Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 4488875" data-attributes="member: 61155">I do tend, when designing skill challenges, to try and make sure there are options that don't directly give success or failure (such as using Perception to try and find useful information for others, with success giving them a bonus on their next roll, and failure giving them a penalty or misinformation.) This is a good way to let characters participate without feeling like anything they do will cost the group the challenge.  I still like the succes / failure model as a whole - but I prefer those failures come from genuine failures at something the character could succeed at, not inevitable failure from not being good at anything relevant to the challenge.  I've also used some with a time limit being the relevant factor - if the get enough successes in time, they succeed, if not, they lose. Failures, in this case, might mean they need more successes, or might result in penalties, new foes, or other distracting elements.  One of the other GMs within our group tends to go with a ratio method, letting a certain amount of attempts be made, and then comparing failures to successes.  Another is a fan of the Obsidian system - while it isn't to my taste, he's found it to work well for his purposes. I think it is the much easier system to simply plug in a scenario and numbers, and let it play out on the table with confidence in it being balanced and engaging, while I find the 4E base system more robust for designing more intricate challenges.</blockquote>

Verification