Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6027805" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree with GreyICE. Anyone who follows the link in my post above (which I just fixed) and who follows links from that post can see skill challenges facilitating role playing.The most obvious objection to the &quot;skill challenges = antithesis of roleplaying contention&quot; is that skill challenges are a version of the complex resolution mechanics found in such indie games as Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling, and - whatever one might think of such games - they are very obviously not the antithesis of roleplaying.The one disagreement I do have with GreyICE is that &quot;fail forward&quot; is not really a roleplaying thing. I think it's hugely relevant to roleplaying (and Burning Wheel really brings this out nicely in its rulebooks; Robin Laws tries to also, in HeroWars/Quest and the 4e DMG2, but I personally think BW does a better job of explaining the technique). &quot;Fail forward&quot; means that the players have an option other than winning or turtling. They can afford to try and fail without thereby being hosed. And in my view this is the single best thing a system can do to open up a space for players to roleplay in. My own view is that D&amp;Dnext's professed aim of enlivening all 3 pillars will fail unless it looks seriously at how it can open up that sort of space via some sort of &quot;fail forward&quot; approach.The biggest obstacle to &quot;fail forward&quot; is a strong commitment to simulationism - because the GM, in a &quot;fail forward&quot; aproach, has to narrate consequences and complications that are grounded more in the metagame than in the ingame causal logic of the particular skill check that failed (eg a faild lockpick check doesn't mean you didn't open the lock; it means the guards are arriving before you've finished the job!). And this sort of approach is obviously anathema to most of those who dislike 4e, and to date there is not even a hint of it in the playtest materials.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6027805, member: 42582"] I agree with GreyICE. Anyone who follows the link in my post above (which I just fixed) and who follows links from [I]that[/I] post can see skill challenges facilitating role playing. The most obvious objection to the "skill challenges = antithesis of roleplaying contention" is that skill challenges are a version of the complex resolution mechanics found in such indie games as Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling, and - whatever one might think of such games - they are very obviously not the antithesis of roleplaying. The one disagreement I do have with GreyICE is that "fail forward" is not really a roleplaying thing. I think it's hugely relevant to roleplaying (and Burning Wheel really brings this out nicely in its rulebooks; Robin Laws tries to also, in HeroWars/Quest and the 4e DMG2, but I personally think BW does a better job of explaining the technique). "Fail forward" means that the players have an option other than winning or turtling. They can afford to try and fail without thereby being hosed. And in my view this is the single best thing a system can do to open up a space for players to roleplay in. My own view is that D&Dnext's professed aim of enlivening all 3 pillars will fail unless it looks seriously at how it can open up that sort of space via some sort of "fail forward" approach. The biggest obstacle to "fail forward" is a strong commitment to simulationism - because the GM, in a "fail forward" aproach, has to narrate consequences and complications that are grounded more in the metagame than in the ingame causal logic of the particular skill check that failed (eg a faild lockpick check doesn't mean you didn't open the lock; it means the guards are arriving before you've finished the job!). And this sort of approach is obviously anathema to most of those who dislike 4e, and to date there is not even a hint of it in the playtest materials. [/QUOTE]

Verification