Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5967031" data-attributes="member: 87792">SOME GMs did not treat it as optional.  I'm not even trying to defend the presentation of skill challenges and it did leave many DMs with a mistaken impression.  But does people trying to hammer with a screwdriver mean that the screwdriver should be withdrawn, or that you should provide better guidance for the screwdriver?Coming into DMing cold I worked out what skill challenges were for despite only having seen bad ones.As for a skill challenge to find a secret door, wtf?  That's a simple pass/fail action and should be handled in a skill check.  The stated purpose of 5e is to unite the editions.  It is explicitely to be able to emulate the experience of playing any edition of D&D.  You can do that trivially by marking skill challenges as optional - it will not get in anyone's way.  You can't by not including them.  And if you disagree with WotC's goal, take it up with them.You, however, seem to want a different goal from the stated one.  You seem to want "The revenge edition".  One where you can emulate any edition except the current one.  Except the people currently giving WotC money.  If Wizards' sales team is genuinely that stupid then it will make the marketing of early 4e look like an absolute work of genius.  Who are they going after by this strategy?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">4e players?  They are, according to you, busy trying to ditch that market - simultaneously saying that they want all D&D players to be able to play their favoured game and then to ignore almost their entire customer base.  Great marketing strategy there!</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Pathfinder players?  Good luck!  WotC aren't as good as Paizo at what Paizo does best, and Paizo has the brand loyalty right now.  Ditching your own market in an attempt to take someone else's.  Real smart move there.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">3.5 or even 3.0 holdouts who haven't switched to Pathfinder?  Who haven't had a new official release in over four years?  And who've knocked most of the bugs out of 3.X through implicit or explicit house rules?  It's a small audience and they need some motivation to upgrade.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">AD&D/OD&D players?  Who haven't had a new official release out for a dozen years.  That's gonna work even better than going after 3.X players.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Retroclone players?  Yeaaaahhhh.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Indy RPGers?  *snicker*</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">New players?  Who won't care about any of this?  But are going to have 4e fans running down the new game, Pathfinder fans running down WotC, and old school players running old school games.</li> </ul>4e players want to be able to play 4e in D&D next because that is what we have been promised.  We don't want to prevent other players playing their games as well because that was part of the promise too.  But you seem to want WotC to renege on their promise to the only people with any remaining brand loyalty.And to be honest I'd prefer a design goal for what you are supposed to be able to play with D&D Next.  If I wanted a retroclone I'd use OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, DCC, or Hackmaster.  All with clear things they are good at.</blockquote>

Verification