Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6398602" data-attributes="member: 336">Sure that's a possibility but not really for me to determine.So if the guidelines for skill challenges specifically call out that the DM should describe the situation, and then ask for the players to describe how they would address the situation, and then determine what skill, if any, is applicable and make checks as appropriate.&nbsp; How is that any different from any type of &quot;roleplaying&quot; check that the games has had since pretty much it's inception?&nbsp; What, all of a sudden, made these DM be paralyzed by the rigid mechanics?How is this a problem with the guidelines as stipulated (describe the situation, ask for how they plan to deal with the situation, and ask for checks as appropriate)?Once again the question remains.&nbsp; If the guidelines recommend to the DM to do A, and for whatever reason the DM decides to do B - how is it a problem with the guidelines?As an example of looking at perspective - the guidelines recommend that an attack be resolved by rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing that number to a target number (AC, etc.).&nbsp; If the DM, for whatever reason (maybe the players want to try it this way), decides to have an attack be resolved by having the players run laps around the table roll a d12 and subtract their character's charisma modifier - how is it the guidelines fault if the game doesn't work as intended?IMO, the skill challenge mechanic serves one purpose, and one purpose only.&nbsp; To provide a way to give consistent adhoc XP for things that are not necessarily related to combat.&nbsp; In 3.x the guidelines were, &quot;sometimes - give adhoc XP.&quot;&nbsp; In 4e, the DMG provides a robust guideline and framework for actually doing so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 6398602, member: 336"] Sure that's a possibility but not really for me to determine. So if the guidelines for skill challenges specifically call out that the DM should describe the situation, and then ask for the players to describe how they would address the situation, and then determine what skill, if any, is applicable and make checks as appropriate. How is that any different from any type of "roleplaying" check that the games has had since pretty much it's inception? What, all of a sudden, made these DM be paralyzed by the rigid mechanics? How is this a problem with the guidelines as stipulated (describe the situation, ask for how they plan to deal with the situation, and ask for checks as appropriate)? Once again the question remains. If the guidelines recommend to the DM to do A, and for whatever reason the DM decides to do B - how is it a problem with the guidelines? As an example of looking at perspective - the guidelines recommend that an attack be resolved by rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing that number to a target number (AC, etc.). If the DM, for whatever reason (maybe the players want to try it this way), decides to have an attack be resolved by having the players run laps around the table roll a d12 and subtract their character's charisma modifier - how is it the guidelines fault if the game doesn't work as intended? IMO, the skill challenge mechanic serves one purpose, and one purpose only. To provide a way to give consistent adhoc XP for things that are not necessarily related to combat. In 3.x the guidelines were, "sometimes - give adhoc XP." In 4e, the DMG provides a robust guideline and framework for actually doing so. [/QUOTE]

Verification