|
Yes, the rules have been changed. I just got done browsing the "Skill Challenges" segment - an encounter based on skills alone - and here again, WotC has created new rules (can't say improved) that 3.5 could have accomplished.
If anything, I really want to thank WotC for getting me back into the game after a 14 year hiatus. But now that I'm back, until I really see a reason to leave 3.5, my monies with Paizo.
That said, I do like the free artwork WotC's putting up. They have some good drawings.
I'm still not seeing anything in Pathfinder than can't be accomplished in 4E.
Cheers! :P
Edit: Of course you COULD do anything in 4E with 3.5, with enough kit bashing. And likewise in the other direction, and again with enough kit bashing. But out the box, both systems have different offerings, and different specialties. In my opinion, 4E is better then 3E (or at least, the previews so far make it seem so.) In yours, I would surmise it goes the other way. This is the beauty of variety. :)
Yes, the rules have been changed. I just got done browsing the "Skill Challenges" segment - an encounter based on skills alone - and here again, WotC has created new rules (can't say improved) that 3.5 could have accomplished.
If anything, I really want to thank WotC for getting me back into the game after a 14 year hiatus. But now that I'm back, until I really see a reason to leave 3.5, my monies with Paizo.
That said, I do like the free artwork WotC's putting up. They have some good drawings.
Sure, 3.5 can accomplish a LOT of things 4th edition strives to achieve. However, 4th edition promises to make it EASIER to accomplish these things. From the endless math of high level play to the incredibly large, tedious amount of die rolling, 4th edition is going to make things go faster.
Pathfinder hasn't offered an end to this complexity, and instead seems to simply be 'tacking on' additions to 3.5 rather than fixing major problems.
|
To the OP - I agree completely.
To the pro4dventure guy: Ah... the intelligent design and feel of 3.5 is something most gamers wish to keep. So far I am impressed that the integrity of the PRPG system remains the same, 100% compatible with my collection of sourcebooks, and addresses grapple, overrun, etc via the CMB factor, and provides healing surge via postitive energy. The classes intrigue my players, yet remain honest to 30+ years of tradition and the game's history. (Sharp remark: Let's see your shallow 4e do that.) Jason Bulmahn and CO. have done a marvelous job so far. PRPG is dungeons and dragons.
(wotc will never see another dime from me.)
3.5 Never Dies. PRPG Forever.
PAX Veritas:
Er, I didn't say anything about the superiority of the 3.5 rules versus the 4E rules. As the 3.5 rules stand, the skill challenges method won't work as easily in 3.5 as they would in 4E due to the fact that you honestly can't predict what skill level a party in 3.5 will have...
Unless, of course, a group went with Alpha 1's skill system, which did sclae automatically with level.
As far as the article, a similar multiple success systems is already in place within the 3.5 rule-set. We still have our trusty Unearthed Arcana books available, with the "Complex Skill Check" variant.
|
For example, using the same skill challenge example versus the local mayor vs the duke vs the king vs the demigod should all be possible in 4E due to the inherent nature of skills automatically scaling.
My biggest beef with any such mechanisms is that, again, role-playing is pushed aside for rolling the dice (i.e., "let me convince the king to give the kingdom to use instead of doing another quest. My PC has just leveled up and now has a Diplomacy +15".)
Yes, the rules have been changed. I just got done browsing the "Skill Challenges" segment - an encounter based on skills alone - and here again, WotC has created new rules (can't say improved) that 3.5 could have accomplished.
You can put skill challenges on 3.5E. With some work, you could put it even on 2E.
But how many people that play 3.5E are actually using skill challenges?
Does the fact that it isn't presented in a core book is completely irrelevant?
Even if it could work on 3.5E, does it work as good as on 4E? With the excessive number of skills and pathetic bonuses on untrained skills, 3.5E is hardly able to achieve the same level of player's interactivity that skill challenges can achieve on 4E.
When I read about 4E skill challenges on the RPGNet boards, I put them on my regular 3.5 game, and the players loved it. Yes, it was indeed possible to accomplish it on 3.5. But you wouldn't, unless you happen to have read some obscure alternate rules supplement.
Skill challenges are not anything new. Neither 3E complex combat system is: most of its rules were already presented on 2E Player's Option: Combat & Tactics. So, WotC shouldn't have advertised 3E combat system because it was already "technically possible to do" on 2E?
For example, using the same skill challenge example versus the local mayor vs the duke vs the king vs the demigod should all be possible in 4E due to the inherent nature of skills automatically scaling.My biggest beef with any such mechanisms is that, again, role-playing is pushed aside for rolling the dice (i.e., "let me convince the king to give the kingdom to use instead of doing another quest. My PC has just leveled up and now has a Diplomacy +15".)
I playtested skill challenges on my 3.5 game, and I can assure you that it doesn't burden role-play at all - in fact, it enhances it.
Players who usually stay quiet, waiting the more pro-active players to do all the role-playing scene, are now participating more than ever. The dice is a mere detail; players look at their skill lists and make an effort to say something that would justify using their skills. It's like combat: the dice matters 50%, the players' decisions matter the other 50%.
If the DM really doesn't want the roll of the dice to influence what happens, just don't invoke a skill challenge. But if you want all players to feel involved in a scene, calling a skill challenge seems an excellent option. For newbie players and players who are used only to "hack'n'slash", they are perfect.
|
|
Sure, 3.5 can accomplish a LOT of things 4th edition strives to achieve. However, 4th edition promises to make it EASIER to accomplish these things. From the endless math of high level play to the incredibly large, tedious amount of die rolling, 4th edition is going to make things go faster.Pathfinder hasn't offered an end to this complexity, and instead seems to simply be 'tacking on' additions to 3.5 rather than fixing major problems.
I just want to echo this as what I feel is a very valid concern. (Note: personal opinion forthcoming!)
The biggest "pro" I've seen for 4e is that higher level play will supposedly be as accessible as lower level play.
I love the low levels. It doesn't feel right to me if a character starts beyond level one... but it's not just that there are only so many ways to skin a goblin. It also sucks when I have a great campaign that dies an early death because it's literally painful to play above a certain level, and level 8's don't save the world.
It's very counter-intuitive that the longer a character's journey is, the less fun it becomes. Fighting bad-butt guys should be some of the best and most memorable moments of a game, but it gets so bogged down by tons of dice, dozens of abilities, and 10-minute in real life "6 second" rounds, that a lot of the interest and excitement fizzles in the crunch.
The more time I've spent on these boards, the more sure I am that I'll buy the beta version of 3.PF in August. I'm a huge fan of the company and the quality of their products. In fact, if anyone could come up with a solution for the high level "problem", I have faith it would be Paizo... but maybe it's just not doable in this system, which is very solid, but I doubt anyone would call streamlined.
I know it's pointless to say, but I so wish Paizo had been given the task of designing 4e. Given the mandate to make it "faster, simpler, more fun", I'm sure they would've accomplished that, while retaining the core spirit of the game. As it is, within the confines of their goal to keep 3.PF completely 3.5 compatible, they're inheriting it's weaknesses, which can only be mitigated so much by "tacking on" new rules.
Please don't flame me to Baator now. : ) I know it's easy to say, "If you don't like it, go play something else", but I do like it, a lot, both the 3.5 rules and Paizo's take on it. This is a concern I've been thinking over for a while now. If it could somehow be addressed, just like polymorph and grapple are/were, I'd see no reason for 4e.
... until I really see a reason to leave 3.5, my monies with Paizo.
There is one reason: Faster rounds. Or, they should be with one attack/automatic power attack, if I understand the new attack routine correctly.
I am a big fan of high-level play, so I think it is a fantastic idea, but I can't see how 3.5 can do that without tweaking everything.
4E seems like it's going to be simpler to manage, especially at higher levels, but there is a price to pay for that: mainly, this means that, in some instances, the system becomes less universal and less versatile - Multiclassing, compartmentalization of PC builds vs. monsters and NPCs (not built with the same rules), and so on, so forth.
3E (and thus Pathfinder RPG) and 4E really cater to different types of audiences. Versatility and complexity seem to go for 3E, Straightforwardness and rigidity for 4E. In most instances at least. Or if you will, you choose between simple/rigid or complex/versatile.
If Paizo sticks to 3E, drawing some inspiration from 4E is a good idea, so long as the core differences remain (same rules for PCs and NPCs, Saving Throws remain as they are, Prestige Classes, Templates exist, etc).
It is not a good idea, however, to make Pathfinder be so similar to 4E as to be based on the same principles/premises. In that case, 4E is sure to "win", in terms of usability.
|
|
I playtested skill challenges on my 3.5 game, and I can assure you that it doesn't burden role-play at all - in fact, it enhances it.For example, using the same skill challenge example versus the local mayor vs the duke vs the king vs the demigod should all be possible in 4E due to the inherent nature of skills automatically scaling.My biggest beef with any such mechanisms is that, again, role-playing is pushed aside for rolling the dice (i.e., "let me convince the king to give the kingdom to use instead of doing another quest. My PC has just leveled up and now has a Diplomacy +15".)
Oops. Wasn't as clear as I should have been.
I already encourage my players to role-playing, providing modifiers to their skills and dice rolls, adding complexity by requiring multiple rolls, etc. Heck, I'll even handwave a few when it's obvious the role-playing, with the appropriate skill ranks, would convince guards letting the PCs go, etc. We've had a few tense moments, I'll tell you that much!
Thus, to me, the new skill challenge "formalizes" what I've already done. I can already picture builds automatically trumping skill challenges as the PCs reach the appropriate level (i.e., "What do you mean I have to roll? Look at my stats. According to the Core books, page xxx...")
Don't take me wrong. I'm more than willing to give the system a shot. But as I read more info on 4E, the more I feel I'm playing a miniatures wargame than an rpg.
|
|
3E (and thus Pathfinder RPG) and 4E really cater to different types of audiences. Versatility and complexity seem to go for 3E, Straightforwardness and rigidity for 4E. In most instances at least. Or if you will, you choose between simple/rigid or complex/versatile.
Yeah. Noticed that, too. Sometimes I think of 4E as "BECMI via 3.x".
The funny thing about rpgs is that, once you've learned or, better yet, mastered a system, they tend to become simple. Or, better yet, you can make them more simple with houserules to fit your particular game. In my Eberron campaign, I did away with using higher level spellslots to use metamagic, favoring instead using non-lethal damage. Did it unbalance the game? Maybe. Are my players having fun with their lightning bolt/fireball casting PCs? You bet. Besides, I, as the DM, always have an unlimited supplies of minions bwahahahaha!!! :)
Sorry. Back to Bhalzabahn's post. My point is that there's never been this "either/or" between the two editions that led to so many flame wars. I hope to play both in the same way I plan to play M&M, Iron Gauntlets, BRP, etc. I see both 3.x and 4E to be fun and don't see any reason -- short of the lack of players and groups -- to limit myself.
Oops. Wasn't as clear as I should have been.
I already encourage my players to role-playing, providing modifiers to their skills and dice rolls, adding complexity by requiring multiple rolls, etc. Heck, I'll even handwave a few when it's obvious the role-playing, with the appropriate skill ranks, would convince guards letting the PCs go, etc. We've had a few tense moments, I'll tell you that much!
Thus, to me, the new skill challenge "formalizes" what I've already done. I can already picture builds automatically trumping skill challenges as the PCs reach the appropriate level (i.e., "What do you mean I have to roll? Look at my stats. According to the Core books, page xxx...")
Don't take me wrong. I'm more than willing to give the system a shot. But as I read more info on 4E, the more I feel I'm playing a miniatures wargame than an rpg.
Let me give an example of how can skill challenges be used to improve the role-playing experience of a social encounter.
On a "typical" 3.5E group, PCs have disparate social skill bonuses. It's frequent that one PC has a +15 Diplomacy bonus, and another has -1. When the need of social interaction arises, one thing that commonly occur is that players let the one with highest Diplomacy bonus do all the interaction, while the others sit and do nothing, as a character with -1 Diplomacy is more likely to worsen the situation than improve it.
With skill challenges, it doesn't work like that. Each PC alone can't convince the NPC - they needed to combine their efforts. Even if a PC has a crappy Diplomacy bonus (but not so crappy, given the way that skills are handled on 4E), he is encouraged to find creative uses for other skills that can be used on the situation. For instance, as given in the example, to make a History check to find more information about something said by the NPC.
As I said before, invoking a skill challenge is an option. An on many situations, an option better than flat Diplomacy checks on 3E, or Reaction checks on 2E. Of course, you can ignore all of these and go to the free form social interaction with no dice rolls - which never had rules at all, on any edition. I myself do that a lot. But I can't see how having an extra option can be worse than not having it.
My point is that there's never been this "either/or" between the two editions that led to so many flame wars. I hope to play both in the same way I plan to play M&M, Iron Gauntlets, BRP, etc. I see both 3.x and 4E to be fun and don't see any reason -- short of the lack of players and groups -- to limit myself.
Aside from any emotional, ethic or moral belief that would affect my behavior as a customer, I totally agree with this. I don't know if the "either/or" existed before (maybe OD&D versus AD&D?), but I think the dichotomy can be clearly seen in this instance (which again, does not have to automatically polarize gamers on one side or the other - some can enjoy both - but I guess that the real objections from one side of the argument or the other are more ethical than one would first believe).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't see anything in a sports car that can't be accomplished in a four wheel drive pick-up.
As long as by "anything" you mean, get you from point A to point B on paved roads.
Alternately, I can't see anything in Hero, GURPS, WoD, Shadowrun, OD&D, or madlibs that can't be accomplished in 3.5 Pathfinder, provided your willing to adopt the appropriate house rules. Want to play an adventure where you fight a mad king using radioactive sardines? I can run that in any of those systems. How about a space opera? Can do. Super heros? Sure!
For example, using the same skill challenge example versus the local mayor vs the duke vs the king vs the demigod should all be possible in 4E due to the inherent nature of skills automatically scaling.My biggest beef with any such mechanisms is that, again, role-playing is pushed aside for rolling the dice (i.e., "let me convince the king to give the kingdom to use instead of doing another quest. My PC has just leveled up and now has a Diplomacy +15".)
Diplomacy doesnt convince people to basically do whatever you want, it improves their attitude towards you, which might persuade them to do more for you than they otherwise would. Even at Friendly, a king isnt just going to hand over, well, anything to you.
He's willing to go to great lengths to aid you on your quest (free healing, mounts, perhaps some gear or a bigger reward), but he's not going to say, "You make a good point, instead of rescuing us from Certain Doom, here's the crown."Of course, even allowing a character to roll a die to overcome a social challenge isnt bad role-playing, since role-playing isnt inherent to social interaction with make believe characters. Having a social mechanic is great because it allows players who arent silver-tongued-smooth-talkers to still play a character who is. Playing what you arent is more inherent to role-play, anyhow.
I prefer to run a game as a roll-then-role style: the player gives me the gist of what they want to do, or hope to achieve, then we roll and play it out based on the result.
I used to allow a player to pitch me some dialogue and then give them a bonus based on that to the check, but the problem is that I dont give a bonus for a well-described attack roll, saving throw, or other skill check. Its not fair. This way, it goes down like EVERY other roll that I do. If a fighter tries to attack and misses, I describe the miss. If a character tries to dive out of the way and fails a Reflex save, I describe the failure. This allows for the same kind of social interaction without unfairly favoring players who are great at talking, while rewarding a character who is supposed to be good at that.
I'm still not seeing anything in Pathfinder than can't be accomplished in 4E.
Cheers! :P
Edit: Of course you COULD do anything in 4E with 3.5, with enough kit bashing. And likewise in the other direction, and again with enough kit bashing. But out the box, both systems have different offerings, and different specialties. In my opinion, 4E is better then 3E (or at least, the previews so far make it seem so.) In yours, I would surmise it goes the other way. This is the beauty of variety. :)
I would expand that statement to also say smoother, faster, and more balanced.
BTW, Joela, I agree that the excerpt only throws pieces of information and is not very informative, but I collected some quotes from WotC designers about the Skill Challenges system and posted on this thread.
Take a look; it may change the way you see things. I had the same worries as you before reading them.
I don't see anything in a formula one race car that can't be accomplished in a four wheel drive pick-up.
Uh - have you seen the chicks that hang out with F-1 drivers? ;)
To the point, you can run just about any genre in any given RPG system (old or new) or even rock-paper-scissors.
A good and worthy system provides accessibility, clarity and depth of resources that provide support for the game. On that score, 4e may have arguably improved/easier accessibility and arguably better/different clarity, but not the tremendous depth provided by 3.5 and all its optional components, 3rd party pubs, etc.
To answer the question, no I have not found anything of value in 4e that was not already adequately accounted for in 3.5.
With skill challenges, it doesn't work like that. Each PC alone can't convince the NPC - they needed to combine their efforts. Even if a PC has a crappy Diplomacy bonus (but not so crappy, given the way that skills are handled on 4E), he is encouraged to find creative uses for other skills that can be used on the situation. For instance, as given in the example, to make a History check to find more information about something said by the NPC.
I've read several times about skill challenges, but am only starting to grasp the significance. Thanks, Krauser.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
To answer the question, no I have not found anything of value in 4e that was not already adequately accounted for in 3.5.
Huh. I have.
So, since any game system can do "anything" that any other game system can do, and we're down to figuring out what we value in a particular game system, I guess we have ourselves another "I don't like 4e because I don't like 4e thread". Those never get old. Maybe we could have a "4e is for munchkins thread" next for old times sake. Or how about "things I don't like are for idiots thread". Those are cool.*
*Unless you're an idiot, and you like things that I don't like, in which case, you won't like those threads.
To the OP - I agree completely.
To the pro4dventure guy: Ah... the intelligent design and feel of 3.5 is something most gamers wish to keep. So far I am impressed that the integrity of the PRPG system remains the same, 100% compatible with my collection of sourcebooks, and addresses grapple, overrun, etc via the CMB factor, and provides healing surge via postitive energy. The classes intrigue my players, yet remain honest to 30+ years of tradition and the game's history. (Sharp remark: Let's see your shallow 4e do that.) Jason Bulmahn and CO. have done a marvelous job so far. PRPG is dungeons and dragons.
(wotc will never see another dime from me.)3.5 Never Dies. PRPG Forever.
But, PRPG isnt compatible with all your 3E books, unless you have some that are different from mine. If I want to play a warblade, I have to make changes to the class to help compensate for the fact that Paizo ramped up the power level on all the other classes. Also, if I want to play a race from Expanded Psionics Handbook, I need to add another +2 to an ability score, or otherwise ramp up the power on them somehow as well. Also, some spells got juggled around. I'll have to tinker with some of those...
Otherwise, 4th Edition has addressed the same things, just in a smoother, more intuitive manner. Its not trying to be an edition patch. I'm not going to get into the "history and tradition", because thats not something mechanics-relevant: I can DO the old story if I feel like it.4th Edition is the new D&D, its on the cover and everything. :-)
Just off the top of my head, multi-classing at 1st level and advancing monsters by RAW in less than 30 seconds.
Want to play an adventure where you fight a mad king using radioactive sardines?
Yes. Yes I do.
Just off the top of my head, multi-classing at 1st level and advancing monsters by RAW in less than 30 seconds.
the first ya could do in 3.0
Want to play an adventure where you fight a mad king using radioactive sardines?Yes. Yes I do.
If you do this as a PbP, I'm in.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I wonder if this should be on the 3e boards instead.
Not having seen 4.x and not bothering to go to the website anymore I won't speak to the mechanics. Sebastian is correct, most any RPG can be beat into submission to fit any system.
Those qualifiers being said, I am glad to see a stable challenge mechanic, and am sure that the 4.x DMG will advise common sense. "Do not allow players to argue that Perform (pantomime) would have an impact on the evil warlord. No matter how much he likes mimes, it won't be enough to stop him from sacking the city."
Since I've argued in 3.x that Profession should be allowed to replace/suppliment skills in specific situations, I can't find fault with using knowlege history to aid another's diplomacy check.
Heck, I can think of a literary example. In By the Sword, by Mercedes Lackey, the emmisaries from Valdemar are calling for help from their neighboring kingdom, they're not getting anywhere until Kerowyn reminds the king of an oath made by his grandfather.
CEO
|
The more time I've spent on these boards, the more sure I am that I'll buy the beta version of 3.PF in August. I'm a huge fan of the company and the quality of their products. In fact, if anyone could come up with a solution for the high level "problem", I have faith it would be Paizo... but maybe it's just not doable in this system, which is very solid, but I doubt anyone would call streamlined.
I am personally hoping that we are able to fix the high level play problem. It is my biggest problem with 3rd edition. I just ran a Shackled City campaign that went up to 16th level and it was a huge drain on my energy and my fun as a DM. Jason and I have talked a bunch about the problem and I know that he has his eye trained on it.
-Lisa
To answer the question, no I have not found anything of value in 4e that was not already adequately accounted for in 3.5.Huh. I have.
So, since any game system can do "anything" that any other game system can do, and we're down to figuring out what we value in a particular game system, I guess we have ourselves another "I don't like 4e because I don't like 4e thread". Those never get old. Maybe we could have a "4e is for munchkins thread" next for old times sake. Or how about "things I don't like are for idiots thread". Those are cool.*
*Unless you're an idiot, and you like things that I don't like, in which case, you won't like those threads.
Actually, I never said I didn't like 4e. I actually like the idea of 4e and I have seen several things that I actually like (no CR, for one) as well as some aspects that I don't, but I am not judging the whole thing, as such is not yet available for inspection. I simply have not found anything compelling - doesn't mean it's not there, just that I haven't found it yet.
We will not be able to render a final verdict until we get the books in hand. We can, however, express observations and reservations and hope based on what has been revealed so far. I generally remain skeptical until proof is provided. The problem is that people often mistake skepticism with negativity - it's not, really.
My answer to the main query of this post stands.
From my (humble) experience, high levels characters are never a problem.
If the characters are "too powerful", well, maybe they deserved this power, beings heroes - or villains - for so many years of adventure.
It wouldn't be fair to repproach them their level or power.
So if they are slashing through hordes of monsters without a scratch, fine.
This being said, finding the right challenge for them might be tough sometimes. It asks for some thoughtful preparation, adjusting monsters and NPCs for the encounter and to the characters, maybe digging in their background and stories.
But the solution against power is to put this power in use. As per the classic saying, "Power implies responsability". If the characters are powerful, give their responsabilities. Give them credit by putting them in charge, of a guild, a city, a kingdom...
Then they might discover a new kind of challenge. They will have to deal with forces that even themselves cannot fight. Forces that the common mortals are not really aware of, ruling not only factions, but kingdoms, worlds, planes of existence. Even if themselves could stand up and defy these powers, they cannot really do it without putting in danger whatever organization they have under their charge.
Of course, players don't want to be just diplomats, they want to be heroes. They want to continue the fight. So you can alternate, adventure and politics.
But slowly, even if the players don't realize it, their characters retire, becoming NPCs.
They became heroes. Legends. They won.
And it's time to create new characters :)
From my (humble) experience, high levels characters are never a problem.
If the characters are "too powerful", well, maybe they deserved this power, beings heroes - or villains - for so many years of adventure.
It wouldn't be fair to repproach them their level or power.
So if they are slashing through hordes of monsters without a scratch, fine.
The problem of 3.5E high level is not power. It's slowdown and complexity. Combat take a lot time, as character have dozens of options and can do lots of things in their turn. Even some individual powers are so complex and abrangent that they can halt the game table alone, such as when a player decides to use Shapechange or Gate.
Encounters are difficult to balance as both PCs and monsters have abilities that turn the outcome of the encounter completely unpredictable, such as insta-kill abilities, Gate and Time Stop. It takes a lot of planning (and sometimes, improvisation and luck) for the DM to avoid both killing the entire party and making an easy/unchallenging encounter. And all this combat planning sacrifices time for the DM, that could be used to prepare other things. A DM friend of mine acquired the habit of "playtesting" the battles before using them on actual game.
Of course, experienced DMs may come with inumerous ways of dealing with these issues (for instance, forcing the player to restrict his list of Shapechange forms and take note of his modified character's stats before the session, giving important villains immunity to various instant-kill effects, etc.)
But in essence, the 3.5E mechanics are simply not suited for fast-paced and easy to handle high level combat.
|
|
I am personally hoping that we are able to fix the high level play problem. It is my biggest problem with 3rd edition. I just ran a Shackled City campaign that went up to 16th level and it was a huge drain on my energy and my fun as a DM. Jason and I have talked a bunch about the problem and I know that he has his eye trained on it.-Lisa
It's my biggest issue as well. High levels just don't get to be "fun" after awhile for the average player or DM. And I don't mean "fun" in the aspect of "we can do cool stuff", but in the actual game mechanics. Too much complexity. Too many opportunities to have a player get sidelined for long stretchs where he's watching (or worse, wandering off).
This is the primary reason I'm looking at 4E, actually. For certain groups I'd be willing to trade complexity for fun without having to switch to some other game system. I would be thrilled if you can work on this for the PFRPG rules as well.
-Pete
I wonder if this should be on the 3e boards instead.
Not having seen 4.x and not bothering to go to the website anymore I won't speak to the mechanics. Sebastian is correct, most any RPG can be beat into submission to fit any system.
Those qualifiers being said, I am glad to see a stable challenge mechanic, and am sure that the 4.x DMG will advise common sense. "Do not allow players to argue that Perform (pantomime) would have an impact on the evil warlord. No matter how much he likes mimes, it won't be enough to stop him from sacking the city."
Since I've argued in 3.x that Profession should be allowed to replace/suppliment skills in specific situations, I can't find fault with using knowlege history to aid another's diplomacy check.
Heck, I can think of a literary example. In By the Sword, by Mercedes Lackey, the emmisaries from Valdemar are calling for help from their neighboring kingdom, they're not getting anywhere until Kerowyn reminds the king of an oath made by his grandfather.
The designers must have been thinking of this example too when they made one of the sample encounters as a successful diplomacy check opens up the possibility of using a history check.
The Skill Challenge encounters - the designed ones anyway - don't usually have to worry about players using irrelevant skills. They seem constructed. So there is a specific list of skills one can use, explanations on how that will help (during a chase it might list balance as a skill that can be used - success means you get closer to your quarry by hopping up on a low wall and bypassing the crowd by running along the wall - fail and you lose ground as you slip and fall into the crowd.
Also checks appear to be designable in such a manner that some options are just automatic failures. If your dealing with a dragon (a mistake to begin with but there it is) it may be the case that attempting to intimidate the dragon simply won't do anything but enrage it and all intimidate checks count as one failure. Similiarly you might find an evil and pathetic creature that you can't use diplomacy on without a failure but intimidates and bluffs (lots of threats of bodily harm presumably) work wonders.
I'm very excited by the way this mechanic is shaping up. I'm already thinking interesting scenes one can create using this. That said its moving in the opposite direction of easy and fast. For these encounters to be good it would seem you really have to know something about the NPC Warlords personality and past in order to design a fulfilling encounter. That obviously means the DM is going to have to have thought about this sort of thing - this is clearly more work then the straight up diplomacy check to see if you made the Demon friendly or not.