[X] My Assistant

[FrankTrollman]

So Mearls responds to skill challenge criticisms:

Q: There’s a big thread on ENWorld about the math behind skill challenges. There’s been experience that shows that they work, but the math to prove that they are broken seems solid.

A: Skill challenges are interesting, since they are not reflected in the written rules as they were intended. They started as more “combat� with intiative, etc., but eventually moved them to be more freeform. They were intended as more of a framework, not strictly mechanical. When planning a non-combat encounter, try to come up with options, different ways to play out while not stopping the game. (i.e. don’t build in a roadblock if they don’t succeed at the skill challenge.)

Translation: we fucked up completely, and we refuse to admit it or errata our mistakes. Go figure something out for now, and we'll have some expanded rules for you to buy in the DMG 2 that may or may not work.

-Frank

[Fuchs]

Is that in American dollars, Kroner(?), or Euro's? I don't know the exchange rates, since I don't travel to Europe much anymore.

It is in dollars since I am comparing it to the quoted dollar price.

[Malicant]

So Mearls responds to skill challenge criticisms:

Translation: we fucked up completely, and we refuse to admit it or errata our mistakes. Go figure something out for now, and we'll have some expanded rules for you to buy in the DMG 2 that may or may not work.

-Frank

Did you ever use a skill challenge in actual gameplay? We did, it worked ok and was IMO more fun then one guy doing all the work with a simple skill check. Not the holy grail of non-combat conflict resolution, but not as bad as some people claim it to be.

[Grinder]

But, but, but the math is broken! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Malicant]

Because everyone who went to school knows that math equals fun and you cannot have fun without math.

Hm... I actually had fun doing math...

[Caine Hazen]

Hm... I actually had fun doing math...

You then, are a mutant (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

But yeah, as noted, math is not the be all and end all of gaming, they'll get over it.

[Cthulhudreams]

This arguement always bugs me. My group played syndicate for a while, which was a free RPG on the internet, and I'm pretty sure its still out there. It had the most simple resolution system in the universe (roll a d6, GM makes up outcome). We had fun. However lets just say that the price was right.

I have no doubt that a good GM and significant house ruling can make skill challenges fun, but I'm not paying money for a good GM. I'm paying for solid rules, which I'm not getting.

[FrankTrollman]

Our original intention was to make a system where the players would do things in non-combat situations. As it turns out we completely failed at that and produced a system in which players fail to do things in non-combat situations with great regularity. Our suggestion is to move the goal posts and run a campaign in which failure is expected and rewarded so that the game doesn't collapse when people run afoul of the fact that we can't predict the results of rolling a die five times.

-Frank

[Kyoto Kid]

I should note that D&D4 isn't any expensive tahn any other edition of AD&D or D&D3.0. The game has always had 3 "Core Books", each priced the same as what an equivelant "core rulebook" for any other game would run.

3.0 Came out initially at $20 each, whichw as a little cheaper than the average book ran then (Most were $25-30), but that only lasted through the first print run, and bumped to $30 with th second and subsequant print runs. 3.5 was likewise $30 per book.

$35 is actually a pretty good price per book for 4e, considering the size of the books, the quality, the full color and high quality paper, etc.

<shrug> Whether it's worth it or not is up to individual tastes, of course. But with everyone having some sticker shock here, I felt it necessary to note that this is not significantly more expensive than 3.5 was. At least this time it's all new material, and not just 95% recycled material that they just sold you a few years prior to that.

Bull

...however, with the old Open Source policy I was able to obtain the core 3.0 --> 3.5 updates as RTF file DLs. Yeah, no pretty pictures or bookmarks/indexing, but all the important stuff was there.

Now OS is no more.

[Halabis]

Licensee recognizes Wizards’ rights and interests in and to all Wizards Intellectual Property and that all rights therein... For the avoidance of doubt, Wizards Intellectual Property includes all content contained within the Core Rulebooks and all Licensed Materials

Does this part say that Wizards now owns whatever you publish and it becomes thier IP?

[DireRadiant]

Sure looks like it.

[Eugene]

Did you ever use a skill challenge in actual gameplay? We did, it worked ok and was IMO more fun then one guy doing all the work with a simple skill check. Not the holy grail of non-combat conflict resolution, but not as bad as some people claim it to be.

We did and it wasn't a lot of fun. Since you need twice as many successes as failures, it can be pretty depressing when you've got 2 out of 3 failures but only 1 out of 6 successes, and you're going to have to make 5 rolls in a row or fail the skill challenge.

[Malicant]

There might actually be a reason why it was called skill challenge. Just saying. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[deek]

Yeah, you can spin it either way, really.

I mean, seeing a skill challenge gains you experience if you succeed, some might think the 11% (or so) chance to succeed on a 1st level moderate challenge where everyone has optimized skills is satisfactory. Others feel that probability needs to be a lot higher, which I would agree with, as you should expect to have a lot better chance to succeed at first level.

Now, I don't think the 11% success rate is static as you gain levels...I think it does become easier at higher level and higher complexity, but its still a pretty bad chance to succeed. Even internal folks have stated they "tweak" the rules to let a natural 20 get an automatic success or two as well very liberally hand out +2 bonuses to good, creative skill use.

And I'm going to break down and say it yet again...the end result of a failed challenge (which players are much more likely to see than successful challenges) are not equal to dying in combat. A failed challenge sets up an added obstacle to the party's success. Such as only getting a 4 guard escort instead of 20 of the lord's best men. Or, perhaps instead of getting that magic sword immediately, you have to prove yourself to the king first, then you will be awarded it. I mean, its still a double-whammy, as you don't gain the experience and you get an added obstacle to boot, but failure, shouldn't normally mean death.

I view it more like getting captured during combat. You failed the encounter, but you are not dead. You now have to escape from imprisonment on top of completing you quest goals...

That's obviously a pretty big spin on the existing probabilities, but if your DM is aware of the issue and carefully plans accordingly, they can still be fun...

[Malicant]

You still get xp for overcoming the obstacle, though. If the obstacle is not a simple penalty, of course.

[Eugene]

I view it more like getting captured during combat. You failed the encounter, but you are not dead. You now have to escape from imprisonment on top of completing you quest goals...

Hah! If that were true, PCs would spend most of their time captured. Not a lot of fun, there; the argument's the same with the skill challenge.

[Adam]

Does this part say that Wizards now owns whatever you publish and it becomes thier IP?

No.

[Wounded Ronin]

Hah! If that were true, PCs would spend most of their time captured. Not a lot of fun, there; the argument's the same with the skill challenge.

Nonsense, having the PCs captured all the time is the making of a classic story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai

[hyzmarca]

You don't need skill challenges. Any possible use of skill by the party can be avoided with practical application of violence.

For example, if a group of Paladins have learned that the Evil Kingdom of Unspeakable Evil is about to invade the Lawful Good Kingdom of Sugary Sweet Lawful Goodness and wishes to warn the Lawfully Good Lawful Good King the 4e conversation should go something like this.

Paladin: "Listen, The Evil King of the Evil Kingdom of Unspeakable Evilness is preparing his Unspeakably Evil Army of Evilness to invade your Lawful Good Lawful Good Kingdom of Sugary Sweet Lawful Goodness and you're not ready for it. You need to prepare your defenses and raise your army immediately. There is still time to put up a defense but you must act quickly. Of course, we have no proof of this other than the fact that we are Lawful Good Paladins and we could be lying through our teeth so you would be right to be skeptical and we understand that you will be reluctant to believe this unlikely tale. Under normal circumstances, we, the Paladins of Holy Lawful Goodness, Peaceful Cooperation, and Super Evil Smiting would use our diplomacy skills to convince you, wise and noble Lawfully Good Lawful Good King of the Lawful Good Kingdom of Sugary Sweet Lawful Goodness that we are telling the truth about this grave threat to your kingdom and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, we know that that won't work in this edition so instead we are going to simply kill you right here and right now, kill your heirs, take your throne, kill anyone who complains that the kingship can't Lawfully be transfered that way, and then pray to our Lawful Good God of Lawful Goodness for forgiveness, Hopefully we'll have all of the slaughtering finished in time to begin training the troops that we'll conscript from your kingdom by this afternoon." *splits the King's head open with a swift sword blow*


Edit: I just noticed that in 4e Paladins no longer have to follow any sort of code and can do whatever the hell they want without any sort of consequences.

[Cantankerous]

Technically you don't NEED any part of the game engine...but certainly, it's back to early AD&D days for those who don't want the brokeness...they have little choice at this point but to delete them entirely from the game. Just like first edition, there will be no skills....except, you know, that'll imbalance certain races and classes and even monsters who are based partly around the idea of being strong at skills, but hey... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Isshia

[deek]

Hah! If that were true, PCs would spend most of their time captured. Not a lot of fun, there; the argument's the same with the skill challenge.

My point is, a "falied" encounter, either skill or combat, normally does not end the night of adventuring. The majority of the arguments with the "math is broken" banner assume that a failed skill challenge equates to everyone packing up their books for the night and coming back to the table with new characters next session. At least that is the perception I am getting...

So far, I've played a total of 10 hours of 4th Edition...we've have 4 combat encounters and no skill challenges.

I still view a skill challenge in a different light than most...for example, I tried to get my DM to set one up in our first session when I tried to get discounted rooms for the party. The way I saw it, I was willing to take my 11% (or so) chance to get a discount and if I failed, I got to pay regular price... Now I'm not saying all challenges would be this way, as I suppose a failure to some DMs would be not getting a room at all, but again, we are not talking about extreme consequences for failure here.

[deek]

Technically you don't NEED any part of the game engine...but certainly, it's back to early AD&D days for those who don't want the brokeness...they have little choice at this point but to delete them entirely from the game. Just like first edition, there will be no skills....except, you know, that'll imbalance certain races and classes and even monsters who are based partly around the idea of being strong at skills, but hey... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Isshia

I still don't understand why you would think no skill challenges equal no skills...

In the two sessions I have played, thus far, we've used a ton of skills, in and out of combat, yet haven't got into a skill challenge yet. Each of the skills have quite a bit of use... So I don't think you can blanket delete skills from the game if you decide to throw out the challenges.

[Wounded Ronin]

I still view a skill challenge in a different light than most...for example, I tried to get my DM to set one up in our first session when I tried to get discounted rooms for the party. The way I saw it, I was willing to take my 11% (or so) chance to get a discount and if I failed, I got to pay regular price... Now I'm not saying all challenges would be this way, as I suppose a failure to some DMs would be not getting a room at all, but again, we are not talking about extreme consequences for failure here.

I'd just say this. When we say "a challenging test of skill for D&D characters", are we more likely to think of 1.) haggling for a 10% discount for a large group at a small countryside inn, or 2.) walking across a chasm of doom on a tightrope, where if you fall off the tightrope we roll a percentile die where you have a 99% chance of being forever destroyed or a 1% chance of surviving with 1d4 hitpoints remaining?

[Bull]

I'd just say this. When we say "a challenging test of skill for D&D characters", are we more likely to think of 1.) haggling for a 10% discount for a large group at a small countryside inn, or 2.) walking across a chasm of doom on a tightrope, where if you fall off the tightrope we roll a percentile die where you have a 99% chance of being forever destroyed or a 1% chance of surviving with 1d4 hitpoints remaining?

Hrmm, honestly? I've haggled far more than I ever had to make tightrope walking tests in any edition of D&D (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Really, I think the skill challenge issue is moot anyways. As I've said elsewhere, simply tweak the numbers a little to give the PCs more of a fighting chance if you want. Require fewer successes, a lower DC, whatever. Yes it sucks that it made it into the final rules, but Wizards has said this was a mistake, it's gonna get errata'd (May already have been, I never bothered to look). I mean, I know, an RPG book that needs errata? It's nearly unheard of! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[deek]

When you say "a challenging test", well, yeah, is option 2. But, when you just say "a skill challenge", then I think both are valid options. Its anything outside of combat that you want to put together a set of skill tests to perform. Granted, sometimes the DM will say screw it, and give you a single roll, and that is fine too.

I think you shouldn't forget an option 3, which is something like:

3) Tracking a lone thief from your base camp, in the middle of the night, deep in the forest, where you have a "chance" to locate and confront him before he makes it back to the guild's cave hideout or a really good chance to only see him entering said cave hideout and decide what to do from there.

I'd almost say that your tightrope test is more of a set of individual tests than a skill challenge. I guess that's the conundrum...you can view any non-combat encounter as being individual only or a group effort. And that effort could be crossing a chasm, getting an item from the duke, getting a discount at the local inn, or trekking days in the woods tracking down a thief.

I would recommend thinking twice (or three or four more times) if the result of a failed skill challenge was being forever destroyed. Even if my chance of avoiding that was greater than 50%, I don't think I'd want to put my party in such peril with nothing but the dice determining the outcome.

Granted, as a DM/GM, I'm not the cold, cruel type that let's only the dice decide the outcome. I've rarely killed any player because of dice alone. I mean, even assuming the math worked in a skill challenge, meaning a better than 50% chance of success (some feel that 65% or better is more fair), I wouldn't want to set up these encounters to have fail = death. Now, I have played in campaigns where I have had to create 3 characters within the same dungeon, as the DM was strict and let the dice do the talking. But, it was just a dungeon crawl and after we finished, I didn't want to go back and play again with the same DM. I just didn't have as much fun...