Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 5976299" data-attributes="member: 1210">Let's look at an example: the stereotype of bad design, the secret door that is the only way to access the locations required for the adventure to proceed.According to the approach championed by 4e, if there is a skill challenge to find the entrance and pcs fail, they should still find the secret door in order to avoid &quot;losing the adventure&quot;. Without that secret door, they'll never &quot;succeed&quot; at the adventure. So failing the skill challenge typically means they find the secret door and there is some kind of complication.What you don't see is an acknowledgment that there is nothing wrong with the pcs giving up and going off to do something different instead, abandoning the adventure they are on in favor of one that they find more pleasing. Now, this is clearly a matter of playstyle preference, but there is nothing at all wrong with the pcs moving from one half-completed adventure to another without ever killing a single BBEG. Sure, they make a massive number of enemies, rarely receive the promised reward and end with a reputation as more vagabonds than heroes; but so what? Some people like the freedom of action inherent in a campaign where the &quot;story&quot; is what you tell about the game, not what you expect going into it.4e's advice on this boils down to: Let them accomplish their goals, just make it interesting. And that's fine, for many playstyles. But &quot;the pcs always get what they want&quot; is not fine for ALL playstyles anymore than &quot;vagabonds, not heroes&quot; is.I'm also a fan of the potentially lethal skill challenge for similar playstyle reasons. If skill challenges are supposed to be worth the same number of xp as combat, yet they never cost many resources, hps, surges, daily powers, etc, they are overvalued IMHO- especially when even a failed skill challenge allows the pcs to succeed, albeit with a complication or two.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 5976299, member: 1210"] Let's look at an example: the stereotype of bad design, the secret door that is the only way to access the locations required for the adventure to proceed. According to the approach championed by 4e, if there is a skill challenge to find the entrance and pcs fail, they should still find the secret door in order to avoid "losing the adventure". Without that secret door, they'll never "succeed" at the adventure. So failing the skill challenge typically means they find the secret door and there is some kind of complication. What you don't see is an acknowledgment that there is nothing wrong with the pcs giving up and going off to do something different instead, abandoning the adventure they are on in favor of one that they find more pleasing. Now, this is clearly a matter of playstyle preference, but there is nothing at all wrong with the pcs moving from one half-completed adventure to another without ever killing a single BBEG. Sure, they make a massive number of enemies, rarely receive the promised reward and end with a reputation as more vagabonds than heroes; but so what? Some people like the freedom of action inherent in a campaign where the "story" is what you tell about the game, not what you expect going into it. 4e's advice on this boils down to: Let them accomplish their goals, just make it interesting. And that's fine, for many playstyles. But "the pcs always get what they want" is [i]not[/i] fine for ALL playstyles anymore than "vagabonds, not heroes" is. I'm also a fan of the potentially lethal skill challenge for similar playstyle reasons. If skill challenges are supposed to be worth the same number of xp as combat, yet they never cost many resources, hps, surges, daily powers, etc, they are overvalued IMHO- especially when even a failed skill challenge allows the pcs to succeed, albeit with a complication or two. [/QUOTE]

Verification