Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8737862" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This is not true and its not clear why you think is true.In a Skill Challenge you have (a) micro-failures (up to 3) and (b) macro-failure (Loss Con at 3 failures).The failure in this situation was a micro-failure, not the macro-failure of the Skill Challenge.&nbsp; There are lots of ways micro-failures can be realized in the fiction in 4e just like there are lots of ways to achieve micro-successes beyond just Skill Checks.&nbsp; This is what DMG2 has to say on micro-successes and micro-failures.&nbsp; They should:* Introduce a new option that the PCs can pursue. a path to success they didn't know existed. * Change the situation, such as by sending the PCs to a new location. introducing a new NPC. or adding a complication. * Grant the players a tangible consequence for the check's success or failure (as appropriate), one that influences their subsequent decisions.These should always be (i) goal-relevant and (ii) honor the fiction accreted thus far.4e has nested Skill Challenges in combats.&nbsp; This is what it says above about consequences/complications for micro-failures.&nbsp; Why do you feel that a GM escalating to a nested combat as a consequence when a PC pulls a weapon creating an implicit threat of violence &gt; fails on check is &quot;something outside the listed rules?&quot;&nbsp; Resolve your nested combat complication and we're back to the Skill Challenge framework as it was prior.This is no different than if you're running a Social Score in Blades in the Dark (as I listed above where you have a 4 Tick Clock to &quot;Break Down Their Guard&quot; and then an 8 tick -starting at 3 - Tug of War Clock to &quot;Convince the NPC&quot;), the PC makes a Command Action Roll w/ Desperate Position &gt; fails &gt; I tick the Tug of War Clock back 1 (say from to 4) as a Complication and I use the rest of my Desperate Position Complication-space to have the NPC call in 2 of their badass Thugs to physically pat down every member of the Crew in the room because they don't like their tone.Is that &quot;going outside the rules&quot; in Blades in the Dark?&nbsp; [HR][/HR]Until we all get on the same page of (a) how intent/goal-based conflict resolution works generally and (b) how 4e Skill Challenges work specifically (how they're actually executed), we can't even move to the &quot;is this a compelling mini-game as a game&quot; portion of the conversation.&nbsp; So we need to resolve this hanging issue first.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8737862, member: 6696971"] This is not true and its not clear why you think is true. In a Skill Challenge you have (a) micro-failures (up to 3) and (b) macro-failure (Loss Con at 3 failures). The failure in this situation was a micro-failure, not the macro-failure of the Skill Challenge. There are lots of ways micro-failures can be realized in the fiction in 4e just like there are lots of ways to achieve micro-successes beyond just Skill Checks. This is what DMG2 has to say on micro-successes and micro-failures. They should: [I]* Introduce a new option that the PCs can pursue. a path to success they didn't know existed. * Change the situation, such as by sending the PCs to a new location. introducing a new NPC. or adding a complication. * Grant the players a tangible consequence for the check's success or failure (as appropriate), one that influences their subsequent decisions.[/I] These should always be (i) goal-relevant and (ii) honor the fiction accreted thus far. 4e has nested Skill Challenges in combats. This is what it says above about consequences/complications for micro-failures. Why do you feel that a GM escalating to a nested combat as a consequence when a PC pulls a weapon creating an implicit threat of violence > fails on check is "something outside the listed rules?" Resolve your nested combat complication and we're back to the Skill Challenge framework as it was prior. This is no different than if you're running a Social Score in Blades in the Dark (as I listed above where you have a 4 Tick Clock to "Break Down Their Guard" and then an 8 tick -starting at 3 - Tug of War Clock to "Convince the NPC"), the PC makes a Command Action Roll w/ Desperate Position > fails > I tick the Tug of War Clock back 1 (say from to 4) as a Complication and I use the rest of my Desperate Position Complication-space to have the NPC call in 2 of their badass Thugs to physically pat down every member of the Crew in the room because they don't like their tone. Is that "going outside the rules" in Blades in the Dark? [HR][/HR] Until we all get on the same page of (a) how intent/goal-based conflict resolution works generally and (b) how 4e Skill Challenges work specifically (how they're actually executed), we can't even move to the "is this a compelling mini-game as a game" portion of the conversation. So we need to resolve this hanging issue first. [/QUOTE]

Verification