Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5949299" data-attributes="member: 27160">I find that skill challenges as presented are not &quot;complete&quot; as a system, I agree. I know of two approaches to them:1) The approach I use is to simply divide the challenge task into one &quot;sub-objective&quot; per &quot;success&quot; needed (conversely, if I can think of N sub-objectives, then (N/2 - 1) is the complexity of the challenge). An example would be a negotiation with a dragon:Task 1 = persuade the dragon not to eat you immediately(!)Task 2 = uncover the dragon's situation/grievancesTask 3 = discover what the dragon can do for youTask 4 = convince the dragon that you are capable of taking on the creatures that plague himTask 5 = persuade the dragon that a deal is a good ideaTask 6 = agree terms for the deal in detailThese don't all have to be done in order, although (1) has to be done first!2) The approach I understand&nbsp; [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] to use (please correct me if I'm wrong) is similar to Bob McKee's outline for generating &quot;Story&quot; in his eponymous book:- establish what the aims of the party are; what stakes are they trying to win (in a &quot;Story&quot; sense, what is their immediate &quot;dramatic need&quot;)- put plausible obstacles in the way of them achieving that objective; these should be specific difficulties that require either one specific character or a combination or choice of characters to test a skill or ability.- continue placing such obstacles until either (a) an insoluble obstacle (presented after 2 failures have already been made) is failed, or (b) sufficient obstacles are overcome to complete the challenge.Ah, sorry - I had a failure of my humour filter! The perils of text communication... In a way, I think movement + searching was (almost) enough for D&amp;D as originally conceived - that part of the system just never expanded alongside the rest of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5949299, member: 27160"] I find that skill challenges as presented are not "complete" as a system, I agree. I know of two approaches to them: 1) The approach I use is to simply divide the challenge task into one "sub-objective" per "success" needed (conversely, if I can think of N sub-objectives, then (N/2 - 1) is the complexity of the challenge). An example would be a negotiation with a dragon: Task 1 = persuade the dragon not to eat you immediately(!) Task 2 = uncover the dragon's situation/grievances Task 3 = discover what the dragon can do for you Task 4 = convince the dragon that you are capable of taking on the creatures that plague him Task 5 = persuade the dragon that a deal is a good idea Task 6 = agree terms for the deal in detail These don't all have to be done in order, although (1) has to be done first! 2) The approach I understand [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] to use (please correct me if I'm wrong) is similar to Bob McKee's outline for generating "Story" in his eponymous book: - establish what the aims of the party are; what stakes are they trying to win (in a "Story" sense, what is their immediate "dramatic need") - put plausible obstacles in the way of them achieving that objective; these should be specific difficulties that require either one specific character or a combination or choice of characters to test a skill or ability. - continue placing such obstacles until either (a) an insoluble obstacle (presented after 2 failures have already been made) is failed, or (b) sufficient obstacles are overcome to complete the challenge. Ah, sorry - I had a failure of my humour filter! The perils of text communication... In a way, I think movement + searching was (almost) enough for D&D as originally conceived - that part of the system just never expanded alongside the rest of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification