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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6243325" data-attributes="member: 48965">Personally, my first reaction is that I don't like it, and I don't think the majority of D&D players would like it.  First it feels counter-intuitive...Yay, I failed the check but I'm rewarded!!  While my buddy who was able to navigate us through the fetid swamps of Mur gets... nothing... wait huh?? Second it seems like it might lead to the exact inverse of the problem with 4e SC's... now competent big damn heroes are looking for ways to fail, and I as DM (at least in so far as the philosophy of the game has been advocated by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], you and a few others on the board) have to continue to make them look competent and cool... even though they are purposefully drawing on their worst skills, attributes, powers, feats, or whatever.  This also segues into my next thought... the system can still be gamed with this change and in doing so the fiction can take a more ridiculous or even slapstick feel if one or more players really want to get XP. Third isn't this (abstractly) already a part of 4e since you go up in skills you never use or succeed at using every level...Finally I think it causes dissonance unless were going to make combat work the same way... why am I rewarded for winning in combat but punished (because yes getting no XP is a punishment) for "winning" a skill challenge??First let me say I disagree with your premise... Only one of the suggestions you presented has to result in failure... you could try something new and it result in success...  Just like I also think you become more experienced at (certain) things through repetition and familiarity so yes you can become better (more experienced through succeeding). Third, failure also has the chance to teach you absolutely nothing about the task you're doing... so why does it always result in XP?  Finally, does this logic also apply to combat?  If we go with your logic in the above post shouldn't I get XP for only loosing at combat as well, don't the same principles apply?On a side note... Elric/Stormbringer (Chaosium version) had a really good rule that simulated this better... when you used a skill in an adventure you put a check mark next to it and at the end of the game you rolled to see if it improved regardless of whether you failed or succeeded... the roll was based on your current skill, and the higher it was the less chance you had of an increase but you could still increase it, and it didn;t depend on you failing for a chance to improve.IMO this is not true, it can be a rewarding of the choices made in character build... since I get rewarded for failing anyway, why not really dump a few stats and make whatever stat I use for combat "uber"!! (though honestly I saw shades of this in regular 4e as it was).  It could be rewarding a bad choice in skill use, power use, feat use.  It could be rewarding a bad strategy that had a low chance to succeed, and so on.  So no I don't agree it's just a die roll.</blockquote>

Verification