Quote from: jgants;247256For example, in the AD&D game I'm currently playing in, we were following a trail of some bandits.  Essentially, the DM (who is not very good to begin with) already reduced it down to having us roll a tracking roll once every so often to keep finding the trail.

That was incredibly dull.  Only the party ranger had anything to do, and the rest of us pretty much sat around while arbitrary die rolls were made.  If it had been planned out as a skill challenge, with multiple skills available to use and actual consequences for failure (other than just waiting around and trying again) it would have been much more exciting.

What would you have done if the Ranger did fine, but the others flubbed it and the trail was lost?  That kind of seems like a big screeching halt to that section of the game.  If that is the transition to the next part, getting things back on track seems difficult.

Which isn't to say skill challenges are useless.  I agree with your initial assessment, they work well in certain situations.  I happen to think, from everything I have read, that those situations are pretty narrow, and would have to be almost entirely trivial by definition.  Otherwise, you lose a fairly important path in the story.  Having a backup plan is great, of course, but at some point, you are at plan B-14/L, and it starts to look like the party is dicing a cut-scene.

Quote from: Vulgarian;247257It's not just kids who have this problem with it.

Yep.  Contrary to what some people think, there are still a lot of casual players out there who just play a fighter or paladin or whatever and don't like to memorize a lot of rules and special actions.  You essentially have to master the rules to play the game now.

Some people may see that as a good thing, but I see it as a definite bug.

Quote from: jgants;247275Yep.  Contrary to what some people think, there are still a lot of casual players out there who just play a fighter or paladin or whatever and don't like to memorize a lot of rules and special actions.  You essentially have to master the rules to play the game now.

Some people may see that as a good thing, but I see it as a definite bug.

Well I wouldn't call myself a casual player either.  I just enjoy the game that is played out through verbal interaction and in which everything happens quickly.  It's just that I can't really see much in common between that and the other strange game that involves counting squares and moving pieces around the board, nor does that latter game interest me.

Quote from: StormBringer;247259What would you have done if the Ranger did fine, but the others flubbed it and the trail was lost?  That kind of seems like a big screeching halt to that section of the game.  If that is the transition to the next part, getting things back on track seems difficult.

Which isn't to say skill challenges are useless.  I agree with your initial assessment, they work well in certain situations.  I happen to think, from everything I have read, that those situations are pretty narrow, and would have to be almost entirely trivial by definition.  Otherwise, you lose a fairly important path in the story.  Having a backup plan is great, of course, but at some point, you are at plan B-14/L, and it starts to look like the party is dicing a cut-scene.

See, I think skill challenges actually require DMs to rethink the whole concept of what's going on.  Instead of just a series of tracking rolls, they have to consider what else might be going on and what the results of that are.

For example, the whole skill challenge concept is that something interesting happens if you fail.  The whole point is to not have the game grind to a halt.

So, in the case of the situation I described, you could set up the consequence of failing the challenge to mean that instead of finding the trail leading to the bandit lair, you attracted the attention of the bandits and walked into an ambush.  Then, after the fight, have something on the bandits that leads back to the bandit lair.

And yes, all that could have been done by a good DM in any previous version.  But having a codified, balanced standard for how things work, one that encourages poor DMs to make better choices, is a good thing.  I will agree, though, that used poorly they can lead to all kinds of suckage.  But even the best designed system can't filter out bad DMs or players, so what can you do.

Quote from: jgants;247279And yes, all that could have been done by a good DM in any previous version.  But having a codified, balanced standard for how things work, one that encourages poor DMs to make better choices, is a good thing.  I will agree, though, that used poorly they can lead to all kinds of suckage.  But even the best designed system can't filter out bad DMs or players, so what can you do.

Personally, I think DMing is a talent.  The skills required can certainly be built up, and skill challenges can be one of the tools to do that.  It just seems that the whole sub-system is one step too far into making the DM into a rules interpreter and not an active participant in the game.  

As a suggestion for running a good game, it seems to work well as a guideline, even if the math is wonky.  As a sub-system to the rules, it seems to encourage use in situations were it wouldn't be appropriate, and the wonky math is hidden, so as written, new players will have a hard time figuring out why skill challenges aren't working well.  I haven't been to ENWorld for a while, so I don't know how the official changes have held up in regards to Stalker0's original modifications.

Quote from: jgants;247275Yep.  Contrary to what some people think, there are still a lot of casual players out there who just play a fighter or paladin or whatever and don't like to memorize a lot of rules and special actions.  You essentially have to master the rules to play the game now.

They want to play a game, not study to play it like they were trying to be a chess master. That's the problem with RPGs that stress rules mastery, you limit your already small player pool to players with the time and interest (and money) to master the rules.

This is similar to the problem detailed tactical combat and no non-combat-centered character types: if all characters have to be interested in learned to be good at combat tactics for the group to do well, you pretty much no longer have a place for players who aren't very interested in combat. Previous versions of D&D (even 3.x) had character classes and options that were clearly not mainly combat-oriented that players not really interested in combat could take and contribute to the non-combat parts of the game without being expected to pull equal weight in combat.

4e seems to limit the player pool to those who love detailed combat and are willing and able to master a lot of detailed exception-oriented rules. Unlike previous versions of D&D, there is really no place for players like me who find combat boring and therefore have no interest in mastering a lot of detailed tactical combat rules or learning the nuts and bolts of small unit tactics. It combat, I want to just swing at a target or cast a spell until the damn thing is over with and we can move on with the more interesting non-combat stuff. (Of course, in 4e they seem to have also nerfed most of the non-combat spells and character abilities as they might interfere with the very balanced tactical combat game.)

Which is why 4e is not the game for me. It's great for those it who love combat and rules mastery -- but I'm not one of those people.