[Ari Marmell's blog] To House Rule or Not to House Rule

[Lanefan]

SC's are an integral part to 4E and they do not need a battlemat.

Oh, I don't know...while my 4e-fu isn't what it could be I'd still hazard a guess that a dismal failure on a diplomacy check would lead straight to the battlemat, dice in hand!

Lanefan

 

[xechnao]

Look you said that all 4E gameplay is based on the battlemat. When I pointed out that was incorrect, with jut one example, instead of saying 'oh you are right' you just slagged SCs. That is not discussion, saying that I should seriously not consider a major (1 of every 3 'encounters' in my 4E campaign) as an example because you and the internet can provide negative press about it is not discussion. That is abuse which leads to hurt feelings.

SC's are an integral part to 4E and they do not need a battlemat.

I really, in context of this discussion, do not care about what happens in your campaign specifically and no one should. What this discussion cares about is what is written on the D&D books and what these books provide us with.
You cant be possibly calling me for abuse on criticizing SC on their objective design merits.
When I am trying to discuss about a game's design or generally about a game and its merits as a game in front of what game design is capable of it is the sort of the objective discussion points I have in mind to expect to discuss about in the thread. Your subjective experiences may be in contrast to them but this does not mean that while you, without being able to make an objective argument about it, we should somehow be able to try to be objective without coming at odds with your subjective experiences.

 

[mach1.9pants]

OK I'll leave it there, not getting far are we?

 

[Steel_Wind]

If you think Skill Challenges are a failure, you need to read Mearl's Ruling Skill Challenge series in Dungeon. He sets up several kickass SC, including one that is an adventure all by itself.

I agree. I used Mearls' example of a Epic Split-the-Party Skill Challenge and ran an entire game session - about five hours, implementing a Skill Challenge arising out of a 100 story building being knocked down in a terrorist style attack during a Star Wars: SE game. It worked very well. Every player got their own and I was literally running six skill challenges at once. It was relatively tightly scripted and probably does not look much like a traditional 4E skill challenge. Point is: it worked well.

So while I don't play 4E. I would agree with your vieew completely. The Skill Challenge mechanic is extremely adaptable and is easily backwards compatible to bolt on to Pathfinder or 3.5 -- as has already been done with Star Wars: SE in Galaxy of Intrigue.

ENWorlder The_Gneech has already done this by adapting the Skill Challenge chart used in Galaxy of Intrigue for use in Pathfinder play. The thread and the Skill Challenge chart for use in PFRPG is here.

Now, I don't think the problem with Skill Challenges is the idea, or the mechanic. There were some problems with the mechanics in DMG1, but those have been addressed.

I think the bigger problems with the whole concept was in the early day of 4E's release where people were complaining that the Skill Challenge system was being used as a round-robin to justify why your highest skill was the best way to get by the locked door.

There were some complaints, some criticism and some scornful dismissals from a lot of people. I think a substantial part of that initial reaction was well deserved.

But that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater. What was needed was to re-examine the mechanics and the examples of how Skill Challenges should be used and try again.

I though Mearl's columns in Dungeon Mag to DDI subscribers concerning Skill Challenges have been brilliant. It's regrettable that they are only open to those who have DDI. I think his columns would go a long way towards convincing people running 3.x or Pathfinder that there is something there worth considering to add on to their own games.

I don't disagree with anyone dissing Skill Challenges with how a lot of them were implemented after the immediate release of 4E. That implementation was fully deserving of some disrespect.

But I do disagree with it now and I urge some non-4E players to keep an open mind. They really can work and work well.

 

[xechnao]

"You cant really be saying that. Skill challenges are... ermm...a total failure of game design and by such they do not worth anyone's time and money that just do not want to give them away towards Wotc due to reasons other than skill challenges. There are many internet threads on the failure of skill challenges that if you insist I could quote them here or on another thread."

No not subjective at all. I am glad that you put me straight that SCs are objectively (post errata, pre errata I'll give you that) a failure.

4E does not need a battlemap for all it's gameplay

Listen, by keep repeating that "4e does not need...etch" you insult my intelligence. SC are really irrelevant to 4e's design. They designed 4e encounter mechanics and rules and then they saw how they could fit something like SCs. 4e is really nothing without its encounter mechanics. While it is what it is even without SCs.

And SCs are a failure. Primarily, errata has nothing to do with it. They do not fail just at implementation: they fail at their design goal. SCs as designed could never provide a mechanical way to do what they wanted them to do. Which is to provide to the GM solid possibilities for creating interesting "problems" for the group to solve in a cooperative fashion where everyone needs to participate.
But even if you want to say that they were not meant for this -but rather just as mathematical guidelines, they still fail at their mathematical design premise which is the DM to be able to control with a D20 rng the difficulties and success rates of various possible SC efforts. Neither the DM nor the players can control the knowledge of the difficulties without assistance from some software where you have to input all the possible SC scenarios and let it spell out the probabilities for you. And this not for every SC but rather for every SC roll as with every roll things change. The latest thread I can remember about SC fundamental and core design is this one:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17278&highlight=challenges+frank

EDIT: I am not contrary to SC design goal. In fact I think it is a valid one. Only that you cant achieve it by just using SCs the way they are designed.

Here is what I am thinking it could possibly be done on merits of their design goal:

From previous posts I have made on a couple of forums:

" If they wanted skill checks to be more like combat they should have introduced more effects; not rolls.

In each combat round the groundwork and mechanics of the following and their interactions are detailed:

losing time
losing hit points
losing other resources
losing action freedoms

winning time
winning opposition
winning loot/resources
winning XP and thus new action possibilities for the future

So, if they wanted to make skill challenges more gamist they should have builded some structures to offer this kind of gamist relations. Which is very difficult since skills are much more specialized and much more incompatible with each other than melee combat actions.

...

What they really wanted to do with skill challenges is that more players than one would got involved in a gamist way with skills. What they should have done to achieve this is to give a formal resource structure to players that would play out when skills come into play. Which is almost impossible to do for the reason mentioned on a paragraph above regarding skill incompatibilities. "

And

"What could help here is an indicator of how the group fairs, similarly of how combat has its own indicators. But what indicator could this be? I cant think of any suitable right now.

OTOH, what it comes to my mind is something that has to do with levels. You get a number of assigning your own bonuses based on your level. Say if you are level 1 you can only put your bonuses in a task specifically focused by the skills you have but at higher levels you can distribute the bonuses you have due to your skill knowledge in broader situations. In this kind of model players do know before hand what you can try to do. Perhaps skills and skill challenges could better be designed -regarding their gameplay goals- skills in such a frame and way."



Just my lazy SC contribution lol

 

[Njall]

The fact is that in the end there can be faster, more useful and more functional ways to implement and encourage tactics than with a battlemap. 3.x may have used battlemaps -even in a fundamental way to its gameplay- but this does not mean that people cannot criticize 4e for entirely focusing its whole gameplay aspect on a battlemap trying to achieve the things that you can do perhaps better without a battlemap. I am talking about "things" like optimizing "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay rather than the generic but solidly D&Dish ruleset that 3.x tried to invoke.

Sorry, but can you provide some examples? Because I don't think this is true.
There's a reason most generals use visual aids to study and explain their strategies, there's a reason coaches usually use a blackboard to show their strategies and formations to the team, there's a reason why we have maps of the world rather than lengthy description of where the Rocky Mountains are, and there's a reason why games like Risk or Chess are so successful:
the reason is that there's nothing that's as intuitive and as simple as a visual aid when you're dealing with positioning, and positioning is a significant aspect of tactics.
Now, I can see that some people might not like miniatures and maps in the context of an RPG: that's fine, and that's a matter of taste, but I simply can't agree with your premise, because the assumption you're making is debatable at best and plain wrong at worst.

Back on topic: I create and use far less house rules since 4e came out, so in a way I agree with Ari. On the other hand, while I think that adding a new game element to D&D nowadays is not as easy as used to be ( especially if we're dealing with classes and magic items ), I find that I end up making up in combat far more often than I used to.
So I guess than rather than killing my ability to houserule altogether, 4e shifted the focus of my houseruling

 

[Steel_Wind]

Post removed. Insulting people gets you suspended. Please don't do it. ~ Piratecat

 

[xechnao]

Sorry, but can you provide some examples? Because I don't think this is true.
There's a reason most generals use visual aids to study and explain their strategies, there's a reason coaches usually use a blackboard to show their strategies and formations to the team, there's a reason why we have maps of the world rather than lengthy description of where the Rocky Mountains are, and there's a reason why games like Risk or Chess are so successful:
the reason is that there's nothing that's as intuitive and as simple as a visual aid when you're dealing with positioning, and positioning is a significant aspect of tactics.
Now, I can see that some people might not like miniatures and maps in the context of an RPG, but I simply can't agree with your premise, because what you wrote is debatable at best and plain wrong at worst.

They do use maps because they already have the preconception of how things play out and what their guidelines may mean in regards to that. So to them they sort of help them win time on communicating their message. They do not take turns but act realtime. In tabletop rpgs people do take turns and having to track your position on the battlemap for every possible action is totally at odds with their utility in the real world since the combination of battlemap plus taking turns has so many limits that tends to ruin many of real time possibilities. For certain things turns may be okay, such as for strategic combat that takes place on long periods of time but not for active tactical dynamics where people clash with swords.

I will not give any examples over here even because I am trying to design this sort of thing myself lol. At somepoint, when I feel comfortable enough and have the time I will post some of the design aspects at some other thread.

 

[xechnao]

Wow. Look - without putting too fine a point on it? I read what you posted, I read the link you pointed us to, and neither of you have kept up with the changes, neither of you have read Mike Mearls recent articles, neither of you understand how the skill challenge framework can be made to work, and neither of you -- clearly and demonstrably -- have read Rodney Thompson's treatment of Skill Challenges in Galaxy Of Intrigue.

In short: Epic Fail.

I don't even LIKE 4E and I can tell you're not playing with a full deck on this one.

So cause I have no DDI subsription and I have not read RT's article I am an epic fail? Well, I provided my poor thoughts on how something like SCs could work. Do not know if you did read it cause I edited it in that post you have been quoting me after a while I made it first place.
I wont buy a DDI subscription just to check a Mearl's article.

 

[Njall]

They do use maps because they already have the preconception of how things play out and what their guidelines may mean in regards to that. So to them they sort of help them win time on communicating their message. They do not take turns but act realtime. In tabletop rpgs people do take turns and having to track your position on the battlemap for every possible action is totally at odds with their utility in the real world since the combination of battlemap plus taking turns has so many limits that tends to ruin many of real time possibilities. For certain things turns may be okay, such as for strategic combat that takes place on long periods of time but not for active tactical dynamics.

I will not give any examples over here even because I am trying to design this sort of thing myself lol. At somepoint, when I feel comfortable enough and have the time I will post some of the design aspects at some other thread.

If you manage to create something of the sort, please share it! It should be interesting,even revolutionary
On the other hand, you'll have to excuse me if I can't take your statement at face value until then, but if I said something to the effect of "it's a fact that people can live forever" and, when asked "how?",I replied "well, I'm working on it" it wouldn't be a very compelling argument