Excerpt: skill challenges
- Thread starter jaelis
- Start date
Propheous_D
First Post
Derren said:
I think alot of people are missing the boat on this one.
No one says its impossible to bring up the past exploits of the Duke through history. What it is saying is that he hears it alot and it has no real bearing on the outcome of this specific challenge. You need something else that makes this personal and ties it directly to the Duke himself, and more important his quirks. The diplomacy check gives you a bit of insight into that and you can use that insight to bring up a rare point of history that you might have thought of as insignificant.
Case in fact. The Duke all ways hears about his exploits in war, and in the court. However, from listening to him you get a sense that these mean nothing to him. He is a humanitarian and you can tell he walks among his people not just for show. You now know to look for something simple that he personally did in history that you can bring to light and spin in your favor. Perhaps it was as simple as rebuilding a church, or as innocent as sparing the life of the maiden Julliane from the blade of one of his gaurds. Something you would have completely missed or brushed past if you didn't have that inside info.
These are like easter eggs the DM can plant with in a skill challenge. Remember the DM doesn't go "Ok that is one success you need 7 more". The DM role-plays the situation till resolution and inacts the consequences and rewards based on the outcome. This will vary greatly from table to table as thier RP requirements are met. You could RP an hour but solve the challenge in the first five minutes. Its up to the DM and the Players how they handle this.
A failed history check will result in a negative, but a positive will not all ways result in a success basedon relevance. There may even be some failures the DM will ignore because they are irrelevant to the situation at hand. This is were the Advanced DM's will really make this system work to their advantages.
Frostmarrow
First Post
malraux said:Well, 2^successes before 2^(n-1) failures where n is the complexity fits. Though, i'd hope that's not the case, as that'll scale horribly.
But why would you scale this out of proportion? Let's say we will have a complexity 22 skill challenge. That makes it 46 successes before 23 failures.
No one is wants to play that. It will take ages and add nothing a complexity 3 encounter wouldn't.
Klaus
First Post
A variant of this encounter could be something like this: the leader in this case is a sahuagin warchief. To appeal to Diplomacy is a sign of weakness, and saber-rattling is the standard way of doing things. So A Diplomacy attempt is automatically a failure, whereas Intimidate earns successes as Diplomacy would.
I like to with the Exalted interpretation of "impossible" here; it means that it's just very hard. If one of the PCs is the grandmaster of intimidations, that PC can pull it off. But by the time the PCs can reach that level of Intimidation they most likely don't need the help of a duke anyway. In this case, I'd say that context is everything.
OTOH, if you don't like that Intimidate is impossible, make it possible. If you think all skills should be possible all the time, make it so. You have the framework for skill challenges and the rules for them work if you allow one skill or if you allow all skills. There is no cascade of weirdness if you change if a skill is applicable or not.
This is the first time I have seen skill challenges like this and I find them interesting. It creates a mechanical frame for chase scenes through wilderness and social interaction. I think this will increase the screentime of the facemen and wilderness guys beyond rolling a single roll. I'm already getting some ideas for skill challenges, 15 minutes after reading the article
OTOH, if you don't like that Intimidate is impossible, make it possible. If you think all skills should be possible all the time, make it so. You have the framework for skill challenges and the rules for them work if you allow one skill or if you allow all skills. There is no cascade of weirdness if you change if a skill is applicable or not.
This is the first time I have seen skill challenges like this and I find them interesting. It creates a mechanical frame for chase scenes through wilderness and social interaction. I think this will increase the screentime of the facemen and wilderness guys beyond rolling a single roll. I'm already getting some ideas for skill challenges, 15 minutes after reading the article
Derren said:
A history check may well tell you that "the Visier of Alfric DID indeed cast some important Oracle Spells, and sent them along as warnings that helped him in a timely fashion, so the King DID send aid as promised."
It doesn't tell you that the Duke actually cares about this fact, and it especially doesn't tell you that the Duke actually has his facts wrong and believes that Alfric sent no aid at all. In other words, without the lead-in, knowing which historical insights are likely to cause the Duke to aid you instead of hinder you will be, in this case, not possible.
Moreover, if you bring up the right fact in the wrong context, you could well do more harm than good to your cause.
Derren said:
The wording of the first diplomacy check doesn't stop the Duke from getting to say some words that reveal his interest in a particular historical topic, as well as some of his perspective on the topic so you don't stick your foot in your mouth when you pontificate on the subject.
EDIT: None of this is to say that using history in negotiations should be generally disallowed. But in at least some circumstances it makes sense to hold it back until the PCs have some ideas on how to apply the skill rather than just "use" it.
Last edited:
Andor
First Post
Re: History. The history in question may not have anything to do with the Duke's life. Perhaps he's a fan the the Great General Wassisname and a scholar of the Battle of Lost Sheep. There is no way your history knowledge can tell you what his hobbies are. However once a diplomacy check gets the conversation rolling he might drop a reference, which allows you to start smoozing with him about the battle until you wind up recreating the famous final charge across the dinning table with the peas at 3 in the morning with your new buddy the Duke.
Nahat Anoj
First Post
This skill challenge stuff is *fantastic*. I can't wait to see the full rules.
Right now, I have only two "wonderings" (they aren't really "concerns," because I'm pretty sure they'll be accounted for). First, I hope there's lots of suggestions and advice on what "failure" means and how to make failure a gameable thing that enhances play. Most players (myself included!) will have difficulty with the idea that failure =/= death, but instead failure == more complications. Second, I wonder how transitions from skill challenges to combat will occur. I want to be able to replicate a scene similar to the wagon chase in the Willow movie, where some PCs can fend off attackers while the "pilot" maneuvers the wagon/car/jet/spaceship/whatever.
If they have answers to both of these "wonderings," then I'll be one happy camper indeed.
Right now, I have only two "wonderings" (they aren't really "concerns," because I'm pretty sure they'll be accounted for). First, I hope there's lots of suggestions and advice on what "failure" means and how to make failure a gameable thing that enhances play. Most players (myself included!) will have difficulty with the idea that failure =/= death, but instead failure == more complications. Second, I wonder how transitions from skill challenges to combat will occur. I want to be able to replicate a scene similar to the wagon chase in the Willow movie, where some PCs can fend off attackers while the "pilot" maneuvers the wagon/car/jet/spaceship/whatever.
If they have answers to both of these "wonderings," then I'll be one happy camper indeed.
