Ok, let me say first that it would appear to me that we're moving into the territory of the "Dissociated Mechanics" thread where this issue (or issues tangential to it) was canvassed quite thoroughly. Nonetheless, let us flesh out our differences on this a bit further. And by the by, thank you for your very clear and concise post outlining your position (I'm sorry that I cannot offer you the same brevity...I do not possess the brilliance of Richard Feynman and for that I apologize.). I will offer you multiple points here and I'm quite certain (given that I have a strong grip on where you are coming from as I used to be 100 % in lockstep with you) that some of them may not be terribly convincing. I suspect that Skill Challenges (at least as I run them) are not for you and I suspect that you likely would not like to be a PC at my table. So be it. So long as we can all play our games under this "big tent" theory then we can consider ourselves a lucky gaming community.
1) (BACKGROUND FOR CONTEXT) Let me first say that outside of the Skill Challenge framework I typically (always) use the skill system in a Process Simulation fashion to resolve linear, coupled cause and effect, rudimentary action resolution:
a) Climb a tree
b) Swim in rapids
c) Canvass your lore knowledge for potentially relevant information regarding what is at hand
d) Sneak up on someone
e) Pick a simple lock
f) Etc, etc
The reason for this is because we are not attempting to resolve the encounter of a complex, framed scene while symbiotically capturing the narrative of a specific genre trope. There will be no aggregation of checks toward a dynamic, fiction-driving plot complication (or resolution). There is no pacing attempt, no panning in on the PCs. * We're resolving a single, straight forward moment. Outside of the skill challenge framework, a Knowledge Local Geography would be used to resolve the simple mechanics of the question "can this character navigate this terrain successfully or locate or identify this terrain feature?"
2) (PATTERN RECOGNITION OFTEN LEADS TO A SHALLOW UNDERSTANDING) Our brains organize the world through the means of "pattern recognition", "confirmation bias" and "cognitive dissonance". We couple cause and effect at an early age, build preconceptions based on this coupling, confirm this bias throughout the course of our lives and ardently discard evidence antithetical to our preconceptions of this coupled cause and effect. The unfortunate reality is that a great many times, these couplings are grossly misleading due to our finite (and often misleading) perceptions. It takes extraordinary humility, awareness, and critical analysis to scrutinize and then reverse this process (when justified). This is why you see so much "black and white" or "binary thought" of how worldly phenomena work. It is easy and it is comforting. Unfortunately, a great many processes, even mundane ones, have underlying variables whose quantification are beyond the capacity of shallow, human perception. There is an extraordinary granularity to the causal mechanisms that lead to outcomes in this world that is quite uncomfortable...because it makes us consider the very real limits of our perceptive capabilities...and forces us to think quite hard to understand what variables underwrite these processes.
3) (INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL) To piggyback on Jester's line of thought, in any action there are going to be mechanisms at work that are within our capacity to affect and those that are external to our will. Further, there is very strong neurological research that much of our idea of "free will" is an illusion whereby our brains have already considered and formulated responses before we have even considered the question. So we can call upon our brains to examine the aggregation of sensory information (forces, words, the confluence of the two, etc) and act to influence or direct a specific event toward an outcome. We can then have our brains enact our musculo-skeletal system to influence or direct a specific event toward an outcome. However, and this is enormously important, there are two very potent external loci of control that influence outcomes: (i) Lack of information (reliable or otherwise) or misinterpretation (or shallow understanding of) coupled cause and effect and (ii) Entropy and its proliferation. (i) is canvassed in the above paragraph 2. However, Entropy and its proliferation is enormously potent and extremely hard to quantify even if you are aware of it. Unverified, unquantified, Latent Entropy is loaded into a micro-system. That latent entropy manifests at some point and loads further latent (or realized) entropy into the macro-system. As this entropy proliferates (without being accounted for and mitigated), the system is underpinned by deeper complexities through variable growth and the inevitable 2nd/3rd order functions of their chained interactions. At the end of this, the standard deviation from the predicted mean response of our coupled cause and effect has become grossly bloated...and we're left raging at our shallow understanding of it...and trying desperately to convince ourselves that this system is still the easy, binary reality we initially thought it was...with one specific, dogmatic element being the arbiter of it all (and that element will inevitably be an internal locus of control)...so we can focus our rage at that element and/or perhaps better constrain/control it in the future...and again be secure.
4) (ANECDOTE OUTLINING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL THAT HOPEFULLY MAPS TO THE SITUATION AT HAND) I run at the same park over and over again (probably 5 times a week). It has two trails/tracks that naturally loop together and are about 3.5 miles in total. However, the South track has a few "branches" off of it that spill you out in an undesirable area (out of the loop) or into a dead-end. I've run this looped track literally hundreds and hundreds of times. One could say that my Knowledge Local Geography would be maxed for my level
I'm also a rather perceptive person. However, despite my brain having this track absolutely embedded into it, I have accidentally taken those branches, mistakenly, more than once. I have done this under two circumstances. One circumstance is when I'm running with someone else and we are involved in deep, focused conversation. The second circumstance is when I am by myself but thinking deeply on something or distracted by some external or internal source. Apparently, my Concentration Check or Running Check in this scenario becomes a proxy for my Knowledge Local Geography check (due to their symbiotic relationship within the manifestation of this event) and a failure in either of those two means that I fail my "unrolled" Knowledge Local Geography check (as again, due to their symbiotic nature, they function as proxies for my ability to put to use my "maxed knowledge"). Point being, if you impose enough stress via internal or external sensory input, it overwhelms my system (intermittently...not consistently) and apparently I cannot bring to bear my Knowledge Local Geography acumen with 100 % efficacy.
5) (IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ON AN ABSTRACT MECHANICAL RESOLUTION SYSTEM, WHICH LACKS CONSISTENT, INTUITIVE MATH AND GRANULARITY OF DETAIL (TIME, SPACE, UNMAPPED ENTROPY AND OTHER EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL, UNREALIZED FICTIONAL ELEMENTS ONLY MANIFESTING DURING THE MOMENT OF EXPERIENCE) DnD has an extraordinary number of abstractions (HPs, AC, to hit rolls representing multiple attacks, 5 % chance to miss any creature regardless of comparative battle acumen,the modeling of many internal locus of control "skill" applications with a single ability/skill check, and on and on...these have been canvassed a thousand times over) and amazing inconsistencies (enormous creatures flying without requisite thrust and impossible trim characteristics, exoskeleton possessing creatures having unbounded size, and on and on) built into it. There is an effort to model somethings with the illusion of granularity of detail (while failing to account for/represent potent variables in its derivation) and there is utter hand-waving in other areas. We flat out do not model (with anything resembling fidelity) an internally consistent, physical world via DnD's mechanical resolution system. For some reason though (likely legacy and or cultural meme issues) we like to pretend that we do (I used to). Some of these inconsistencies we cannot get past...but others are fine with. Its mystifying. I chalk it up to 2 and 3 and move on.
6) (WHAT A SKILL CHALLENGE IS MODELLING) A Skill Challenge is a vehicle used to model Heroic Fantasy Tropes. This is its predicate (Fiction First). It is a noncombat scene resolution mechanic used when you have a specific scene in mind that you wish to capture. Further, and this is important, you DO NOT want the results of a singular or a final check to be a linear arbiter of "what results from the scene's success/failure." This is because aggregate successes/failures create layered tension (when done right). A singular check by a PC is where they get to impose upon the fiction via the vehicle of their skill acumen. However, this imposition can (but not always will be) merely in a pass or fail sense (potentially only loosely in a process simulation sense...if at all), which then leads to the next decision-point and aggregates toward the effort of ultimate success or failure of the Skill Challenge. After the check is rolled then you are introducing (thank you Pemerton for the term) "genre/trope logic", not merely process simulation logic. You are trying to weave a piece of dynamic fiction and capture a specific Heroic Fantasy Trope/Scene. If every check follows the next with the most strict effort at fidelity toward modelling the physics, (i) you will need an extraordinary number of checks to maintain fidelity, (ii) the scope of the fiction you can weave will be extraordinarily rigid and narrow...and you can then forget about the entire point of the Skill Challenge (to capture a Heroic Fantasy Trope/Scene with the correct pacing and the dynamic, decision-points). If this is the predicate of the exercise, then you will have to (now and then) take a modicum of creative liberties toward capturing the narrative (and allowing the PCs to enter author stance and do the same)...lest the emergent fiction be stale and unrewarding. Your PC will have full agency in this effort (to direct - that is to win the skill challenge) via the vessel of their skills. If you have to use post-hoc rationalization after the fact because you are going to agonize that your PCs action resolution mechanics do not maintain perfect fidelity to your PCs "awareness" of coupled cause and effect relative to his internal locus of control and skill acumen...then you either do so by invoking (3) Entropy and its Proliferation or (4) Skills as Proxies for Other Skills...or you just stay away from "closed system", scene-framing mechanics that use "genre logic" and primarily aim at delivering the dynamic narrative of a Heroic Fantasy Trope.
Finally, Nagol, I still think that you are conflating your own awareness of the skill resolution mechanics within the fiction to your own PC's awareness. The gorge manifestation after the failed Ride check (see post-hoc rationalizations above if you need them) may manifest one time in this character's existence forevermore. I find it extraordinary to believe that a proficient rider, fleeing deadly pursuit, over treacherous terrain, with precious cargo, perhaps dodging fire...under all this extreme stress...while trying to remain vigilant and locate a small terrain feature that reveals a narrow land-bridge over a yawing chasm is going to suddenly have his belief in the world challenged if he "fails a ride check" (a la cannot maintain concentration while focusing on riding due to all of these stressors and then bring to bear his Knowledge Local Geography Acumen with perfect efficacy). If so, perhaps he should retire to a cave as the world is going to let him down a great many times. In real life, people are going to have failures where their acumen is both a product of relentless formal training, practical experience, and natural talent. If every time this happens their suspension of disbelief that they are a living breathing organism in a moving world is undermined (perhaps they are in the Truman Show...or are Rosencrantz and Gildenstern?), then I fear for their sanity by the age of 50.
