Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skill challenges: action resolution that centres the fiction
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8729746" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>There is a general requirement in TTRPG for mechanical structures that through a chain of resolution converge on an end result. Cyclical combat systems, skill challenges, and clocks all address that general requirement. The earliest reference I know of to skill challenges is in Mearls' Iron Heroes 2007 as Extended Skill Checks (Iron Heroes also contains "skill challenges", but those are a distinctly different mechanic.) Extended Skill Checks are essentially clocks, and include both monotonic and X before Y sub-mechanics. A faint trace of 4e Skill Challenges survives in 5e Social Encounters.</p><p></p><p>Regarding two possible key features</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">skill challenges centre the fiction in the process of action declaration and resolution.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">the GM does not get to decide when the scene is resolved.</li> </ol><p>In terms of meeting the general requirement I outline above, the general purposes of TTRPG have traditionally included group wargaming* and narration. As perhaps [USER=19857]@Jer[/USER] gets at, any mechanical structure whether locked to a specific set of descriptions or freely applied can be wargamed (whether or not it's semantics are that of warfare.) Even so, it seems right to me to say that a less rigorous mechanical structure that accepts any semantics, is more likely to lean away from wargaming and into narration. So I agree with the first possible feature suggested by the OP.</p><p></p><p>Regarding the second possible feature, traditional modes of play often uphold a principle that upon entering into a cyclical combat system, GM does not get to decide when the scene is resolved. System decides. That is to point out that we have a host of options here, found in combinations of the following, and I'm not yet sure this thread has made clear why decider matters to centering the fiction (it can certainly matter to <em>other </em>qualities of play that we care about!)</p><p></p><p><strong>1. Index of Results</strong></p><p>The first concern (sometimes going unnoticed) is choosing what the possible results are. They can be chosen by system (game designers decide), a player acting as referee (GM decides), players with skin in the game (players decide), or a mixture, such as when GM chooses negative results and players choose positive. For example, "Skill Challenges" in Iron Heroes let's players add positive results by reducing their likelihood of success. I call the list of possible results their "index". Several posters point out that this list can evolve over the span of resolution.</p><p></p><p><strong>2. Appointment of Decider</strong></p><p>The second concern is who will decide between results. Often its roll, but it can be a negotiation, a rolling consensus, etc. If there will be multiple results converging to an overall result, decider might even move around.</p><p></p><p><strong>3. Chain of Resolution</strong></p><p>The scene is resolved at the end of the chain of resolution. The steps in that chain can include insertions and revisions, and can be singular or multiple, and temporally linear, cyclical, or retroactive. Typically, it becomes increasingly determined what the result is going to be as the chain is followed. It would be tedious to follow a chain with a predetermined outcome, so typically the mechanic will preserve the chance of a negative result even where things are swinging to almost certainly positive (and vice versa).</p><p></p><p>Regarding [USER=6987520]@DND_Reborn[/USER]'s comments, I agree that the "general requirement" has often been met informally, as non-combat encounters from simple to elaborate, compact to protracted. (Something I've discussed in other threads.) I feel what is most important to the fiction in many cases is that the resolution has a strong feeling of convergence to the end result, so that the group will agree it feels <em>right</em> for their fiction ("right" can mean a lot of things, including exciting, surprising, baffling... it doesn't have to mean simply obvious.) That may involve agreeing mechanisms for tracking along the chain, an index of outcomes either up front or by appointing from time to time new authors, and how we decide between them (in most TTRPGs, that is the core mechanic.)</p><p></p><p>At present, I haven't read anything that makes me believe that centering on the fiction depends on the decider of the result. I think it depends on the <strong>integrity </strong>of the system. That's not a fixed view, and perhaps further exploration of these ideas will change it?</p><p></p><p></p><p>*I use this word to mean tactics and strategy play generally, and not solely the simulation of warfare.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8729746, member: 71699"] There is a general requirement in TTRPG for mechanical structures that through a chain of resolution converge on an end result. Cyclical combat systems, skill challenges, and clocks all address that general requirement. The earliest reference I know of to skill challenges is in Mearls' Iron Heroes 2007 as Extended Skill Checks (Iron Heroes also contains "skill challenges", but those are a distinctly different mechanic.) Extended Skill Checks are essentially clocks, and include both monotonic and X before Y sub-mechanics. A faint trace of 4e Skill Challenges survives in 5e Social Encounters. Regarding two possible key features [LIST=1] [*]skill challenges centre the fiction in the process of action declaration and resolution. [*]the GM does not get to decide when the scene is resolved. [/LIST] In terms of meeting the general requirement I outline above, the general purposes of TTRPG have traditionally included group wargaming* and narration. As perhaps [USER=19857]@Jer[/USER] gets at, any mechanical structure whether locked to a specific set of descriptions or freely applied can be wargamed (whether or not it's semantics are that of warfare.) Even so, it seems right to me to say that a less rigorous mechanical structure that accepts any semantics, is more likely to lean away from wargaming and into narration. So I agree with the first possible feature suggested by the OP. Regarding the second possible feature, traditional modes of play often uphold a principle that upon entering into a cyclical combat system, GM does not get to decide when the scene is resolved. System decides. That is to point out that we have a host of options here, found in combinations of the following, and I'm not yet sure this thread has made clear why decider matters to centering the fiction (it can certainly matter to [I]other [/I]qualities of play that we care about!) [B]1. Index of Results[/B] The first concern (sometimes going unnoticed) is choosing what the possible results are. They can be chosen by system (game designers decide), a player acting as referee (GM decides), players with skin in the game (players decide), or a mixture, such as when GM chooses negative results and players choose positive. For example, "Skill Challenges" in Iron Heroes let's players add positive results by reducing their likelihood of success. I call the list of possible results their "index". Several posters point out that this list can evolve over the span of resolution. [B]2. Appointment of Decider[/B] The second concern is who will decide between results. Often its roll, but it can be a negotiation, a rolling consensus, etc. If there will be multiple results converging to an overall result, decider might even move around. [B]3. Chain of Resolution[/B] The scene is resolved at the end of the chain of resolution. The steps in that chain can include insertions and revisions, and can be singular or multiple, and temporally linear, cyclical, or retroactive. Typically, it becomes increasingly determined what the result is going to be as the chain is followed. It would be tedious to follow a chain with a predetermined outcome, so typically the mechanic will preserve the chance of a negative result even where things are swinging to almost certainly positive (and vice versa). Regarding [USER=6987520]@DND_Reborn[/USER]'s comments, I agree that the "general requirement" has often been met informally, as non-combat encounters from simple to elaborate, compact to protracted. (Something I've discussed in other threads.) I feel what is most important to the fiction in many cases is that the resolution has a strong feeling of convergence to the end result, so that the group will agree it feels [I]right[/I] for their fiction ("right" can mean a lot of things, including exciting, surprising, baffling... it doesn't have to mean simply obvious.) That may involve agreeing mechanisms for tracking along the chain, an index of outcomes either up front or by appointing from time to time new authors, and how we decide between them (in most TTRPGs, that is the core mechanic.) At present, I haven't read anything that makes me believe that centering on the fiction depends on the decider of the result. I think it depends on the [B]integrity [/B]of the system. That's not a fixed view, and perhaps further exploration of these ideas will change it? *I use this word to mean tactics and strategy play generally, and not solely the simulation of warfare. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skill challenges: action resolution that centres the fiction
Top