Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8732544" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Given that I’ve run 1000s of hours of play that employs the sort of game tech that are Skill Challenges, I can say for that your contention above “that they’re awful design” and “they don’t work” is just fundamentally not true.I think the first issue is when you say “if you’re designing your challenges.”This sort of game tech is there in large part to resolve noncombat challenges without prep (and/or to insure play against GM’s with preconceptions of play or “designs upon play” that they attempt to impose during play)! You’re not designing anything! You’re just running the game and rolling with whatever direction it goes!The other reasons for things like Skill Challenges or Dogs in the Vineyard/Cortex+/Blades in the Dark Clicks etc Closed Scene Resolution (and dozens of other games) is for exactly what I’ve written above:1) To ensure the opposite of railroading! When a GM has an encoded, table-facing scene budget with defined Win Con/Loss Con parameters and inviolate principles and procedures that govern resolution…the GM doesn’t get to just decide “this scene is over/still online” by fiat. System will answer that question by binding the GM’s play and overtly signaling that to the table.2) To create dynamic situations that evolve over time to create premise-coherent fiction and interesting and consequential&nbsp; decision-points are und the gamestate (this last point feeds back into point (1) above about denying arbitrary GM fiat over “scene online/scene over” because you always know for certain what the status of the gamestate is).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8732544, member: 6696971"] Given that I’ve run 1000s of hours of play that employs the sort of game tech that are Skill Challenges, I can say for that your contention above “that they’re awful design” and “they don’t work” is just fundamentally not true. I think the first issue is when you say “if you’re [I]designing your challenges.[/I]” This sort of game tech is there in large part to resolve noncombat challenges without prep (and/or to insure play against GM’s with preconceptions of play or “designs upon play” that they attempt to impose during play)! You’re not designing anything! You’re just running the game and rolling with whatever direction it goes! The other reasons for things like Skill Challenges or Dogs in the Vineyard/Cortex+/Blades in the Dark Clicks etc Closed Scene Resolution (and dozens of other games) is for exactly what I’ve written above: 1) To ensure the opposite of railroading! When a GM has an encoded, table-facing scene budget with defined Win Con/Loss Con parameters and inviolate principles and procedures that govern resolution…the GM doesn’t get to just decide “this scene is over/still online” by fiat. System will answer that question by binding the GM’s play and overtly signaling that to the table. 2) To create dynamic situations that evolve over time to create premise-coherent fiction and interesting and consequential decision-points are und the gamestate (this last point feeds back into point (1) above about denying arbitrary GM fiat over “scene online/scene over” because you always know for certain what the status of the gamestate is). [/QUOTE]

Verification