Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5066042" data-attributes="member: 82106"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/fanaelialae.html" target="_blank">@Fanaelialae</a> precisely, and well explained. The SC system is just a set of mechanics and guidelines for keeping a tally of the progress of the PCs through certain types of situations where success or failure is a useful thing to gauge and the party can be engaged in a conflict.KD, try doing it that way. If you read the rules in the DMG with the errata applied there actually is no mention of 'turns' in an SC at all. Yes, you want to engage all the players and its much better to not let things devolve down to one guy rolling his top skill over and over, but that is a lot more an issue of SC design than anything else. An SC simply shouldn't allow for that kind of easy solution unless that happens to be the way you want a particular challenge to play out.Ideally from the player's perspective an SC should be just roleplay. There really isn't a need to make it seem special or different from your 'classical' vision of an RP sequence. I agree that the DMG section on SCs didn't do a particularly good job of explaining that and the DMG2 DOES help a good bit. I think even DMG2 misses in some respects though. Reading through all of Mike Mearls' columns on running SCs is more informative. Obviously the people over at WotC have spent a lot of time running them and they're getting pretty good at it. So am I for that matter.Again, its not the SC system that is the problem in general. It CAN rope you into a poor way of thinking about a particular situation and that's not good, but if you're flexible in the way you approach SC they do work. It can be hard to learn how to do it well, a lot harder than running combat, but the system isn't a bad or broken system, its just a pretty tricky DMing skill to learn regardless of the specific mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification