Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4625665" data-attributes="member: 5889">So my first 4e campaign just finished up. We ran a lot of Obsidian skill challenges, and here are some of the thoughts I gathered while watching the system in action.1) Ultimately, the system works best as a blank canvas, a way for a DM to paint the kind of challenges they want. I found the generic skill challenges boring, but when you add in some dynamic components, etc I think it becomes a lot of fun. In this the system does very well, its solid and flexible enough to allow DMs to throw in ad hoc things without things going crazy.2) At least for my group, I think players want to use their best skills. One of my original founding principals of Obsidian was that you should use certain skills for certain challenges. After a lot of playtesting, I'm starting to lean away from that. While I like the idea of a wizard having to use athletics once in a while, I think in many ways for the wizard player its the same thing as when they make an opportunity attack (aka a waste of time). The primary skill system softens the blow a little, but the reality is the difference between a wizard's arcane skill and his athletics is so large that a +2 doesn't make the player feel much better. Ultimately its a question of choice versus requirement. If the DM decides everyone needs to give him an athletics roll, well the wizard has to roll. But if the wizard is choosing his skills, but his choices are limited to skills he considered weak for him, then the player feels shafted.3) As a consequence to 2, the DM of our group started letting players use their better skills more frequently than intended, so consequently we had compete and partial victories far more often than my math suggested. However, the reality is probably more complicated than that. My group also had very high physical and social skills...although our mental skills were garbage.However, the question is was my group the exception or the rule. The skills we had....are they in fact typical for 4e and so something I should base my numbers around. That remains to be seen.4) I think there was a definite need for a 2 round challenge, and I'm very glad I put it in. Sometimes 3 rounds just felt too long for a particular challenge, but 2 rounds felt just right.5) Skill Challenges, like good combats, require a bit of planning. I don't think skill challenges work well when you decide, hey your talking to that merchant, let's make it a skill challenge! Skill Challenges are the most exciting when their consequences have meaning, and when the DM has put a little something extra into them.6) I really liked primary skills that changed with each round. I felt that added a dynamic portion to the game that made the challenges more interested.7) I may need a way to handle ability checks. I did find there were times when the player wanted to do something that for all rights should be an ability check, not a skill check...which Obsidian does not handle well. Its something to look into for the future.8) All in all my playtesting showed that Obsidian is a solid, easy to use, reliable system...but also that there's definite room for improvement. Which is good for me, I always love to tweak<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I would like if other people would echo their thoughts on these points, if my group the exception or the rule as far as you all are concerned. Do you agree with my points, or is my mindset taking Obsidian away from a place you want it to go?</blockquote>

Verification