Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5588333" data-attributes="member: 42582">There are similar examples in Underdark and The Plane Above. But I read them differently from you (which is not to say that I'm right and you're wrong - I may have misread them!)The way I read these is as examles of how the designers envisage a 4e game playing out. They're not scripts - neither actually suggested scripts (what could be worse than a script? a script your players have already read because they've looke at the book too!), nor hypothetical or exemplary scripts. They're hypothetical retellings of actual play.And read in this way I've found them very helpful - they've drawn my attention to features of 4e as a game - its monsters, its mythology, etc - which I had forgotten about or not properly focused on, and helped me see how I can use those world elements to create (hopefully) compelling situations in my game.The PHB says this (at page 259):Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail.The DMG says this (at page 74):Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results.It also says (at page 75):In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth… However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.Given that the narration of results is intended to respond to the skill checks that the players make, which in turn are to be grounded in descriptions of what their PCs do in resopnse to the ingame situation; and given that the GM is told to allow the players actual freedom in this respect; it follows that the GM will not know what results to narrate until the players have actually done what the rules tell them to do.Now there is more to be said than that, because the skill challenge system is meant to do a wide range of jobs. For example, it is the default overland travel resolution mechanic - and when used in this way, it is probably less likely to produce unexpected overall outcomes (mostly the PCs will make it from A to B) but rather is used to regulate the attrition of resources (the PCs lost X healing surges in transit, or did/didn't get to rest en route). In this sort of skill challenge, departure from anticipated outcomes is likely to be at the margins rather than in the centre - although in my own case, I've found that some of these marginal surprises are still interesting, and create consequences that come back into play sometime downstream.Published skill challenges have a tendency to approach the skill challenge only in this way, however - even social skill challenges, which turn into metaphorical "journeys" to certain information or assistance with attrition/penalties along the way. But the skill challenge mechanic can also be used not as a travel mechanic (either metaphorical or literal) but as something analogous to an extended contest in HQ or a Duel of Wits in BW. My experience from using the skill challenge guidelines in play, when the stakes are something other than "how do we get from A to B", is that unexpected stuff comes about.And this is what I've seen in 4e's skill challenge rules that tells against scripting/railroading.</blockquote>

Verification