Stalker0's Obsidian Skill Challenge System (Update: Version 1.1) Now with PDF!!

[Zetesofos]

Wow. When I read the skill challenge system in 4th edition, I thought, this was amazing, it gives me something to work with. And after running my first campaign with it, it worked well, though I did have my reservations. It felt a bit forced, and I tried to be open to ideas because the failure for nothing put me off, regardless of the involvement.

But this system seems to fix every problem I could have foreseen. I see it being easily explainable to my players, easy to run. It seems to encourage new players who have not done so to roleplay, and at the same time rewards my seasoned players. And that I can adjust it on the fly, let the players decide how they help, and most importantly, keeps metagaming to a minimum (which I like).

Overall, an excellent piece of work. I shall use this system with every opportunity.

[doctorhook]

Originally Posted by Stalker0

I would never beat around the bush Doc Hook. Here is a general comparison between the two systems:

Original
1) More gradual length to the system, able to accommodate slightly larger or shorter skill challenges.
2) More player options
3) More in line with original system, good for those who don't want a significant change from the original.
4) Players are encouraged to use their best skills in nearly every encounter, and to use aid another.*
5) More mechanical

Obsidian
1) Sturdier math, able to take DM's tweaking on the fly better.
2) Cleaner and easier to learn overall.
3) Players are encouraged to use certain skills for certain challenges, even if they aren't very good in that skill.*
3) Mechanics are further in the background, more "invisible".

You'll note I (*) one point on each list. This is the core philosophy difference between the two systems.

From a mechanical point of view, Obsidian is better. Its math is sturdier, scales better, and can take the occasional DM, "what the heck, let's try...THIS" more than the original. But as you'll note, many people in this thread want more options with Obsidian, because they like that in the original. Its hard to get the rock solid math and provide more options, they tend to work against each other. Also, the other disadvantage to Obsidian is that its length is "set". For a 5 player group, its 15 rolls everytime. That's a fair number of rolls, which doesn't support the quicky skill challenge as well.

The bottom line is what system would fit your party's playstyle better. If they prefer a skill challenge to be more "roleplaying", then use Obsidian. If they prefer it to be more like combat with tactical options and the like, use the original.

You're a good guy, Stalker0. You know I'll be back with my ridiculous "new car" analogy again next time you design something.

BTW, is this the final version of Obsidian?

Oh, and consider this a *BUMP*.

[nikkomega]

I used this system in our last game for two skill challenges (tracking down some halfling smugglers and setting up a meeting with a gang boss), and it worked like a charm. Much more in tune with our style than the original, which quickly degenerated into an exercise in "what reason can I come up with for using whatever I have +9 in". Thanks for putting this out there!

Hmm... first post on this forum, I didn't realize that a reference to bovine feces would be transmuted into a row of smileys. How nauseatingly family-friendly.

[The_Warlock]

Originally Posted by nikkomega

Hmm... first post on this forum, I didn't realize that a reference to bovine feces would be transmuted into a row of smileys. How nauseatingly family-friendly.

Like the rules state, don't post if Grandma would be offended. Some think it's over the top, but ENWorld remains one of the most civil, friendly, welcoming internet forums I've EVER been on.

Back on topic: Bump for extraordinarily multi-purpose very cool skill challenge system.

[doctorhook]

Originally Posted by nikkomega

..."What reason can I come up with for using whatever I have +9 in". Thanks for putting this out there!

Hmm... first post on this forum, I didn't realize that a reference to bovine feces would be transmuted into a row of smileys. How nauseatingly family-friendly.

Whoa, cool new feature! Also, your double-post was automerged; that's new to me too.[/offtopic]

Is anyone good with PDFs? Obsidian's could use some trimming, I think.

[Magus Coeruleus]

So on Friday I ran a skill challenge and sort of used the system. I mean I used it but I forgot to print the rules and so I kind of winged it from what I remember. Here's the situation: the party is in a cabin waiting for the return of the ferry operator, who happens to have a massive pet bear she hunts with. Night falls and no ferry woman (as they later discover, she has been killed), but the bear shows up and starts wailing on the door to get in; a Nature check reveals it would NOT be a good idea to let it in even if it lives here, and that it is vicious enough to kill at least one person before being taken down by the group. So, enter skill challenge: keep the bear from getting in long enough for it to eventually lose interest or give up and leave. The bear is clawing at the door and the cabin itself shakes.

At first I ran it where everyone (in no particular order) had to tell me what they were doing before any one of them would roll and I'd tell them the results. In the last segment success/failure by one one person was relevant to another person's decision on what to do so I allowed it be resolved first.

The warlord tried to move furniture to barricade the door (Str check). He failed, so I told him it turns out the furniture is bolted to the floor (which other player's rationalized immediately as being a precaution against the bear moving it around too easily if/when the owner lets it in). The wizard used Ghost Sound (Arcana check) to create a sound of pots and pans to distract or frighten the bear (distract, in this case). The fighter looked for any treats the operator might keep for the bear (great choice, but failed the Perception check). The rogue checked the shuttered windows to make sure their latches were as secure as possible (I ruled that a Thievery rather than Perception check along lines of working with devices) and succeeded.

I forgot a lot. I didn't have the DC table with me but had a general idea what it should be for a 1st level party and everyone was pretty well above or below that # so little ambiguity. Actually I think I underestimated the DCs a bit but I also forgot about using action points to get allow a reroll, which they definitely would have used, so maybe that's a wash. I had forgotten about +2 for using the primary skill, and really had no intent of what that should be anyway. I forgot about critical success but no nat 20s anyway. I was in the ballpark on thresholds for total and partial victory. Despite forgetting a lot I felt comfortable enough with how it was going to just keep rolling with it.

Second segment--the bear has penetrated the door enough that they see its claws on one paw coming through. I raise my hand with curled fingers and describe it has having nails each the length of my fingers. Some are thinking of whether it would be good to try and distract and flee if possible. Rogue checks for alternative exits (Perception) and determines that at least he can get up into the beams and through thatching to the top; not directly relevant but I let it count as a success. Actually it made sense because I then let someone who asked to use Nature to figure whether trying to run (after climbing onto the roof that is) would be a viable plan; I allowed this check as something outside the skill challenge action selection, so it's really like the rogue's mechanical success made logical sense by triggering recall in another's knowledge. Anyway, I tell them that the bear could really destroy the cabin if it wants to and that they likely can't flee unless they split up and let someone be the bait. Everyone else decides to work together on finding the bear treats that they are convinced must be there (interestingly, they are as I had thought of that ahead of time but never hinted at it). Good choice because 2 of the 3 of them fail but since 1 succeeded they find the jar under the operator's bed.

Last segment. They have 4 successes and I didn't remember how many they needed but I knew they were in a range to have anything from failure to total victory, so since I did remember about going for broke I told them about that. No one elected to do that, however, maybe because they didn't know exactly how many successes they needed, but no one minded. Last actions: Wizard tried using an axe to break the part of the furniture attaching it to the bolt (Str check) so that the warlord could try again to move it as a barricade (Str check). They both failed. But that wasn't the last best hope anyway, which was for the fighter to hurl a bear treat as far as possible (Str check) out the window, which the rogue prepared to quickly and open and then shut to minimize exposure time to the bear (Dex check). Both succeded.

I told them that as the warlord and wizard tried in vain to barricade the door, the bear burst a large enough hole in the door to shove its face part way in. Here I roared at the group menacingly then stopped, sniffed at the air, and told them that the bear went off to investigate the treat. Now, in retrospect I see this was a partial victory, but I didn't know that at the time for certain and also in retrospect I realize they didn't have the benefit of +2 to any of their skills, so being pretty happy with how this worked out and their ingenuity, I told them bear came back after some time with the treat, growled and snuffled a bit, but then thudded off.

So this wasn't the best playtest since I forgot certain elements but it was close enough for our purposes--it didn't take very long but it was suspenseful and entertaining. I haven't played much with any except one of the players, so maybe they're always like this, but I felt people were focused more on solutions than which were applicable skills for the most part. This is really the sort of thing I wanted, some guidelines on how hard and how many the checks should be to give decent probabilities, and leave everything else to me in terms of the order in which people go, which skills are applicable, etc.

My critiques from this experience are that I don't really see challenges all 1) neatly fitting into mental vs physical vs social and 2) having 1 or 2 skills that clearly deserve the +2 versus other skills. This challenge was not a social one, but physical and mental were equally viable (physically block the bear from coming in versus distracting it). I'm also not sure what I should have +2ed. Maybe Perception because of how useful finding the treats is? Physically the checks were all Str, not even a skill per se. Dunno.

Anyway, thanks for a great system, Stalker0.

My next skill challenge will be spread over the course of a night in the midst of combat encounters as the party attempts to defend a homestead from goblin besiegers until dawn. I have told them at the end of last session that they should think about general strategies they want to employ to assist in the defense as opposed to specific microactions and that how successful they are with those at each segment will affect the encounters during the night and of course the overall skill challenge result will play a large role in determining whether they succeed in holding out for the night. I'm not sure how much I will prespecify these contingencies since I already have the encounters mostly lined up. I think I'll just wing how those encounters are affected by progress through the challenge and let the final tally provide bonuses or penalties to the final battle just before dawn.

[2eBladeSinger]

Obsidian is largely what I was hoping for out of the 4e skill challenge system; that they presented us with a mathematically broken, clumsy mechanic is one of the (only) true disappointments of 4e. I’m looking forward to utilizing this new system. My question is: why do the DCs scale unevenly, since the bonuses on the skills are, themselves, very universal? For example, a trained skill at level 6 would have a bonus of 8 through 13 with no other modifiers. At levels 6 and 7, this requires a roll of 8-13 to get a standard success. At levels 8, 9, 10 and 11 the average roll required goes from 9-14 and at level 12 back to 8-13.

[Stalker0]

Originally Posted by 2eBladeSinger

Obsidian My question is: why do the DCs scale unevenly, since the bonuses on the skills are, themselves, very universal?

The bonuses only scale evenly....if your assuming everyone is using the same kind of skill. For example, a person's good skills will scale up faster than his bad skills, as he's likely to put all of his ability points in stats that boost his best skills. Further, a person who really wants to be good at a skill will pick up magic items that boost it even further.

I had to take all of this into account when setting my DCs, because as a party gets higher in level the disparity between good and bad skills gets a little bit wider. Not a lot thank goodness, but a noticeable amount especially towards the epic levels.

[Yogurt-in-BC]

Just to confirm, the 2-person skill challenge assumes that these are the two best people of a 5-person party, right? So one has above average skills and one has average skills.

That means if I'm running a game where the entire party consists of two people, I should adjust either the DC or the number of successes.

Great system, and I look forward to using it!

[Stalker0]

Originally Posted by Yogurt-in-BC

Just to confirm, the 2-person skill challenge assumes that these are the two best people of a 5-person party, right? So one has above average skills and one has average skills.

That means if I'm running a game where the entire party consists of two people, I should adjust either the DC or the number of successes.

For a 2 person challenge, it assumes that one person is good, and the other below average. If you have two very good people, you may want to add +1 to your DC. In general I recommend changing DC before changing successes, you'll get smoother results.

[Scud.NZ]

First, my apologies for such a long first post.

Second, I really like the look of your skill challenge system, and I'd like to echo the sentiments of those who feel let down by the shoddy "official" system. The one thing, above others, that I really like about your system is how, IMO, it seems to rewards those players who really make an effort to be creative [Magus, I did enjoy reading through your description of the bear encounter. It kind of got me thinking of the old saying "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!"].

Finally, I'm intending to give it a go in the near future with my players. I'd been developing some encounters for a journey across a moorland region, and came up with this one. I'd be very interested to know what you, StalkerO, or anyone else thinks of the encounter, and how I intend to link the combat counter that follows it. Does it fit the spirit of the system? Are the consequences of success or failure appropriate? Here goes...

Cry for Help! - Level 2 (800XP)
This encounter will only occur during watch periods 1 to 4. The PC's see a young lad (his name is Eafa) running in terror across the moorland. If they can catch him, they may eventually be able to calm him enough to get him to tell them what's going on.


“Some creatures attacked our farm, Sir. One of 'em killed old Aelwig, and then it ate him, oh it was horrible...he screamed and screamed...Criba tried to fight 'em but it was no good. So we hid in the house and the barn, and barricaded ourselves in. M'Pa told me to run away, so when it was safe I was lowered out of a window and I ran and ran. Can you help us, kind Sir, please, please!”


The creatures are in fact ghouls, and there are three of them. They attacked the farm to find fresh meat.


The combat encounter is preceded by the following Skill Challenge.
Purpose: Get to the farm as quickly as possible, scout out the area for the creatures, and place yourself in an advantageous position to fight the creatures or rescue the people on the farm.


Level 1: DC 18
Challenge Type: Physical
Primary Skill: Round 1 - Endurance; Round 2&3 - Stealth
Party of 5: V8+, PV6-7, F<6
Party of 6: V10+, PV8-9, F<8
Failure: The house has been broken into and the family eaten. All non-evil PC's suffer -1 attack penalty in the ensuing combat due to this blow to morale. Do not award the party the 200XP for the skill challenge. [All ghouls are placed within the house]
Partial Victory: You make it to the farm in time, but you have not worked yourself into an advantageous position. [1 ghoul is placed, then two PC's, repeat]
Victory: You have worked yourself into an advantageous position. Expect a bonus. [All three ghouls are placed, then PC's place themselves]


Turn 1: Get to the farm as fast as you can
Knowledge: Nature allowed – avoids terrain hazards such as Boggy ground which would otherwise slow the party down. Only allowed once per player per encounter.
Social: Intimidate – might be used to push some of the weaker members of the party into picking up the pace a little. Only allowed once per player per encounter.
Endurance – get there just that little bit faster.


Turn 2: Scout out the farm and identify the creatures
Knowledge: Religion allowed – Provides monster knowledge as per description.
Knowledge: Nature not allowed - The ghouls are undead, so this skill will not identify them.
Perception allowed – They are trying to spot the ghouls and avoid stumbling into them.
Athletics – might be used to climb a tree, or building in the farm to get a better view of the ghouls or shot at them.
Social: Intimidate – might be used to shut up the chatty group member who would otherwise reveal the presence of the PC's.
Stealth – Avoid being detected by the ghouls as you scout out the farm.


Turn 3: Get into an advantageous position to fight the creatures, or rescue the family members.
Knowledge: Religion allowed – Provides monster knowledge as per description. Not allowed if used last turn. Only allowed once per player per encounter.
Knowledge: Nature not allowed - The ghouls are undead, so this skill will not identify them.
Perception allowed – They are trying to spot the ghouls and avoid stumbling into them.
Athletics – might be used to climb on to the roof of a farm building to get a better shot at the ghouls.
Social: Intimidate – might be used to shut up the chatty group member who would otherwise reveal the presence of the PC's.
Stealth – Avoid being detected by the ghouls as you get into the ambush position that you want. Not allowed if used last turn.


Treasure: none (unless payment demanded from farmers). Farmers offer to put up the party for the night. A good nights rest results in a bonus healing surge

What do you think? I included my notes on what I think my players might try. Too much detail?for the party [usable the next day only].

[Stalker0]

First off, I love the idea of changing the primary skill from the 1st turn to the next one. I've never even considered that idea, but it is such a nice and elegant way of showing a change of dynamic in your skill challenge, bravo!

2nd, I like your idea for the F, PV, and V conditions...that is a good way to handle a skill challenge before a combat scenario. I especially like the idea that the player's reward for a victory is to get to place themselves on the board after you place the ghouls, that is a cool bonus.

Third, as the dm you can never be too detailed in your notes as long as they are useful to you, its a question of how much time and effort you want to spend. I do think your trying to justify intimidate too much for this challenge. Remember that in Obsidian, it is assumed that not everyone is going to use their best skills all the time. It looks like you designed a running, stealthing physical challenge, so that means its time for your athletic, acrobatic, stealthy players to shine, not your social guys.

If you do want intimidate, you might allow it for the last round to scare off the ghouls from eating a farmer or something.

[Stalker0]

Part Shameless bump, part information gathering.

I'm curious to hear how people have found Obsidian in play. Any particular praise/problems as people have had some time now to try it out for themselves?

[Fredrik Svanberg]

I'm still waiting for a chance to DM 4E again, but I fear it will be another month or so before I get into it. However I would suggest that you put these rules up on the Wiki for easy access.

[jaelis]

Is the fact that the DCs for levels 12 and 13 are one less than you expect a typo or a deliberate choice?

[jasonbostwick]

Stalker, I've got more data points for you.
I've used the Obsidian system in a campaign I've been running with three players, two of whom were completely new to roleplaying. I've run one skill challenge in each of the two sessions I've run.

A few general comments:
The system was incredibly easy for the players (old and new) to grasp, and the simplified mechanics were a real boon to roleplaying. They weren't struggling with modifiers or an overload of choices like they did in combat, and it flowed like a straight role playing scene with the dice rolls providing structure.

The target numbers (DC and successes needed) felt very fair, in a party that was not especially optimized as far as skills were concerned.


The first challenge: Sneak through the City
Level 1; DC 18; Physical (mostly)

The PCs had to find their way through the Warrens (the slums of Ptolus) without being detected by the City Watch or any of the street gangs.

Primary skill was Streetwise, although the +2 bonus made it somewhat boring for the player whose Warlord was trained in it, as he had little mechanical benefit to trying anything else. I think I might try changing the primary skill like Skud did, it provides some interesting variance.

I mentioned how the skill checks could also represent actions to aid fellow party members, rather than contributing directly to the task at hand, and my players really picked up on it.
The ranger succeeded on a Stealth Check, and the player described his character walking around the party, tightening their armor straps and tucking their coin purses into their pockets so they would make less noise.

The system also gave a lot of narrative freedom to my players, something that I was really hoping for. One of the newer players described his Paladin hearing some rustling down an alley they passed and a can being knocked over, and rolled an initiative check to place his hand the handle of his axe threateningly.
I was really trying to encourage creativity, so I allowed it and described an old crone in the gutter, her pleas for assistance quickly cut off in fear before they gave the party away.


The party succeeded admirably, with only two failures. The skill challenge was followed up by a combat challenge against a street thug and his two hounds.
As a reward for their success, the players were allowed the freedom to position their characters anywhere on the map they liked before the encounter, in addition to being given a surprise round.
Partial success would have given them only the surprise round, but a tougher fight, and a failure would have had them ambushed by a larger group of thugs.


The second challenge: Bribe the Docksmaster
Level 1; DC 18; Social (mostly)

The party needed to find out what dock a ship they were interested in raiding would be moored at, and needed to ply the Docksmaster for the information without provoking his guards.

The Primary skill was Diplomacy, and as the characters had done a bit of snooping around to find out that the Docksmaster had a penchant for fine chocolates, their initial bribe gave them all +1 bonuses in the first round.

This skill challenge didn't run quite as smoothly as the first, mostly due to the differences in roleplaying a social encounter - mechanically, it worked just as well.
I found structuring a conversation into three rounds, and giving each player something to do in those rounds to be a bit more difficult than applying the same system to a physical encounter.

The +2 bonus to Diplomacy as a primary skill was a bit of a damper on roleplaying, as it affected the same player it did in the first encounter. Once again, he didn't really get to be as creative with his Warlord's actions.

The Warlord and Paladin played Good Cop/Bad Cop alternating Diplomacy and Intimidate, with middling success. I didn't feel that it was necessary to penalize the Intimidate checks, but had the encounter ended in a failure, it would have caused the situation to devolve quickly into combat with the guards.
The Ranger had no social skills, and seeing that the challenge would not be won without his contributions, decided to try and use Stealth. In a standard diplomatic encounter, I would have ruled against this, but they were speaking to the Docksmaster through a locked door. He was able to sneak around the building, enter a window, and pilfer the ledgers with the information they needed.

The party had barely achieved a victory, and it showed me the need to not lock down anything until all the rolls had been made.

[Scud.NZ]

Thanks for your feedback, Stalker0, and thanks again for designing such a good alternative to the official system!

I'll consider what you said about Intimidate. What was going through my mind when I put pen to paper was Stargate Atlantis. I was kind of thinking about how Ronan and Sheppard intimidate McKay on occasion to get him to grit his teeth and "press on", or shut the hell up when they are surrounded by bad guys. Is this a little too micro-management, should I be thinking in more general terms?

When I read again Q1 in your FAQ, I think I may have answered my own question. "Mechanically, helping your party is the same skill check as taking a more active role"; so if my big, burly PC describes intimidating the weak, unfit PC and makes the skill check then the successful check that he has earned effectively is the bonus that would, in the official system, be awarded to the weaker PC because big, burly has contributed to the successful completion of the challenge. Is my line of thinking here correct?

Looking through my player's character sheets I see that the Warlord has CHA18, and only CON12. So, it would definitely be in his interest to try to use a Social skill at some point in the challenge (once per player per encounter, yes?). Given that he has +9 Intimidate, compared to +6 Endurance, and taking the primary skill bonus in turn 1, he is marginally better off going with Intimidate. Does this sound reasonable?

PS: I like your idea about intimidating the ghoul in the last turn, as it adds to the "just in time" suspense I want to generate.

Finally, How can I model good leadership contributing to the challenge? [Seeing that the Warlord is meant to be an inspiring leader not a bully] At first, I might say its a kind of "positive" Intimidation, and use that skill. However, there is no guarantee that the Warlord is trained in that skill?

So, I'm not really sure. How would you handle this?

[Scud.NZ]

JasonBostwick, I just have to say it was really handy reading your post.

I mentioned how the skill checks could also represent actions to aid fellow party members, rather than contributing directly to the task at hand, and my players really picked up on it.
The ranger succeeded on a Stealth Check, and the player described his character walking around the party, tightening their armor straps and tucking their coin purses into their pockets so they would make less noise.

I love it! This is perfect thinking "outside the box". I will definitely have to use this as a good example for my players.

I like the idea of "narrative freedom", and I applaud your paladin player using his Initiative bonus. In a game where "maximizing" is so prevalent it's refreshing to see such good roleplaying. Quickly looking at the PHB I see that Paladins aren't exactly built for sneaking through back streets. None of his trained skills seem to be particularly useful, Diplomacy or Intimidate might have been used as social skills once in the encounter (perhaps to persuade a street urchin not to give them away). In any instance, hurrah for the Paladin.

I agree that the Warlord has his actions somewhat decided for him, but then isn't that the function of the Primary skill bonus, to focus the encounter and let a specific player shine. The Warlord was most appropriate to lead them through the streets, was most appropriate to conduct the negotiation (or offer advice to whoever was doing the talking). It was his chance to shine! You were running an encounter in "his" environment. Stick him in a library researching an old tome, and he outside of his comfort zone. Someone else steps up. I wouldn't worry about it, as long as you vary your encounters [plus, changing the Primary skill from round to round might also shake things up a bit].

Do you think that people would like to see a separate thread functioning as a library of sorts, for skill challenges using the Obsidian system? Certainly those placed in this thread so far have given me something to think about, and will provide inspiration for skill challenges of my own in the future.

What do you think?

[Zinovia]

I think it would be great to compile some Obsidian skill challenges in a thread or on the Wiki so other GM's could make use of them or be inspired by them. Hearing how they actually turned out in play is very valuable also.

I haven't had a chance to run 4E yet, but my first game is tonight. I'm looking forward to incorporating Obsidian for skill challenges. Thanks Stalker0 and to all those who've written up challenges here. It sounds like just what I've been looking for.

[dammitbiscuit]

Just chiming in to say that I, too, like this system a lot. I had a campaign that I ran for nearly 2 years in 3.5, and I'm finally starting it up again after a break we took several months ago, and it's 4e time now. The skill challenge rules are so mathematically wonky, especially in the higher-complexity success chance numbers, that I'd scratched my head so hard it had a crater in it. I really wanted to make it consistent, but it looked like I was going to be forced to carefully evaluate DCs per encounter for things my party was crummy or awesome at.

I'll let you know after I've run my first obsidian skill challenge. It's an evil party of adventurers, so I'll probably not have to work nearly as hard as the rest of you do at "justifying" uses of intimidate. As a personal challenge, I think I'm going to try to work Heal in eventually, since no one else has managed to do it.