Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5033097" data-attributes="member: 80487">They implement the game balance of 4e; they overturn the game balance of 1e (and pretty much every other RPG of my experience). The issue at hand is not how much you happen to like the mechanism. The issue at hand is whether AD&amp;D1 was designed for game balance. I think the &quot;skill challenge&quot; sub-game illustrates design for different balance -- not at all &quot;the same exact thing&quot;.The &quot;imbalance corrected&quot; here in 4e is the variation in ability among players. The influence of skill that seems not just permitted but encouraged in the combat game is clearly not desired elsewhere.AD&amp;D1 was designed to give player skill scope in actual strategic and tactical decisions of combat (while not imposing time-consuming minutia) -- and in other undertakings.It is in my experience not greatly different when playing Traveller or RuneQuest, or some other game in which characters have &quot;skill ratings&quot;....but they need not. A &quot;skill system&quot; is not a big difference (indeed, is so little that I am delighted to do without one in a game designed without one).So, the DM in 4e does not set the factors for a skill challenge? The DMG reads, &quot;set the complexity based on how significant you want the challenge to be. ... Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved.&quot;Again, it's not a matter of &quot;skills&quot;. Come on -- you tell me how the DM setting the difficulty is any different from calling for &quot;skill checks&quot; or other rolls without the 4e formalism. All your +5 in Balderdash says is that you're a better choice to roll than some other player. The DM dictates where your chance falls between 0% and 100% (probably pretty shakily, with the &quot;x successes before y failures&quot; rule).The big difference is that this abstraction has taken priority -- if not over completely, to the point that it does not matter what your supposed &quot;plan&quot; is. All that matters is the raw numbers.It is obviously at its worst with a pre-designed formula (as in a published scenario). Could a DM instead first look at a plan during play and then come up with a skill challenge that roughly maps to it? Sure, but why impose the arbitrary scheme in the first place? Why force the sound and the silly into the same probabilistic mold?The answer is that &quot;all that matters is the raw numbers&quot; is the purpose. Give the players enough options to pick the best numbers, and -- in combination with the &quot;character build&quot; system -- you should end up with about the same most of the time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5033097, member: 80487"] They implement the game balance of 4e; they overturn the game balance of 1e (and pretty much every other RPG of my experience). The issue at hand is not how much you happen to like the mechanism. The issue at hand is whether AD&D1 was designed for game balance. I think the "skill challenge" sub-game illustrates design for [b]different[/b] balance -- not at all "the same exact thing". The "imbalance corrected" here in 4e is the variation in ability among players. The influence of skill that seems not just permitted but encouraged in the combat game is clearly not desired elsewhere. AD&D1 was designed to give player skill scope in actual strategic and tactical decisions of combat (while not imposing time-consuming minutia) -- [b]and[/b] in other undertakings. It is in my experience not greatly different when playing Traveller or RuneQuest, or some other game in which characters have "skill ratings". ...but they need not. A "skill system" is not a big difference (indeed, is so little that I am delighted to do without one in a game designed without one). So, the DM in 4e does not set the factors for a skill challenge? The DMG reads, "set the complexity based on how significant you want the challenge to be. ... Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved." Again, it's not a matter of "skills". Come on -- [i]you[/i] tell [i]me[/i] how the DM setting the difficulty is any different from calling for "skill checks" or other rolls without the 4e formalism. All your +5 in Balderdash says is that you're a better choice to roll than some other player. The DM dictates where your chance falls between 0% and 100% (probably pretty shakily, with the "x successes before y failures" rule). The big difference is that this abstraction has taken priority -- if not over completely, to the point that [i]it does not matter[/i] what your supposed "plan" is. All that matters is the raw numbers. It is obviously at its worst with a pre-designed formula (as in a published scenario). Could a DM instead first look at a plan during play and then come up with a skill challenge that roughly maps to it? Sure, but why impose the arbitrary scheme in the first place? Why force the sound and the silly into the same probabilistic mold? The answer is that "all that matters is the raw numbers" is the purpose. Give the players enough options to pick the best numbers, and -- in combination with the "character build" system -- you should end up with about the same most of the time. [/QUOTE]

Verification