Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7034513" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>The early version was pretty incoherent (it actually got easier the more 'complex' the challenge) but that was corrected (over-corrected, and re-corrected, actually - the final result was quite robust). Anyway, the initial version was about on par with what other editions offered for out-of-combat resolution, in that ambitious & fundamentally flawed compares indifferently with baroque, broken, perfunctory or non-existent. Once the seemingly minor change of 3 failures instead of half as many as successes was implemented, though, Skill Challenges became quite robust. The final overhaul left them with a larger fraction of their potential realized. There was probably a /lot/ more that could have been done had the sub-system not been abandoned.</p><p></p><p> When you're talking about the relative qualities of a system, it helps to actually compare systems.</p><p></p><p> More than even the designers seem to want to admit. HD, for instance, while taking several steps back from Healing Surges, clearly owe more to them than to their early-game namesakes - but that label obscures the 4e connection. There's a lot of 'serial numbers filed off' stuff like that. BA is another one - little more than the 4e even-advancement scheme with smaller numbers.</p><p></p><p>Nod. Even advancement, smaller numbers = still keeps everyone contributing, though regardless of level as well as regardless of specialization.</p><p></p><p>Good and bad depend on preference more than anything. Functional, clarity, balance, consistency - these are qualities that can be more dispassionately evaluated. Even 4e's harshest critics admitted it was better balanced than other editions of D&D (which is faint praise, but still), for instance. It's simply a fact. Other facts are more broadly denied, or 'alternative facts' presented (and repeated). That was the edition war.</p><p></p><p>And, ultimately, it stemmed from needing to justify something that didn't need justification: personal preference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7034513, member: 996"] The early version was pretty incoherent (it actually got easier the more 'complex' the challenge) but that was corrected (over-corrected, and re-corrected, actually - the final result was quite robust). Anyway, the initial version was about on par with what other editions offered for out-of-combat resolution, in that ambitious & fundamentally flawed compares indifferently with baroque, broken, perfunctory or non-existent. Once the seemingly minor change of 3 failures instead of half as many as successes was implemented, though, Skill Challenges became quite robust. The final overhaul left them with a larger fraction of their potential realized. There was probably a /lot/ more that could have been done had the sub-system not been abandoned. When you're talking about the relative qualities of a system, it helps to actually compare systems. More than even the designers seem to want to admit. HD, for instance, while taking several steps back from Healing Surges, clearly owe more to them than to their early-game namesakes - but that label obscures the 4e connection. There's a lot of 'serial numbers filed off' stuff like that. BA is another one - little more than the 4e even-advancement scheme with smaller numbers. Nod. Even advancement, smaller numbers = still keeps everyone contributing, though regardless of level as well as regardless of specialization. Good and bad depend on preference more than anything. Functional, clarity, balance, consistency - these are qualities that can be more dispassionately evaluated. Even 4e's harshest critics admitted it was better balanced than other editions of D&D (which is faint praise, but still), for instance. It's simply a fact. Other facts are more broadly denied, or 'alternative facts' presented (and repeated). That was the edition war. And, ultimately, it stemmed from needing to justify something that didn't need justification: personal preference. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
Top