Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="surfarcher" data-source="post: 5389598" data-attributes="member: 84774">So you haven't read RAW?  And you are asserting that the subsystem widely acknowledged as basic at best, fatally flawed at worst is right?Oooohhkay.  "Don't bother me with RAW folks.  I don't care what anyone or anything else says.  Regardless of your logic, references or even by the fact that you are the authors of the game.  My opinion is right and yours is wrong."Sorry, why am I talking to you?  It might be best if we just agree to disagree here.  Everyone else on this thread (and it's reflected XP awards) seems to agree with me.  You should probably just do what works for your players.  I mean you're and experienced DM and know your group so run with what works for you.Wrong.  Your result with a given check will lead to a different scenario for the following check.  You aren't stopped.  It's not linear.  That's kinda the point of adhoc.Have you even read what I've been saying?  Or just picked bits out?To be totally honest you are coming across as either someone who is trolling or a player who doesn't really grok SC design and implementation.Sure you can.  A failure at the crevasse shouldn't and wouldn't bar progress.  If the party fails they lose precious time, because they have to take the long way around.Enough failures accumulating enough lost time will mean they get to their destination too late.  Standard stuff, BTW.... All spelled out in DMG2.And in my example of the more compact skill challenge the same is true.  But it doesn't need to be played in an ugly metagame context of pooling checks to complete a complex objective.There's nothing linear about what I suggested.  You are reading that into it.  And you seem to be the only one doing so.Exactly my point!  A single thievery check should open the portcullis!  Maybe two checks if it has two locks.  And a single check or two checks should stop the sinking spiked ceiling!  And a perception or dungeoneering check should tell you this!  And a diplomacy or intimidate check should help slow down the attacking monsters!And failing at one of these wouldn't be overall failure... But failing at enough of them will be.  You just do not need to bundle them up to play it out.With your system what it sounds like you are saying is "make X successful checks to stop it all and if you get 3 fails first the whole lot doesnt work"!Good man <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />He's the only poster on here refusing to understand or accept this.  In fact refusing to understand or accept anything until there's no reasonable way he can argue against it.If you google his activity on this site you'll see he's invariably tied up in arguments and disagreement.  And I can't find more than a couple of posts in his feed where he isn't actively disagreeing with someone.At least that's how it's seeming to me.  I guess time will tell...</blockquote>

Verification