Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6179383" data-attributes="member: 2303">Actually, I did. I would not have posted this unless challenged, but here it is:The most rational approach to a skill challenge was to have the player with the most relevant skill make all rolls. All others should either be absent or (if allowed to) Aid Other. The X successes before Y failure model meant that there was no time pressure and that the risk of failure was a much greater danger than the possible contribution a low-skill character could provide.Forcing a character to participate against the wishes (and rational analysis) of the player is a kind of railroading, as is the entire structure of the skill challenge - rather than saying "This is the problem, solve it", the rules encourage certain skills and tactics. Often in qute an abstract way, with no real connection to a map or otherwise giving a clear image of what was happening.On top of this, it encouraged boring and repetitive use of skills and was a dice-fest requiring dozens of rolls. And because the players often got disgusted by the awkwardness of the process, it felt that the only way to actually get most skill challenges finished was by DM fiat - as in "this is enough!"No, I didn't like the skill challenge mechanic as written. I first tired to write interesting skill challenges. I then tired to rewrite the rules to my liking (one success per round for several rounds, high DCs), but by then my players had had enough of it and we went back to freeform task resolution.All of this based on the errata for the 4E PH1 and DMG1 - by the time the second books came out we had given up on 4E.My final analysis of skill challenge is a lot like my final analysis of all of 4E - many good ideas, poorly implemented. For example, I love the 4E cosmology and incorporated it into my own games. I liked the idea of limiting the palette of powers a PC has and replacing old powers with better high-level versions. But at epic levels characters still ended up with over 50 options on actions - items, feats, various gifts all adding complexity. The designers knew the art of game design, but failed at crafting the actual rules. And I have exactly the same worries about Next - what we have seen so far, all the ideas and goals they have stated sound good - Meals & Co know the art of game design, they know what they want to achieve. But will they be able to actually craft good rules to fulfill their own goals? Will their mathematical analysis hold, and will the rules be robust enough for long-term play? I hope they will, but I do worry. The example of 4E makes me take anything they say with a big grain of salt.</blockquote>

Verification