Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6182227" data-attributes="member: 6696971">It seems that this one is particularly dissonant for folks; how do you have a system with objective DCs for task resolution and subjective DCs for conflict resolution?&nbsp; I think this is why they see Skill Challenges as opaque, dysfunctional oddities.&nbsp; For them, conflict resolution DCs seem arbitrary, incoherent.&nbsp; They're expecting to simulate a micro-process, with granularity of phenomenon through zoomed-in, high resolution and tight accounting for cause and effect.&nbsp; They seem to want Skill Challenges to be a succession of that procedure.I really don't know how to convince them otherwise on this specific issue as I know you, myself and others have tried many times.&nbsp; My answer has always been that conflict resolution is (i) zoomed-out, lower resolution and (ii) context-driven.&nbsp; That means that each check/stage/panel/micro-resolution is going to have a lot more vectors than &quot;can I physically jump across this pit?&quot;&nbsp; Further, that consideration will be a 2nd or 3rd order consideration.&nbsp; The 1st order consideration (the reason to break out the conflict resolution framework in the first place) is typically bound up in what is at stake; &quot;if I don't make this jump my loved ones die&quot;.&nbsp; Further, the &quot;jump&quot;, due to its zoomed-out, lower resolution (with respect to time, space, overall events) will likely involve much more than just the jump over the pit.&nbsp; It may involve dodging incoming artillery from pursuit.&nbsp; It may involve spatial awareness to not get lost.&nbsp; It may involve a forensic understanding of where you are and where you need to go.&nbsp; You're abstracting multiple tasks/tests at once and choosing the most-fitting, broadly applicable arbiter.&nbsp; So there is a lot going on.&nbsp; Further, the inherent assumption is that the GM is framing the PCs into genre-relevant, challenge-relevant situations with respect to their level.&nbsp; Tally all of that up and you have subjective DCs for conflict resolution.&nbsp; It makes sense by my eyes.I don't see them as arbitrary either.&nbsp; In fact, they are a fundamental necessity.&nbsp; A necessity for both the reasons mentioned above (due to the abstract, zoomed-out resolution, multiple vectors) and for the agenda of a dynamic narrative.&nbsp; Its basic logic that the more contracted/bound each possible input is (each check/stage/panel), the more constrained, and predictable, the output will be (the narrative evolution, ultimate resolution, denouement).&nbsp; If you want dynamism, open up the variables.&nbsp; If you want constraint, lock down the variables.Agreed.Great post here except I would say that Skill Challenges work only, not best, when they are resolving an abstract situation.&nbsp; They don't work at all when you're premising your expectations upon granular, zoomed-in process simulation.&nbsp; If you want that, then you should be using task resolution (see pit &gt; check &gt; gauge pit &gt; check &gt; dodge artillery &gt; check &gt; navigate terrain &gt; check &gt; jump pit &gt; check) and objective DCs.&nbsp; I would reserve &quot;they work better&quot; for when they're resolving a high stakes scenario.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6182227, member: 6696971"] It seems that this one is particularly dissonant for folks; how do you have a system with objective DCs for task resolution and subjective DCs for conflict resolution? I think this is why they see Skill Challenges as opaque, dysfunctional oddities. For them, conflict resolution DCs seem arbitrary, incoherent. They're expecting to simulate a micro-process, with granularity of phenomenon through zoomed-in, high resolution and tight accounting for cause and effect. They seem to want Skill Challenges to be a succession of that procedure. I really don't know how to convince them otherwise on this specific issue as I know you, myself and others have tried many times. My answer has always been that conflict resolution is (i) zoomed-out, lower resolution and (ii) context-driven. That means that each check/stage/panel/micro-resolution is going to have a lot more vectors than "can I physically jump across this pit?" Further, that consideration will be a 2nd or 3rd order consideration. The 1st order consideration (the reason to break out the conflict resolution framework in the first place) is typically bound up in what is at stake; "if I don't make this jump my loved ones die". Further, the "jump", due to its zoomed-out, lower resolution (with respect to time, space, overall events) will likely involve much more than just the jump over the pit. It may involve dodging incoming artillery from pursuit. It may involve spatial awareness to not get lost. It may involve a forensic understanding of where you are and where you need to go. You're abstracting multiple tasks/tests at once and choosing the most-fitting, broadly applicable arbiter. So there is a lot going on. Further, the inherent assumption is that the GM is framing the PCs into genre-relevant, challenge-relevant situations with respect to their level. Tally all of that up and you have subjective DCs for conflict resolution. It makes sense by my eyes. I don't see them as arbitrary either. In fact, they are a fundamental necessity. A necessity for both the reasons mentioned above (due to the abstract, zoomed-out resolution, multiple vectors) and for the agenda of a dynamic narrative. Its basic logic that the more contracted/bound each possible input is (each check/stage/panel), the more constrained, and predictable, the output will be (the narrative evolution, ultimate resolution, denouement). If you want dynamism, open up the variables. If you want constraint, lock down the variables. Agreed. Great post here except I would say that Skill Challenges work [I]only[/I], not best, when they are resolving an abstract situation. They don't work at all when you're premising your expectations upon granular, zoomed-in process simulation. If you want that, then you should be using task resolution (see pit > check > gauge pit > check > dodge artillery > check > navigate terrain > check > jump pit > check) and objective DCs. I would reserve "they work [I]better" [/I]for when they're resolving a high stakes scenario. [/QUOTE]

Verification