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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6061749" data-attributes="member: 42582">But not a normal fighter, wielding a very sharp sword. Nor can a 1st level Moldvay fighter decapitate an ogre on a charge (as per the maths of my previous post), although from the point of view of verisimilitude there is no reason why that shouldn't be possible (and is, in systems like Rolemaster, Runequest etc).Any extended conflict resolution mechanic, of which hit-point based combat is an example, puts pacing constraints around the narration of action. That's part of the point!This is discussed in the DMG 2, yes.And otherwise I think is understood as implicit. To give another example: suppose the skill challenge is the wooing of a young maiden, unfolding over time while other things take place. If one of those things is the assassination of said maiden, then I would take it as obvious that the skill challenge is over! Guidelines for more borderline cases can of course be helpful, but does this sort of thing really need spelling out for a rules set to count as tenable?As I said upthread, examples would help. What you're describing sounds to me like it might go to the framing of the challenge, but because you're presenting it so abstractly I can't tell.And this is what I am disputing, as did [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] above.Here is the relevant rules text from the 4e DMG (p 74):Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results. . . Sometimes, a player tells you, “I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest.” That’s great—the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, “I want to make a Diplomacy check.” In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: “I want to scare the duke into helping us.” It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check.And here is the PHB (pp179, 259):Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face. . . Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail.The procedure described here seems pretty clear to me: GM frames situation; player describes PC's response; an appropriate skill check is made; GM describes result; repeat until challenge is resolved. Given that the result can change the framing of the situation, it's obvious that what you narrate as a player, and your "choices, plans, decisions, setting, etc" have a tremendous bearing on the skill challenge and how (if at all) the goal is achieved.If you want to see some actual play examples, read the first posts in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?301282-actual-play-examples-balance-between-fiction-mechanics" target="_blank">these</a> <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?309950-actual-play-my-first-social-only-session" target="_blank">two</a> threads.I wonder about your confidence that you are clear on the rules and that I and others who enjoy skill challenges have misunderstood them. I mean, you have (in effect) posted that 4e gives you "artificial and boring" play; and I and others have replied pointing out that you seem to have misread and misapplied the rules of the game (for example by disregarding the rules on framing, resolving and reframing), and that when you use the rules as intended you'll get better results (like the episodes of play linked to in my paragrah above). I don't expect to be thanked - you may not care to play 4e in any event - but I don't know what makes you so sure that your boring experience, rather than my engaging experience, is what the designers were intending.</blockquote>

Verification