NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9213943" data-attributes="member: 6690965">Oh I don't disagree at all, and frankly a flat 1 in X chance of finding secret doors isn't a particularly compelling mechanic, especially if you don't specify the timescale it takes, and especially if that timescale/chance of success isn't variable based on other outside choices. But that's neither here nor there. The decisions present in a skill challenge are not interesting, unless you substitute something other than the gameplay they provide, and that isn't necessary. You can just write a lot of specific actions, and make deciding whether or not to use them and when, at what risk, interesting on its own.Imagine, for a moment, if we simplified combat down to the SC structure. We'll combine hit and damage into a single roll, we'll give characters 4 attack bonuses targeting AC, Fort, Ref & Will respectively, we'll make the enemy forces abstract in number but resolve a rout once 3 of them have been taken out by successful attacks and assume the players are overwhelmed if they can't do it in 6 rounds.This is a worse game, with less choices, less points of interaction, and less interesting decisions than an action based, detailed combat system allowed for. The gameplay loss still exists, not matter how much effort you put into situating those remaining decisions into an interesting fictional context.I'm well aware of the differentiation between the two, but you're doing a thing here that is frustrating, and is the same thing a skill challenge does. The failure state in both cases remains the same; does the player get the dirt? The difference in the task resolution model, part of the gameplay is in putting together a series of tasks that will get to the dirt. Picking the right tasks (a process that should begin long before the safe, likely with some kind of research), stacking the correct advantages, weighing their cost in time and being responsive to failures so you can propose a different set of actions tactically.Winning or losing as your example puts it is not contained in a roll or action declaration, it's an emergent property of all of them.The example above only works as a counter argument because of the bolded line. So let's not assume that. Let's assume instead the GM is an uninterested party who will not be making decisions about the player's success or failure, but about things like "where would this villain store their incriminating documents?"That's worth doing precisely because it results in a better gameplay experience.</blockquote>

Verification