Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6284830" data-attributes="member: 23935">That doesn't negate the Pyrrhic victory option though, does it?  The price the PCs pay could be deemed "too high" for the results obtained.  If the goal is getting to the hut, the PCs could achieve that whilst at the same losing something not mentioned in the premise -- such as the extra time taken by navigation means the crown prince is beyond salvation, an item more important to strategic success has been lost, or the failures raise the enmity level of the swamp denizens so much the medicine man will not truck with the party.Ablation works in some specific challenges, such as escaping a burning building, but less so in others such as "Find the Island" -- there the only ablation is time wasted.  The micro-failures affecting the effectiveness of the group inside the challenge is problematic as it will tend to lead to a failure spiral.  The probabilities of the markov chains are murky enough without damaging the success chance of any individual or all subsequent checks.  It can also lead to the Pyrrhic of Cadmean victories described above.  "We made it to the hut, but we were so weakened that we died before the medicine man returned."And that is where I feel some guidance is necessary.  What level of stake is appropriate for a single failure level?  What is the base expectation for number of failures in the challenge?  If the odds say the party will succeed, but a typical party will suffer two failures then applying a substantial penalty at the first failure is uncalled for.  Additionally, forcing a PC into a sub-optimal check runs the risk of starting a failure spiral or at least being identified as the point the challenge was lost.  I also tend not to use Daily and Encounter powers as the metagame resources  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]does which limits their purpose in a challenge for me.  It is unlikely, for example, that Twist of Space could be used to penetrate a planar boundary and retrieve a trapped character.  It may be a neat twist, but that's not what the power does to my mind.I recognise how failures can be used (though again my game style limits the type of failure from some that have appeared on the forums over time), what is unclear is the level of severity the players should expect from failure counts.  This should of course be tied to the challenge, but appropriate determination depends on at what point the overall success becomes moot ("You saved the king!  Unfortunately, your failures led to no one detecting the poison put into his wine.  He died overnight" ) and when the party feels punished because there was no chance of getting through without at least one failure (you saved the king, but because Bob slipped up, you are under house arrest until he recovers sufficiently to clear you.")Absolutely, and I've adopted a few systems over the years for use in whatever game I'm running.  Skill Challenges are a less perfect tool for me than others I've found.  Recall I entered the thread at this point: I suspect most GMs I see on the forums are not using "make an arbitrary number of undefined rolls and spell uses until the GM's reluctance - itself based on how much they were amused and impressed by your "plan" - is overcome" as the mechanism of choice.</blockquote>

Verification