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: 7082633" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't understand your characterisation of the advsior as "Forest Gump", and I don't really follow your questions either.The players won the skill challenge. The upshot of that is that the advisor is revealed: the baron knows that he is an evil traitor, and that has redounded upon him (the advisor), not upon the PCs.In the fiction, the advisor can sputter and protest as much as he wants; at the table, though, that is all mere colour. The advisor is exposed, and the PCs have maintained - indeed, consolidated - their good relationship with the baron. That is the premise from which future events begin.As the player pointed out, any other approach would rob the players of their success.EDIT: 4e non-combat resolution is determined by the players making checks, engaging the fiction as narrated by the GM. There is no such thing, in the 4e context, as the advisor making a check to persuade the baron. That part of the fiction has all been settled in the course of the skill challenge, buy the players' checks.Contrast, say, Burning Wheel where - assuming a similar scene were resolved as a Duel of Wits - the advisor might have been making checks against the PCs, or adding helping dice to another actor's pool. In that system, the relevant principle for finality would be "Let it Ride", meaning that the outcome of the DoW would be binding on everyone who participated in it.As per my reply to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] just a bit upthread, different systems have their own distinctive approaches to resolution. The 4e skill challenge has some weak spots - eg it doesn't handle PvP all that well - but it has some strengths as well. I find it tends to make the fiction quite vivid, and it really puts the players and their choices for their PCs at the centre of the action.</blockquote>

Verification