D&D General "Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued

[billd91]

Right, just to clarify, this is the function of the SC in 4e. Sadly 5e eschews this, and thus there simply are no rules for these types of situations. The DM simply decides which sorts of checks and how many will produce what fictional and mechanical result. What I contend is that this leads to a situation where the player MUST be entirely a "Character advocate" and the DM is inevitably cast into the role of saying what the player is 'allowed' to get (and if dice are used, it is entirely the DM who decides if enough have been tossed, he can ask for one more check at any point, so in effect the outcome is his to decide, the dice are just a fig leaf outside of combat).

Considering the DM in 4e constructs the skill challenge including defining relevant skills (or allows others if the players advocate for their PCs using them) and the outcomes, this looks to me like a distinction without much of a difference.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think this is very correct, or a useful distinction. There are lots of rules in DW that correspond to specific enough things. Hack and Slash, for instance, is pretty analogous to the attack action in 5e -- there's really not much of a distinction to the role H&S has in the game to that of the attack action.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. While Hack & Slash, as a specific move, is representing roughly the same sort of thing as D&D's 'attacks', there are huge differences. There is no 'turn structure' in DW. Combat happens in a purely narrative sense, beyond even 5e's TOTM. It is an entirely narrative process, and might potentially not even HAVE 'attacks' in any mechanical sense (there really is no mechanical sense in which they exist). So, "an orc rushes out of the darkness and attacks you!" would be a 'hard move' in DW. The first thing you would note is that there are no 'attacks' made by monsters. There is literally no move open to the GM with the label "attack character X" and the GM DOES NOT EVER ROLL DICE in PbtA games (at least not for moves, maybe there are some situations where they can roll some dice for some other purpose, like damage). As soon as the above move was made by the GM one or more of the PCs would announce their responses to this change in fiction. The thief might say "I leap into the shadows!" (hiding, Defy Danger). The dwarf lifts up his axe and yells BARUK, BARUK KAZAD! and attacks (hack and slash). The ranger might Volley with his bow. Each of these would be dealt with in sequence, and that sequence would be based on the FICTION, not on any 'turn structure' or 'combat rules' (which don't exist).
The thief DDs (he's at the front), he fails, the orc delivers its damage to him with a vicious chop (GM rolls damage). Next the Dwarf and the orc collide, the dwarf manages to get a 10 with Hack and Slash, a clear success, he deals his damage to the orc, which now begins to fight with him. Meanwhile the ranger is nocking an arrow and lets fly, with some effect or other depending on what he rolls. Now, at this point the it is really up to the players, the thief could backstab, the dwarf will probably keep fighting (and if he rolls low he will take damage), etc. The GM could describe the orc as pressing the attack, or as barreling on through the party and off into the darkness in the other direction (though surely someone would have a chance to alter that with a move if they want).
What I'm saying is, sure, there are moves which speak to the concerns of dungeon adventuring, fighting, negotiating, handling hazards, getting drunk in taverns, etc. but they are not specific rules ABOUT the game world, they are about fiction, and only incidentally, sometimes, get related back to some of the fairly simple mechanics of the game.

In fact, contrary to earlier statement, I think 5e has a good tool to resolve the toy example of setting a shed on fire while orcs are running a bucket brigade -- it's right up front in the core playloop, the PC states the action, the GM determines if it's uncertain and, if so, sets a DC and asks for an attribute roll which the player can modify with appropriate proficiencies. This handles the toy problem, and many other issues similar to it, at least mechanically. And that is, to me, the big distinction between a game like 5e and one like DW -- the difference between the mechanical bits, or tech, and the way those are meant to be used, or the principles of play. DW has tech which is different from 5e, but not sufficiently to elicit the play of DW on it's own. What makes the big difference are the principles that DW presents not as game tech but more as meta-rules for play, and these directions on how to use the tech make the biggest difference in play. 5e doesn't really provide any principles of play, leaving it up to individual tables to both define and apply their own -- usually picking up from established and unstated principles from the D&D zeitgeist. This means that while 5e has the tech to solve the firing the shed toy example, it doesn't really work well unless a given table has set principles of play that enable it to work. Likewise, if you try to play DW without the principles of play, or using the principles of play common to D&D, you end up with a mess -- and we've had a thread fairly recently that illuminates this exact issue.

well, sure, every game involves a PROCESS, but I don't agree that 5e's process isn't explicit. It is pretty well spelled out. If you read the Intro to the 5e PHB it describes HOW you play. The DM describes the situation, and the players describe their actions. The situation then evolves in a kind of 'movie like' format. That is when the PCs go from the bridge to the castle they arrive there and 'make moves' in this new location. The reason for the existence of a location is simply to be the place you next went to. It could be more or less detailed based on what the DM places there, but the situational logic is purely described as "[the characters] navigate the its hazards and decide which paths to explore."
In particular Page 6 has a pretty specific 'formula'
1. The DM describes the environment
2. The players describe what they want to do. (checks may result if the it is "challenging" to complete a task).
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions
There is a lot of technical detail basically from there, leading to a discussion of 'adventures' and 'three pillars', etc. This provides a pretty detailed idea of how you would play, though I agree it is less detailed and less specifically relates actions to the goals and principles of the game than DW's rules do. Still, I don't agree that it is unstated.
And again, I point out that, while 5e has specific rules which might cover something like the 'orc fire brigade', the fact is that it doesn't really provide a PROCESS for how to employ them, beyond the 1,2, 3 above. This means you really are playing at the level of "the rules simply tell you how your PC interacts with the game world" but the rules don't have a FICTION orientation. So, how does the fiction, the narrative, actually come together? D&D is quite good when you are executing specific goals, like traversing a dungeon or fighting a monster. Games like DW OTOH are much better at handling conflict and fictional position and narrative as game elements in and of themselves. So, again, D&D is a focused on 'material things' (what happens when you swing a weapon), but DW is focused on "what is the process of advancing the narrative when an orc attacks?", and has VASTLY more to say about the process of how the story got to that point, in terms of why, and even how it is organized and run as a story, and not as simply a description of locations and character actions.
5e sort of cursorily addresses the later at times, but not in an organized fashion. There are the character traits you can generate for your PC, but there's not really a framework for how to apply them systematically to the narrative.

To bring this to skill challenges and 4e, I do not think that 4e was intentionally designed to work as it's being presented in this thread. It certainly wasn't clearly laid out that way, and the necessary principles of play to make it work that way were not presented. If you already held those principles, or were familiar with them, then the design of 4e worked well with them, but not, I think, intentionally. And I say this because the printed adventures for 4e do not embrace this approach, and how many tries it took to get skill challenges to work. Even then, the presentation of the skill challenges is one where the GM is the primary driver of the play, selecting both the goal of the skill challenge and the primary (and secondary) methods to achieve it. This is still solidly within the traditional play of D&D. Unless you ignore that, and bring in some of the principles common to other games, like Burning Wheel and PbtA, skill challenges are still a stilted, GM driven and GM may I tool. If you do bring in those principles, primarily the ones regarding fiction following play rather than leading it and honoring the results of the tech, then skill challenges aren't the tool their being presented as here, or even in the rulesbooks of 4e.

I think that 4e isn't entirely coherently a story game, and that is understandable, as it would be a really radical departure from the game's roots. That being said, it is more clearly in that camp than you may be appreciating! Note some of the wordings, even in the PHB (which seems less decidedly 'story game' in its descriptions than the DMG is). Here are some quotes:
"[your character] is also one of the protagonists in a living, evolving story line. Like the hero of any fantasy novel or film, he or she has ambitions..." PHB P18.
Right away 4e, in contrast with 5e, talks about the player's input to the narrative in an active role:
"[the DM] can react to any situation, any twist or turn suggested by the players, to make a D&D adventure vibrant, exciting, and unexpected" PHB P6.
and then "[the adventure] is like a fantasy movie or novel exception the characters that you and your friends create are the stars of the story." which at least implies that STORY is the central element of the game.
Beyond that, I agree, the PHB doesn't mostly read a lot different from, say, 5e. At least potentially the 4e PHB could simply be read as classic D&D rules. Now, when you get into the DMG, things are a bit different...
"[the DM] doesn't want the player characters to fail any more than the other players do. [...] The DM's goal is to make success taste its sweetest by presenting challenges that are just hard enough that the other players have to work to overcome them, but not so hard that they leave all the characters dead."
There is also a discussion of the type of fiction being generated on DMG PP12-13.
There is an interesting point made on PP21 which is returned to several more times "Gloss over the mundane, unexciting details and get back to the heroic action as quickly as possible."
Comparing the 4e and 5e DMGs one is instantly struck by the differences. 5e's DMG spends 6 pages at the start on all aspects of how to play, story, etc. and then dives right into world building and rules discussion. 4e's spends over 20 pages here, and then seems much more interested in 'story' from there on, rarely delving into rules territory at all until around page 40.
Chapter 5 "Noncombat Encounters" really does get into new territory. It explains that SCs are primarily about "goal and context."

Now, beyond "Say Yes" and "skip to the action" there isn't a TON of very specific concrete story game process here. So you, again, CAN take 4e's description as classic D&D, but the problem is a lot of the game just doesn't make that much sense that way. It is MUCH more 'process oriented' in how it presents material, and which things it focuses on. I REALLY think the authors of the DMG, certainly, had a sort of narrative process play in mind, certainly at times. I think there's editing and presentation things that work against it, but the subtext really is there, it isn't just something people made up. One of the reasons I see this clearly is that I wasn't particularly cognizant of the principles of this type of play, and hadn't run/played many RPGs for a few years during the 3e era. So 4e actually TAUGHT me to play this way. I didn't import some expectation from some other game, it showed me what it wanted. This really is at least one possible way that the game wants to be played!

That said, I love the tech of skill challenges, but do not even bother assigning skills to the challenge -- it's entirely open ended. The concept, to me, works more as a tool for the GM to determine overall success in a complicated task than a way to codify that tasking. It gives me, the GM, the framework to be able to describe the necessary hard and soft consequences to failure at different points in the challenge, and also the consequences of success -- and this is done using the number of successes and number of failures alongside the current fictional state and the player's declared actions. It's a loose framework to help establish appropriate framing and outcomes throughout the challenge. The rest of the 4e tech -- primary and secondary skills, advantages, etc. -- I toss and just use the normal 5e resolution loop: action declaration, uncertainty determination, DC setting and attribute check, outcomes.

Right, I don't think that the SC system per-se is perfect. I think it was actually sort of a compromise. Something like that was required, but it had to pass muster with the 'Gygaxian' crowd (which includes several D&D game designers who worked on 4e and clearly were not interested in story gaming). DMG2 really opens things up though, it is even MUCH more explicit about the focus on narrative and using the rules as a narrative building process.
I often wish that they had been bold enough to really fully take the step of going with it from the start and very explicitly describing the game in those terms. Positioned the mechanics as "tools for describing the narrative" as opposed to so often falling back into the "wargame zone" of describing them as adjudication of game world techniques. It was so close, and yet what 4e really proves is you better not take half measures. Make sure your game is all one thing or all another thing and not some sort of in-between muddle.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Considering the DM in 4e constructs the skill challenge including defining relevant skills (or allows others if the players advocate for their PCs using them) and the outcomes, this looks to me like a distinction without much of a difference.

Even if you take it that way, you have to admit that it provides a very specific formula for determining what constitutes success and failure, and what constitutes the entirety of an encounter. This is not something any other D&D does. While people have casually described that 5e can handle the 'orc fire brigade', it doesn't really do it well at all. Either you generate a single check, or there is some open-ended series of checks which the DM is likely to continue for exactly as long as it takes to get to a convenient outcome (IE if it is important for the PCs to burn the shed, then it will end when it burns down, or vice versa). In the 4e version it will be a designated number of checks, regardless (unless the encounter is effectively abandoned in some way).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. While Hack & Slash, as a specific move, is representing roughly the same sort of thing as D&D's 'attacks', there are huge differences. There is no 'turn structure' in DW. Combat happens in a purely narrative sense, beyond even 5e's TOTM. It is an entirely narrative process, and might potentially not even HAVE 'attacks' in any mechanical sense (there really is no mechanical sense in which they exist). So, "an orc rushes out of the darkness and attacks you!" would be a 'hard move' in DW. The first thing you would note is that there are no 'attacks' made by monsters. There is literally no move open to the GM with the label "attack character X" and the GM DOES NOT EVER ROLL DICE in PbtA games (at least not for moves, maybe there are some situations where they can roll some dice for some other purpose, like damage). As soon as the above move was made by the GM one or more of the PCs would announce their responses to this change in fiction. The thief might say "I leap into the shadows!" (hiding, Defy Danger). The dwarf lifts up his axe and yells BARUK, BARUK KAZAD! and attacks (hack and slash). The ranger might Volley with his bow. Each of these would be dealt with in sequence, and that sequence would be based on the FICTION, not on any 'turn structure' or 'combat rules' (which don't exist).
The thief DDs (he's at the front), he fails, the orc delivers its damage to him with a vicious chop (GM rolls damage). Next the Dwarf and the orc collide, the dwarf manages to get a 10 with Hack and Slash, a clear success, he deals his damage to the orc, which now begins to fight with him. Meanwhile the ranger is nocking an arrow and lets fly, with some effect or other depending on what he rolls. Now, at this point the it is really up to the players, the thief could backstab, the dwarf will probably keep fighting (and if he rolls low he will take damage), etc. The GM could describe the orc as pressing the attack, or as barreling on through the party and off into the darkness in the other direction (though surely someone would have a chance to alter that with a move if they want).
What I'm saying is, sure, there are moves which speak to the concerns of dungeon adventuring, fighting, negotiating, handling hazards, getting drunk in taverns, etc. but they are not specific rules ABOUT the game world, they are about fiction, and only incidentally, sometimes, get related back to some of the fairly simple mechanics of the game.

You moved from my point that the moves in DW are fairly similar in kind to 5e actions to a discussion about turn order, which I don't see what connection exists here. Your initial argument was that DW moves aren't like 5e actions in that DW moves are about "how to manage the story" and 5e is about "telling the GM how the world works." I don't see that in your earlier post, and I don't see it in your new tangent about turn orders. The DW moves do very similar things to 5e actions, even as there are other differences in mechanics. I mean, GURPS handles things differently from 5e, too, but they're much closer in design than 5e and DW. That DW is a narrative game isn't really a function of the moves, but of the principles of play -- again, there's a recent thread where DW was played in a 5e style, and it wasn't the moves that broke but the principles of play. The distinction between the games isn't in a fundamental difference of what the tech does -- the tech resolves uncertainty. It's the how the tech is used that's different, and that's nothing to do with the tech itself.

well, sure, every game involves a PROCESS, but I don't agree that 5e's process isn't explicit. It is pretty well spelled out. If you read the Intro to the 5e PHB it describes HOW you play. The DM describes the situation, and the players describe their actions. The situation then evolves in a kind of 'movie like' format. That is when the PCs go from the bridge to the castle they arrive there and 'make moves' in this new location. The reason for the existence of a location is simply to be the place you next went to. It could be more or less detailed based on what the DM places there, but the situational logic is purely described as "[the characters] navigate the its hazards and decide which paths to explore."
In particular Page 6 has a pretty specific 'formula'
1. The DM describes the environment
2. The players describe what they want to do. (checks may result if the it is "challenging" to complete a task).
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions
There is a lot of technical detail basically from there, leading to a discussion of 'adventures' and 'three pillars', etc. This provides a pretty detailed idea of how you would play, though I agree it is less detailed and less specifically relates actions to the goals and principles of the game than DW's rules do. Still, I don't agree that it is unstated.
And again, I point out that, while 5e has specific rules which might cover something like the 'orc fire brigade', the fact is that it doesn't really provide a PROCESS for how to employ them, beyond the 1,2, 3 above. This means you really are playing at the level of "the rules simply tell you how your PC interacts with the game world" but the rules don't have a FICTION orientation. So, how does the fiction, the narrative, actually come together? D&D is quite good when you are executing specific goals, like traversing a dungeon or fighting a monster. Games like DW OTOH are much better at handling conflict and fictional position and narrative as game elements in and of themselves. So, again, D&D is a focused on 'material things' (what happens when you swing a weapon), but DW is focused on "what is the process of advancing the narrative when an orc attacks?", and has VASTLY more to say about the process of how the story got to that point, in terms of why, and even how it is organized and run as a story, and not as simply a description of locations and character actions.
5e sort of cursorily addresses the later at times, but not in an organized fashion. There are the character traits you can generate for your PC, but there's not really a framework for how to apply them systematically to the narrative.

You seem to have completely missed my point, here. It doesn't have to do with "PROCESS." It has to do with the meta-rules in each. 5e, while it outlines the tech and process of play, doesn't bother to tell you how you're supposed to use it. As such, we have arguments on this board as to whether or not you should use ability checks or skill checks, even those these are very similar things. The difference between the two is really in the meta-rule arena; in the principles of play. And, the biggest difference between 5e and a DW or similar game (and I just finished running a session of Blades, so I have relevant experience) is not in how the tech works -- ie, the mechanical ways things are resolved -- but in how, when, and why you use the tech. Look at ability checks versus skill checks in 5e, for instance. Ability checks are called for by the GM when the GM determines a declared action is uncertain. Skill checks are largely used by players to push the story forward because they don't have a sufficient handle to declare an action, or don't have sufficient confidence to declare actions not directly based on game tech (largely a risk evaluation issue). This is a 5e relevant illustration of how a different set of principles of play result in different applications of tech within the same game. DW has different tech, sure, but not vastly different tech. It achieves it's narrative play because the GM is strongly constrained by the principles of play, like "play to find out what happens" or "be a fan of the PCs" or "hold on lightly." These things inform the GM on how to use the tech to achieve the desired play. They aren't mechanical tech, or a process, but instead meta-directions on how to use the provided mechanical tech. If you abandon those principles of play and just use the DW tech, you end up with a mess, as evidenced recently in a thread where exactly this happened -- the GM ran DW using D&D principles of play and had lots and lots of problems.

I think that 4e isn't entirely coherently a story game, and that is understandable, as it would be a really radical departure from the game's roots. That being said, it is more clearly in that camp than you may be appreciating! Note some of the wordings, even in the PHB (which seems less decidedly 'story game' in its descriptions than the DMG is). Here are some quotes:
"[your character] is also one of the protagonists in a living, evolving story line. Like the hero of any fantasy novel or film, he or she has ambitions..." PHB P18.
Right away 4e, in contrast with 5e, talks about the player's input to the narrative in an active role:
"[the DM] can react to any situation, any twist or turn suggested by the players, to make a D&D adventure vibrant, exciting, and unexpected" PHB P6.
and then "[the adventure] is like a fantasy movie or novel exception the characters that you and your friends create are the stars of the story." which at least implies that STORY is the central element of the game.
Beyond that, I agree, the PHB doesn't mostly read a lot different from, say, 5e. At least potentially the 4e PHB could simply be read as classic D&D rules. Now, when you get into the DMG, things are a bit different...
"[the DM] doesn't want the player characters to fail any more than the other players do. [...] The DM's goal is to make success taste its sweetest by presenting challenges that are just hard enough that the other players have to work to overcome them, but not so hard that they leave all the characters dead."
There is also a discussion of the type of fiction being generated on DMG PP12-13.
There is an interesting point made on PP21 which is returned to several more times "Gloss over the mundane, unexciting details and get back to the heroic action as quickly as possible."
Comparing the 4e and 5e DMGs one is instantly struck by the differences. 5e's DMG spends 6 pages at the start on all aspects of how to play, story, etc. and then dives right into world building and rules discussion. 4e's spends over 20 pages here, and then seems much more interested in 'story' from there on, rarely delving into rules territory at all until around page 40.
Chapter 5 "Noncombat Encounters" really does get into new territory. It explains that SCs are primarily about "goal and context."

Now, beyond "Say Yes" and "skip to the action" there isn't a TON of very specific concrete story game process here. So you, again, CAN take 4e's description as classic D&D, but the problem is a lot of the game just doesn't make that much sense that way. It is MUCH more 'process oriented' in how it presents material, and which things it focuses on. I REALLY think the authors of the DMG, certainly, had a sort of narrative process play in mind, certainly at times. I think there's editing and presentation things that work against it, but the subtext really is there, it isn't just something people made up. One of the reasons I see this clearly is that I wasn't particularly cognizant of the principles of this type of play, and hadn't run/played many RPGs for a few years during the 3e era. So 4e actually TAUGHT me to play this way. I didn't import some expectation from some other game, it showed me what it wanted. This really is at least one possible way that the game wants to be played!

Your examples aren't very strong and don't really support your point. The big difference really isn't that the 5e DMG doesn't say largely the same things, but that it does it more succinctly and with different language. The "skip to the action" bits are clearly in the "middle path" suggestion of how to use the dice, just in different words. This is repeated across all of your points. 4e isn't designed to be a narrative game. I point to all of the printed adventures for it from WotC as proof of this assertion -- they're all pretty standard D&D adventure designs in that they feature linear storylines and set encounters with assigned DCs and suggestion possible actions. This is what 5e adventures do as well.

No, 4e gets it's ability to be run narratively by accidental design. They aimed for one thing, but, if you're experienced enough in narrative play principles, 4e works well with those -- so long as you ignore a few things judiciously.

Right, I don't think that the SC system per-se is perfect. I think it was actually sort of a compromise. Something like that was required, but it had to pass muster with the 'Gygaxian' crowd (which includes several D&D game designers who worked on 4e and clearly were not interested in story gaming). DMG2 really opens things up though, it is even MUCH more explicit about the focus on narrative and using the rules as a narrative building process.
I often wish that they had been bold enough to really fully take the step of going with it from the start and very explicitly describing the game in those terms. Positioned the mechanics as "tools for describing the narrative" as opposed to so often falling back into the "wargame zone" of describing them as adjudication of game world techniques. It was so close, and yet what 4e really proves is you better not take half measures. Make sure your game is all one thing or all another thing and not some sort of in-between muddle.

I find that any perceived direction to be more 'open' narratively is directly countered by the advice on how to pick the relevant skills which requires pre-plotting a path through the skill challenge or anticipating PC actions, both of which run counter to narrative play principles. 4e hews closely to the traditional modes of play, but is designed (again, I argue accidentally) in a way that you can switch to narrative play principles and have good success as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Even if you take it that way, you have to admit that it provides a very specific formula for determining what constitutes success and failure, and what constitutes the entirety of an encounter. This is not something any other D&D does. While people have casually described that 5e can handle the 'orc fire brigade', it doesn't really do it well at all. Either you generate a single check, or there is some open-ended series of checks which the DM is likely to continue for exactly as long as it takes to get to a convenient outcome (IE if it is important for the PCs to burn the shed, then it will end when it burns down, or vice versa). In the 4e version it will be a designated number of checks, regardless (unless the encounter is effectively abandoned in some way).

And you've just gone straight to principles of play when you suggest that 5e GMs will use the tech to generate a desired outcome. This is, indeed, a common thing done in D&D traditional play, and a poor principle in my opinion. A more principled 5e GM will use the tech provided to stage clear fictional positioning so the players can be confident in declared actions. This doesn't ever violate the 5e rules, is actually largely covered and suggested in the "middle path," at least as well as 4e covers narrative play, and resolves the situation using 5e tech without resort to a more structured SC. It's the principles being used at the table that really make the difference, not necessarily the tech. Sure, SC tech can lend itself to strong play, but it can also, without ever breaking the system, lead to outcomes that aren't as rosy as you suggest. The only really useful bits that I see in the SC framework is the concrete scene end-point, but you can get that without SC and may not really need it.

And, for the record, I'm a huge fan of fiction-first skill challenges -- I use them all the time when I run 5e. X successes before 3 failures is a great resolution mechanic for a complex non-combat task. I just don't agree that the 4e SC structure was 1) really that narratively angled as presented and 2) so much more effective than principled 5e play.

 

[pemerton]

I'm happy to bring out quotes if necessary. 4e talks about "player-authored quests" which clearly can feed into skill challenge resolution. The instructions in the DMG on skill challenges emphasise player contribution/driving, and refers to the significance of the fiction. DMG2 reinforces this with further examples and elaboration.

The relationship between skill challenges and other "closed scene" resolution frameworks - eg Maelstrom Storytelling, or HeroWars/Quest extended contests, or a BW Duel of Wits - is pretty clear. As soon as one reads the skill challenge rules it's clear that they are not just a version of "complex skill checks" or whatever those were called in 3E.

This is further driven home by the example in Essentials, where on a failed check a hostile NPC reappears just as might happen on a failed Circles check in Burning Wheel. It's clear that the resolution is not "process-driven" or "simulationist", though the rules don't actually explain this - they leave it as an inference for the reader.

People recognised all this, too, whether or not they liked it - eg the common complaint but why should I (the GM) have to keep the skill challenge going if the players come up with some knock-down solution? shows that skill challenges aren't reconcilable with process-driven or GM-decides resolution. They depend upon fiction first and narrating outcomes by reference to intention, pacing and finality constraints.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm happy to bring out quotes if necessary. 4e talks about "player-authored quests" which clearly can feed into skill challenge resolution. The instructions in the DMG on skill challenges emphasise player contribution/driving, and refers to the significance of the fiction. DMG2 reinforces this with further examples and elaboration.

There is similar language in many D&D editions. There's been a long tradition of offering this in D&D while not actually reinforcing it through tech or principles of play. That it's in the 4e DMGs is not indicative of anything more than continuing tradition.

Also, reference to the DMG2 is an interesting thing -- the DMG2 is not the first point of entry into the game, and if such an important way to play is delayed to past the initial entry point, is that terribly indicative of intent of play? Not that the DMG2 didn't provide a bit more top cover for non-trad approaches to play, it does, but that it still isn't explicit at that point and still provides play procedures that contradict narrative play (pre-building skill challenges for specific goals and selecting applicable skills within that challenge) cuts against your point here that it provides such direction.

The relationship between skill challenges and other "closed scene" resolution frameworks - eg Maelstrom Storytelling, or HeroWars/Quest extended contests, or a BW Duel of Wits - is pretty clear. As soon as one reads the skill challenge rules it's clear that they are not just a version of "complex skill checks" or whatever those were called in 3E.

This is further driven home by the example in Essentials, where on a failed check a hostile NPC reappears just as might happen on a failed Circles check in Burning Wheel. It's clear that the resolution is not "process-driven" or "simulationist", though the rules don't actually explain this - they leave it as an inference for the reader.

People recognised all this, too, whether or not they liked it - eg the common complaint but why should I (the GM) have to keep the skill challenge going if the players come up with some knock-down solution? shows that skill challenges aren't reconcilable with process-driven or GM-decides resolution. They depend upon fiction first and narrating outcomes by reference to intention, pacing and finality constraints.

Yes, as I said above, if you're already familiar with these play principles the skill challenge framework offers quite a lot of opportunity. If you are not, there's nothing in those descriptions that actually points you in the right direction, largely because it's right beside the direction to pre-build skill challenges as part of traditional adventure design. This includes setting the goal/entry/framing of the challenge ahead of play and also selecting the primary skills to be used, which presupposes applicable action declarations. That's right in there as well, and are the parts that I refer to when I say that they must be ignored to achieve a more narrative use of skill challenges.

Your final point is an interesting one, because it cuts against as well as for. If the structure of the skill challenge is used, then a 'knock-down solution' is not an exit to the challenge as the rules present. Both approaches must know when to abandon the challenge framework if the fiction dictates -- it's not just traditional approaches that have this issue. That those familiar with narrative play probably already know this principle doesn't mean that the skill challenge, as presented, doesn't provide this guidance to either side. You're mistaking your experience with other techniques and principles as part of the skill challenge and creating a problem for traditional approaches that you're solving not with the skill challenge framework, but outside awareness and experience. A traditional GM could also learn this lesson in a different way and similarly have no problems with skill challenges, just like an experienced narrative play GM. The actual skill challenge rules, and the guidance for those rules, do not solve this problem for either side -- it's an outside solution for both. If I had picked up on fiction first (which I agree is the best use of the SC structure) from the text without prior experience, then the skill challenge framework would pose a similar problem for me with a 'knock-down solution.' I'd have to realize I need to step out of the process and abandon it to close the scene appropriately.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was born to that era, and even the UK, if watched enough TV and American movies, you could become of that era, and I am, hopelessly lol.

In my experience the only people who have problems with it have a problem with it because of baggage from previous editions. I honestly don't know how much clearer it could be if you don't have any pre-conceived notions.

I'd agree except the new-to-RPGs players I helped with 5E once were also extremely confused by it. I mean, what I'm saying is, I expected that to be the case, but my only point of evidence is to the contrary.

@Umbran Pretty much everything here is non-falsifiable. It's like, my opinion, dude.

 

[Oofta]

I'd agree except the new-to-RPGs players I helped with 5E once were also extremely confused by it. I mean, what I'm saying is, I expected that to be the case, but my only point of evidence is to the contrary.

@Umbran Pretty much everything here is non-falsifiable. It's like, my opinion, dude.

I've introduced a few new groups and/or players as well. So far, no major issue except for a 30 second clarification with someone that had played older editions that there was no such thing as a surprise round. Could be confirmation bias, could be how I explain it, could be just luck of the draw. In any case I think the rule seems to me to be about as simple and easy to grasp as it can get. YMMV of course.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've introduced a few new groups and/or players as well. So far, no major issue except for a 30 second clarification with someone that had played older editions that there was no such thing as a surprise round. Could be confirmation bias, could be how I explain it, could be just luck of the draw. In any case I think the rule seems to me to be about as simple and easy to grasp as it can get. YMMV of course.

It could be a lot of things, but claiming the rules is "as simple and easy to grasp as it can get" given that no-one seems to have a completely consistent interpretation of it (c.f. 1000+ post reddit threads and so on) is such ridiculous hyperbole that I'm wondering if I'm being trolled. If it was just me, I'd feel stupid and wonder if I was dumb. But I'm sorry mate, the weight of evidence is that it confuses the bejeezus out of people, and that loads of people who think they understand it either straight-up don't (c.f. the 5E reddit and various other messageboards), or have understandings which are reasonable but contradict other understandings.

It's one of the more complicated and counter-intuitive rules in D&D, whether you're new or not, I'd suggest.