D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

Yes. That is the classic argument for that interpretation. And it is absolutely a valid argument. There just are other interpretations with similarly valid arguments associated with them (Granted, there could be some abilities that has a form that makes the ability hardly worthwhile if everyone could do it via some other mechanism - but I associate that more with PF than 4ed)

If by "interpretation" you mean, doing what the text of the rules said to do, I agree. The other argument I see is that you don't use the rules provided. There is text about using skills the DM hadn't considered or other benefits not connected to the skill challenge and, of course, not everything is a skill challenge. But for the challenge itself? It was X successes before Y failures and every character must contribute. I'm sure some tables did alternatives, I know I did after a while. I don't remember is the later DMGs or Essentials changed things or not, it's been too long.

From the 4e DMG, I just don't see any wiggle room.
The Basics
To deal with a skill challenge, the player characters make skill checks to accumulate a number of successful skill uses before they rack up too many failures and end the encounter.
Example: The PCs seek a temple in dense jungle.
Achieving six successes means they find their way. Accruing three failures before achieving the successes, however, indicates that they get themselves hopelessly lost in the wilderness.

 

[AlViking]

Then, quite frankly, whoever told you that was straight up wrong. The game was never intended to be played that way and there are numerous examples from the old Acquisitions Inc. plays that demonstrated exactly why this was wrong.

I just reread the section and quoted the text of the rules. They're quite clear. There have to be X successes before Y failures and every character has to contribute. The most the DM is allowed to do if running as written is to add a +/-2 or allow a skill they hadn't thought of.

 

[AlViking]

So, it's not possible, in your mind, that your table may have misinterpreted the rules? That all of us who are telling you that that's not what the rules say, because we also played the system for quite a while, both as players and DM's, might potentially have a better grasp on the system?

I played 4e for years. I ran LFR games, ran a home campaign. I DMed and played games up into epic tier. I am telling you what I, and my fellow players and DMs experienced over the life of the edition.

Maybe you should potentially accept that some people have a different opinion based on hundreds of hours of play.

 

[AlViking]

I do think at High levels Characters need to feel like they can do things no one else can. Mythical magic Items special powers being able to call in favors from gods etc can fill that void. I think a lot of high levels games get handicapped by GM's freaking out trying to control everything and then you end up with the "I'm special like everyone else problem". I wish the rule books would warn new GMs that High level play is where the rules just break and you'll be holding your games together with super glue And duct tape, and occasionally just watching it all go wonky. And that mastering low level and mid level play is a better place to stay till you feel like you have the system completely down. I think this is true of most games not just dnd

I don't think the rules break in 5e as badly as they did in 3e. The rules in 4e worked just fine if you liked the rules, the issue there was that combat took forever and a day. I've run games up to highest levels in 4e and 5e, I did minor tweaks for 5, but I do minor tweaks here and there anyway.

 

[Enrahim]

If by "interpretation" you mean, doing what the text of the rules said to do, I agree. The other argument I see is that you don't use the rules provided. There is text about using skills the DM hadn't considered or other benefits not connected to the skill challenge and, of course, not everything is a skill challenge. But for the challenge itself? It was X successes before Y failures and every character must contribute. I'm sure some tables did alternatives, I know I did after a while. I don't remember is the later DMGs or Essentials changed things or not, it's been too long.

From the 4e DMG, I just don't see any wiggle room.
The Basics
To deal with a skill challenge, the player characters make skill checks to accumulate a number of successful skill uses before they rack up too many failures and end the encounter.
Example: The PCs seek a temple in dense jungle.
Achieving six successes means they find their way. Accruing three failures before achieving the successes, however, indicates that they get themselves hopelessly lost in the wilderness.

I was talking about the ability part. My impression that everyone has acknowledged the original skill challenge version was horribly broken. So I have no redeeming comment regarding that particular mechanic - beyond that it appear that it was never required to be invoked, so it could be avoided without breaking any rules as such.

 

[AlViking]

Why are you here just contemplating 2 sides of the GNS monstrosity? How can you say they didn't lean fully into the game side?

Reading "Wizard Presents: Worlds and Monsters", it really seemed like they wanted more monsters in because it was fun, not because they were wanting to narratively represent a horde of minions (which would likely require them to up the people count with an order of magnitude at least if that had been the main motivation)

I'm not sure there is a great approach. Personally I use mobs, but it's mobs of zombies not ogres. I just don't care for the minion approach if it means that the stats of the monster change depending on who is attacking.

 

[AlViking]

So, your actual play experience that you don't actually clearly remember? That's what we're supposed to use to judge things? The same group that you just admitted didn't actually follow the rules as they were written? That actual play experience?

The first and every time I relayed the experience I was clear that the minions were not ogres. But no, I don't remember the specific monsters from a game I played 16ish years ago.

 

[AlViking]

I was talking about the ability part. My impression that everyone has acknowledged the original skill challenge version was horribly broken. So I have no redeeming comment regarding that particular mechanic - beyond that it appear that it was never required to be invoked, so it could be avoided without breaking any rules as such.

I remember the devs acknowledging a while back that development time was far shorter than what they had wanted, that powers were meant to be used for wizards, not the other classes. I assume skill challenges fell into the same category, I think the Essentials rules were closer to what they wanted. The idea behind it wasn't bad and I kind of wish they had spent more effort on them than just using them for chases. But I also think that especially for LFR games they were used far too often.

It's difficult to have a non-combat system that flexible enough to cover the wide variety of encounters skill challenges were designed for, I'm not sure what a better system would look like. Then again I'm not a game designer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do think at High levels Characters need to feel like they can do things no one else can. Mythical magic Items special powers being able to call in favors from gods etc can fill that void. I think a lot of high levels games get handicapped by GM's freaking out trying to control everything and then you end up with the "I'm special like everyone else problem". I wish the rule books would warn new GMs that High level play is where the rules just break and you'll be holding your games together with super glue And duct tape, and occasionally just watching it all go wonky. And that mastering low level and mid level play is a better place to stay till you feel like you have the system completely down. I think this is true of most games not just dnd

The problem, as you say, is that virtually no game actually talks seriously about what high-level play is actually like at the table.

 

[Enrahim]

I'm not sure there is a great approach. Personally I use mobs, but it's mobs of zombies not ogres.

Make sense.

I just don't care for the minion approach if it means that the stats of the monster change depending on who is attacking.

But you are not as opposed to the minion approach if it doesn't mean the stats of the monster change depending on who is attacking? Then we seem to be on the same page


(Clearly in 4ed the ogre population is plagued with some horrible genetic condition where some of them are born with thick but too tight skin that ruptures like a balloon if breached, with obviously fatal consequences. Quite a few of these are outcasts, and never become more than thugs. A few of the more hardy ones manage to rise the ranks, but due to the stiffness of their skin these still never reaches the same destructive potential as their less genetically defect peers.)