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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5159139" data-attributes="member: 42582">LostSoul, you're probably right about that.It seems to me that the GM has to have some general conception of where the skill challenge is headed, or else it becomes too hard to set a complexity. In particular, you can't easily increase the complexity on the fly, because that penalises the players for not adopting a strategy that is well-suited to a more complex challenge - such as more liberal use of aiding another. Although maybe you could handle this by allowing secondary checks to eliminate failures - as it becomes obvious that the players are more invested in pushing through a more complex situation, the PCs in the gameworld make the effort to change the existing ingame situation to one more favourable to their purposes. (Reducing complexity - ie when the players are happy with the situation they have arrived at from a smaller number of successes - seems fine, and I've done that in play without any trouble - it just reduces the XP award.)But to get the most out of the mechanic there has to be scope for the players to shape the action and the direction that the skill challenge takes - otherwise (it seems to me) you're not really getting the benefits of an extended conflict resolution mechanic.I think I said somewhere upthread that the relationship between level and complexity as the two dimensions of mechanical difficulty is something that the rules really need to explain in more detail - thinking about your point has made me get a clearer sense of one reason why this is so. So far it hasn't caused me huge problems, but you're making me wonder if it will in the future.Have you had any experience with increasing the complexity of a skill challenge on the fly?</blockquote>

Verification