Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sheadunne" data-source="post: 6206048" data-attributes="member: 27570">I think what you're seeing is the individual roles (as with 3x) and not the skill challenge (which is the collected total). One failure would have produced more conflict which might have led to further failures. In this particular example, the players succeed. It's probably a bad example in terms of escalating conflict, since the players successes mitigated the challenge, which one would expect from success. It's really no different than one-shotting the Big Bad in 3x. It happens, but not in every encounter. What is interesting is that the DM abided by the successes of the characters and didn't ignore or deflate them at all. He continually provided more challenge, but didn't do so by focusing on the chamberlain. For example, when the Paladin received his first success, the chamberlain attitude changed. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] didn't increase or alter the chamberlain to make him more difficult, he introduced new conflict outside of the chamberlain in an attempt to influence the chamberlain's reaction. The roll was a success so making the chamberlain more difficult now doesn't make sense in the fiction, we need additional outside forces that might change the chamberlain's disposition back to his original stance. Rather than keep those hidden from the players, Manbearcat introduced outside forces that the characters could directly challenge in the scene. I thought it was well done. Did the individual DCs seem low? Probably, but 4e isn't built off of individual DCs but rather success vs failure ratio, which requires less individual chance of failure but greater risk of overall failure. Here's the way I read it played out. The player's need to generate a series of successes before failures in order to do what in 3x is a single Diplomacy/Intimidate check. 1) The Chamberlain is unfriendly toward the characters (characters need to change that in order to see the king).2) The Paladin intimidates the chamberlain (The check was successful and the Chamberlain's attitude changes but is clearly hiding secrets and wants the characters to go inside. This introduces the next check needed to change the chamberlain's mind on seeing the king).3) Rogue senses something's up and let's the ranger know. The ranger moves to uncover the secret, dodging the guards which moved to intercept him. (The secret is out which is another point in the attempt to change the chamberlain's mind). 4) Drakes arrive, the last of the challenge to change the chamberlain's mind. The Drakes intimidate the Chamberlain (which would possibly cause the drake's intimidate to override the Paladins and restore the chamberlain resolve. To make things more interesting, this is done as a short combat)5) Short action scene in which the characters can block the drakes intimidation of the chamberlain. To further prove they're stronger than the drakes, they bluff/intimidate the drakes, proving their mettle to the chamberlain.6) The Chamberlain's mind is finally changed (not through a single intimidate/diplomacy roll as in 3x, but through a series of challenges, any of which could eventually lead to the players failing).The entire scene was about gaining control of the chamberlain so the characters could see the king, which is what the example was all about. In the skill challenge method, a single diplomacy check only starts the challenge, it doesn't end it (as is more usual for 3x). You don't need to raise the DCs because it's only one of many skill checks required to succeed in changing the chamberlain's mind.I want to see if I can port this over to 3x in a meaningful way, without necessarily introducing skill challenge math.Let's say we set the DC for the chamberlain at 40. The characters' highest Diplomacy or Intimidate is 15 (max they can get is a 35). Right now there's no way the players can succeed at reach the king. The Chamberlain is just too determined and has too many pressures to not allow it. These pressures need to be challenged in order to convince the chamberlain to allow them to see the king.Pressure one: Baby Sacrifice. If the players roll a successful sense motive they can learn that the Chamberlain doesn't want them to see the baby in the cage. A successful sense motive check gains the party a +2 on their next diplomacy check (making it +17 vs DC 40)If they uncover the baby, they players get an additional +2 to their next diplomacy/intimidate check to convince the chamberlain to let them see the king (taking it to +19 vs DC 40).Pressure two: The drakes. If the players manage to defeat the drakes in combat they gain an additional +2 to the diplomacy check (+21 vs DC 40). If the players manage to chase off the drakes and not kill them, they will gain an additional +2 to the check (+23 vs DC 40).We've now managed to give the players a chance to convince the chamberlain to let the characters see the king. Obviously the math is a little wonky, depending on what you think the right percentage chance should be for success, but it gets at a similar method as the skill challenge. Players gain +2 bonuses based on how they choose to interact with the chamberlain. I'm not sure it's as elegant as the skill challenge method, but it gets at a similar thing, to convince the Chamberlain to let the characters see the king and does it by providing bonuses to their single diplomacy/intimidate check. You could, of course, spread it out over time and have the characters investigate outside of a single scene and then come back with evidence (gaining bonuses to their roll), but does that add anything to the game? Some people yes, some no.I'd even allow a successful charm person spell to give a bonus to the roll (not a flat out success using this method). Anyway, too much rambling. Cheers.</blockquote>

Verification