Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7349933" data-attributes="member: 48965">Yes we could always modify and change the SC rules... but then I have to ask at what point have we entered the realm of free forming it vs. a structured model?  If I'm discarding the DC structure when antagonists appear in the SC or better yet making a bunch of changes to get it to work the way I want, at what point does the structure of this particular mechanic loose it's value? Initially and I'm not certain if this is still true but it may not be since SC's went through numerous revisions, players were in fact required to participate in a SC.  But even putting that aside you're missing the fundamental difference here... You assumed that the encounters would be combat encounters when in fact they don't have to be.  If you handle an encounter through diplomacy, stealth, lying, etc. as long as you achieve whatever goal you have (getting deeper into the dungeon, stealing the treasure, not having your resources depleted, etc.)  you have still interacted with said challenge and overcame it.  It's not quitting the challenge it's being able to handle it in numerous ways that aren't prescribed already do to mechanical assumptions. In the above examples given by you...the players haven't overcome the challenge or failed at it they've just quit.      No I think this is actually part of one of the revised versions, maybe... I don't know haven't looked at the final rules in a long time...but again, IMO, we are loosing more of that structure which is the whole point of SC's and drifting further into freeform.  Yes we have x successes over y losses but now anything outside of skills can generate those successes and (I would assume) failures as well.  So is the value of the SC just that I've abstracted this challenge out with how many rolls it must consist of to succeed or fail... I'd rather do that organically as opposed to pre-setting it.  I agree with you that a DM cannot think of everything, and that's exactly why I don't find much value in deciding beforehand that X successes are necessary before Y failures.  What if the PC's can actually overcome it (fiction wise) with one less success than I decided beforehand?  Do I manipulate the fiction to force them to have to roll again?The thing is my PC's would probably go about this in a totally different manner (unless I lay out that it's a SC and what the courses of action might be)... so what is my value proposition in writing all this out if I want them to have the freedom to deal with it in their own way? So are you advocating that you be transparent with the players about SC's?  Because if so then I see how it works out... but if you are not letting them know they've entered a SC with X successes necessary before Y failures they can still end up with the necessary successes but lacking the fictional positioning to achieve their goals, what do you do in that situation (and if you need an example let me know and I'll write one up a little later...  No not even in combat... why am I as DM describing what your character does?  I describe what my NPC's and monsters do, what type of attack they go for, how they miss (Or the player can describe how they dodge or parry, though it's rare) or hit etc... but I don't understand why I would also narrate the PC's actions as well. They see the die roll just like I do, they can narrate appropriate fiction during the exchange just like I can, so why would I do this? Because unless they are aware of the underpinnings of the SC (Which is a totally viable suggestion)... how do they know when they are about to reach their X successes or Y failures?  They could garner all 4 of their successes... but never actually (fiction wise) confront the challenge. So mechanically they have succeeded while in the fiction they don't have the positioning to succeed.  Yes I can step in as DM narrate it as the challenge is overcome but this isn't really optimal for my group and I.</blockquote>

Verification