Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I didn't see anyone else mention this (please point me to other threads on the subject) but I thought there was a really good nugget in the "Classic adventures, 4th edition style" article.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080530a&authenticate=true
Specifically where Mike Mearls is thinking about the Steading of the Hill Giant
He then goes on to give a nice example of using a Skill Challenge (variant) and interpreting different results in the adventure.
It seems like a really neat way of getting away from the binary results of "any stealth check failure fails everything", and allows the game itself to support gradually increasing danger and chance of everything going pear-shaped.
Definitely worth a read and comment if you find the idea interesting.
If you think skill challenges are a pointless and useless idea, and the article is full of flaws... make a different thread for that discussion please. This thread is for those who find the idea interesting.
Thanks
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080530a&authenticate=true
Specifically where Mike Mearls is thinking about the Steading of the Hill Giant
Mearls said:You can handle this challenge in several ways. You might simply allow the giants in nearby rooms to make Perception checks if the PCs start a fight. While this solution seems like an obvious choice, it plays counter to one of the primary design conceits of 4th Edition. A single lucky Perception check could bring the entire fort down on the PCs. This binary outcome, either the PCs remain hidden or the giants attack, runs counter to 4th Edition's idea of slowing growing peril, as opposed to save or die spells and attacks.
Ideally, the players feel the tension and fear as their characters sneak through the fort. By tying their success to a single die roll, you deflate much of the drama and uncertainty of the PCs' situation. The characters are either safe, or they are in danger. In contrast, a skill challenge allows you to introduce variable levels of safety and danger. The characters must fail several checks, or the giants must succeed in several of their own, before the PCs trigger a wide-spread alarm. As the PCs sustain failures in the challenge, the giants become more and more active, forcing the PCs to change their tactics. The characters might become more cautious, or they could decide that acting quickly, decisively, and aggressively is the best response to the giants' growing alertness.
He then goes on to give a nice example of using a Skill Challenge (variant) and interpreting different results in the adventure.
It seems like a really neat way of getting away from the binary results of "any stealth check failure fails everything", and allows the game itself to support gradually increasing danger and chance of everything going pear-shaped.
Definitely worth a read and comment if you find the idea interesting.
If you think skill challenges are a pointless and useless idea, and the article is full of flaws... make a different thread for that discussion please. This thread is for those who find the idea interesting.
Thanks