Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6177951" data-attributes="member: 42582">The point of the structure is to impose a rules limitation other than GM fiat.An analogy is hp in combat. A GM doesn't adjudicate who wins or loses a combat based on some &quot;gut feel&quot; as to which side got more hits in after a few d20 have been rolled. Rather, there are rules for the ablation of hit points, and once a creature's hp reach 0 then the GM (and other players too) are obliged by the rules of the game to agree that that combatant is no longer active in the fight.Likewise the &quot;N before 3&quot; structure: once the players have reached N successes, the GM is obliged to narrate the PCs having succeeded at whatever it was they were attempting to achieve (which will have been established in the framing of the challenge, perhaps as modified by its evolution; but known before the final die is rolled).In both cases the mechanics impose finality rather than GM fiat. Some people don't like it, obviously. (They might be the same people who fudge hit point totals in combat &quot;in the interests of the story&quot;.) But like it or not, the logic of the technique I hope is fairly clear.EDIT: Of course the &quot;N before 3&quot; structure is not the only model. In HeroQuest revised each side in the challenge accumulates &quot;points&quot; based on degree of success, and the first to reach a specified number wins, with other consequences for each side determined by the ratio of winners' to losers' points. In a Burning Wheel Duel of Wits each side has a &quot;body of argument&quot; (effectively a hp pool established as part of the challenge) which are ablated in the course of the challenge. The fact that skill challenges don't have mechanically active opposition, and rely entirely on the GM reframing the scene in response to each skill check to drive the resolution forward, is a distinctive feature. In my view it has both strengths and weaknesses as a method compared to some of these other ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6177951, member: 42582"] The point of the structure is to impose a rules limitation other than GM fiat. An analogy is hp in combat. A GM doesn't adjudicate who wins or loses a combat based on some "gut feel" as to which side got more hits in after a few d20 have been rolled. Rather, there are rules for the ablation of hit points, and once a creature's hp reach 0 then the GM (and other players too) are obliged by the rules of the game to agree that that combatant is no longer active in the fight. Likewise the "N before 3" structure: once the players have reached N successes, the GM is obliged to narrate the PCs having succeeded at whatever it was they were attempting to achieve (which will have been established in the framing of the challenge, perhaps as modified by its evolution; but known [I]before[/I] the final die is rolled). In both cases the mechanics impose finality rather than GM fiat. Some people don't like it, obviously. (They might be the same people who fudge hit point totals in combat "in the interests of the story".) But like it or not, the logic of the technique I hope is fairly clear. EDIT: Of course the "N before 3" structure is not the only model. In HeroQuest revised each side in the challenge accumulates "points" based on degree of success, and the first to reach a specified number wins, with other consequences for each side determined by the ratio of winners' to losers' points. In a Burning Wheel Duel of Wits each side has a "body of argument" (effectively a hp pool established as part of the challenge) which are ablated in the course of the challenge. The fact that skill challenges don't have mechanically active opposition, and rely entirely on the GM reframing the scene in response to each skill check to drive the resolution forward, is a distinctive feature. In my view it has both strengths and weaknesses as a method compared to some of these other ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification