D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Warbringer]

I hate the less fail option because I don't play D&D to win or succeed, I'm there to play and accept whatever outcome happens.

I think that this needs to be the goal of the skill system, namely "outcome centric", not simply pass/fail.

When we consider combat in D&D we see a system of extended win/loss results, where the consequences of success/failure are progressive. This is mainly captured in the attrition of hps and other resources (particulary spellcasters and all classes in 4e). Personally, I want this in my skill system, which is why I like Skill Challenges.

I like that failing a climb check taps my recovery resource (represented as loss of Healing Surges), that the climb was more of an exertion than it should be, not that it was failed; or that a failed Knowledge check increases the "threat*" of the ongoing scene .. (such was attacking a false weak spot). To be this is how skill checks need to interct with the primary system; fail forward with consequences.

Note: Threat - this a device I use at the table to increase the danger of encounters; essentially a pool of d6 that I can burn for extra damage or effects. The players choose the base level of threat in a Chapter (think AP module) that gives them more xp. The consequences of skill challenges can add to this pool.

 

[Derren]

I think that this needs to be the goal of the skill system, namely "outcome centric", not simply pass/fail.

When we consider combat in D&D we see a system of extended win/loss results, where the consequences of success/failure are progressive. This is mainly captured in the attrition of hps and other resources (particulary spellcasters and all classes in 4e). Personally, I want this in my skill system, which is why I like Skill Challenges.

I like that failing a climb check taps my recovery resource (represented as loss of Healing Surges), that the climb was more of an exertion than it should be, not that it was failed; or that a failed Knowledge check increases the "threat*" of the ongoing scene .. (such was attacking a false weak spot). To be this is how skill checks need to interct with the primary system; fail forward with consequences.

Note: Threat - this a device I use at the table to increase the danger of encounters; essentially a pool of d6 that I can burn for extra damage or effects. The players choose the base level of threat in a Chapter (think AP module) that gives them more xp. The consequences of skill challenges can add to this pool.

I disagree.
Combat is very much the epitome of never fail. Because of the huge consequences a failed combat the game, when following the the guidelines about appropriate challenges, heavily favors the PCs. They expand resources but are very unlikely to fail unless they overextend themselves. And the DMs also support this by, for example, having the PCs captured and not killed.

 

[Dausuul]

I disagree.
Combat is very much the epitome of never fail. Because of the huge consequences a failed combat the game, when following the the guidelines about appropriate challenges, heavily favors the PCs. They expand resources but are very unlikely to fail unless they overextend themselves. And the DMs also support this by, for example, having the PCs captured and not killed.

I think that's Warbringer's point. D&D combat is not just pass/fail; in almost all cases the PCs are expected to pass, and failure often means an abrupt end to the campaign. But "pass" encompasses a wide spectrum of outcomes, ranging from "pass with no spells expended and minimal injury" to "pass with half the party unconscious or dead, the survivors in single digits, and the casters down to cantrips."

It's nice to have a similar range of options for noncombat challenges. Because failure in combat is not an option most of the time, D&D has had to develop ways of measuring degrees of success in battle. By contrast, failure in picking a lock or negotiating a truce may be inconvenient, but it seldom brings the whole game to an end, so the game has tended to resolve those tasks as binary pass/fails.

(That said, I can't say I'm wholly on board with the love for skill challenges. The skill challenge mechanic is a skeleton upon which a good system can be built. It is not, itself, a good system. In my experience, when skill challenges work, it's because the DM added a bunch of homebrewed stuff on top of the skeleton, with different skills having different effects and the state of play changing from round to round. A skill challenge run strictly by the book is a boring, mindless exercise in dice-rolling.)

 

[Warbringer]

I disagree.
Combat is very much the epitome of never fail. Because of the huge consequences a failed combat the game, when following the the guidelines about appropriate challenges, heavily favors the PCs. They expand resources but are very unlikely to fail unless they overextend themselves. And the DMs also support this by, for example, having the PCs captured and not killed.

That's my point; the base system is about fail forward, why change that in secondary systems that essentially go against the flavor of the game; heroes battling against all odds and finding a way through...

 

[Mournblade94]

Again though the primary difference is that a 4e PC in general will have broad competence by virtue of the skill system (or even ability score checks, though they tend to be harder to pass). Even a fighter NOT trained in Athletics (or any other STR primary class) will climb fairly well. Even the weak STR dumping wizard has a CHANCE to pass most climbing checks, and not a bad chance if they're say Medium difficulty ones. A 3e fighter? I don't even think climbing is a class skill for them is it? Certainly for any class which lacks that as a class skill they COULD be good at it, but only at a VERY substantial suck of resources. By level 9 or so you're not going to pass most checks for doing stuff you lack skill ranks in. The difference isn't HUGE, except there are 100's of skills in 3e to master, so any PC is competent only in a small subset of skill use situations. A 4e PC generally will be trained in 20-30% of all skills, and have a primary in at least 10-20% more, and a decent secondary (and/or other advantages from class/race/background/theme) in probably another one or two. Most PCs can at least take a reasonable shot at 50% of the skill checks out there. IMHO that conveys a more heroic sort of ambience, heroes do stuff, they don't worry too much about lacking the skill to do most things. This isn't terribly realistic of course, but it works pretty well.

That's Ok that 4e is designed that way, but I don't want all the characters to be skilled in almost everything. I see WHY 4e did it but I prefer the skills spread out like Pathfinder. (Yes in 3rd edition Climb was one of the few class skills the fighter got.) There is nothing that tells me the dragonslayer should be able to climb the impossible cliff.

Here is a case where you see a benefit, but for me it was one of the turn offs for the system.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That's my point; the base system is about fail forward, why change that in secondary systems that essentially go against the flavor of the game; heroes battling against all odds and finding a way through...

To me the hero is the guy who makes it through with the possibility of failure and I don't want my hand held by the system. I personally don't want another narrative style game that was 4th edition.

So far, Next seems like it's going down the road of a generic RPG system and let's face it, there are other systems that do it better. I play D&D for the fluff, the restrictions, and the feel. The mechanics alone are not worth playing.

 

[jrowland]

That is a huge IF, one of monumental proportions. Specially since WotC has never been very reliable with providing that level of support to begin with. WotC adventures? Not in my estimation.

I'd like to point out that the majority of the Paizo team was either directly or indirectly supporting the WotC product we call 3rd edition with WotC support. Pathfinders continued success would not be possible without that level of support in the early days of 3rd edition and the dark days of 3.5 release. WotC has done it before. It is possible.

 

[D'karr]

WotC has done it before. It is possible.

Not reliably by WotC, which was my point. With very few exceptions the adventures published by WotC for 3.x and 4.x were, to say it mildly, poor. Dungeon Magazine during the period you mention did have quite a bit of good adventures and the magazine was being handled by Paizo, not WotC.

Paizo has reliably put out rather good adventures, WotC has not.

Your comment would be like saying that Goodman Games produced many good adventures for 3.x, indirectly supporting the game published by WotC. Therefore WotC reliably produced good adventures for 3.x.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

That's Ok that 4e is designed that way, but I don't want all the characters to be skilled in almost everything. I see WHY 4e did it but I prefer the skills spread out like Pathfinder. (Yes in 3rd edition Climb was one of the few class skills the fighter got.) There is nothing that tells me the dragonslayer should be able to climb the impossible cliff.

Here is a case where you see a benefit, but for me it was one of the turn offs for the system.

That's why if Next is to succeed, it needs to be able to do both fairly well, and hit a few notes in between as well.

Also, nobody said anything about "impossible" cliffs. The example that pemerton used was a modest cliff, and his point was apt. Some folks prefer it that way, and that's fine. Others prefer it not work that way - also fine. Next needs to satisfy both sets of preferences (and then some).

 

[Derren]

That's why if Next is to succeed, it needs to be able to do both fairly well, and hit a few notes in between as well.

Thats imo impossible as we are talking about two completely different ways of gameplay.