Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6578150" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't think there's intended to be any constraint on the duration or scope of a skill challenge. It could regulate getting a door open, or a 6 month sea voyage. I see nothing ridiculous about it. My example was quite clear. The nature of time as an imprecise resource measure renders it less than totally effective as a tool of dramatic tension, and my comment explained exactly why. For that matter Tony Vargas explained it once already upthread as well. This is a discussion of general techniques and what 4e brought to the table, so your campaign isn't the only thing that is relevant, nor do I see anything about the technique I have outlined which wouldn't work in your game AFAIK. I was quite accomplished as a DM at that time, with more than 10 years of experience. I don't take 1000's of hours either, anymore, but my point is that even with spending vast time on that project it was impossible to account for time adequately enough to make a completely timeline based drama function well. That's what I learned. Sure, if I, for some reason, was to decide to revisit obsolete campaign design techniques and make a timeline based game now I wouldn't spend anything like that amount of time on it, because I know it won't work! That was my whole point.Sure, assuming they can become privy to enough information to be able to make informed choices. That was the whole point of Tony's statements about timelines, and what I was reinforcing. Again, I go back to the example you decry above, it explains quite succinctly why timeline-based tension OFTEN doesn't work. Its not IMPOSSIBLE to make it work, there are cases where you could just give the players perfect information, they KNOW that at the stroke of midnight on December 31st the world will end if they don't appear at the Fulcrum of Fate and stop the Ritual of Destruction. Even then they'd need to know ahead of time how their time resource can be spent and what the relative values of the different options are. Again, you can tell them, but if you don't then they're just left guessing and while there may be ANXIETY in that, there's not the same dramatic tension.No, I just think it shouldn't be used directly as an in-game resource in most cases as others have suggested it. There's nothing at all wrong with having time constraints, but its better to transform them into something else that is a bit more abstract that the players can manage and avoid the awkward questions like "just how long did lunch take, and did that blow the time budget". Even this judgment isn't ABSOLUTE, you can do a 'race against the clock' where the PCs KNOW all the variables involved, then at worst they are hoping to get enough good die rolls on checks to 'make it in time' or something like that, perhaps adapting their plans as required. That's fine, but it CAN be handled with an SC in a broader range of situations is all. You seem to be aware of that, so I am not sure what you're objecting to here.The whole thread is about 4e...Illusionism can include the 'fudging' of anything, including maps. That's different from 'fudging a map IS Illusionism'.I think it could be irrelevant. In that case the social contract of the table seems to be intact IMHO and I don't think it really matters what we call it. If the fudging has some minor effect that has no plot consequence, then again it seems like it isn't worth arguing about what its called. Its when the DM is railroading the players by juggling numbers, plot elements, maps, whatever and the players aren't in on it, then its Illusionism. I think this coincides pretty much with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s definition and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s definition, though we all seem to have very slightly different ways of saying basically the same thing.</blockquote>

Verification