Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5036022" data-attributes="member: 4892">I think you are looking at this wrong. The Perception check made in the context of a skill challenge isn't a matter of what the character perceives right at that moment, but instead a measure of how perceptive the character is during the execution of the party's plan.This is why I suggest not letting the players realize they are in a skill challenge. Players look for ways to use things to their best advantage and have their characters act in unnatural ways sometimes. Unless you're going to take control of their character you have to let them do stupid things and mock the silliness in-game.It was mentioned that there are different approaches to this. Plotting out exact movements of the bandits and then plotting out the exact route the PCs take would not require a skill challenge. That challenge is more tactical. The skill challenge instead presents a more abstract resolution. I prefer the abstract only because I do not wish to spend too much time detailing the land between Greyhawn City and Ruins.Or it is abstract. How many 1E DMs with a random bandit encounter chart like the one in the module knew where the bandits were? You didn't even know how many there were and of what kind or whether they would even show up (1 in 6 chance). This was an abstraction back then and the skill challenge changes it into a different kind of abstraction now.Well luckily the example was based on random encounters, not a set one.No. That is not a strength of the system. The strength is in the framwork it provides the DM to fairly and consistently adjudicate non-combat encounters. It is not an exercise in trying to find a use for your key skill in every circumstance.I'm not familiar with 3E complex skill checks. But no one has been arguing skill challenge vs. complex skill checks, so why would you even bring it up?</blockquote>

Verification