizardfolk you could make clear that having to fight all the lizardfolk might slow them down, and they might not make it back in time even if they win.&nbsp; If he does die, well, maybe there is a famous healer on an inaccessible mountain who can rez him.&nbsp; Or he comes back as a ghost or an avatar of his god.&nbsp; This is D&amp;D, death is a journey, not a destination!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dungeoneer, post: 5435549, member: 91777"] To me, having the general at death's door is great. That adds the kind of time pressure that is perfect for skill challenges. Not only that, but I actually think the general's death would be an acceptable consequence for failure, since it moves the plot forward (although not in the way the PCs might prefer!). But it's your NPC. You are right that skill challenge failures that just result in combat are a bit... dull. Combat in 4e is fun and many players might consider it a reward instead of a punishment. A nice twist can be that failure results in combat... with the odds stacked heavily against the players. "Oh crap, we've attracted the attention of the lizardfolk, and we're waste deep in sludge!" Good consequences for failure are ones that the players care about. If you threaten to take something away from them that will really get their attention. Example: negotiation with the lizard men fails, and they start demanding large amounts of gold in exchange for the antidote. I honestly think letting the NPC die is far and away the best consequence for failure, though. It's got drama, pathos, gives the players a clear cut consequence for failure and adds urgency to whatever they're doing. For instance, while they're negotiating with the lizardfolk you could make clear that having to fight all the lizardfolk might slow them down, and they might not make it back in time even if they win. If he does die, well, maybe there is a famous healer on an inaccessible mountain who can rez him. Or he comes back as a ghost or an avatar of his god. This is D&D, death is a journey, not a destination! [/QUOTE]

Verification