Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8993821" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Skill challenges in 4E had a set number of successes and a set number of failures.&nbsp; In addition, the DM was told to let people know what the appropriate skills were.&nbsp; There was no way in 4E, if you were following things strictly, to bypass the challenge or to get more than 1 success with clever play.Let's take the example of getting a message to some important person that was given a while back.&nbsp; There are obstacles in the way and various ways of avoiding those obstacles.&nbsp; You can ignore the monster in the way and try to take an alternate route, you can bluff the monsters, you can bull rush through, whatever.&nbsp; The details don't really matter (and I'm probably f*ing up details, it's been a while). The point is that you have to get 5 successes before 3 failures using acrobatics, athletics, bluff.But then one of the PCs takes the very important note and bypasses the obstacles completely and hands the note to the target.&nbsp; Should be challenge complete, right?&nbsp; But at most it's one success because they used a resource instead of making an ability check.&nbsp; The party can still fail because following the rules you still have to get 5 successes and you only have 1.It's that kind of set structure that I dislike.&nbsp; It was consistent and spelled out in great detail, I understand why they did it.&nbsp; But I did not find it enjoyable. Not only were people thinking not in terms of the fictional narrative because they're thinking &quot;how can I convince the DM that I'm really use my arcana skill to succeed because that's my highest bonus&quot;, the 5 successes before 3 failures felt artificial.&nbsp; What kind of failure?&nbsp; Why is the failure not just a setback that can be countered? I want my players to solve based on the best effort of the PCs, using knowledge and skills the PCs have.&nbsp; If they figure out a way to overcome the challenge in a way I didn't expect, they shouldn't be penalized, that kind of thinking should be encouraged.Or, of course, I'm just totally missing what you're asking.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 8993821, member: 6801845"] Skill challenges in 4E had a set number of successes and a set number of failures. In addition, the DM was told to let people know what the appropriate skills were. There was no way in 4E, if you were following things strictly, to bypass the challenge or to get more than 1 success with clever play. Let's take the example of getting a message to some important person that was given a while back. There are obstacles in the way and various ways of avoiding those obstacles. You can ignore the monster in the way and try to take an alternate route, you can bluff the monsters, you can bull rush through, whatever. The details don't really matter (and I'm probably f*ing up details, it's been a while). The point is that you have to get 5 successes before 3 failures using acrobatics, athletics, bluff. But then one of the PCs takes the very important note and bypasses the obstacles completely and hands the note to the target. Should be challenge complete, right? But at most it's one success because they used a resource instead of making an ability check. The party can still fail because following the rules you still have to get 5 successes and you only have 1. It's that kind of set structure that I dislike. It was consistent and spelled out in great detail, I understand why they did it. But I did not find it enjoyable. Not only were people thinking not in terms of the fictional narrative because they're thinking "how can I convince the DM that I'm really use my arcana skill to succeed because that's my highest bonus", the 5 successes before 3 failures felt artificial. What kind of failure? Why is the failure not just a setback that can be countered? I want my players to solve based on the best effort of the PCs, using knowledge and skills the PCs have. If they figure out a way to overcome the challenge in a way I didn't expect, they shouldn't be penalized, that kind of thinking should be encouraged. Or, of course, I'm just totally missing what you're asking. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification