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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5502904" data-attributes="member: 98032">Fair enough, and a good explanation to boot. My spidey sense is tingling so I won't ask for an explanation about GM control/veto over builds...   Ok, I see your statement here - so can a player interact in a meaningful way with the scene and produce a "teleport effect"? In essence, lets say the skill challenge is inside a combat which the players cannot hope to win and the embedded "skill challenge" involves activating magic runes that teleports the party to safety. The trick is accomplishing this while the fight rages on? Is that a fair depiction of a skill challenge?  Again, I see the value, however it mucks with my game style. I WANT players to pressure me to react to their crazy stuff. I don't want to plan some sort of Word of Recall slot machine into a fight (but I like the idea, heh). If the players have access to Teleport spells, I want to make them be forced to use them to save their skin because they just went through the absolute wrong door and soiled their armor. I want the players to be so vexxed by the murder mystery that they actually resort to Speak with Dead so I can play a vague and annoying disembodied voice. I want my players to cast Find the Path so I can lead them around by the nose as they surprise my "bad guys" and we can all just see what happens. If these skill challenges are so open and so conducive to "improvisation", I can't see how the same DM that could handle them would ever claim that 3e has any "I win DnD spells" or "scene breaking spells".   As far as the provided quotes: The only thing in the quotes I see is that players might sometimes suggest novel uses of skills and the DM should generally allow whatever players can rationalize. Show me the part that says the players should feel free to completely circumvent your skills challenge and proceed to "point Z" so you should be prepared at point Z for this possibility. Then, I'll know the Skill Challenge concept is for my group <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />  Ahhh but the counter argument is "all the 4e Skill challenge / scene circumventing power of players has been removed, so there is no need to say that players will bypass your skill challenge without interacting with it in a meaningful way. To which I have to again say - how is this not considered scripted again? How exactly do oyu interact in a meaningful way to transcend a skill challenge? Having to interact with it precludes any transcending... I love the "RPing on top of the rules" statement someone made earlier. At my table, I think any Skills Challenge would have to be so transparent as to be unrecognizable as such or my players would quickly get bored with it. In which case, I'm simply running my game as I always do - reacting to players decisions and telling them what happens when the roll the dice. My table with the skills challenges as written (recall I've got a bit of twisted sense of humor) Grimnoft, Cleric of Maeve approaches a lonely beggar on the side of the road.Grimnoft: Hello. What are doing out so far from the village on this fair night?DM: The old man looks up at you pleadingly and points at his open mouth with a shrug.Grimnoft: Whats wrong with you good man?Tolidor: Maybe he's hungry...I'll get him some food.DM: Ummm....you guys need to be making some rolls...Grim roll a Sense Motive and Tolidor a Diplomacy?Grimnoft, Cleric of Maeve: "Fine I rolled a 25 Sense Motive."DM: Ok, you sense that something is not quite right with this man and he needs something from you...Grimnoft: "C'mon, a 25 and thats all I get? Aww son of a..., this guy I just asked a question is a skills challenge? How many more rolls until we win?"  Tolidor, Wizard/ Rogue: "Yeah, saw that golden question mark floating over his head a mile away. Christ, I've got cooking if I have to roll to hand him some bread." Etain, Bard: "Ok, well, I use Perform (cause its my highest score) instead of Diplomacy to convince him by telling him a story about how we are brave adventurers that...Norha, Fighter: "Forget it - enough talk. I gut 'em and we move on down the road, now."  DM: Ummm you guys just failed the Skill Challenge. There will be more skills challenges now until I get you back on track for the story.Collective groans rise from the table.  This isn't A Critique of Pure Reason here...I don't find it that complex honestly. I'm sure with a lot of background in game theory and such you can read all kinds of things into it. Assuming every potential viewer of the passages has that background is probably a bad idea. To me it all seems pretty simple.  Show me where it does say the players do have input into how the scenario turns out aside from rolling random skills to reach the pre-defined conclusions for the pre-defined adventure using ways to deal with challenges as framed entirely by the DM. DM narrates and fail or succeed, players trudge along toward pre-defined resolution of the story. Sure it has a passing reference to players making up their own challenges. Very cool. But why cant a player just play their role and react to the world how they want and the world more organically reacts back?  I know, a great DM can make it more transparent and can incorporate it into a less "follow the leader" format. I get that. I won't dispute that.  I don't however think I will see eye to eye with you on the point that 4e is specifically written in such a way that encourages improvisational play. And it does this by specifically by removing player "shock and awe" spells and by creating a defined method for interacting with the world outside of combat that really sort of mimics combat.  If you mean improvisational by the DM now has guidelines and a necessity to describe to players what random skill or power X does during a challenge, then yes, its got that in spades. If you mean improvisational in that this is a game where both players and DMs get to explore a story together and each make meaningful decisions which may force the DM to re-evaluate their own idea of what the "story" is then I say no, it doesn't do that in the least. It can, in the right hands. But IMO previous editions do this job far better.</blockquote>

Verification