tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3118843014869456316.post3327448773177318231..comments2023-10-15T09:52:17.875+02:00Comments on Awesome Gaming Inc.: Using D&D 4e Skill Challenges in Solo EncountersJoheniushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16472868333952744287noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3118843014869456316.post-54725502330205397102009-07-16T07:12:56.354+02:002009-07-16T07:12:56.354+02:00@Thomas - I read through what you said: Yes! What ...@Thomas - I read through what you said: Yes! What a great idea, templatizing skill-checks on monsters!<br />My idea was initially to just allow skill-checks, but it introduces problems when players become familiar with the mechanics. By putting in "invisible" skill challenges, players are left to be creative, and the challenges can be made up on the spot.<br />I *love* your idea though. I ad a crazy idea a few years back in 3.5e about templatizing *everything* (class, level, race, etc.) for mechanics. I think a template system can provide a robust solution to a lot of mechanical things that are difficult to represent.<br /><br />@Burgonet - Thanks! Email me or comment here, I'm interested in how it pans out!Joheniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472868333952744287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3118843014869456316.post-46176118669661354312009-07-16T03:41:56.500+02:002009-07-16T03:41:56.500+02:00Okay then.
I'll be trialling this approach in ...Okay then.<br />I'll be trialling this approach in 3-4 weeks or so, will let you know how things go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3118843014869456316.post-82293577149822253802009-07-15T20:25:41.441+02:002009-07-15T20:25:41.441+02:00I had a very similar idea about a year back, but I...I had a very similar idea about a year back, but I haven't really taken the time to revisit it - hopefully this post will get me to give it a shot! I described here...<br />http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1052709<br /><br />My take on it was basically "Low-complexity skill challenges are considered equivalent to a single monster. An Elite template is like adding an extra monster. Why not create an Elite template that adds a skill challenge, so that the PCs can defeat that 'half' of the monster with skill use?" I go into a lot more detail in the post (and there's some good discussion in the thread!), but bear in mind this was back before the Skill DC errata and before a lot of the new advances in thought on how skill challenges work. Still, I think there's some interesting stuff to be mined from there, so I'd invite you to take a look if you get the chance. :)NthDegree256https://www.blogger.com/profile/17315121482447012783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3118843014869456316.post-14446876015809160352009-07-15T17:05:18.058+02:002009-07-15T17:05:18.058+02:00@Radiating Gnome: You're right, and your insig...@Radiating Gnome: You're right, and your insights are very welcome. <br /><br />One of the things that has always struck me about the fourth edition of D&D is that it encourages creative thinking in terms of rules. Skill challenges are a great idea - and encourage players to "break the rules" by finding interesting new skills to use, different approachs to aiding each other, and so on. True, you can stick to Rules As Written and force players to play it a certain way, but if you do, you're throwing away the spirit of the system.<br /><br />You echo the spirit of the idea of introducing skill challenges to combat in the fourth paragraph. There will always be a lot of variables. Putting solid skill challenges on the end of a stat block is fine - but a DM who is confident in this system should be flexible, and do things "off the cuff" or on the fly.<br /><br />And with that in mind, the answer to "how does the GM communicate this idea to players" is to announce that this *concept* is something they can use in their games, and explain the fundamentals. When players go "I want to try to scale up the dragon to attack it's head!", come up with the DCs (easy enough to get from defenses), come up with a reward (probably not too great an idea to collaborate with players on this, especially if your group is full of power-gamers!), and come up with a complexity (shouldn't be too hard if you can imagine the combat).Joheniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472868333952744287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3118843014869456316.post-1162347137140644842009-07-15T16:43:37.009+02:002009-07-15T16:43:37.009+02:00I like this a lot as well -- there's a lot of ...I like this a lot as well -- there's a lot of room for some very creative ideas here. I wonder about how these alternatives are communicated to players -- I mean . . . do you tell the player at the start of the combat that these skill challenges are avaiable? Or do you see if they come up with the idea. <br /><br />The precedents are mixed, IMO, but a lot depends upon DM taste and the mechanics of a group. For instance, think about a spear trap. As DM, would you tell the PCs that they might be able to use every possible countermeasure (jump over the trigger square, hold a shield over the hole the spear comes out of, etc), or would you expect them to come up with the ideas. <br /><br />The trick is . . . players will come up with those ideas once they are taught that those ideas are possible -- if the PCs figure out that creative countermeasures are possible to deal with a trap, they will look for them without you needing to come up with them. <br /><br />So, something you might want to include in guidelines for this sort of alternative would be some guideance for coming up with solutions to these sorts of problems on the fly. <br />What complexity do you pick? <br />What DCs do you use? <br />What sort of actions does a check require? <br /><br />Wookeh: You're right, 8 successes does seem like a lot, but they're move actions -- PCs CAN take two of those around, and a finish in 4 rounds. Add a few extra move actions (like from a friendly warlord) and you could shavea little time off that, too. But . . . the payoff has to be worth the effort. It needs to have some sort of rough equivalence to 4 or 8 rounds of just standing there and whacking on the dragon. <br /><br />I think the idea could be fleshed out in a lot of very interesting ways -- and it would help if you don't feel too tied down by the structure of the skill challenge system. For example, lets say that you're trying to create a system for a PC to scale the back of the dragon. Maybe it requires more than just one PC climbing to get it done. Maybe he needs to make four of the successes -- which would require two rounds -- but maybe the other four successes would need to come from other party members -- maybe the defender needs to keep the dragon's attention with intimidate checks. And maybe the climber needs some skill checks to assist his climbing -- things like a boost (an athletics check), some well-placed arrows from the archer (attack rolls to place arrows in the dragon's hide to provide convenient hand-holds), and so on. <br /><br />One of the things I really love about 4e is the way the game is built to encourage teamwork -- and building these challenges in that way could really be cool.Radiating Gnomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108169273876809248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3118843014869456316.post-19172007224578120412009-07-15T08:40:39.007+02:002009-07-15T08:40:39.007+02:00Yeah, the idea has been bouncing around in my head...Yeah, the idea has been bouncing around in my head for a while now. I'll admit the solo examples I used here where home-grown and so I think the ideas might have fallen a bit short of the mark - but I do think that adding skill use into combat adds a dimension to play that increases immersiveness, as well as adding on-the-spot creativity which is always fun.<br />Mike Mearls: Awesome to hear from you, and glad you like the idea! I honestly expected a "I don't read fan blogs" form reply :P And good to know you approve, especially!<br />Burgonet: Please, send feedback! I'll happily post updates and new ideas that this generates - I'm glad you've got something out of it. It was designed as a solo-monster improving system, though I'd initially created it for all monster types. Then I realized that normally, it's unnecessary. 8 successes? In 8 rounds, most normal combats are finished. By adding a mechanical advantage to solo fights, which are always long and drawn out, the encounters are shortened but at the same time combats are made more epic. Which appeals to me ;)Joheniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472868333952744287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3118843014869456316.post-50827461643570742512009-07-15T03:08:07.433+02:002009-07-15T03:08:07.433+02:00I'm liking this line of thinking immensely.
On...I'm liking this line of thinking immensely.<br />One thing I have observed as a player (but yet as a DM/GM) is the propensity of solo battles to becomem a tad repetitive.<br /><br />Any semi-mechanistic approach that can be taken to make the combat more lively and interesting should be considered and embraced if successful.<br /><br />So I'll be trying your approach on a future given Sunday. Hopefully it'll make a Solo battle I have planned much more interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3118843014869456316.post-59417668010610879662009-07-15T02:32:13.855+02:002009-07-15T02:32:13.855+02:00Nifty! I think tying skills to NPCs and monsters i...Nifty! I think tying skills to NPCs and monsters in that manner is a good way to encourage creative play. It's particularly interesting as a way to show off an NPC's personality, and I really like the way you implemented it. It makes for an interesting new layer for an encounter.Mike Mearlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18338840534913321057noreply@blogger.com