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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 5197742" data-attributes="member: 58105">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:<a href="http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17278&highlight=challenges+frank" target="_blank">http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17278&highlight=challenges+frank</a>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</blockquote>

Verification