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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5465871" data-attributes="member: 957">Regard it all you want.  It makes no difference to me.The way YOU initially described it, the only relevance is whether you veto a check as valid or not.  Presuming you agree with the actions proclaimed, 6/3 is the end of discussion.  Now, it has been clarified to me that a cool really applicable action could count double.   And, truly, going from having zero relevance to having relevance is a huge improvement.  It still falls way short, but it is a huge improvement.But still, before you ever sat down to the table you knew that 6 valid successes would be victory.  That knowledge comes with zero insight or relationship to the actions the characters will eventually take.  It does not need that insight because it isn't relevant.  I'm guessing here, but I think I'm coming to understand where your view comes from.After the game is over, you and I could each sit down and write out the events in a story form.  Neither of us would mention anything that had anything to do with mechanics.  Someone reading our stories would learn of characters encountering situations and taking appropriate actions to overcome the obstacle.  There would be no way to tell it was a game at all, much less a game run using skill challenges or not.So from that point of view, either way is identical.  A collection of narrative appropriate actions were used to solve a problem.  Our stories can not be distinguished from each other and both involve only actions in which are fitting to the narrative.  Therefore there is no difference.And, if I simply wanted to write fiction, that would be true.But I love the mechanics.  I love seeing how the pieces interact in a consistent, but not fully predictable manner.  I love seeing the direct cause and effect and how the world changes on both the immense and trivial scales.  There is no way I would ever sit down at a table knowing that every challenge can be overcome by N successes.  Even if N can change from challenge to challenge and really cool successes can count with a multiplier 2, 3, or 19.  The very model is wrong from the get go.  These are not mathematical problems to be quantified.  Certainly not at anything remotely as coarse as 6/3.  Counting successes has nothing to do with the solution.  It isn't a quantitative problem, it is a qualitative problem.  You can have a DC to determine if a given action is successful or not.  (And I frequently use much more than an up/down interpretation  of skill check)  But the impact of that action on the challenge simply can not be satisfactorily captured as 1 or 2 of X successes.  The impact and how the situation changes should be judged based purely on the narrative value.End the end skill challenges ignore the narrative value.  Yes, the veto is there, ok, the double credit chance is there.  But, ultimately it is check marks that control.You could run a skill challenge as a 6/3.  And the characters could overcome that obstacle in seven tries, with one failure.  And you could then write a back story to fit what happened.  And a reader would not be able to tell you used a skill challenge.Then, for kicks, you could run the exact same skill challenge as a 11/5.  And the characters could take the exact same seven actions, and then finish off in seven more, with two more failures in the mix.  And you could then write a back story to fit what happened.  And a reader would not be able to tell you used a skill challenge.But, the stories would not be compatible.  The actions which solved the problem the first time would be inadequate to solve the problem the second time.  This is possible because the narrative significance of the actions are irrelevant to the progress.  You only go in and assign the relevance after the fact.  Because the mechanical system imposed is in charge and the narrative obeys the mechanics.In my games, a valid solution is a valid solution.  It may be harder or easier to implement that solution, and appropriate DCs can be used to set that.  But if one character does just the right thing, then, in hindsight I now know that was a 1/0 challenge.  Or maybe it was a 3/11 challenge.  I can retrofit a skill challenge on to the events afterward the same way you can retro fit narrative.But when you start a skill challenge, you know that the first character's action is not going to solve the problem.  You know that because the mechanics are in control and won't allow it.  I don't know because the narrative is in control and all bets are off. And, as I understand it, that is a design success of skill challenges.  The first guy to go won't solve the problem.  It will be a team effort and all the players get to contribute and share the glory.  And my system completely fails at this.And I don't care about that.Just as you clearly don't care that the narrative is retrofitted to match the N successes.  We both start with a challenge and end with a narrative fitting result.  I don't claim one is better, or much much less, more "fun" or rewarding than the other.But I absolutely claim they are significantly different and that I have a personal preference for one approach over the other.  The narrative can control the mechanics or the mechanics can control the narrative.</blockquote>

Verification