Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Yaaaay!  Now I feel even less like buying this game.

Which...is...a lot like, uh, saying that water just got wetter.

"Here at Wizards of the Coast, we know that times are hard and the economy's uncertain.  So we're out to save you money!"

!i!

Quote from: Kyle AaronIn other words, it's crappy GMing, rather than the crappiness of D&D4e.

So D&D4e may or may not turn out to be crap. But we do know that this GM was crap

What a lot of fuck-arsing about and dice roll just for that little result. Keep the game moving, damnit!

I disagree; its not for me, but judging from the actual play they had some fun with it, which would make the GM the opposite of crap.

We had these in Torg.

In Torg I forgot what we call these but theyr'e a pretty cool little structure for action scenes where the importance was similar to combat, but they didn't actually count as combat (i.e. diffusing a bomb or uprooting a stelae).

You could even use this in the middle of combat, say if you had a magical doomsday counter (the evil sorcerer's ritual is counting down) and there are demonic minions everywhere. The party is trying to stop the bad guy and reverse the spell, etc.  

The minigame is to achieve X amount of successes before you suffer Y amount of failures. If you get to Y failures, the ritual is complete (or the bomb goes off) and the party has failed, or if you get to X successes, you've reversed the summoning and now you just have to take care of the remaining minions.

Theyre a cool way to set up an action scene.

Quote from: LancerLooks like one of those gimmicky mechanics that Forgista would utilize in one of their games.

And nicely done it is. Perhaps I would have vetoed the Rogue's climbing as reptition, though.

I have the same problem with this that I do with DitV - you may as well just give everyone a "Do Whatever You Want" trait with a value and just have them roll that every time.  It will save a lot of pain and effort that way.

The "justify your skill use" sub-game is already enough of a pain in the ass with power gamers as it is, no need to encourage it and force the GM to listen to the most asnine arguments by power gamers every time they want to do something.

Is 4e really even a "game" any more?  Because it increasing sounds to me like the DM just has a session to masturbate the power gamers in a circle jerk.

Quote from: 1of3And nicely done it is. Perhaps I would have vetoed the Rogue's climbing as reptition, though.

Not in my opinion. This looks silly as far as I'm concerned. I hope it isn't implemented this way in the finished product, because I'd hate to say I don't want to play DnD anymore after all these years because of some silly BS like this overly complex skill mechanic.

Ah, Pundit ranting about 4E on the basis of misinterpreted and misrepresented information. Must be Monday :rolleyes:

Quote from: DwightP.S. For those that didn't notice that is NOT a 4e AP. It's someone taking a stab at adapting to 3.5e how they think 4e skills will work.

Noted. Be that as it may, the part that he takes from known 4e skill rules--the "gambling/set the stakes" thing--is the part I find sort of dumb/inflexible. I don't see how it adds to the game.

The conventions of allowing different characters to apply different skills to solve a problem, being flexible about solutions, and accumulating towards success/failure are all good things.

Things I first learned under classic Traveller and Bushido, but still good things worth adding to the game.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadNoted. Be that as it may, the part that he takes from known 4e skill rules--the "gambling/set the stakes" thing--is the part I find sort of dumb/inflexible. I don't see how it adds to the game.

Inflexible? Not sure what the official line is but I read that as allowing characters to try harder things or easier things.  For example:
"I go up to tree to have a look" vs. "I climb up the tree really close to the body to get a good look" vs. some other third thing that doesn't even occur to me.  See, more flexibility than required.  The second thing (assuming this is 'hard') even leads fairly naturally to suggest another roll.

Hopefully there will be a bit of control in adjudicating to have somewhat different attempts having a different 3-DC range (using different Skills, because it's 'reaching' that it is applicable). I'd consider it a shortcoming if there wasn't. It'd be easier to judge the merits of this all if we at least knew what is in the encounter DC charts in the DMG. As it is we just know that there are definitely tables in the DMG for helping size these things up.

Quote from: jgantsThe "justify your skill use" sub-game is already enough of a pain in the ass with power gamers as it is, no need to encourage it and force the GM to listen to the most asnine arguments by power gamers every time they want to do something.

If this board demonstrates anything it is that listening to someone isn't actually a requirement. Whether their arguments are asinine or not. :keke:

Quote from: DwightInflexible? Not sure what the official line is but I read that as allowing characters to try harder things or easier things.  For example:
"I go up to tree to have a look" vs. "I climb up the tree really close to the body to get a good look" vs. some other third thing that doesn't even occur to me.  See, more flexibility than required.

Er, for you maybe.

For me, one arbitrary DC that applies regardless of the skill you apply at that "risk level" and regardless of how the situation at hand affects the situation is insufficient.

QuoteHopefully there will be a bit of control in adjudicating to have somewhat different attempts having a different 3-DC range (using different Skills, because it's 'reaching' that it is applicable). I'd consider it a shortcoming if there wasn't.

So, you do see what I am getting at, then.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadSo, you do see what I am getting at, then.

Except that you are blocking from you view the good we can see. Bitcha, bitcha, bitcha.  So do you know there is nothing like that? No "good idea" bonus or such?

Quote from: DwightExcept that you are blocking from you view the good we can see. Bitcha, bitcha, bitcha.  So do you know there is nothing like that? No "good idea" bonus or such?

I think I was pretty explicit in what I was criticizing and they way I criticized it: the whole "stakes setting" thing. I don't see the benefit and I still don't. If you recall my prior post, I said that associated (if longstanding) concepts of progress towards success and different approaches were good. I didn't dismiss that it might make sense in some context I don't see yet, but from what we've seen, it isn't lighting my fire.

Blinders. Not just for horses anymore!

Quote from: blakkieBlinders. Not just for horses anymore!

Oh well, gawd, you showed me. Instead of displaying what I am missing, your superior snark has convinced me. I should have faith in our lord WotC, and of things unseen, for they are spotless, and all will be explained in good time.

:worthy:

:rolleyes: