Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4191973" data-attributes="member: 63272">Celebrim seems stuck on this idea that the skill challenge system must represent a bold new system that allows players to do things that were never possible before for it be considered a successful system.&nbsp; That doesn't make much sense.&nbsp; Games evolve in small steps.&nbsp; Yes, you could have used similar systems in 3e.&nbsp; You would have been somewhat hampered by the overall problems with the relevance of skills in 3e, but you could do it.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; What does that prove and how is that relevant to 4e?It's not.&nbsp; The idea for the challenge framework was, presumably, thought up by the designers while working on 4e and implemented into that game.&nbsp; It could have developed in 3e, come out in some supplement (maybe it did).&nbsp; That's irrelevant to the value of the system.&nbsp; It doesn't represent anything new and groundbreaking.&nbsp; What it does is provide a framework for designing skill based, xp granting encounters in a system in which skills play a more dynamic role, and aren't limited to one type of character in a typical party.&nbsp; The systems design fits very well with the overall design concept of &quot;no more wallflowers&quot;.&nbsp; That applies to the 1st level wizard who has cast his two spells and to the fighter when faced with the &quot;talky parts&quot; of an adventure.&nbsp; Its not meant to be used when the party is standing in a empty hallway facing only a locked door.&nbsp; That's still just a skill check.&nbsp; But it can be used to create dynamic encounters focused on skill/ability use rather than just &quot;okay, diplomacy DC 25.&quot;&nbsp; Good DMs were already running interesting situations where skills and RP intermingled to create a fluid scene.&nbsp; This is just a framework to further integrate such encounters mechanically within the system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4191973, member: 63272"] Celebrim seems stuck on this idea that the skill challenge system must represent a bold new system that allows players to do things that were never possible before for it be considered a successful system. That doesn't make much sense. Games evolve in small steps. Yes, you could have used similar systems in 3e. You would have been somewhat hampered by the overall problems with the relevance of skills in 3e, but you could do it. So what? What does that prove and how is that relevant to 4e? It's not. The idea for the challenge framework was, presumably, thought up by the designers while working on 4e and implemented into that game. It could have developed in 3e, come out in some supplement (maybe it did). That's irrelevant to the value of the system. It doesn't represent anything new and groundbreaking. What it does is provide a framework for designing skill based, xp granting encounters in a system in which skills play a more dynamic role, and aren't limited to one type of character in a typical party. The systems design fits very well with the overall design concept of "no more wallflowers". That applies to the 1st level wizard who has cast his two spells and to the fighter when faced with the "talky parts" of an adventure. Its not meant to be used when the party is standing in a empty hallway facing only a locked door. That's still just a skill check. But it can be used to create dynamic encounters focused on skill/ability use rather than just "okay, diplomacy DC 25." Good DMs were already running interesting situations where skills and RP intermingled to create a fluid scene. This is just a framework to further integrate such encounters mechanically within the system. [/QUOTE]

Verification