Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8114332" data-attributes="member: 42582">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.</blockquote>

Verification