In addition to what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said, use the skill challenge mechanics to make the space for the narrative.
Many people complain that the N before 3 structure is limiting. "What if the skill challenge fails but the players think of more clever things they could do? It's artificial to bring it to an end!" To which I respond: What if a PC drops to zero hp, but the player is saying "Here's this great parry I could perform to save my life"? Answer: it's too late. Hit point attrition puts a type of mechanical discipline onto combat.
Likewise in the skill challenge - once there are 3 failures, it's too late. The players have to think of a new way for their PCs to tackle the situation. They're not going to get what they want the way they were trying. "3 strikes and you're out" puts a type of mechanical discipline onto non-combat.
Conversely, what if you're running a complexity 8 skill challenge, you're halfway through (let's say 4 successes and 1 failure), and a player makes a great skill roll that s/he is insisting should bring the thing to a conclusion? The onus is on you, as a GM, to keep narrating: to explain how the failure pushes things forward, but equally to explain some new complication that means the situation isn't over yet, and there's still more that the PCs will have to do to get what they want.
(Again, you can compare it to combat. In combat, every turn the player has to have his/her PC do something, and the GM has to have his/her NPCs do something. The mechanics force the players and the GM to engage the situation. A skill challenge is the same. Until the N successes or 3 failures have been reached, the situation isn't over - and no one can narrate it as if it is - and everyone, especially the GM, is obliged to add new choices, new complications, into the situation.)
In my experience, because the mechanics create this narrative space that both the GM and the players have to fill, you'll find unexpected stuff happening. There's time for the players to change their minds, for example, or to become more nuanced in their focus. Or to reach unexpected compromises with NPCs. Or to win through, but at unexpected costs (because they had to keep making checks, and accrued some failures on their way through).
EDIT:
Here's an example of the skill challenge mechanics creating narrative space and unexpected outcomes, even when the player had virtually no chance of losing:
Many people complain that the N before 3 structure is limiting. "What if the skill challenge fails but the players think of more clever things they could do? It's artificial to bring it to an end!" To which I respond: What if a PC drops to zero hp, but the player is saying "Here's this great parry I could perform to save my life"? Answer: it's too late. Hit point attrition puts a type of mechanical discipline onto combat.
Likewise in the skill challenge - once there are 3 failures, it's too late. The players have to think of a new way for their PCs to tackle the situation. They're not going to get what they want the way they were trying. "3 strikes and you're out" puts a type of mechanical discipline onto non-combat.
Conversely, what if you're running a complexity 8 skill challenge, you're halfway through (let's say 4 successes and 1 failure), and a player makes a great skill roll that s/he is insisting should bring the thing to a conclusion? The onus is on you, as a GM, to keep narrating: to explain how the failure pushes things forward, but equally to explain some new complication that means the situation isn't over yet, and there's still more that the PCs will have to do to get what they want.
(Again, you can compare it to combat. In combat, every turn the player has to have his/her PC do something, and the GM has to have his/her NPCs do something. The mechanics force the players and the GM to engage the situation. A skill challenge is the same. Until the N successes or 3 failures have been reached, the situation isn't over - and no one can narrate it as if it is - and everyone, especially the GM, is obliged to add new choices, new complications, into the situation.)
In my experience, because the mechanics create this narrative space that both the GM and the players have to fill, you'll find unexpected stuff happening. There's time for the players to change their minds, for example, or to become more nuanced in their focus. Or to reach unexpected compromises with NPCs. Or to win through, but at unexpected costs (because they had to keep making checks, and accrued some failures on their way through).
EDIT:
Here's an example of the skill challenge mechanics creating narrative space and unexpected outcomes, even when the player had virtually no chance of losing:
Last edited:
