Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6773725" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Yup!  That is right on the money.  What you've written above is precisely the sort of thing that should follow.  Once a GM develops the mental framework required to (a) conceive how genre-coherent escalation of events might occur (oftentimes second or third order consequences/fallout of current happenings) and then (b) deftly telegraph/foreshadow those clues/ominous portents to players (with just enough ambiance, color, and agency-providing information upon which action declarations can be made), proficiency is only practice, practice, practice away!The same thing takes place in 4e under the current Skill Challenge rules, it is just that the mechanical infrastructure doesn't have a dynamic feedback.  You've got your chosen level which gives you your DCs.  You've got your chosen complexity which gives you your # of Secondary Skills available as augments (1:1 for complexity), # of successes required, # of Advantages (C3 and above), # of Hard DCs you must pass (C2 and above).  The only feedback involves (a) the impact on the adventuring day (resources spent/lost and possibly the escalation or introduction of new encounters) and (b) story fallout.  Those are great feedbacks though, so 4e's noncombat conflict resolution does a fine enough job (much better than any of its predecessors or its successor in my opinion) without the dynamic intra-framework feedback.All things considered though, I would prefer that it had it and I would prefer the reward cycle to have been put together differently (as I have written above; putting xp rewards and story rewards at tension).If I have time over the next few days, I'll throw a quick hypothetical play example out there of what a "Perilous Journey" Rules Compendium SC with the "4e Doom Pool" feedback I scrawled above would look like.</blockquote>

Verification