Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6185481" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't fully agree with your description of what the DMG said (I don't know about other internal WotC guidelines). But I think the idea that the narration forces a check - though the player might decide what sort of check or other action (like using an item or a spell) - is key to skill challenge dynamics.This is where I refer again to Robin Laws and his Narrator's Book for HeroWars. It shows how you can present a pre-packaged skill challenge in a way that gives the GM the information they need to run it without degenerating into &quot;handhold 1, handhold 2&quot;.You are looking at this from the point of view of process simulation - that each skill check equates to moving X feet up the cliff-face, and that each faiure is a fall down. Looked at in that way, of course the skill challenge framework is pointless.Skill challenges (except for some complex skill checks, like &quot;4 thievery successes to disarm the trap&quot;) are an alternative to process simulation (like hp: you don't narrate the first 10 hp of damage to the storm giant with 180 hp the same as you narrate the 10 hp of damage that finally drop it). The GM has to narrate the consequence of success or failure so as to fit the framework. The point of the framework, in term, is to support pacing and provide finality.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6185481, member: 42582"] I don't fully agree with your description of what the DMG said (I don't know about other internal WotC guidelines). But I think the idea that the narration forces a check - though the player might decide what sort of check or other action (like using an item or a spell) - is key to skill challenge dynamics. This is where I refer again to Robin Laws and his Narrator's Book for HeroWars. It shows how you can present a pre-packaged skill challenge in a way that gives the GM the information they need to run it without degenerating into "handhold 1, handhold 2". You are looking at this from the point of view of process simulation - that each skill check equates to moving X feet up the cliff-face, and that each faiure is a fall down. Looked at in that way, of course the skill challenge framework is pointless. Skill challenges (except for some complex skill checks, like "4 thievery successes to disarm the trap") are an alternative to process simulation (like hp: you don't narrate the first 10 hp of damage to the storm giant with 180 hp the same as you narrate the 10 hp of damage that finally drop it). The GM has to narrate the consequence of success or failure so as to fit the framework. The point of the framework, in term, is to support pacing and provide finality. [/QUOTE]

Verification