Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5429151" data-attributes="member: 61155">Except... isn't that essentially saying that any prep the DM does, either in the form of mechanical or narrative challenges, is a problem? I just find that silly. Let's take skill challenges out of it entirely. Is it really a problem if the DM decides, before the session, that if the PCs want the magic sword, they need to get it from the castle vault - either via violence, stealth, or smooth talking? You really are suggesting it is better that the DM make no decisions at all before the session, and when the PCs say, "We want a magic sword", he has to make everything up on the fly? If you aren't saying that... then why are skill challenges an issue compared to everything else? They are just a new way to represent the same challenges we've always had. Does the fact that getting the sword now consists of either a combat or a skill challenge really make the game less organic?  The "sandbox" nature is driven by what choices the players have. Skill Challenges don't affect that, provided they are prepared or used in the same way as anything else - as an option the PCs have to resolve different scenarios. The PCs need to get past the goblin camp. Do they fight them? (Combat) Do they sneak past? (Skill challenge) Do they simply go somewhere else? (Change of situation) Do they go recruit allies from other tribes? (Skill challenge) Do they challenge the goblin leader to single combat? (Combat) The fact that some of those options include combat or skill challenges doesn't say anything about how restrictive the overall scenario is. The DM can set up several predetermined skill challenges for an obstacle, or a single one designed to be flexible. Or can make up new ones on the fly - honestly, I've seen skill challenges used exceptionally well in sandbox games by giving the DM a potentially easy way to resolve unexpected complications.   I mean, I can't say how it is in every game. But I've certainly had plenty where a skill challenge has been one way of resolving an encounter, and thus its existence has indeed been determined by player choices. I've even seen the same thing in LFR mods and WotC adventures. I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact advice in the DMGs themselves.  That's really my curiousity here - you make commentary on 4E structuring itself in a certain way. Do you have any actual quotes from the rulebooks that you feel are encouraging this style of play?   Again, this seems in absolute conflict with the rulebooks, which most definitely encourage long-term campaigns and present options, advice and encouragement for non-combat experiences. We've even got rules for moving to an entirely non-combat game and guidelines on handing out XP for PCs resolving things solely through roleplaying! And you know what? I've seen players for whom 4E has been their first experience with the game. And they've dived into the RP just as much as any, in the way all new players do - tending not to know any better, and just sorta expecting the game to keep up with their imagination.  Can 4E be played as a "combat strategy game with summarized 'filler' inbetween the encounters"? Sure, I suppose so. But I don't think it is the default of the game, I don't think it is the way most people play it, and I don't think it is encouraged by anything in the rules themselves.</blockquote>

Verification