Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6061420" data-attributes="member: 48965">I think this line right here sums up my issue with SC's as presented in 4e... Instead of letting the narrative create it's own natural endpoint where the goal is either met or not met by the effectiveness of the choice of actions the PC's take... SC's have a DM create a limited and artificial construct that is, for all practical purposes, logically and mechanically divorced from the actions the PC's will choose to take.  As an example, regardless of how clever an idea a PC comes up with, and no  matter how logical it would seem to let this unexpected idea complete the goal... if there haven't been X successes yet... by RAW, the goal is not accomplished.  IMO, it feels like the forced parameters in a computer program or a CYoA book.  One of the reasons to have a DM as opposed to a sophisticated computer run the game is because he/she can adjudicate things... like when a logical conclusion has been reached to a problem.  Now before anybody claims that you can still do this in 4e... I  know you can, but my point is that at this point why even have skill challenges?  Why not just have  advice and examples on how to run and adjudicate good non-combat encounters?</blockquote>