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: 6801363" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Porting the below post over here from the Failed Forward thread in general because it is relevant.  4e engine-wise is beautifully constructed.  From a chassis perspective, I would change vanishingly few things if I were rewriting it (I've written about those things plenty of times).  Where 4e needs to be shored up is on explicit instruction with respect to the game's overall agenda, the intent of the various system components, and the GMing techniques and principles required to produce the high-octane, action-adventure, "play to find out what happens" table experience inherent to it.Properly (fully and transparently) canvassing the discrete functionality of the resolution mechanics and the nature and role of Fail Forward in noncombat conflict resolution is central.  To this very day (preeeeetty late in the game!) we have people who love 4e yet literally have no idea how to frame, run, and resolve genre-coherent, dynamic, "Story Now" (not preconceived) noncombat scenes using 4e's conflict resolution mechanics (Skill Challenges, PC resources that play into them, and the GMing techniques and principles that underwrite them).  I flinch every time I read an advocate saying something along the lines of "Skill Challenges were a great attempt but...meh".  Understanding the centrality of "stakes transparency" to the macro-conflict and the GMing technique of Fail Forward (what - the intent:task relationship - and how - using 1st order or 2nd order fallout when a micro-failure occurs) is utterly key to GMing 4e.</blockquote>

Verification