Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lacyon" data-source="post: 4166023" data-attributes="member: 63046">It was one of many possible steps towards solving the challenge. Yes, if you fail to solve the challenge, it is unsolved. So what?If the players decide to ignore the results of a success instead of building on them, you do indeed have a problem, but it is easily resolved: don't count that success in the tally.The players can't resolve it in one or two &quot;skill checks&quot; unless you let them - nothing stops you from turning those one or two skills into extended contests requiring multiple successes, nor does anything prevent you from describing the interim results of those successes or failures.Many complex tasks in both the real world and in the game have separate sub-tasks which may be performed in any order.Conversely, when performing a skill challenge, nothing prevents you from only allowing certain skills at step 1, and certain other skills at step 2, and so on, if the situation demands it.If a check doesn't progress you toward a solution to the challenge, it should be disallowed.By what logic? Every roll affects the outcome, because every roll counts as either a success or failure.This doesn't follow from your premises at all. The description of the scene in the example you quoted followed precisely from the rolls chosen and their successes/failures.None of the checks need to lead to each other in causal fashion. They merely need to lead the party towards overall success or overall failure.Exactly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lacyon, post: 4166023, member: 63046"] It was one of many possible steps towards solving the challenge. Yes, if you fail to solve the challenge, it is unsolved. So what? If the players decide to ignore the results of a success instead of building on them, you do indeed have a problem, but it is easily resolved: don't count that success in the tally. The players can't resolve it in one or two "skill checks" unless you let them - nothing stops you from turning those one or two skills into extended contests requiring multiple successes, nor does anything prevent you from describing the interim results of those successes or failures. Many complex tasks in both the real world and in the game have separate sub-tasks which may be performed in any order. Conversely, when performing a skill challenge, nothing prevents you from only allowing certain skills at step 1, and certain other skills at step 2, and so on, if the situation demands it. If a check doesn't progress you toward a solution to the challenge, it should be disallowed. By what logic? Every roll affects the outcome, because every roll counts as either a success or failure. This doesn't follow from your premises at all. The description of the scene in the example you quoted followed precisely from the rolls chosen and their successes/failures. None of the checks need to lead to [I]each other[/I] in causal fashion. They merely need to lead the party towards overall success or overall failure. Exactly. [/QUOTE]

Verification