Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4193753" data-attributes="member: 4937">Really?&nbsp; Because later on in this post you expect it to be something else very novel and new.&nbsp; Read closely.&nbsp; What I said is incompatible with what you said later in the post I'm quoting.Huh?&nbsp; Among other things, I don't know how many times I've discused the nuances of 'I make a search check' vs. 'I search behind the painting' or the advantages and disadvantages of abstracting several detailed die rolls into a single stunt to encourage more cinematic heroics.&nbsp; Granted, since I was comparing 1e to 3e I was most often focusing on what was different in the task resolution between the two, but I know there have been lots of discussions on similar themes before.&nbsp; Either that or I was just imagining making people upset and angry.&nbsp;But my point is that this isn't how most people are playing when they post examples of introducing skill challenges into thier games.&nbsp; The OPs examples look nothing like that.&nbsp; In those examples the door was unlocked because he made a skill check to unlock it.&nbsp; The trap was disarmed because he made a skill check to disarm it.&nbsp; In 90% of the examples of incorporating skill challenges into the game I've seen, they haven't been this sort of novel game play (and I agree it is new to D&amp;D) that you describe.&nbsp; Instead, they look more like simulationist gaming than not, and I'm arguing that that is actually better for most peoples games than this novel subsystem you are a proponent of.&nbsp; In other words, by getting it 'wrong' they are in my opinion getting it right.&nbsp; In other words, by getting it 'wrong' - by not playing in what you are saying is the 4e style - they are nonetheless having a rich interactive experience using what is basically 3e (and earlier style) task resolution.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that's great IMO.&nbsp; What I don't want to see is the IMO narrowly applicable and for most tables jarring 'skill challenge' as you describe it get in the way of what I see as a reinnaisance in interesting simulationist encounter design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4193753, member: 4937"] Really? Because later on in this post you expect it to be something else very novel and new. Read closely. What I said is incompatible with what you said later in the post I'm quoting. Huh? Among other things, I don't know how many times I've discused the nuances of 'I make a search check' vs. 'I search behind the painting' or the advantages and disadvantages of abstracting several detailed die rolls into a single stunt to encourage more cinematic heroics. Granted, since I was comparing 1e to 3e I was most often focusing on what was different in the task resolution between the two, but I know there have been lots of discussions on similar themes before. Either that or I was just imagining making people upset and angry. But my point is that this isn't how most people are playing when they post examples of introducing skill challenges into thier games. The OPs examples look nothing like that. In those examples the door was unlocked because he made a skill check to unlock it. The trap was disarmed because he made a skill check to disarm it. In 90% of the examples of incorporating skill challenges into the game I've seen, they haven't been this sort of novel game play (and I agree it is new to D&D) that you describe. Instead, they look more like simulationist gaming than not, and I'm arguing that [i]that is actually better for most peoples games than this novel subsystem you are a proponent of[/i]. In other words, by getting it 'wrong' they are in my opinion getting it right. In other words, by getting it 'wrong' - by not playing in what you are saying is the 4e style - they are nonetheless having a rich interactive experience using what is basically 3e (and earlier style) task resolution. And that's great IMO. What I don't want to see is the IMO narrowly applicable and for most tables jarring 'skill challenge' as you describe it get in the way of what I see as a reinnaisance in interesting [i]simulationist[/i] encounter design. [/QUOTE]

Verification