Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ismaul" data-source="post: 4649343" data-attributes="member: 22035">This is why I didn't directly adopt the Obsidian system for my game, instead experimenting a bit with my own ideas. Obsidian (and WotC's system) lacks an important component of challenges: Active Opposition. In combat, you got dudes that try to hamper you actions and win the combat for themselves. This makes combat dynamic.If you're in a diplomatic challenge and all that's happening is the players searching for arguments to throw at someone, the whole thing feels very one-sided. The challenge becomes detached from the opposition, from the NPCs you're trying to deal with. The opposition is reduced to nothing more than a DC. Passive. It might be passable for challenges involving PCs vs. environment, but with PCs vs. NPCs the flaw becomes apparent.I'm not sure how to restore that dynamism in challenges without complicating the system, aside from lively description of course. I'd like my NPCs to counter the efforts of the PCs, and not only when the PCs fail their checks. Maybe make the opposition as a whole (the challenge itself) have one obstacle per round they can throw at the PCs to spice up the challenge.In addition, there's another important element challenges miss out on: what distinguishes an NPC/challenge from another. In combat, aside from Attack bonus and damage (which is as bland and generic as the challenge DC), you got some special abilities that define the monsters you're facing. Kobolds are shifty, hobgoblins are orderly. This gives the enemy personality.You never get that sense of identity from an NPC involved in a challenge, at least not mechanically. There is no difference in the 'game' aspect between two diplomatic challenges of the same level with two different NPCs, except for how both are roleplayed.I believe we need mechanical distinctions between challenges as much as we need differences in roleplaying: they complement each other and make the experience fresh. It would make sense to combine both the 'dynamism' and 'identity' aspects. The best thing would be to give "powers" to challenges that reflects what make them unique, racial power style, usable once per segment. We could even have 2 types of powers, for NPCs or the environment, emulating the monster - trap distinction.An example off the top of my head:"Shifty" NPC: This guy is really good at evading questions and accusations that are thrown at him. Once per segment, he can make an opposed skill check against any successful PC check with a +2 bonus. If the NPC 'hits', this PC's success(es) don't count towards the victory of the challenge.A system like that would require designing a bunch of Challenge Powers that the DM can choose and assign to the specific challenge he's running, but I can smell the benefits from here. Plus, they'd be modular. Like 'em, use 'em. They'd fit on top of both WotC's system and Obsidian.That's really an apropriate distinction. Both expected and creative uses of skills are things we want to reward. I think in some way Obsidian's system takes that into account. Expected uses get an automatic +2 (in other words they're primary skills), and creative uses get a DM-approved +2.The only weakness is how you go about rewarding a nicely roleplayed expected use of a skill. Do you give it a +4, and can the system handle it? Or should we distinguish the advantage to be had by using an expected skill use vs a creative one, as right now they both give the same mechanical benefit?Aside from that, I couldn't help but notice the 2 Segment rules. They could be better, simpler. Right now, we got to refer to the chart, then substract successes needed for partial and total victory, with some wierd results.For example, for 5 players in a standard challenge, Victory=8+ successes and Partial=6-7. With a 2 Segment challenge, suddenly the conditions become V=6+ (substract 2), and P=5-6 (substract 1). We got a problematic overlap there.Instead, what about this: "In a 2 segment challenge, treat the victory conditions as if there was 1 less player." No calculations needed, no overlap, just refer to the chart.</blockquote>

Verification