Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the_redbeard" data-source="post: 7292595" data-attributes="member: 22644">I played a good deal of 4e but I never ran it.&nbsp; I had a 3.5 campaign going and we all wanted to see what happened with it.&nbsp; I did though, take parts of 4e and put them into my 3.5 game, including Skill Challenges. I know, everyone hated them, but if you run your skills more narratively it was a lot of fun.&nbsp; I ran them like montages: I would present a big challenge scene (like a chase, but one of the most memorable was escaping from a city that was being attacked by druids that sent these huge tree roots up from below that wrecked the city), and the players would describe a potential obstacle and how they would avoid it.&nbsp; I'd them know of their chances and the potential problems from a failure and they would decide if they took that action.&nbsp; Then we'd count successes and failures to see if they won/escaped/whatever.Anyway.Take a 4e skill challenge:&nbsp; you tell your players of a skill challenge and then they go ahead and immediately shout out skills and rolls?&nbsp; That would seem to ruin the whole damn point of the game, especially your role in it, would it not?&nbsp; That's the point I'm getting at here.&nbsp; At the very least it makes the DM feel superfluous.&nbsp; I'll admit to having an emotional reaction to it.DnD from its beginnings and even explicitly* in this edition, has been a game in which the DM describes an environment, the players state an action for their characters and the DM adjudicates the result.&nbsp; Players self-assigning their rolls interrupts and steps on the role of the DM.In between the announcement of player character action and the result being known there's a lot that goes on that assuming, self-assigning a check and making a roll skips.*As pointed out by another poster, page 174 of the Players Handbook.&nbsp; &quot;The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the_redbeard, post: 7292595, member: 22644"] I played a good deal of 4e but I never ran it. I had a 3.5 campaign going and we all wanted to see what happened with it. I did though, take parts of 4e and put them into my 3.5 game, including Skill Challenges. I know, everyone hated them, but if you run your skills more narratively it was a lot of fun. I ran them like montages: I would present a big challenge scene (like a chase, but one of the most memorable was escaping from a city that was being attacked by druids that sent these huge tree roots up from below that wrecked the city), and the players would describe a potential obstacle and how they would avoid it. I'd them know of their chances and the potential problems from a failure and they would decide if they took that action. Then we'd count successes and failures to see if they won/escaped/whatever. Anyway. Take a 4e skill challenge: you tell your players of a skill challenge and then they go ahead and immediately shout out skills and rolls? That would seem to ruin the whole damn point of the game, especially [B]your role [/B]in it, would it not? That's the point I'm getting at here. At the very least it makes the DM feel superfluous. I'll admit to having an emotional reaction to it. DnD from its beginnings and even [b]explicitly[/b]* in this edition, has been a game in which the DM describes an environment, the players state an action for their characters and the DM adjudicates the result. Players self-assigning their rolls interrupts and steps on the role of the DM. In between the announcement of player character action and the result being known there's a lot that goes on that assuming, self-assigning a check and making a roll skips. *As pointed out by another poster, page 174 of the Players Handbook. "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." [/QUOTE]

Verification