Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5587325" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think what wasn't said was that the standard SC system does require characters to narratively justify their actions, which includes AA presumably. There's been a meme floating around that the system has a 'flaw' in which all but the best skill bonus character can just AA the lead guy through the whole challenge. At best this was rather overstated, though I don't recall Stalker0 saying that. I thought actually that Obsidian started out with a more fixed set of ground rules than the standard system. Challenges are always divided into 3 parts, lead skill, etc. Mostly it can naturally map well to a nice dramatic structure, but it isn't as easy to graft other mechanics onto it. An example would be the &quot;Suderham&quot; SC example in DMG2, which I think would be more difficult to pull off. Frankly I've come to see the &quot;describe what various skills do&quot; aspect of EITHER type of SC as much more of a &quot;hey DM, think of some of the creative things your players may do ahead of time so you can work out what might happen&quot; kind of thing than an attempt to specify any kind of exclusive list of possible solutions. Obsidian effectively does the same thing in any case, both were written with lists of skills. My conclusion has been that the better approach would be to list resources, decision points, rewards, and obstacles. When you do it that way the more structured Obsidian framework can tend to get in the way somewhat. I think I just sort of evolved a style that didn't require that structure anymore. It did work well for several challenges and it is good to keep the concepts it uses in mind. There might be a next generation system which steals a bit from both hiding in there somewhere.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5587325, member: 82106"] I think what wasn't said was that the standard SC system does require characters to narratively justify their actions, which includes AA presumably. There's been a meme floating around that the system has a 'flaw' in which all but the best skill bonus character can just AA the lead guy through the whole challenge. At best this was rather overstated, though I don't recall Stalker0 saying that. I thought actually that Obsidian started out with a more fixed set of ground rules than the standard system. Challenges are always divided into 3 parts, lead skill, etc. Mostly it can naturally map well to a nice dramatic structure, but it isn't as easy to graft other mechanics onto it. An example would be the "Suderham" SC example in DMG2, which I think would be more difficult to pull off. Frankly I've come to see the "describe what various skills do" aspect of EITHER type of SC as much more of a "hey DM, think of some of the creative things your players may do ahead of time so you can work out what might happen" kind of thing than an attempt to specify any kind of exclusive list of possible solutions. Obsidian effectively does the same thing in any case, both were written with lists of skills. My conclusion has been that the better approach would be to list resources, decision points, rewards, and obstacles. When you do it that way the more structured Obsidian framework can tend to get in the way somewhat. I think I just sort of evolved a style that didn't require that structure anymore. It did work well for several challenges and it is good to keep the concepts it uses in mind. There might be a next generation system which steals a bit from both hiding in there somewhere. [/QUOTE]

Verification