Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6017863" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Good afternoon Chris,&nbsp;pemerton's thread:&nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/326200-why-i-like-skill-challenges-noncombat-resolution-mechanic.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/326200-why-i-like-skill-challenges-noncombat-resolution-mechanic.html</a>&nbsp;is a very good emporium of information on this subject.&nbsp; I have multiple posts (I think somewhere around page 10) on this exact subject.&nbsp; I'll try to briefly convey the issues at present here (which manifested in that thread and has manfiested in others).&nbsp;Your modus operandi appears to be classic process-simulation.&nbsp; I have been there.&nbsp; I know it well.&nbsp; I play it now and again with other systems.&nbsp; By its nature it is &quot;process-first&quot;.&nbsp; Fiction interests are a second-order fuction of this process simulation.&nbsp; Therefore they are subordinate to this process.&nbsp; Therefore, it is not &quot;fiction-first.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp;A check is rolled.&nbsp; The scope of resultant fiction is narrowly mapped to a linear coupling of cause and effect by way of the PC's internal locus of control mechanics related to their skill that they bring to bear on the environment, in this moment, as a result of this singular check - eg;&nbsp; You are on a horse.&nbsp; You roll Ride.&nbsp; You pass:&nbsp; You ride faster or proficently.&nbsp; You fail:&nbsp; You ride slower or without proficiency.&nbsp; Perhaps you fall off the horse.&nbsp;&nbsp; An aggregation of these same checks within a series are narrowly interpreted by way of linear coupling of this same process simulation of cause and effect.&nbsp;&quot;Fiction-first&quot; is just that.&nbsp; Process-simulation is subordinate to that interest.&nbsp; Due to this, process-simulation, much of the time, turns into &quot;outcome-based simulation.&quot;&nbsp; The goal is to capture a specific, genre-inspired trope (an Indiana Jones chase scene or an exploration group lost in the frozen arctic wilderness, etc).&nbsp;&nbsp; Your interpretation of checks are guided by the &quot;genre-logic&quot; and expectations embedded in these tropes.&nbsp; Your interpretation of skill checks is meant to broaden the scope of possible resultant fiction such that a diverse, dynamic fictional rendering of the aggregation of checks is possible.&nbsp; A failed Ride check may be that your horse slows down due to poor horsemanship or you fall off the saddle.&nbsp; However, it may also be somethiing external to your Ride locus of control that complicates matters.&nbsp; It is the heart of the conflict that you are attempting to overcome (the stakes) and the check's relation to that (not the exact mapping of process) that is relevant.&nbsp; Are you attempting to evade pursuit?&nbsp; If so, perhaps a failed check means the ground opens up in a great sinkhole before you.&nbsp; Perhaps over the next ridge there is a nigh-impassable gorge is revealed.&nbsp; Perhaps an unforseen weather event complicates things (a dust-storm, a flash-flood, a downpour, etc).&nbsp; Perhaps a stray arrow aimed at your back strikes a saddle-strap causing it to unbuckle and now you are faced with trying to jury-rig your saddle in the middle of treacherous pursuit at top speed...or ditch your horse...or try to dismantle the saddle and stay on your horse, etc.&nbsp; &nbsp;If you remove the strictures of linear mapping of process-simulation, your fictional possibilities (from check to check and overall in the entirety of the conflict resolution) broaden dramatically and become much more diverse and dynamic as a result...and thus you are able to use genre-logic to stay the course within whatever trope you are attempting to capture...rather than circumventing the process due to strident, narrow, cause and effect mapping.&nbsp; &nbsp;I hope that makes sense.&nbsp; I understand that outcome-based simulation is quite controversial to process-simulation interests.&nbsp; It seems to often exhibit an allergic reaction.&nbsp; That may be your reaction here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6017863, member: 6696971"] Good afternoon Chris, pemerton's thread: [URL]http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/326200-why-i-like-skill-challenges-noncombat-resolution-mechanic.html[/URL] is a very good emporium of information on this subject. I have multiple posts (I think somewhere around page 10) on this exact subject. I'll try to briefly convey the issues at present here (which manifested in that thread and has manfiested in others). Your modus operandi appears to be classic process-simulation. I have been there. I know it well. I play it now and again with other systems. By its nature it is "process-first". Fiction interests are a second-order fuction of this process simulation. Therefore they are subordinate to this process. Therefore, it is not "fiction-first." A check is rolled. The scope of resultant fiction is narrowly mapped to a linear coupling of cause and effect by way of the PC's internal locus of control mechanics related to their skill that they bring to bear on the environment, in this moment, as a result of this singular check - eg; You are on a horse. You roll Ride. You pass: You ride faster or proficently. You fail: You ride slower or without proficiency. Perhaps you fall off the horse. An aggregation of these same checks within a series are narrowly interpreted by way of linear coupling of this same process simulation of cause and effect. "Fiction-first" is just that. Process-simulation is subordinate to that interest. Due to this, process-simulation, much of the time, turns into "outcome-based simulation." The goal is to capture a specific, genre-inspired trope (an Indiana Jones chase scene or an exploration group lost in the frozen arctic wilderness, etc). Your interpretation of checks are guided by the "genre-logic" and expectations embedded in these tropes. Your interpretation of skill checks is meant to broaden the scope of possible resultant fiction such that a diverse, dynamic fictional rendering of the aggregation of checks is possible. A failed Ride check may be that your horse slows down due to poor horsemanship or you fall off the saddle. However, it may also be somethiing external to your Ride locus of control that complicates matters. It is the heart of the conflict that you are attempting to overcome (the stakes) and the check's relation to that (not the exact mapping of process) that is relevant. Are you attempting to evade pursuit? If so, perhaps a failed check means the ground opens up in a great sinkhole before you. Perhaps over the next ridge there is a nigh-impassable gorge is revealed. Perhaps an unforseen weather event complicates things (a dust-storm, a flash-flood, a downpour, etc). Perhaps a stray arrow aimed at your back strikes a saddle-strap causing it to unbuckle and now you are faced with trying to jury-rig your saddle in the middle of treacherous pursuit at top speed...or ditch your horse...or try to dismantle the saddle and stay on your horse, etc. If you remove the strictures of linear mapping of process-simulation, your fictional possibilities (from check to check and overall in the entirety of the conflict resolution) broaden dramatically and become much more diverse and dynamic as a result...and thus you are able to use genre-logic to stay the course within whatever trope you are attempting to capture...rather than circumventing the process due to strident, narrow, cause and effect mapping. I hope that makes sense. I understand that outcome-based simulation is quite controversial to process-simulation interests. It seems to often exhibit an allergic reaction. That may be your reaction here. [/QUOTE]

Verification