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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5618056" data-attributes="member: 6668292">If skill challenges can be engaged with one character, then they seem similar to extended rolls from white wolf, which I like in concept. That's a good sign, in my opinion.Yes, but in D&D, all classes are designed for combat. Not all classes are designed to engage things from a social standpoint. So, when the Party Face says "fall behind me, follow my lead, and shut up" because he knows the party has no social tact or knowledge of tradition, it's a very different thing than saying the same thing in a combat scenario.As for designing a skill challenge that targets all of the PCs, I dislike that as well, for the reasons I've stated already. Maybe I can clarify below.I agree, I was questioning whether or not one party member could engage in a social challenge alone, without mandatory aid of his allies.That makes sense to me.Again, with someone like Orcus, I can see him wanting to engage the entire party. If it's a member of royalty, they might very well engage the entire party, or they might simply ignore those who aren't supposed to be talking (based on status).If the system dictates that all situations must be played out in a way that forces all of the PCs to contribute to every skill challenge, that is where linear design and function comes into play. And that's what I would have a problem with, if that's the case.I honestly don't know what you're getting at with this.Yeah, I read that, and boy did it sound ridiculous to me. Two members try to scare it while two other members simultaneously try to soothe it, while one other member simultaneously runs up and grabs it. And it ends up liking two members while dismissing two, and disliking the last member.That's utterly and completely immersion shattering to me. If I ran that past my players, they'd think so, too. It may not be to you, and that's honestly fine with me, but it just wouldn't make sense for my group.Yeah, I understand what happened. I just couldn't feel immersed by it.To me, it sounds like the mechanics decided the bear wouldn't attack (by achieving the six successes). While that's not inherently bad in and of itself, the fact that the party reacted with such wildly different attempts simultaneously should've ended the challenge right then and there, in my mind. But, as the mechanics showed that the players succeeded, it is then reasoned out why that is, and what it thinks of each party member. I just can't put mechanics first like that and feel immersed.The problem lies in the long term disposition or attitude change of NPCs. That is what causes the majority of skill abuse or odd situations to pop up. I have no problem with PCs using a skill to convince somebody to try to act in a certain way. I do have a problem with "you made your skill checks, and he'll treat you this way from now on" as those skill DCs are too easily bypassed, and even if they weren't, the fact that it changes their entire attitude towards you so quickly and immediately is rather problematic to how people actually are, in my view.Not mechanically, no. There are no mechanics in my game (which I obviously prefer) that allow long term attitude changes. The PCs can indeed befriend merchants, hobnob with guard captains, ingratiate themselves to mayor and barons, and the like, but not mechanically. Diplomacy is based off of the GitP skill (though altered), and covers only specific deals. Intimidate has been changed to alter how they see you on the Risk vs. Reward scale when you make a Diplomacy check. Bluff is similar to how it's always been (as Bluff never let you dictate actions to NPCs, nor did it change their attitude or disposition mechanically).I do not believe that social skills that allow for long term change in NPC attitude are a wise path for a D&D-style game (or maybe games in general, but I'm not experienced enough in other systems to make that claim). But, that's just my opinion, and I know that many people find them convenient and enjoy them. To those people, I say use them. Anything that makes the game more fun.To my group, they're rather absurd most of the time, when used to affect long term attitudes of NPCs. It kills immersion for many of us, breaks our suspension of disbelief, and lowers our overall enjoyment. So, when designing a game with the fun of myself and my group in mind, out they go, where they are replaced with short term deals and ways to manipulate NPCs.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification