First you put words in his mouth, and when he calls you on it you respond by saying "he's not adressing the points!" ?
Which is not to say that skill challenges have some real problems I'd like to see adressed here. I'd also like to hear Mearls' thoughts in some more detail. But your way of handling a mature debate seems a bit counterproductive and a misnomer.
Put words in his mouth? They are his words. That he published. In open forums. And frankly, after publishing and discarding three sets of Skill Challenge Rues where the "math just worked" (because they did not in fact, work), I don't even want to see words in his mouth - I want to see Crow in His Teeth.
He had a chance for formal rebuttal. First he whined that it wasn't fair to take him to task for repeatedly failing on the grounds that he should get some credit for repeatedly trying. Then he dumped that and went straight for side of the cheek insults. Insults that are apparently OK here because he has sold more books than I have. Obviously, he isn't ever going to give a formal rebuttal. He is going to continue to try to get the rock star treatment that will continue to allow him to publish iteration after iteration of failed product and have people like you want to hear his thoughts in more detail.
Welcome to the paradox of writing for the market. The quality of your product is diminished because you don't have the ability to distribute proofing and destructive testing. But on the flip side, people have every right to expect and demand a high quality of product - because they are being asked to pay actual money for the end result. This is why I don't write for money any more. But Mearls is writing for money. His products cost actual money, and having them delivered to consumers in a non-functional state is unacceptable.
And to have him say that he is going to address those issues without confronting the angle of his own personal responsibility is if anything an admission that nothing is going to change. The same team that brought you version 1, 2, and 3 of Skill Challenges that met no design goals whatsoever will be handing you versions 4, 5, and 6. And they will admit that each previous version didn't work but they will never admit that they have no actual reason to believe that the next offering will.
As to Mearls' specific complaint that it is somehow unfair to take him to task for having presented multiple systems for skill challenges that are untested and nonfunctional... No. It's not unfair at all.
I think one of the underlying issues with skill challenges is that there are a lot of ways you can run one, but the right way depends heavily on the DM and the group. They're so broad that even when to run a skill challenge, as opposed to leaving dice out of the scene entirely, varies from group to group.
I can foresee a future set of core skill challenge rules that look a lot more like the sections on encounter building, terrain, and dungeon design. You might have a lot of different ways to resolve skill checks, manage action around the table, and determine the ultimate result of the skill challenge, with a DM picking his approach based on the specific challenge and the way his group likes to play D&D.
I really don't think we'll ever see a precise, one size fits all mechanical framework. Instead, we'll have an arsenal of tools.
I don't know how much of DMG2 is complete so far, but this would ideally form a significant portion of its content (at least one chapter, but hopefully several as combat encounter design was in DMG1).
If you think skill challenges have failed, why is it a bad thing that we're tinkering with them? You basically build a case for the rules' shortcomings, but then seem unhappy that we're working to fix them.
Apparently condemning the skill challenge system and the design philosophy that allowed it to be created is somehow not a fair complaint because they are still working on it.
Well fine, whatever. They sold it nearly a year ago. The time to make it work was then. Obviously I can't criticize a product that doesn't exist but might very well be good at some indeterminate time in the future. What I can criticize is the product that does exist, the process that allowed it to exist in this form, and frankly the process that they are continuing to use.
Remember when Massawyrm gave that glowing review at the beginning of this edition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Massawyrm
It all just works. Fluid, intuitive and fun.
or his description of skill challenges?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Massawyrm
The DMG has a lengthily description of “non-combat challenges.” These include social encounters, chase scenes, library research, etc. They aren’t handled by 1 or 2 dice rolls, but instead involve multiple checks over some period of time in the game to see an outcome. Andy Collins says that the closest thing to it is the Complex Skill check from Alternity. Their goal is to have more people at the table involved in social situations. Player 1 might make diplomacy check, as Player 2 makes a bluff check to support him, and Player 3 makes an intimidate check to drive the point home. (If done correctly, these checks should aid each other, not counter.) An NPC might counter with the support of a Knowledge roll, and Player 1 counters with other knowledge and a second diplomacy check. This makes it more of a back and forth between players and GMs. Collins noted that they don’t want to penalize players who’s own ability doesn’t match their characters, but they still want to inject roleplaying into social encounters. The result is a range of results from a social situation instead of a simple pass/fail.
Right. That's what they promised. What did they deliver? They delivered a system that not only is a binary pass/fail, but also didn't even work. Like mathematically, it was unplayable. Despite the fact that they guaranteed us repeatedly and in so many words that "everything just works" in 4e, this was not true. And more importantly, it was obviously not true. Anyone who played through a skill challenge even once would have seen that immediately.
So either they sincerely believed that rules that they had never tested or played with would magically work perfectly or they rushed something to print that they knew full well was completely nonfunctional expecting to patch it later with something that worked at all. I don't even know which option is worse, but I do know that neither really fills me with confidence when they say that they are tinkering with it and they'll have something that works properly "real soon."
So yeah: when mearls tries to play it off as hypocrisy on my part that I simultaneously lambaste him for both his product and his methodology, I remain unmoved. The methodology created the product. Frankly, I'm being generous by chalking it up to the effects of an insular design bubble on a complete lack of proofreading or meaningful playtesting. The alternative is deliberate deception coupled with a callous disregard for their consumers.
Anyone who played through a skill challenge even once would have seen that immediately.
The thing is I didn't know Skill Changes were a total failure until someone on the internet told me. I still don't use any of the errata, and I'm not having problems.
I'll admit I initially misunderstood the notes at the bottom of pg 42 and assumed that the increase of 5 for skill DCs was meant only to apply to skills use when improvising in combat. So I've been using the 10/15/20 (+) numbers.
I don't expect you to rehashed it just for me, but I appreciate a link.
Put words in his mouth? They are his words. That he published. In open forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Moyer
Where did he make this complaint?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankTrollman
Reply #6 of this thread
I think your interpretation of post #6 is massively different from mine, or Mearls' for that matter.
The way I see it, in that post Mearls responded to the OP, who complained that he saw skill challenges being used in ways he can't recognize from the DMG. Mearls' response is that skill challenges are indeed undergoing an evolution, so complaining that one notices this is odd - given the context that both parties agree that the RAW has flaws.
However, you're equating this with (essentially) a complaint that he shouldn't be given flak for a lack of playtesting.
This interpretation strikes me as incomprehensible. I see nothing that supports your perspective in the slightest. As such, I do indeed remain of the opinion that you're putting words in his mouth.
__________________
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.
The thing is I didn't know Skill Changes were a total failure until someone on the internet told me. I still don't use any of the errata, and I'm not having problems.
I'll admit I initially misunderstood the notes at the bottom of pg 42 and assumed that the increase of 5 for skill DCs was meant only to apply to skills use when improvising in combat. So I've been using the 10/15/20 (+) numbers.
I don't expect you to rehashed it just for me, but I appreciate a link.
In addition to the description of why every single stated design goal failed, there's the niggling detail that the math was incredibly wrong. But Alan will take you through that one step by step. With charts.
Apparently condemning the skill challenge system and the design philosophy that allowed it to be created is somehow not a fair complaint because they are still working on it.
I didn't get the impression that he was complaining about condemnations of the skill challenge system or the design philosophy that allowed them to be created. It seemed to me that he was honestly curious why you felt it was a bad idea to fix them.
You may have a valid complaint that the rules shouldn't have been published in the first place if they were "broken." But they were. It strikes me as odd that you think it makes more sense to do nothing about it than it does to try and fix them (which is the impression I got, sorry if I took it the wrong way).
The thing is I didn't know Skill Changes were a total failure until someone on the internet told me. I still don't use any of the errata, and I'm not having problems.
I'll admit I initially misunderstood the notes at the bottom of pg 42 and assumed that the increase of 5 for skill DCs was meant only to apply to skills use when improvising in combat. So I've been using the 10/15/20 (+) numbers.
You weren't using any of the errata except for the errata that you inadvertently invented for yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankTrollman
Reply #6 of this thread:
What you claim he said: "As to Mearls' specific complaint that it is somehow unfair to take him to task for having presented multiple systems for skill challenges that are untested and nonfunctional..."
What he actually said: "If you think skill challenges have failed, why is it a bad thing that we're tinkering with them?"
Those statements are not saying the same thing.
What you want is for WotC's designers to apologize for publishing something that anyone spending 5 seconds checking the probability on could have figured out (a) was broken and (b) didn't do the things they claimed they could do. More than that, you want them to admit that they fucked up royally. ("I want to see Crow in His Teeth.")
I get that. I even agree with you insofar as the published version of the skill challenge mechanics was the equivalent of WotC wearing an "I'm With Stupid" t-shirt with the arrow pointing up.
But it's never going to happen. The closest you're ever going to get is the WotC Party Line: "Skill challenges are interesting, since they are not reflected in the written rules as they were intended." (Mike Mearls, June 2008)
And I can understand that's it's frustrating watching 4th Edition's designers attempt to whitewash their massive incompetency as some sort of irrelevancy. And that it's even more frustrating to watch them pretend that the only "problem" with skill challenges is that we're all too stupid, naive, or inexperienced to use them correctly, as Mearls did in his first "Rulling Skill Challenges".
So, take this from someone who agrees with you on all these fundamental points:
Take a chill pill. You're coming across as frothing and irrational.
Linear Mode
