NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5714409" data-attributes="member: 54710">I'm a little confused by your response.  In my scenario the PCs were always the ones rolling the checks.  The purpose of the counter-argument is that it continues the persuasion in a way that is unfavorable to the PCs.  The NPC can direct it to a particular character (usually not the one with the best score) and, because it covers a particular topic, it limits the evidence / touch points that the PCs can bring to bear.  I also find that it makes the SC more exciting (because the PCs want to win before the next counter-argument) and creates a nice ebb-and-flow to the conversation.  "I see you point.  What about...?"Well, I suppose it's normal for good skill challenges, but most of the published skill challenges include nothing but a list of skills and the plausible reasons PCs might use to bring them to bear.  It is quite unusual for a published skill challenge to allow for the players to think about the actual in-game situation as something can be solved on its own terms.  Typically, the in-game situation is nothing more than a context that players use to provide excuses for using their best skills.I agree that the non-combat mini-games (as it were) should be mechanically light and use the same underlying constructs.  As an initial starting point, I think of each of them as being "a skill challenge, but with a twist".  For example, PirateCat's chase mechanic involves the characters keeping a running total of their successes to represent the distance between the characters.  In other words, if I'm at 105 and I get a 22 on my check, I advance to 127.  If that equals the target's distance, I catch up.  If the target opens up a sufficient distance, he gets away.For another example, Mike Mearls provided a framework for the alert status of the Hill Giant Holdfast.  An infiltration game (and many dungeons are appropriate for an infiltration game), consists of doing things that might affect the alert status mechanic.  Either one or two stealthy PCs are trying to sneak in and out before the alarm goes off, or the PCs as a whole are trying to make progress in the dungeon before the residents rally to its defense.Ideally, these structures should feel something like the in-game challenge and reflect the type of tension that is appropriate for that type of scenario.  Also, a set of standard mechanics allows GMs to focus on what makes this particular persuasion, chase or infiltration different rather than how to design that type of scenario from whole cloth.Of course, the game also needs a free-form skill challenge mechanic.  (Creating mechanics for every possible scenario is, indeed, a fool's errand.)  However, I would guess that at least three out of four non-combat encounters fall into 5-10 common types.  Let's have some simple standard mechanics for those.I mean, most versions of D&D have rules for weather and overland travel speed.  Why aren't there rules for forging past natural obstacles?  It's a staple of the genre, but any DM who wants to have his PCs brave Caradhras needs to create a fresh set of mechanics from scratch.-KS</blockquote>

Verification