Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 4768367" data-attributes="member: 20323">Great thread, thanks Mephistopheles. &quot;Skill challenges&quot; lumps a lot of different ideas together, and should have been approached in a more individuated way, for example with separate headings for &quot;timed challenge&quot;, &quot;PC vs NPC challenge&quot;, &quot;on the fly skill challenge&quot;, etc. I'm hoping we'll see this in the DMG2, even though it should have been in the first one, or at least offered free on-line. The skill challenge &quot;system&quot; D&amp;D players recived in a non-solution - it's uninteresting, poorly designed, and improperly used subtracts from the game. However, the *idea* behind it has so much potential, and hints that D&amp;D is evolving.Though I have no problem with rolling, I don't like how it always boils down to a *skill* check. This is why I prefer to think of them as &quot;non-combat challenges&quot;. I may include notes on particular useful powers from each class, actions that require no roll and are auto-successes with some role-play, ability score checks (with augmented DCs), not only skills.I'm not convinced this is a problem in a well-designed pre-designed skill challenge. This is why the development track Bleoberis De Ganis suggests is so important - I think it's arguably the most important part because it identifies stages the PCs need to go through.However, when it's a spur of the moment skill challenge, I can see this being a real concern for the DM. Some guidelines in the DMG would have been nice.I really like that you've identified the most important part of skill challenges - the development and unfolding in play. As I've been writing my first adventure, this sort of &quot;development track&quot; is exactly what I've been doing.&nbsp; Except for the rare most open-ended of skill challenges, every skill challenge should be designed this way, I think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 4768367, member: 20323"] Great thread, thanks Mephistopheles. "Skill challenges" lumps a lot of different ideas together, and should have been approached in a more individuated way, for example with separate headings for "timed challenge", "PC vs NPC challenge", "on the fly skill challenge", etc. I'm hoping we'll see this in the DMG2, even though it should have been in the first one, or at least offered free on-line. The skill challenge "system" D&D players recived in a non-solution - it's uninteresting, poorly designed, and improperly used subtracts from the game. However, the *idea* behind it has so much potential, and hints that D&D is evolving. Though I have no problem with rolling, I don't like how it always boils down to a *skill* check. This is why I prefer to think of them as "non-combat challenges". I may include notes on particular useful powers from each class, actions that require no roll and are auto-successes with some role-play, ability score checks (with augmented DCs), not only skills. I'm not convinced this is a problem in a well-designed pre-designed skill challenge. This is why the development track Bleoberis De Ganis suggests is so important - I think it's arguably the most important part because it identifies stages the PCs need to go through. However, when it's a spur of the moment skill challenge, I can see this being a real concern for the DM. Some guidelines in the DMG would have been nice. I really like that you've identified the most important part of skill challenges - the development and unfolding in play. As I've been writing my first adventure, this sort of "development track" is exactly what I've been doing. Except for the rare most open-ended of skill challenges, every skill challenge should be designed this way, I think. [/QUOTE]

Verification