Ok, I've got a few moments here.
@
Sadras, I'm going to try to address your questions/disagreements/requests for clarification in the coming days, but I'm not sure if I can get them all. However, I feel that in order to do so, I need to come at this conceptually first.
What is the difference between conflict resolution and task resolution?
The primary interest of conflict resolution is the "why?" rather than the "how?" Its about persons/things who have conflicting agendas/interests and the outcomes, uncertain until resolution is cemented, that may arise from their clashing. The stakes of any given conflict, the framing of the situation at the outset, and the evolving drama are centered around that premise. Conflict resolution mechanics (and the GM principles that inform and bind framing, reframing, and denouement) are at their best when they heed each of these facets, drive and focus play toward conflict (specifically the conflict that the PCs care about), and help the GM escalate and maintain momentum until the situation has been resolved (win/loss condition met and the fictional reward/fallout realized).
MHRP and 4e actually have a lot of similarities in their conflict resolution mechanics. Let us say you have a Complexity 3 Skill Challenge in 4e. Mechanically, that means:
* 8 primary skill successes (in effect, the group's adversary's HPs or stress track) before 3 primary skill failures (in effect, the group's HPs or stress track). Win/Loss condition.
* 3 secondary skills (almost exclusively at the easy DC) usages available. These serve as augments to primary checks (or a setback/complication if you fail them).
* 2 advantages available. These serve exclusively as player fiat. They let you do stuff like step a DC down one (eg from hard to medium).
* 6 medium DCs to be met and 2 hard DCs to be met.
MHRP has protagonist and antagonist stress dice (once you reach the value, the party is "stressed out"). It has something called Plot Points which let PCs add dice to their pool from various things internal (personal distinctions, abilities, etc) and external (scene elements, etc). It also has something called the "Doom Pool" which is a latent pool of dice that the GM pulls from to escalate the conflict, level of danger, and dramatic potency of the moment. Secondary skills and advantages are akin to MHRP Plot Points. The GM's hard DCs are effectively the 4e version of the Doom Pool. The only thing really missing (and this is most unfortunate as its a strength of MHRP conflict resolution and a weakness of 4e) is the feedback loop between player dice deployed, related opportunities (when player rolls a 1) activated by the GM, and subsequent fueling the growth of the GM Doom Pool and the player Plot Point pool (GM gives player a plot point to add a d6 to the pool or "step up" an existing die - eg d6 > d8).
Procedurally and GM-principle-wise, you're doing pretty much the same things:
1) Establish what is at stake within the fiction. "Why" are you doing this in the first place? To prevent x from happening or allow y to happen. If the win condition is met, the fictional reward is realized. If the loss condition is met, the fictional reward is denied/not realized and whatever fallout/setback from its lack of realization accrues.
2) The GM's job is to set the scene, frame the PCs right into the conflict, evolve/escalate the fiction and maintain dramatic momentum (while always keeping 1 in mind as the reference point), and play the adversarial elements, that interpose themselves between the PCs and their goals, to the hilt. This is done all the while playing by the rules, observing macro-agenda, and micro-principles.
3) Close out the scene and climax with a fitting denoument that leads naturally into follow-on conflicts that arise from the outcome.
Alright. How do subjective/metagame-based DCs aid this process? When focusing on the "why" (rather than the "how") and being primarily concerned with always attaining dramatic outcomes, the math needs to be your partner...not your adversary. If the DCs are equilibrated to PC competency throughout the course of play (such that percentage success/failure for the Easy/Medium/Hard DC remains failry consistent), then you ensure that (GM-side) expectant outcomes are attained. Therefore, the GM can consistently put the precise amount of (mechanical...which then yields dramatic) pressure on the situation that they are looking for. And with focusing on the "why", the DCs will be representing several things at once:
1) Genre-consistent, game-world "stuff" based on the PC's status (eg if its related to climbing a mountain, the adversarial component is going to be something vastly more ominous, trying, and fantastical in the epic tier relative to the heroic tier).
2) Dramatic need at the metagame level for GM-use in maintenance/escalation (while observing rules, macro-agenda, micro-principles).
3) In-fiction urgency and/or momentum (either for or against the PCs) relative to the stakes.
Now that I've got that stuff written, I'll work on answering specific questions/protests (trying to use most of the above as reference points) in the coming days.
