Player: My guy is from a horse-riding culture, like the Mongols or Huns, born in the saddle and that sort of thing. He's an awesome rider.
DM: Cool. I guess you will spend resources to get there.
Player: Yeah.
Later on in the game, the PC fails a check to ride his horse.
The player has a vision of his character. The DM doesn't want to compromise that vision in any way. He wants the PC to remain true to the player's vision, which requires that he's an excellent rider.
But the dice show that his action requires a failure.
In order to maintain the integrity of the PC as an awesome rider, the DM decides that he didn't fail because his excellent riding skills let him down; he failed because of factors outside of his control. The failure is some other complication - a gorge that was out of sight - that wasn't related to riding, and thus the ability of the PC to ride is maintained.
Now because the PC's riding ability isn't in question, the player can choose to go back to the well - to use his riding ability to get out of this new situation.
I think that Imaro started to answer this pretty well, so I'll play off of his reply, and your response to that.
Second, doesn't the amount of resources spent determine just how good of a rider the character is (at least as far as mechanics go)?
2. (the first) Not really. Resources - such as feats, skill ranks, or skill training - are a meta-game resource, an abstraction of the game world (at best). They require the players and the DM to translate those resources into fiction, usually through application of action resolution mechanics - but not always.
Okay, I disagree with your reply. In my RPG, I have a chart where I can look up hit die (1-20) and investment (no interest, hobby, interested, professionally skilled, exceptionally skilled), and it'll tell me what the bonus of that level will be.
Different hit die have also been given rough designations. For example, hit die 4 is "an average settled adult" while hit die 8 is "a very experienced or very well-trained adult." Knowing this, I can see that most guards might be hit die 4-8, and that "professionally skilled" in melee attack of that hit die will be (+7 to +10).
Now, with that knowledge, +7 to attack means something within the game world (no matter how you arrive at that number), which is you're about as good as attacking as the average settled adult who is professionally skilled at it (like a guard or soldier). You can use that number (+7 to attacks) as a concrete number to play off of in the world.
What this means, to me, as that while feats and skill ranks/training are a meta resource, the number they output at the end (bonus to skill/attack) can still give me something concrete to work with in the game. Basically, if the skilled rider wants to be as good as he says he is, he needs to get up to a bonus where that's reflected within the fiction. Prior to that point, he isn't as good as he aspires to be.
Second, when did excellent rider = infallible rider?
2. (the second) I didn't describe said character as infallible. You just did; nowhere did I say he was infallible.
I said: "In order to maintain the integrity of the PC as an awesome rider, the DM decides that he didn't fail because his excellent riding skills let him down; he failed because of factors outside of his control."
I'm saying that the DM thinks a) that having the PC's ride fail him at this moment would be harmful to the character's integrity within the fiction and b) that the DM thinks, in this situation, the best way to maintain the PC's integrity while still using the result of the failed check is to introduce a gorge.
This creates the problematic (for my group) disconnect where, after the event, the PC thinks "I need to brush up on my geography" and the PC thinks "I need to boost my Ride skill." Then, the player has the choice to act as his character would (investigate learning the local area), or as he knows will benefit his character (invest more in Ride). I don't like that at all.
Third, why does the DM have the right to determine whether it was the characters skill or outside forces that caused him to fail, why doesn't the character decide that... or the dice?
3. I assume because it's the DM's job to determine the result of failure in these specific action resolution mechanics. I think this is the case for skill challenges in 4E.
I agree with this, at least as far as my own group does it. As GM, I call for the skill roll of the player, and also narrate the result of the success/failure. I don't do this, of course, without the player(s) letting me know what they want to do ("I want to attempt to speed my horse up" or "I want to find a good place to hide and then hide there"). Based on their input, I ask them to roll a skill check, and then I narrate the results of it.
Edit: Doesn't this philosophy also lead to spamming of a skill over and over again? If he failed a ride check a second time would you again attribute it to outside forces and let him make another ride check? What about a 3rd time?
4. (the edit) Yes, this could lead to spamming skills. That is fine. Would the DM let him make another ride check? It's not really up to the DM - it depends on what the PC does.
Well, within the context of a skill challenge, this may not be true. If the GM says that there's nowhere to progress by using the same skill again (you've already sped your horse up, you're already cutting corners, you're already jumping obstacles, etc.), then it might be time to use a new skill.
You can see how this technique is going to work well for certain play styles and poorly for others. I don't use this technique in my own 4E hack, for instance, because the DM in that system isn't supposed to care about the integrity of the PCs.
Right, this is definitely a play style thing. I'm not saying it's wrong to play that way, and I haven't been (and I know you're saying much the same thing, and weren't questioning me at all [since you didn't quote my post]). It's purely a play style thing, and I was voicing my objection to this style of play for my group.
If I use task resolution to ride away the roll answers the question 'How well do I ride my horse?'
Great. The problem (for some) here is that is does not answer the question 'Do I escape?' and if you iterate further through the process - okay I failed ride and fell off my horse, now what? Okay I hide. I failed that, okay, I climb a tree... etc none of these rolls are answering the question 'Do I escape?'. Even if I make my ride check it still doesn't tell me if I escaped.
Well, there's two ways to go about this. One, use something like a skill challenge. The other, it's not over until you've actually escaped. Did they not find you on their Perception check after you hid? Did they start to poke around, or did they move on? It's based on what they do fictionally and the mechanical results of pursuing that fiction.
OTOH, you have 'conflict resolution' which answers the question 'Do I escape?' but leaves the process of escape open to interpretation (how open is up to the group). You failed ride, you're at a gorge...
You can use a skill challenge system without this being the case. You can have a situation where a Geography check is called for (terrain challenging the escaping PC), and if he fails, he runs into a gorge, pass, valley, etc. This failure (or complication) is a direct result of the "appropriate" skill check: Geography (and not Ride).
So my failed 'ride' roll tells me is that I haven't escaped, but leaves the how and why to the group to fill in the fiction. Personally, I think it's important in this situation that the horse still matters in the fiction. Okay I'm backed into a gorge, but I have my horse so I still have all my possessions. I've ridden a while, so I've possibly put some distance between me and the pursuers. These things would not be the case had I used Athletics instead.
Yes, exactly. That's why I think, if you fail with a certain skill, the fiction should represent that by giving a complication involving that skill. You failed using athletics, so you aren't climbing as fast as you could be. You failed using Ride, so you've stumbled a bit by going through rough brush that you tried to jump to save time. You failed using Geography, so you've hit a gorge.
In other words, the difference between using 'Ride' to ride away and using 'Athletics' to run away is still used as the basis for determining 'what happens next', but in a broad rather than specific way.
Agreed. I just like it being related to the field you failed in, so you don't get that PC/player disconnect later on.
At any rate, just my take on the subject. It's what my group prefers, but that doesn't mean it's objectively right, or anything. I'm sure your guys' groups have a blast with it your way, and that's cool. As always, play what you like