Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6570639" data-attributes="member: 336">Amongst all this discussion regarding Skill Challenges what should not be lost in the conversation is that each technique is not binary (on/off) and exclusive (single technique).  You can have a skill challenge that mechanically challenges/engages the PCs (healing surge loss, etc.), storywise challenges/engages the PCs (lose half the children, etc.) or even does both at the same time (loss of HS and loss of the children).These conversations, like the examples in the DMG, are examples of some of the things that can be accomplished/done, not the entirety of what can be done.I believe the examples in the DMG were simple examples (almost shorthand) to showcase some of the techniques but lacked in the explanation side (as shorthand usually does).  For example it was obvious to me that the negotiation with the duke challenge (DMG1) had a story component that was not being mentioned or explained.  Why did an Intimidate attempt immediately accrue a failure?  It was a DM decision of course since he designed the SC, but in reality I could see a story reason.  The duke is a proud and powerful man that will not be cowed (most rulers are in some way).  Doing so (Intimidate) as part of a negotiation would immediately put him in a defensive position and anger him, specially if done in a public setting, thus accruing a failure in the challenge, which if I recall correctly had a goal of getting assistance from the duke.  Anybody that has been married for a while knows that many times it's not what you say but how you say it that gets you in trouble.  I assume story wise the duke challenge progresses in the same way.  However, the Skill Challenge examples also lacked context.  I imagine that a PC proficient in intimidation can also point out to others how intimidation is being used against them.  In the duke challenge the example simply shuts down the use of intimidation and accrues a failure.  It could also have had the context that if a PC uses his proficiency with intimidation to show the duke how the "opponents" are trying to intimidate him into inaction, then that might be a viable use of the skill.The great thing about Skill Challenges is that they tried to standardize and make available to all DMs techniques for doing non-combat challenges in an interesting way, and actually having rewards and consequences.  The problem with Skill Challenges is that standardizing also creates gaps that can not easily be mechanically accounted for (intimidation to show the "opponent's intent") because nobody thought about them.  However that is why we have DMs.  They can cover those gaps and make them "disappear" by making them flow better.Which leads to the world building that has been discussed.  I don't subscribe to the theory of everything must be written down in advance for it to exist/happen.  Because doing so leaves tremendous gaps in what can be explored.  The living breathing world is much better served by having an idea of things that are known, and anything that is not known is open to investigation/interpretation/exploration/attribution by both the DM and the players.I've been running games for nearly 35 years.  I have run hundreds, close to thousands of games, for thousands of players, particularly when I was heavily doing convention games.  In that whole time I found that the best games were those where the players completely surprised me.  When they come up with an ingenious plan, or explanation for what is happening.  Sometimes it is better to follow their lead when they come up with an explanation that is much better than the very special snowflake I have "written down."  This does two very interesting things.  It keeps the game interesting for me as the players are allowed to completely surprise me.  It also gives an awesome sense of accomplishment to the players because they figured it out.</blockquote>

Verification