Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9275888" data-attributes="member: 82106">My problem with the SC presentation was a bit different. The rules (at least the updated ones printed in DMG2) are fine, in general. The issue is again well illustrated by the Convince the Duke turkey of an SC example. In the DMG1 example the situation is TOTALLY STATIC! Each 'round' the PCs do something, chat up the Duke, impress him with their prowess, whatever. Nothing actually happens! The fictional situation after each check is identical. This shouldn't even be an SC, its crap. Lets illustrate by rewriting the challenge to make it INTERESTING. Now, not only is there the Duke, but there's the High Priest, the Councillor, and the Princess. Each of these characters has their own agenda. The Duke is hard up for cash, so he's both reluctant to spend and amenable to anything that might enrich his treasury. The High Priest is basically OK, but opposes the PC Cleric of Kord, being a priest of Erathis. The Councillor lusts after the Princess and thus is hostile to the Fighter, whom the Princess has a crush on (and of course this in and of itself can prove dangerous, as Dad may not be impressed). Add some plot elements, the Councillor trying to frame the Fighter for something, the High Priest trying to force the Duke to expel the Cleric of Kord (maybe using some legalistic move priestly move). The Princess setting up an assignation with the Fighter. Maybe the Rogue has a chance to protect him from the Councillor's spies, etc. At this point we have a pretty good SC! Now the 12 successes before 3 failures of a complexity 5 SC is worthy of this situation. It can go a lot of ways, there can be ups and downs, etc. The number of failures encountered can be used to modulate the overall level of success, etc. This gets pretty close to something like the TB2 conflict system with its different grades of outcome resulting in varying costs for success, or varying degrees of pain in the case of failure. The system is quite solid, the advice in DMG1 (and even to an extent DMG2, though I would say in that book it is more that they didn't really take the explication to the limit) is just somewhat bad. It is maybe what you would expect from a GM that has never done something like this before. What I found odd is, the 4e team HAD people on it that should have known better. Mearls did plenty of posting at The Forge in the day, but I guess either the time wasn't sufficient, or he just wasn't interested.</blockquote>

Verification