Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because I don't know how to "handwave" away anything inconsistent or illogical. You do, and it seems to work for you and your group -- try running a game for my players and they'll smack you every time you fail to produce a plausible explanation/decsription for their actions.

Why do you create situations that are pretty obvious to become inconsistent and illogical?

You're injury example seems to assume that the description you give is "fact", and suddenly the rules negate it. But you are using the wrong description in the first place! Why describe someone as nearly cleaved in half if there is a non-neglible chance of him
- recovering
- not dying.
Even in 3E, this would have caused problems - Imagine someone making his stabilization roll. (He has a 10 % chance for making this each round!) Essentially, even without any outside help, this guy could recover from being nearly cleaved in half in a day. Even if he doesn't manage to get to that, he could live for several minutes or hours. That absolutely does not fit your description.
I never described massive splatter effects in D&D combat, unless the opponents where outright killed (dropped to -10 or less hit points).

My best advice on "fluff" on damage is to use something that is ambigious. A lot of blood might be spilled in the process (but sometimes, just a loud "thumb" when the head hits the ground/nasty killing implement), but you'll never see body parts detached or guts hanging out (unless you're extremely metal ). So, if the blood is eventually cleared, only then you'll really see how bad the wounds are. At that point, you've made a heal check to stabilize (stabilizing/recovery, it can't have been that bad), or the victim is dead (terrible wound, internal bleeding).

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Excellent. I wish I'd said that.

Thank you.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

I don't buy it. It is a trap, designed to go off when certain conditions are met (namely, in this case, when the body is moved violently). The purpose of the skill challenge is to *not* set off the trap. Thus, you make History checks to remember similar traps, Nature checks to find out why it is there, etc.

If the PCs want to cut the body down violently, then they are voluntarily failing the challenge and the trap goes off. Just because it is a skill challenge does not mean that all other rules are suspended.

You don't have to buy it. The point is, the trap won't go off until the four failures are rolled. If the DM determines certain actions automatically fail the skill challenge, we are back to 'pixel-bitching', which is what this system is designed to avoid.

 

[hong]

You don't have to buy it. The point is, the trap won't go off until the four failures are rolled. If the DM determines certain actions automatically fail the skill challenge, we are back to 'pixel-bitching', which is what this system is designed to avoid.

Nonsense. Pixel-bitching is where you have to carry out a specific, obscure sequence of steps to succeed. This is where you have to NOT carry out a specific, obvious sequence of steps to fail. This is the exact opposite of pixel-bitching.

 

[WhatGravitas]

If the DM determines certain actions automatically fail the skill challenge, we are back to...

Perhaps "Common Sense"?

Skill Challenges are already mainly a roleplaying element, much more than combat - due to the narrative nature (i.e. players help to create narrative), it's already fluid, non-rules governed and relies on judgement of the DM. Using common sense in such cases isn't hurting.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Kraydak]

Perhaps "Common Sense"?

Skill Challenges are already mainly a roleplaying element, much more than combat - due to the narrative nature (i.e. players help to create narrative), it's already fluid, non-rules governed and relies on judgement of the DM. Using common sense in such cases isn't hurting.

Cheers, LT.

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.

 

[hong]

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.

The prototypical skill challenge was escaping the guards in the Escape from Sembia module. If one of the players (maybe because they were bored, or high, or looking to cause grief, or whatever) went up to the guards and said "those guys you're looking for? Here they are" and led them straight to the party, I would call that a botched challenge right there. Cue initiative rolls.

Skill challenges in no way negate the role of the DM as mediator of what's acceptable and what's not in terms of believability.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Why do you create situations that are pretty obvious to become inconsistent and illogical?

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

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.

If the players or the DM are not good at improvising, this skill system will not help them. They will simply have an extended mechanic for what used to be resolved in a roll or two. A roll that, in previous version(s) was directly related to the task at hand.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Nonsense. Pixel-bitching is where you have to carry out a specific, obscure sequence of steps to succeed. This is where you have to NOT carry out a specific, obvious sequence of steps to fail. This is the exact opposite of pixel-bitching.

Only if you ignore StormBringer's First Law.

 

[hong]

Only if you ignore StormBringer's First Law.

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

HAW HAW!