Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8740686" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think this is correct. The starting point is that the PCs are confronted, in the fiction, with an obstacle to their goal. And the players declare actions for their PCs to try and overcome those obstacles.The framework is not a starting point: rather, what it does is direct the GM how to narrate consequences: successes can't be narrated as final - in relation to the goal - unless they are the last success required. And failure can't be narrated as final either - again, in relation to the goal - unless they are the third failure.The GM also has to keep an eye on the tally of successes and failures, and narrate consequences having regard to that, so that when finality (be that success or failure, relative to the goal) does need to be narrated, it can be done so consistently from what has followed rather than being a jarring rabbit from a hat.TL;DR: The framework is not a starting point; its role is to guide the GM in respect of finality of consequences. As I've just posted, the fiction comes first: the PCs confront an obstacle. Then the action declarations come next - they are grounded in the fictional situation as the player understands it ("try not to say no") but with the GM as ultimate arbiter (" make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation").There is no weaving "on top of" anything. The GM narrates consequences - successes and failures. These are no more "invented" in a skill challenge than in any other context of resolving a check: the stakes of the check are either express or at least implicit in the fiction, and depending on whether the player succeeds or fails the GM narrates the gain or loss in relation to those stakes appropriately.The narration does depend upon the GM having regard primarily to intent - both local, and the overall goal of the skill challenge - and stakes - again, both local, and the overall context of the skill challenge - rather than just granular analysis of and extrapolation from the task. But this is not particular to skill challenges, or even to closed scene resolution: for instance, it is pretty central to the adjudication of a single check in Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, and having regard to stakes (though not so much intent/goal) is also part of GMing Apocalypse World, which does not use closed scene resolution at all.The OP sets out some of the key passages from the original printing of the DMG:Sparseness is, perhaps, in the eye of the beholder. But to me that all seems pretty straightforward and unambiguous.The OP is not comparing skill challenges to the approach that you and [USER=6690965]@Pedantic[/USER] prefer, although in post 215 upthread I give some reasons for preferring skill challenges to your preferred approach.As the OP makes clear - with its references to Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, Torchbearer, Marvel Heroic RP - the comparison is being made with systems based on opposed checks and ablation of opposing pools. The point is elaborated in post 194, with reference to two further RPGs: In A Wicked Age, and Agon.</blockquote>

Verification