Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome

[Storm-Bringer]

Except, of course, that "common sense" can vary from person to person. For example, at least one person out there thinks that hiding a 4', plate armored halfling with shield and sword and other gear inside a horse's saddlebag is entirely reasonable. I, at least, don't.

If you ever read "stupid things players have done" threads, you'll note that a *very* common theme is bad DM description and massive player/DM disconnect on what is reasonable. Given that evidence, appealing to common sense is foolhardy.

Dead on.

This system assumes that every DM is well above average, as a minimum, and every player/GM interaction is devoted to moving the story forward. Rather than, for example, the players trying to get every benefit or loophole they can, or the DM trying to mess with the players at every opportunity.

In other words, this is the perfect system for the perfect group. I will posit that there are precious few of those.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

The validity of a law is in direct proportion to post count.

HAW HAW!

So, your laws are only 1/17,000th valid?

 

[hong]

Describe every parameter that leads to "pretty obvious to become inconsistent and illogical", please.

"What the DM considers inconsistent and illogical."

You see the crux of the issue here? People seem to think this system is the godsend for bad DMs to suddenly turn into Orson Wells of the tabletop. The fact is, no set of rules will make a bad DM not suck.

But they can change the odds of a hidebound DM becoming not-so-hidebound, by causing them to be more receptive to ideas that they did not come up with themselves. Of course, this does depend on the hidebound DM accepting the truth that he is hidebound, and willing to consider ways to change. As with all such things, the first step to a cure is acknowledging there is a problem.

 

[hong]

So, your laws are only 1/17,000th valid?

Did you know? When you invert the meaning of direct? The use of rising inflections does not help disguise it?

 

[Lacyon]

So, your laws are only 1/17,000th valid?

I do not think that direct proportion means what you think it means.

 

[WhatGravitas]

This system assumes that every DM is well above average, as a minimum, and every player/GM interaction is devoted to moving the story forward. Rather than, for example, the players trying to get every benefit or loophole they can, or the DM trying to mess with the players at every opportunity.

This is probably the reason why there's a DMG. To give DMs the advice they need to become good DMs. It's better to try to make DMs better than try to build a Bad-DM-proof system.

Because a bad DM will still be bad, afterwards. But most DMs that are bad are not bad, because they want to be bad, but because they don't know better.

And now I'm going to get into my soapbox:

See, this system DOES require a DM who is able to make decisions on the fly and a player group that can live with that, not trying to outgame the DM constantly. But then, it's embracing the potential of D&D - many people complaining about "being like a MMORPG" are afraid of MMORPGs, because they are NOT open-ended. The beauty of RPGs in general is there open-endedness and the human referee - which is able to make decisions on the fly.

Sure, D&D in hack'n'slash-style doesn't embrace that potential - but these groups won't need skill challenges that often, they will focus on combat or gloss over problems.

But what makes RPGs ultimately good (open-endedness, room for your own character ideas and so on), only works with a good DM - and hence I rather see a system, that promotes being a good DM than a system that is bad DM-proof. Because good DMs are ultimately what holds a group together in the long run and makes groups enthusiastic enough to recruit new players.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Crosswind]

I'm a 4E Fanboy, and I'm still not thrilled about Skill Challenges. I think it's largely unnecessary to codify "X out of Y" checks mechanics.

Let's be serious - in any serious D&D group, you have to solve challenges like this all the time. And the DM has you make checks for whatever applicable skills you think you can use to further your plan, and if the skills back up a good plan, you execute well, and succeed.

I feel like, to some extent, Skill Challenges are over-codifying things that every D&D group did, and it may make groups think that they -have- to use Skill Challenges ("Well, it was a good plan, but the rules say you failed your check, so I'm afraid it doesn't work").

To me, the only use of Skill Challenges is to make Bad D&D Groups (RPGA) give out XP for doing non-combat things.

-Cross

 

[Storm-Bringer]

I do not think that direct proportion means what you think it means.

I am pretty sure I do.

A relationship between two variables in which one is a constant multiple of the other. In particular, when one variable changes the other changes in proportion to the first.

If b is directly proportional to a, the equation is of the form b = ka (where k is a constant).

A simple transformation gives us b/a=k.

Now, you can say b=3, because there are three 'laws', and a=17,000+. So, 'k' would be the proportion we are looking for.

Each post by Mr. Hong makes his laws increasingly less valid, according to his statement.

 

[Lacyon]

I'm a 4E Fanboy, and I'm still not thrilled about Skill Challenges. I think it's largely unnecessary to codify "X out of Y" checks mechanics.

Let's be serious - in any serious D&D group, you have to solve challenges like this all the time. And the DM has you make checks for whatever applicable skills you think you can use to further your plan, and if the skills back up a good plan, you execute well, and succeed.

I feel like, to some extent, Skill Challenges are over-codifying things that every D&D group did, and it may make groups think that they -have- to use Skill Challenges ("Well, it was a good plan, but the rules say you failed your check, so I'm afraid it doesn't work").

Wait, what DM makes you roll a skill check and then says, "you succeed on your plan even though all your checks failed?"

Don't bother rolling dice in situations where you aren't going to abide by the results.

To me, the only use of Skill Challenges is to make Bad D&D Groups (RPGA) give out XP for doing non-combat things.

Codifying what constitutes a level-appropriate non-combat challenge is a good thing for all the same reasons it's a good thing for combat challenges.

 

[hong]

I am pretty sure I do.



A simple transformation gives us b/a=k.

Now, you can say b=3, because there are three 'laws', and a=17,000+. So, 'k' would be the proportion we are looking for.

Each post by Mr. Hong makes his laws increasingly less valid, according to his statement.

Did you know? When you fail to post with rising inflections? You still do not disguise your inverting of direct?