Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pour" data-source="post: 5976403" data-attributes="member: 59411">Great questions.The succeed or die aspect did create tension, but that tension would have still existed in some capacity regardless. I think visceral details, like sucking water from the camel fat, added something to it, too, but then I think the monotony was prevented more from several key elements in these rule alterations.1. The DCs changed as the environment changed, and sometimes the going got tough, and sometimes the numbers gave them a break. Despite the limited skills, those trained in Nature and Endurance sometimes failed, and those untrained sometimes succeeded (though being trained was still preferable). A player managed a success on a roll of 14, but as circumstances changed and the DC went up another failed on the same check on a 20. This happened back to back, even, but the players took it well as I informed them of the changing terrain (sandstorms, heat exhaustion, burns, etc) and the rolling DCs. Mind you, the DCs were all within the prescribed tracks for their level range of 9-11, encompassing easy checks, medium checks, and hard checks on a track, reflective of all the varied desert elements, and had them choose Nature, Endurance, or Perception to attempt to meet those DCs. That kind of anticipation and uncertainty added a lot to the experience, and I think reflected a harsh environment well. 2. Also, requiring X amount of successes in both skills changed the dynamic of the challenge half way through, and players couldn't roll or approach the challenge the same way they had ealier. The player who was best at Endurance maxed 5 Endurance successes and was forced to decide whether to risk Perceptions to give that +2 toward the more Nature-oriented player or risk Natures for actual successes. Failure meant failure regardless of primary or secondary, so there was more weight to the choice.3. The Critical successes (which there were 2 in the challenge) allowed players to take an active roll in where to attribute their successes, whether toward Endurance or Nature. They needed 5 in each. The party wisely chose Nature, knowing they were less skilled than in Endurance, but even that choice was a calculated gamble on whether or not the fighter could manage to pull his end with good Endurance. He ultimately did. 4. There was the possibility of opening up more secondary skills, it just depended on when and why. Eventually, as they neared the end of the challenge, one player wanted to look for tracks and signs of life or movement, as they were presumably near the meeting place. That rung true to me, and I allowed it. Had he tried that in the beginning, I would have probably shot him down. I guess I didn't want them to have total leeway, but I didn't want them to suffer from the challenges rigidness, either. It was the perfect blend for our situation.I sort of railed against total leeway because I've run challenges were I was very accommodating. I even allowed power use, appropriate at-wills giving a +2 to the check, the use of an encounter giving an auto success, and the use of a daily giving 2 successes (the stipulation being these powers were expended during the next encounter, barring an extended rest). While the players enjoyed themselves, and it's normally how I run challenges, I didn't want to go so easy on them. I'll tell you the pay off at the end was greater in terms of an actual personal investment. They played the game, so to speak, and came out on top. With my more freeform challenges, they created their way out and came out on top, equally fun in certain situations, but in this case I preferred the harsher course.</blockquote>

Verification