Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5037128" data-attributes="member: 54710">The benefits of using a (well designed) skill challenge to resolve a non-combat situation are the same as using a combat mechanic to resolve a combat-appropriate situation.&nbsp; That is to say:1) It provides a mechanical system that allows the player (and DM) to track how close or far away they are from success or failure.&nbsp; This provides a feeling of progress and, while close to failure, a sense of excitement.This is why I subscribe to PCat's theory of making the skill challenge explicit and letting the PCs track successes and failures.&nbsp; (Tangentially related, this is also why a visible &quot;bloodied&quot; condition is such a good idea...)2) It provides mechanics that allow different characters to interact with the challenge in different ways.&nbsp; Giving players their areas of expertise (relative to the other PCs) differentiates the characters and gives them different ways and opportunities to shine.3) It provides an opportunity for interesting decisions and tactical reasoning.&nbsp; At the very least, there is the opportunity for creativity in how to apply your better skills in (non-obvious) ways that are appropriate to the situation.&nbsp; In some skill challenges, a good skill application might lead to big bonuses or an auto-success.&nbsp; (E.g. if the challenge is to search for something, telling the GM you search in X might be much better than just saying, &quot;I use perception to search.&quot;)&nbsp; You can also decide when to use certain utility powers, or when to aid others at a penalty to yourself.&nbsp; (The challenges in the DMG1 aren't very good at this last one, but that's because they are to skill challenges what a single 3e orc is to tactical combat.)Edit:4) It provides an excuse and a mechanism to get everyone at the table engaged in solving the problem.-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5037128, member: 54710"] The benefits of using a (well designed) skill challenge to resolve a non-combat situation are the same as using a combat mechanic to resolve a combat-appropriate situation. That is to say: 1) It provides a mechanical system that allows the player (and DM) to track how close or far away they are from success or failure. This provides a feeling of progress and, while close to failure, a sense of excitement. This is why I subscribe to PCat's theory of making the skill challenge explicit and letting the PCs track successes and failures. (Tangentially related, this is also why a visible "bloodied" condition is such a good idea...) 2) It provides mechanics that allow different characters to interact with the challenge in different ways. Giving players their areas of expertise (relative to the other PCs) differentiates the characters and gives them different ways and opportunities to shine. 3) It provides an opportunity for interesting decisions and tactical reasoning. At the very least, there is the opportunity for creativity in how to apply your better skills in (non-obvious) ways that are appropriate to the situation. In some skill challenges, a good skill application might lead to big bonuses or an auto-success. (E.g. if the challenge is to search for something, telling the GM you search in X might be much better than just saying, "I use perception to search.") You can also decide when to use certain utility powers, or when to aid others at a penalty to yourself. (The challenges in the DMG1 aren't very good at this last one, but that's because they are to skill challenges what a single 3e orc is to tactical combat.) Edit: 4) It provides an excuse and a mechanism to get everyone at the table engaged in solving the problem. -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification