Quote from: J Arcane;388609I do too.  I think the guys who worked on it are all incredibly funny, talented people who made a great show, and are making another one with Rifftrax.

I have got to get some more Rifftrax.  Don't forget Joel Hodgson is also doing Cinematic Titanic

QuoteThough at times I grow weary of it in great doses, because to be frank, as great fun as it can be occasionally to see them make light of such terrible films, at the end of the day, you're still watching a really awful movie.  I've started to prefer Rifftrax, because at least there they're usually working with much better base material, something you might actually watch on it's own.

Yes, I can't watch an MST3K marathon, either.  After a while, it just gets draining to see all that bad movie making in one sitting.

QuoteBut more to the point, it's a great thing to point and laugh at that sort of awfulness now and again, but it's another thing to actually confuse it for something worth a damn, to start believing the bad really is good and overextending it's welcome past the point of any humor or entertainment into the just plain sad.

This isn't about borrowing from other works, it's about a culture that has devolved to the point where it relies solely on ironic cliche because they've lost the ability to acknowledge anything genuinely decent.  That relies on constant, uninterrupted streams of pop-culture references and cliches that were hoary and silly 20 years ago, and at this point have just become inane.

No one can do anything genuine, anything with substance, just spout lame "memes" that weren't that funny the first time, and get progressively less so with age.  

It's pathetic.

Wholly agree.

Quote from: StormBringer;388612I have got to get some more Rifftrax.

Yes, I can't watch an MST3K marathon, either.  After a while, it just gets draining to see all that bad movie making in one sitting.

Rifftrax are great, highly recommended, and the movies are far more watchable.

That said, I really miss "Turkey Day" from the Comedy Central days.

Quote from: LordVreeg;388572JA also mentioned this, you're using/mixing terminology without understanding it.
Look above where I write, "the part I'm talking about is not subjective, since there is an absolute, black-and-white litmus test."  
What I am talking about here is the terms "associative" and "dissociative", which are defined 'as mechanics that require the player to think as the player and not the character, mechanics that depend on on metagame logic to operate'.  
You can argue, if you wish, that you don't believe that dissociative mechanics don't reduce immersion in every game, or something like that.  But what defines that as associative and dissociative is very black and white.

I think the definitions are bad from the get go. I've been explaining that I don't think these are properties that adhere to mechanics at all, which undercuts the definition. Definitions need to be sound, and I don't think those are - for the reason, as I've said a couple of times now, that I don't think mechanics play a particularly important role in whether immersion happens or not.

QuoteI can see in your emails, you are using the term loosely.  It looks like you are using associative to mean, 'promoting immersion', whereas that meaning is subjective, as opposed to the actual meaning, above.  JA and I may believe that a dissociative mechanic reduces immersion, but that is not the definition.

I haven't sent any emails or used the term "associative". In my posts I've used "immersion" and "dissociative".

QuoteAnd as I said, it was a good story and a bit of GMing.  I personally don't care where it came from; whether it was houseruled or 4e directly.  I guess someone might get cranky if they felt you were using it as a description of a game that it is not from, but I felt you were just trying to use an example of a rule you thought was a good example of something, whether it really was or not.

Thanks.

Quote from: StormBringer;388606This thread has been a fun read the last few days.

How is that whole 'engaging with bullshit arguments like they are legitimate' thing going for everyone?  I predict at least another dozen or two posts where 'rules as written' needs to be carefully explained over and over, as well as the reason it is the only way to discuss matters related to the rules.

It is for this very reason that weapon speed and weapon penetration rules and their important impact on combat in earlier editions of D&D must be accounted for in any "real" discussion of how the game plays. Never mind that most people didn't use them, they were RAW!

Similarly, any discussion of mechanics for stabbing a non-helpless hostage in the throat in 3.x is impossible, because the RAW is totally silent.

:rolleyes:

This is simply a double standard.

Quote from: jibbajibba;388568Sorry to appear simple so then can we reduce  a skill-challenge to anything where you roll one or more skill checks? I think that's fine and few people would argue that it doesn't work but its not exactly a new mechanic.

I don't think it is a particularly new mechanic, in the sense of some radical break with the past. That said, I do think a skill challenge is slightly more than just a series of skill checks.

Here's what I'd say is the bare framework of a skill challenge:

A skill challenge is one encounter long.
A skill challenge involves every PC who is in the encounter.
A skill challenge involves multiple skill tests using at least two or more skills and doesn't allow sequential repetition of those skills by different PCs.
A skill challenge has a penalty for failure.
A skill challenge requires initiative.

Everything else is dependent on the circumstances. It's actually a pretty flexible framework.

QuoteAs Frank points out simple checks, multiple checks with a target number of checks to complete a complex task and opposed checks have all be in use for years by everyone.
What does a Skill-challenge bring to the game if its just this sort of stuff?
I mean it is sited as a whole new aspect to D&D but it seems like its just codifying something that people have been doing since forever (3 climb rolls to get up this wall Bob, right you are squire...)

I don't think it is particularly new, and I've never really cited it as such, so I don't know who has, other than marketing droids at WotC.

Quote from: StormBringer;388606This thread has been a fun read the last few days.

How is that whole 'engaging with bullshit arguments like they are legitimate' thing going for everyone?  I predict at least another dozen or two posts where 'rules as written' needs to be carefully explained over and over, as well as the reason it is the only way to discuss matters related to the rules.

Swimmingly, my friend.  
I am partial to introducing or helping introducing a term, defining a term, explaining the term, and then having to redefine it to every single person who does not feel like reading the back posts.

On the truly positive side, I am building a full cut-and-paste library of answers through this thread.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;388550Good stuff...

Well, here's an actual chase skill challenge using the actual skill challenge rules. DMG, page 78.


There's more there if you want, but you can see how this goes. One character makes 12 Athletics check with their huge athletics bonus, the rest of the characters stand there scratching themselves and either saying "Pass" or Rolling Perception checks to give Athleto a +2 bonus. After the equivalent of 12 rounds of running, the skill challenge is passed, the PCs catch the bad guys, and combat begins between all the PCs and the Bad Guys, who they just caught...notwithstanding that using Common Sense (TM) most of the party should be 500+ feet away.

This type of thing is called "an example". It demonstrates a possible instantiation of the rules.

Quote from: LordVreeg;388617I am partial to introducing or helping introducing a term, defining a term, explaining the term, and then having to redefine it to every single person who does not feel like reading the back posts.

tldr


What is this thread about, anyway?

Quote from: FrankTrollman;388548When? Can you name a time that I did that on this thread, or at all for that matter, for you to have done it back to me? This is my sixth post on this entire multihundred post flame fest, so I'm certain you can find an example. You know, if it exists and you aren't just a lying sack of shit.

Here's a simple one from the "4e is verbose" thread, since you just wanted one at all:

"4e D&D has gotten so long winded that even its proponents present the case for literary triage so severe that they don't know what the options for playable characters even are. Maybe the Swordmage or the Seeker is a really good fit for what they want to do, but they don't know because there is such a daunting wall of text that have not and will not actually read those character options."

You quoted me, Abyssal Maw and Seanchai despite none of us saying that and it being untrue. You asked for an example, there it is.

The rest of your post is just RAWBAW. I know you don't want to accept that skill challenges are a highly flexible framework because then you would have to have actual play experiences in order to be able to discuss them in detail, instead of just RAWBAW.

Once again, I'll point out that it's the people who don't play 4e who insist on the skill challenge rules being an inflexible, rigid set of rules, and the people who actually play the game who treat it as a much more flexible framework.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388616Here's what I'd say is the bare framework of a skill challenge:

A skill challenge is one encounter long.
A skill challenge involves every PC who is in the encounter.
A skill challenge involves multiple skill tests using at least two or more skills and doesn't allow sequential repetition of those skills by different PCs.
A skill challenge has a penalty for failure.
A skill challenge requires initiative.

Everything else is dependent on the circumstances. It's actually a pretty flexible framework.

The bolded ones are ones that apparently came directly out of your ass. For example, let's take the "Closing the Portal" sample skill challenge from the DMG2. One character makes 4 Arcana tests in a row. That doesn't involve all the PCs, heck even if all the PCs have Arcana and participate, it will be over before all the PCs have been involved. There is no requirement for characters to use different skills. And skill challenge initiative was removed in an errata almost two years ago.

So from your entire list, the only ones that are "true" is that Skill Challenges last one encounter (although even that is sketchy, because "Closing the Portal" can be extended beyond the literal combat encounter it is introduced in if you want); and that there is a consequence for failure. And I'll just give you that one, because even though some actually don't have anything special happen on a failure, you could say that failing to get the benefit of a success counted as a consequence for failure.

Here is the actual framework:

• Players who take actions towards completing the skill challenge do so by making simple tests against skill or attribute modifiers with set DCs that may vary depending upon the skill or attribute modifier chosen.
• A success counts against the tally of team successes, a failure counts against the tally of team failures.
• The challenge continues until the team gets a specific total of successes (and succeeds) or failures (and fails), and thus there are a finite number of tests that will be made by all team members collectively.

That is the framework.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;388621Here is the actual framework:

• Players who take actions towards completing the skill challenge do so by making simple tests against skill or attribute modifiers with set DCs that may vary depending upon the skill or attribute modifier chosen.
• A success counts against the tally of team successes, a failure counts against the tally of team failures.
• The challenge continues until the team gets a specific total of successes (and succeeds) or failures (and fails), and thus there are a finite number of tests that will be made by all team members collectively.

That is the framework.

-Frank

So uhm.. that's still pretty flexible right there. It's even more flexible!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388622So uhm.. that's still pretty flexible right there. It's even more flexible!

Sure. It's very flexible. My complaint has never been that Skill Challenges weren't flexible enough. My complaints are twofold:

• Pseudoephedrine doesn't have clue one about what he is talking about.

and

• That the specific guideline of individual actions counting against a group action limit by contributing to the group failure count on individual failure results is a bad part of the framework because it is a tactical incentive for boring play (such as: one player making 4 Arcana tests in a row).

That's it. I'll defend those two points with fire and sword if need be, because I think both have been pretty effectively demonstrated.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;388621The bolded ones are ones that apparently came directly out of your ass. For example, let's take the "Closing the Portal" sample skill challenge from the DMG2. One character makes 4 Arcana tests in a row. That doesn't involve all the PCs, heck even if all the PCs have Arcana and participate, it will be over before all the PCs have been involved. There is no requirement for characters to use different skills. And skill challenge initiative was removed in an errata almost two years ago.

So from your entire list, the only ones that are "true" is that Skill Challenges last one encounter (although even that is sketchy, because "Closing the Portal" can be extended beyond the literal combat encounter it is introduced in if you want); and that there is a consequence for failure. And I'll just give you that one, because even though some actually don't have anything special happen on a failure, you could say that failing to get the benefit of a success counted as a consequence for failure.

Here is the actual framework:

• Players who take actions towards completing the skill challenge do so by making simple tests against skill or attribute modifiers with set DCs that may vary depending upon the skill or attribute modifier chosen.
• A success counts against the tally of team successes, a failure counts against the tally of team failures.
• The challenge continues until the team gets a specific total of successes (and succeeds) or failures (and fails), and thus there are a finite number of tests that will be made by all team members collectively.

That is the framework.

-Frank

Are you now agreeing that it's a highly flexible framework? Because you appear to be. If so, I'm not wed to any particular instantiation of that framework. I'm more interested in the experience created at the table by the particular skill challenges than in checking off boxes on some imaginary list.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;388623Sure. It's very flexible. My complaint has never been that Skill Challenges weren't flexible enough. My complaints are twofold:

• Pseudoephedrine doesn't have clue one about what he is talking about.

and

• That the specific guideline of individual actions counting against a group action limit by contributing to the group failure count on individual failure results is a bad part of the framework because it is a tactical incentive for boring play (such as: one player making 4 Arcana tests in a row).

That's it. I'll defend those two points with fire and sword if need be, because I think both have been pretty effectively demonstrated.

-Frank

I love you in all your autistic, RAWBAW glory, Frankie!

Quote from: CRKrueger;388559And now, for something completely different.

Good music is alive.