Raduin711
Hero
perhaps the idea is to teach dm's and players how to use skill challenges; not every challenge is going to be, or should be a cakewalk.
In order for skill challenges to work, players and DM's will have to learn to accept failure as an outcome. For instance...
Lets first look at a 3.5 skill check. The players need to get to a temple hidden in the mysterious forest.
DM: "Ok, Ranger, roll a Survival check. You have a rough idea of where to go, but the forest is pretty hard to navigate."
Ranger: "oops. only rolled a 2. that brings my total to 12."
DM: (sweats) "Um... that didn't quite make it. You get hopelessly lost in the forest." (geez, I need to get them to that temple... maybe I will just use this as an excuse for a random encounter or something... Now where did I put that-)
Ranger: "well, can I try again?"
DM: "Say what? You're hoplessly lost, though..."
Ranger: (grumbling) "well, the book says I can retry..." (what else are we supposed to do, oh mighty DM?)
DM: (sighs) "Alright, go ahead."
Ranger: "Finally! Something decent!"
DM: "You find yourselves at the gates of the temple..." (now wasn't that a waste of time...)
This time around, they are instructing us, through the use of skill challenges, to accept failures, while at the same time allowing players to progress through the adventure. By allowing failure, the skill checks really matter, tension goes up, people pay attention and have more fun.
So, instead of just giving the player a reroll (I guess he wasn't so hopelessly lost after all...) you have them accidentally wander into a quicksand trap, or perhaps they meet a sly kobold who is willing to put them back on the right track... for a price. or some other consequence that progresses the plot, but makes them pay.
So I guess that's why they made the challenge so hard... the beauty of the system isn't in how players succeed at challenges... it is how they fail. And that's what they are showcasing.
In order for skill challenges to work, players and DM's will have to learn to accept failure as an outcome. For instance...
Lets first look at a 3.5 skill check. The players need to get to a temple hidden in the mysterious forest.
DM: "Ok, Ranger, roll a Survival check. You have a rough idea of where to go, but the forest is pretty hard to navigate."
Ranger: "oops. only rolled a 2. that brings my total to 12."
DM: (sweats) "Um... that didn't quite make it. You get hopelessly lost in the forest." (geez, I need to get them to that temple... maybe I will just use this as an excuse for a random encounter or something... Now where did I put that-)
Ranger: "well, can I try again?"
DM: "Say what? You're hoplessly lost, though..."
Ranger: (grumbling) "well, the book says I can retry..." (what else are we supposed to do, oh mighty DM?)
DM: (sighs) "Alright, go ahead."
Ranger: "Finally! Something decent!"
DM: "You find yourselves at the gates of the temple..." (now wasn't that a waste of time...)
This time around, they are instructing us, through the use of skill challenges, to accept failures, while at the same time allowing players to progress through the adventure. By allowing failure, the skill checks really matter, tension goes up, people pay attention and have more fun.
So, instead of just giving the player a reroll (I guess he wasn't so hopelessly lost after all...) you have them accidentally wander into a quicksand trap, or perhaps they meet a sly kobold who is willing to put them back on the right track... for a price. or some other consequence that progresses the plot, but makes them pay.
So I guess that's why they made the challenge so hard... the beauty of the system isn't in how players succeed at challenges... it is how they fail. And that's what they are showcasing.