Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Showing the Math: Proving that 4e’s Skill Challenge system is broken (math heavy)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ulthwithian" data-source="post: 4283169" data-attributes="member: 60612"><p>Whereas I can't speak for the D&D designers and their math abilities, I do know, for certain sure, that some WotC employees (most of the older Magic R&D people, at the very least) are math nuts, and I cannot imagine, in the least, that they let something like this out without checking to make sure that the theoretical probabilities were in-line with what they wanted.</p><p></p><p>Having said that, there are at least two distinct possibilities from the data at hand:</p><p></p><p>1) The model does not reflect the realities of WotC's system. This would likely be due to some kind of editing error in the books (e.g., the +5 DC issue shouldn't apply). While there is some kind of issue with more complex challenges being more probable to solve than less complex challenges, this may have been deemed worth the otherwise elegant system. This brings to mind the Storyteller system's early issues with the fact that a 'critical miss' was more likely rolling two dice than only a single die.</p><p></p><p>2) The model is correct. In that case, WotC intentionally wishes skill challenges to be difficult to 'win'. A few comments regarding this. Other have observed that the penalties for failing a skill challenge are not as severe as the penalties for failing a combat challenge. (No one should face death, for instance.) In this view, skill challenges fail gracefully, while combat challenges fail catastrophically, and so skill challenges can be made more difficult. Another point to make is that adversity generally allows for better characterization than success. If WotC used this thinking in their general design of 'how to drive character development', it would make sense to make the better chance of failure (and thus adversity) fall on the challenge that fails more gracefully; that is, skill challenges.</p><p></p><p>As for myself, since my players have by and large gone the '3 16' route in making their characters, I will cheerfully ignore the ambiguous-to-some +5 DC for skill checks and use WotC's system.</p><p></p><p>Morrus: Early skill challenge reports had mentioned that you could choose the difficulty. I thought that was silly and am glad that WotC moved away from that.</p><p></p><p>Hmmm... maybe I should make a .sig... 'D&D 3:16 - I just characterized your ***'. Hmmm. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ulthwithian, post: 4283169, member: 60612"] Whereas I can't speak for the D&D designers and their math abilities, I do know, for certain sure, that some WotC employees (most of the older Magic R&D people, at the very least) are math nuts, and I cannot imagine, in the least, that they let something like this out without checking to make sure that the theoretical probabilities were in-line with what they wanted. Having said that, there are at least two distinct possibilities from the data at hand: 1) The model does not reflect the realities of WotC's system. This would likely be due to some kind of editing error in the books (e.g., the +5 DC issue shouldn't apply). While there is some kind of issue with more complex challenges being more probable to solve than less complex challenges, this may have been deemed worth the otherwise elegant system. This brings to mind the Storyteller system's early issues with the fact that a 'critical miss' was more likely rolling two dice than only a single die. 2) The model is correct. In that case, WotC intentionally wishes skill challenges to be difficult to 'win'. A few comments regarding this. Other have observed that the penalties for failing a skill challenge are not as severe as the penalties for failing a combat challenge. (No one should face death, for instance.) In this view, skill challenges fail gracefully, while combat challenges fail catastrophically, and so skill challenges can be made more difficult. Another point to make is that adversity generally allows for better characterization than success. If WotC used this thinking in their general design of 'how to drive character development', it would make sense to make the better chance of failure (and thus adversity) fall on the challenge that fails more gracefully; that is, skill challenges. As for myself, since my players have by and large gone the '3 16' route in making their characters, I will cheerfully ignore the ambiguous-to-some +5 DC for skill checks and use WotC's system. Morrus: Early skill challenge reports had mentioned that you could choose the difficulty. I thought that was silly and am glad that WotC moved away from that. Hmmm... maybe I should make a .sig... 'D&D 3:16 - I just characterized your ***'. Hmmm. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Showing the Math: Proving that 4e’s Skill Challenge system is broken (math heavy)
Top