Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6284750" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Well, it can be if the GM:&nbsp;(a) ignores the technique advice and principles outlined in the books (and/or has no experience with conflict resolution theory; reading/running).&nbsp;and/or (b) has absolutely no honed skill in properly pacing conflict resolution with respect to the system's framework and dramatic structure generally.&nbsp;and/or (c) has no honed skill in developing genre-relevent and conflict-coherent complications that yield interesting and thematically compelling decision-points for the players.and/or(d) is dead-set on running abstract conflict resolution as a high resolution micro-processes simulator.Anytime I see these (repetitive) complaints, and then I see the terrible (horribly misunderstanding) examples (ok, parodies really), I know one or all of the above is at work. Much of the time it is (d) above, which effectively guarantees (a) and, by proxy of that, you can throw in (b) and (c) even if the GM does have experience/honed skill.&nbsp; Conflict resolution is not meant to be a high resolution micro-process simulator.&nbsp; If you treat it as such (which mandates that you ignore the intent and techniques/advice developed to actualize that intent), don't be surprised when your conflicts (in this case Skill Challenges) come off as frustratingly banal, silly, and your players don't feel engaged or that they have meaningful decisions to make (or any of the other epithets commonly thrown at 4e Skill Challenges).&nbsp; If I equip a rescue Bell UH-1 (classic Huey) with 750 lbs of&nbsp; (especially loose) gear and/or personnel beyond its load-bearing&nbsp; capacity, thus destroying its ability to maintain stability and achieved&nbsp; the trim condition, I shouldn't be surprised when my rescuers need&nbsp; rescuing themselves after they crash.&nbsp; Hopefully, the next chopper I&nbsp; send in won't have such mismanagement from the top.Airframes (and Conflict Resolution schemes) won't make you observe their flying qualities (intent, techniques, system impetus, advice).&nbsp; But when you willfully, or ignorantly, do not observe their flying qualities, don't blame the engineers when you crash.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6284750, member: 6696971"] Well, it [I]can [/I]be if the GM: (a) ignores the technique advice and principles outlined in the books (and/or has no experience with conflict resolution theory; reading/running). and/or (b) has absolutely no honed skill in properly pacing conflict resolution with respect to the system's framework and dramatic structure generally. and/or (c) has no honed skill in developing genre-relevent and conflict-coherent complications that yield interesting and thematically compelling decision-points for the players. and/or (d) is dead-set on running abstract conflict resolution as a high resolution micro-processes simulator. Anytime I see these (repetitive) complaints, and then I see the terrible (horribly misunderstanding) examples (ok, parodies really), I know one or all of the above is at work. Much of the time it is (d) above, which effectively guarantees (a) and, by proxy of that, you can throw in (b) and (c) even if the GM does have experience/honed skill. Conflict resolution is not meant to be a high resolution micro-process simulator. If you treat it as such (which mandates that you ignore the intent and techniques/advice developed to actualize that intent), don't be surprised when your conflicts (in this case Skill Challenges) come off as frustratingly banal, silly, and your players don't feel engaged or that they have meaningful decisions to make (or any of the other epithets commonly thrown at 4e Skill Challenges). If I equip a rescue Bell UH-1 (classic Huey) with 750 lbs of (especially loose) gear and/or personnel beyond its load-bearing capacity, thus destroying its ability to maintain stability and achieved the trim condition, I shouldn't be surprised when my rescuers need rescuing themselves after they crash. Hopefully, the next chopper I send in won't have such mismanagement from the top. Airframes (and Conflict Resolution schemes) won't make you observe their flying qualities (intent, techniques, system impetus, advice). But when you willfully, or ignorantly, do not observe their flying qualities, don't blame the engineers when you crash. [/QUOTE]

Verification