Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6566073" data-attributes="member: 42582">This I don't agree with - at least, I think it's at best partially true.I think the original conception did have issues with skill DCs. This is one instance of a bigger problem of not having solidified all their maths. That skill DCs would go through 3 (I think) revisions - first dropping the footnote that said "add 5", then the DMG2 numbers, then the Essentials numbers, is a sign of inadequate playtesting and also inadequate attention to the sorts of character builds the system makes typical.The original conception also had issues with presentation, because bits and pieces of it were scattered through the PHB (in the skill chapter, and in the section on skill challenges) and the DMG (in the section on skill challenges, as well as hints here and there on p 42 and in the trap write-ups).But if you combine everything that is said about skill challenges in the PHB and DMG, and if you take the Essentials skill DCs (or even the DMG2 ones for a non-optimised Heroic-tier campaign), then I think you get a pretty good system:From the player’s point of view (Text from PHB pp 179 & 259) A skill challenge is a complex situation in which you must make several successful checks . . . before you can claim success in the encounter. . . . Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail. . . . Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face. . . . Noncombat encounters focus on skills, utility powers, and your own wits (not your character’s), although sometimes attack powers can come in handy as well. . . . Powers you use might give you bonuses on your checks, make some checks unnecessary, or otherwise help you through the challenge. From the GM’s point of view (Text from DMG pp 72–76) The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions. . . . More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure. . . . Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure. . . . Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . . Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. . . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results. . . . Remember that not everything has to be directly tied to the challenge. Tangential or unrelated benefits, such as making unexpected allies from among the duke’s court or finding a small, forgotten treasure, can also be fun. [R]eward particularly creative uses of skills (or penalise the opposite) by giving a character a +2 bonus or -2 penalty to the check. Then, depending on the success or failure of the check, describe the consequences and go on to the next action. . . . When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . . . Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. . . . [P]layers will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth. . . . However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. . . . [Y]ou should ask what exactly the character might be doing . . . Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge. Characters might have access to utility powers or rituals that can help them. These might allow special uses of skills, perhaps with a bonus. Rituals in particular might grant an automatic success or remove failures from the running total.I've reordered the text for clarity, but I haven't added anything.What have I cut out? The reference on DMG p 74 to initiative checks - which is not hopeless, but isn't terrific either. Better would be advice on framing the challenge and narrating consequences so that all the PCs (and, thereby, the players) get drawn into the action.I've also cut out the advice that skills the GM didn't think of should be treated as 'secondary' skills with a higher check DC and a tighter limit on repeat uses. This is generally bad advice, but following it won't completely derail the system (in general, the skills a player is pushing for will be ones in which his/her PC has a high bonus).The main thing that is missing from all this advice is some discussion of the overall abstract and "closed-scene" nature of the system. The DMG alludes to this when it says that the main difference from combat is how PC actions are treated, but exactly what this difference consists in, and exactly how the GM should narrate consequences, is left very opaque. But this was never improved in later presentations - it's almost equally opaque following the DMG2 and in the Essentials presentation.The DMG2 makes three main contributions. First, it offers more concrete advice on mechanical benefits to be gained from using powers or rituals, and also talks about possible benefits from spending action points or money. Second, it gives examples and advice on narrative structure for skill challenges. Third, it gives this bit of advice:DMG 2 p 83 Each skill check in a challenge should accomplish one of the following goals: * Introduce a new option that the PCs can pursue, a path to success they didn't know existed; * Change the situation, such as by sending the PC's to a new location, introducing a new NPC, or adding a complication; * Grant the players a tangible consequence for the check's success or failure . . . that influences their subsequent decisions. This is useful, and a bit more spelled out than the DMG, but it still doesn't explain how narration is related to the "closed scene" structure.Essentials makes two main contributions. First, it offers more concrete advice on how to set check DCs and how to ration skill use so as to avoid spamming (although it does not give any advice on how to narrate that sort of rationing). Second, it introduces the "advantage" mechanic, which is basically a device for fudging over the wonkiness of the 4e skill maths. Unfortunately this mechanic is not really developed in any serious way - it remains not much more developed than the DMG references to using powers and rituals.TL;DR: while later advice and additions were helpful (and necessary as far as level-appropriate DCs are concerned), I think the core of the system is there in the PHB and DMG, and that it is more than marginally useful.</blockquote>

Verification