Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5964916" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree that this is an issue, and I mentioned it in the OP. I have a handy chart that I use to get a feel for the probabilities, and also use some of the techniques from Essentials (the "advantage" mechanic) to even out the bumps, as well as relying on the players to use their powers and other abilities in various ways.But Essentials uses another expedient, which is more important: XP for a skill challenge are awarded whether or not the challenge is a success. Which makes the "N before 3" structure more important as a pacing mechanism (for which I think it is not too bad) than a reward mechanism.The tricky maths of extended conflict systems is fairly ubiquitous, isn't it? Calculating the odds in a HeroQuest revised extended contest, or a Duel of Wits, isn't easy. These rely also on (i) failure being an option, and (ii) the playes spending more Hero/Fate points in the contexts - the analogue to that in 4e being to use your powers and items to help out.I can't say what the original designers subjectively had in mind, but I think this is about framing. In a combat, the reason the mage participates is because s/he, too, is under attack. If you apply the same principle in a skill challenge, the PCs will participate. Conversely, if the challenge doesn't put a PC under pressure, it's silly to expect his/her player to participate.As I understand the 3E Diplomacy rules, a player whose PC meets an unfriendly NPC can say "I use Diplomacy", make a roll, and (assuming the result is high enough) the NPC becomes friendly instead. In effect, the player gets to reframe the scene, as one involving a friendly rather than an unfriendly NPC, without actually engaging the fiction.For somewhat separate reasons, I'm not a big fan of that sort of mechanic - to flip it around, I tend to favour strong GM control over scene framing - but putting that preference to one side, 3E Diplomacy isn't going to lead to engaging, gripping social conflicts where the outcome is in doubt, the PCs (and their players) are stretched, and the upshot is something that no participant at the table expected going in. Whereas this is what I want from a conflict resolution system - of which D&D's combat rules are an example - and this is what I get from the skill challenge mechanic.The difference is similar to that between playing out a combat - which creates the possibility for one or more PCs to be hurt, to help or hinder one another, to take prisoners, to be taken prisoner, to run away, etc - and a PC simply (say) Wishing the opposition dead. The second doesn't involve any actual play of the game - it is just the player reframing the situation, so instead of it being one involving an opponent being present, it is one in which the PC has unhindered freedom of action.When a social skill challenge comes to an end, if the players have achieved N successes then the PCs have got what they want. But this will have unfolded through a series of discrete skill checks, each of which required engaging the fiction in response to the GM's narration of the changing situation. So what the PCs (and the players) want may itself have changed over the course of the challenge. And they may have had to compromise, or make other hard choices, in order to make checks (eg if your last Diplomacy check didn't get what you want, what do you do to get another check? you make a more generous offer).The two actual play posts I linked to provide detailed examples of what I have in mind.Because the GM is obliged to keep the scene alive until one or the other completion condition is satisfied. This creates a "space" in which new complications must be narrated in response to the actions the players have their PCs take, and therefore in which unexpected things happen - be they compromises, changes of mind, or the shoving of one's hands into the forge to hold down Whelm as it is reforged.What you describe here isn't following the procedure as described in the PHB and DMG. Of course the players look at their sheets - that's where the players' resources are recorded, and skill challenges require players to draw on their resources. BUt you've left out the bit where the GM narrates the fictional situation, the player describes how his/her PC responds to it, and the GM then adjudicates that action.In your example, I don't know how the players are declaring actions for their PCs. How do they know what the content of the unfolding fiction is?I think this is all about framing. And it is not unique to skill challenges - in D&Dnext, for example, if you don't want to see the fighter intimidating by crushing a pewter mug every time, and you don't want the bard to do all the talking every time, you will have to use the same sorts of techniques.The ones I use are (i) to turn the pressure onto the players - if they don't want their PCs to look like dullards, for example, they will have them talk, even if their Diplomacy bonus is low - and (ii) to change the stakes, so it is OK not to win every time. (Burning Wheel has excellent advice on this, which the WotC desingers should steal for their own rulebooks.) Part of (ii) falls squarely on the GM - if a Diplomacy check fails, for example, don't tell the player that his/her PC has a squeaky voice and spilled wine on the NPC's clothes. Rather, have the NPC respond "Your offer is a fair one, but unfortunately I swore an oath to my late uncle, from which I cannot resile." Now the player's conception of his/her PC as competent is affirmed, even though s/he didn't actually get what s/he wanted. And you've also give the player a new avenue of attack - trying to persuade the NPC to relinquish the oath.Obviously this is the guts of it. It's a GMing skill that needs to be cultivated - not unlike knowing how to play multiple monsters well in a complex combat.D&D (including 4e) has extremeley poor advice for this, unfortunately - it tells you to do it, but doesn't give any techniques. I tend to find the best advice is in the games I mentioned upthread (especially Burning Wheel). There is also good stuff on about every second thread at The Forge.</blockquote>

Verification