Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6243819" data-attributes="member: 2067"> <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester_cropped2.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />I imagine that lots of DMs and clever Internet People and article writers and new books have solved this problem in a more rigorous way for their own purposes by declaring something "not quite worth an actual success" since 2008. But one of these two things must be true:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> The Skill Challenge mechanic allows any character to contribute to any challenge thanks to empowering the DM to use any skill to count as a success if the player makes a good case. This risks making characters fairly homogenous, but always gives any character something they can do.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> The Skill Challenge mechanic rewards characters who are skilled in a certain area by enabling them to contribute more to the success of a given challenge. This risks having characters endure sucking for long periods of real-world time, but keeps the distinction between character strengths and weaknesses as something valuable. </li> </ol>Those things might be both be true of skill challenges under different DMs who have looked at different articles at different times since 2008, but they are mutually exclusive within one given skill challenge. Either (1)  is the case, or (2) is. IMXP with 4e, because it's generally more fun to be a tough badass who endures draconic heat than it is to describe that and have it do nothing, (1) is often the case. And with other posters, I've been arguing that the downside of (2) can be mitigated by a design approach in which firstly, encounter contribution is not binary, and secondarily, encounter length is generally on the order of 5-10 minutes of play time. To which the general response I've been hearing is "just don't play with people who want to play other kinds of fantasy heroes than you want, and everyone's gonna love (1). That homogeneity is a strength, because it makes sure everyone gets to be heroic and no one has to suck." Which strikes me as odd because no D&D group I've ever played with has ever met that criteria, and the posters espousing it seem to be under the impression that this is a prerequisite for harmonious gameplay. I'm used to players who model their PC's on characters with clear strengths and clear weaknesses, who get as much fun from struggling with their weaknesses as exploring their strengths, who don't mind if someone else takes the lead in an encounter they think their character shouldn't contribute that much to (as long as they don't have to sit out too long).</blockquote>

Verification