NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6210006" data-attributes="member: 48965">So the DMG 1 waffles on whether the DM should be framing primary and secondary skill checks into the scene (and with this exerting DM force, deciding outcomes and using "DM secret backstory"as techniques)... or whether it should be free-form and the players are deciding which skill is usable... that said I think the examples stress the DM deciding this almost exclusively and there are literally no examples of players picking skills and those skills then becoming primary or secondary in any of the examples (but please correct me if I am wrong.). I would also note that the DMG 2 also has an example skill challenge... ""The Restless Dead"... where again we see an auto-failure in usage of the Intimidate skill (I'm starting to get the impression the designers/developers weren't keen on intimidate).  the SC is in DMG 2 and is even more interesting than the Duke example in the DMG 1 because there is no Insight check (or any other check) that reveals this information to the players.  I think the fact that I have cited 3 SC examples from 2 different DMG should dimiss the notion that this was a mistake or a lip up and reinforce the fact that decided outcome, DM force and de-protagonization (at least as described by posters in this thread) that don't fit the indie game paradigm are very much an expected and promoted way of running 4e.  I'm curious as to your views on this skill challenge and it's wider implications.  I haven't had time to look through the RC so I'll comment on this at a later point...Well first if you've chosen a method outside of the RC I would say that's an alternate method since the RC is the most up to date version of the skill challenge rules.  That aside... how do you reconcile the example I cited above where Intimidate is an auto-failure and there is no way for the PC's to determine this with the way you believe the DMG 2 sets out SC's to be ran?  If the players can choose any skills to resolve a challenge should a DM be able to create a blanket auto-fail skill?  If not why does the DMG 1 and DMG 2  both give examples of a SC that does exactly that... and this is ignoring the fact that this SC, like the others I have cited steps all over alot of indie philosophy (like pre-determined outcomes) in how it's set up.In the DMG example on p 77, the player has his PC say "Enough of this talking! It’s time for action! . . . Look, Duke, the goblins are the least of your worries. Agree to our demands, or we might have to take what we want." And the player describes the PC's action in this way: "I try to intimidate the Duke into helping us." That is clearly an attempt to "solve the problem" of the skill challenge (getting the Duke to provide assistance); hence it is a primary skill check, and failure on the check (autofailure, as it happens) counts towards the total number of accrued failures.Yes but the rulebook does express a preference and that I think is the point...That does clarify things, thanks...I would agree so far as 4e and the default goes...Yes but the bigger point is the fact that we are told this skill cannot be used until the insight roll is made... this isn't a case of it doesn't become an easy DC until the Insight skill is used... it is flat out stated the skill in general cannot be used until one makes an Insight roll. Yes but as presented in 4e this isn't what takes place.  there is no note that this should be explained beforehand... There was even a thread on here about confusion as to how the ritual actually worked do to this SC example...But it would seem that if I am going with indie philosophy... the PC's should have a choice on whether they really want the extra success or just want their normal allotment of questions... again this is mentioned nowhere in the example.Emphasis mine... Uhmm, I'm going to disagree... I would agree if the failure wasn't loose all your questions and your next encounter with undead become harder.  Yes you are unlikely to fail, but if I don't need an extra question... why risk it, especially with these failure consequences.  Yet it's up to the DM to decide whether this happens or not.  If it was just about making the Speak with Dead ritual a bigger part of play why not keep the failure conditions equal to the success condition (loose one question)?On anther note, this made me go and actually read the Speak with Dead Ritual... and we have another example of de-protagonization/GM force/GM decided the outcome and this time in a player ability.  I had never noticed this before but the ritual has this line at the very bottom..."At the DM's option, questioning the departed spirit might require a skill challenge using Diplomacy" ... Now putting aside the fact that it's kind of confusing how one can have a "skill challenge using Diplomacy" since it's a single skill... it seems that whenever the DM wants he can decide that you have to jump through additional hoops in order for your ritual to work, regardless of how good your roll is... again this seems like it's going against the indie philosophy of success = success and player resources should not be subject to DM interference/negation... or am I looking at this wrong?</blockquote>

Verification