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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6188218" data-attributes="member: 6668292">This makes sense. As I said, the forced narrative structure might be his problem with skill challenges. I'm not sure yet.My preferences for handling combat and skill challenges don't entirely line up with yours. I announce the bloodied condition very explicitly, but I also describe what their enemies look like along the way (the closer they are to 0, the more beat up they look). And, every success or failure in the skill challenge pushes the action forward, so no problems on my end here. I've been running skill challenges in my own RPG (X successes before 3 failures), albeit with different rules, though I'm used to utilizing the basic structure already.Right; I basically say that certain skills may not be available right now, based on context. So far, my players are very good about doing this themselves, though. If they don't feel like Endurance has a place, they won't try to shoehorn it in, even if they have a big bonus (like the dwarven Fighter does).Also, if their character doesn't need to roll to succeed, then that's not really a challenge in the skill challenge, and thus won't contribute to the outcome either way. That doesn't mean that they can't still use the skill, mind you; the skill is considered a success (though not counted for the skill challenge), and it changes the context of what's going on accordingly. It just means that it doesn't take up their turn, and they still need to make a contribution, as normal.If there is a ladder (and there likely is if they're asking, because I'm nice like that in 4e, what with my "yes, and" and stuff going on), I give them +2 for having a good idea, and make them roll (ladders can fall). That seems simple enough to me.I don't think my players would skip asking. Also, I don't think asking is a problem for skill challenges. At least, not in my experience.My players do tend to look over their good skill first, but this makes sense to me. In real life, people tend to attempt what they're good at first. However, they don't stop there. I've had multiple players roll Perception untrained, for example, because they're keeping an eye out for something specific (that might also set them up on their next roll, or help another player). If "I only have X, so that's all I'll ever consider" is a problem for many groups, it seems like my main group and my new 4e groups have both side-stepped this particular issue.Only if the check was only purely to climb up. In my skill challenge, it'd likely be "you climbed up, and now you can roll your Athletics to help rebuild stuff" or something. Or, "you found a ladder, and can climb up. Now what?" Depending on the answer, I'll make them roll something. I'm not going to give an auto success away for finding a ladder, but I'll still reward it.Personally, I can't see how your method is any more or less organic than mine. Both reward obtaining the ladder, and both rely on what's actually happening in the fiction, and both follow a set narrative structure (X successes before 3 failures). You choose to end yours a little earlier or a little easier (auto success), but I don't get how that makes it any more organic. Perhaps I'm missing something, though, and my player feels like you do. Can you explain why you feel your method is more organic than how I'd handle it (+2 bonus, "you can climb, but what do you do now?", etc.)?I'm not running a skill challenge so that I can bypass the forced narrative structure of the skill challenge; as far as I'm concerned, that defeats the purpose. If looking in the drawer helps them, then it helps them within the fiction. However, I can always add more complications to the story within the context of the skill challenge. Sure, you found [whatever] in the drawer; what now? What do you do now?I will say that I don't use any "auto failure" skills. I just comment that certain skills may not apply right now, within the context of the current situation. I do encourage players to help one another brainstorm, and I throw out ideas, too, if I think they need the help (since many are new or somewhat new to the game).I agree. Since I don't follow this advice when I run them, I don't think it's too much of an issue. I might say "there's nobody for you to Intimidate", but I'm generally pretty lenient. I've let the Monk do things like use Insight to predict the cave's path, since it was kinda maze-like, since it had been designed, even though there was nobody present to use it on. I'm not going to say "these skills always fail," and I basically wing every skill challenge, instead of deciding what can/can't be used ahead of time.I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not sure why the adventure would necessarily end. Maybe it would; I don't know.Either way, I just ran a "exit the collapsing cave" type of skill challenge. If they had failed, they'd've been stuck inside when it caved in. It would've hurt, and they would now need to somehow get out. I don't see why the adventure would end. Regardless, I rarely use skill challenges that would explicitly kill PCs if they fail, and I've not done so in 4e. I'm following the "they should never end the adventure" advice.I don't think I'm far from this at all. I'm also not sure if you think this ties into what the player dislikes about skill challenges. They have yet to fail, and I've never ended the campaign for it. If you have questions about any of the skill challenges I've run (which are detailed somewhat in this thread), I can try to answer those questions.I don't feel like my skill challenges are "dice rolling festivals." One particular skill challenge in my second session lasted most of the session, was interrupted multiple times, and involved a lot of talking between skill checks.I'm definitely going to explicitly tell them when they're in a skill challenge, I think, as well as what's mechanically going on (successes, failures, etc.), just as I would in combat.I'm also going to roll dice when I feel it's necessary (someone takes an action to progress towards the end of the skill challenge, help another do so, or help reverse a failure).And, as far as the framework goes, I'm still not sure how skipping the framework provides any benefit; how is "automatic success" more organic (or better in another way) than "you can now climb up; what do you do now?" Both of our methods rely on the fiction to progress, your method is just resolved a little sooner or easier.And, since things rely on the fiction to progress (you can't say "I'm rolling Arcana", you say "I'm trying to magically control the harmful energies of the portal, and keep it under control"), I think I'm hitting your "presented from the point of view of the characters" note, aren't I? I'm honestly asking, not trying to shoot down all of your advice. (As you can see in this thread and the last one, I quite appreciate the advice.)I think the main thing that helped here is the "presentation is key" bit of advice. The rest I'm not worried about, and I don't feel like there's anything to fix based on your very thorough post. I'm not sure what I need to do to present things in a way that might annoy my player less, but I'm sure there's a way to do it. I'll be keeping an eye out on how I can go about that (probably looking closer at it than I might've if you hadn't mentioned it). Thanks for such a well thought-out reply. I appreciate the effort.</blockquote>

Verification