D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
One problem with providing rules for something is that it can give people the idea that they need to keep their thinking inside the box and follow those rules. While the 4E section on skill challenges does cover the territory of describing what a skill challenge involves I think it should have been a lot less rigid in defining presentation, structure and resolution.
Having seen 4E skill challenge situations play out in a few different ways now - I'm currently playing in three 4E games, all of them with first time DMs - I feel that it's a system that is suffering from its own definition. My comments below summarize some of my thoughts about 4E skill challenges based on my experiences as a player in 4E games, followed by some of my thoughts on alternative presentation and resolution based on my experiences as a D&D player and DM. Some of this may be feedback that your players have not given you, some of it may be advice on how to alter things in response to feedback your players have given you.
(I'm not going to touch on any of the statistical elements of the system as presented - that has already been well covered in other threads.)
I. As a player facing skill challenges
First, my thoughts based on skill challenges as a player. While the fact that the DMs of the 4E groups I'm playing in are all new to the role I don't think that invalidates my experiences. I see the section on skill challenges as being largely aimed at new DMs; if those same DMs, and I'm assuming there are many out there, are struggling to present them in play in a fun and engaging manner then perhaps a discussion of presentation and bending rules to fit the situation will be of use.
1) Skill challenge incoming! All hands to dice bags!
When the DM announces that a skill challenge is commencing it is jarring to the flow of play. It breaks immersion and shifts the focus on to roll play rather than role play. While I understand the intent behind advising the players which skills are primarily effective in resolving the challenge I think it also takes the fun out of the player response.
2) Take a ticket.
Unless two players announce that they both want to try something at the same time and there is some need to distinguish who goes first I don't think running checks in a particular order adds much to the situation - if anything all it adds is more intrusion from the rules where it's not necessary.
3) Roll 'em.
I think this is one aspect of skill challenges that makes them feel particularly forced. Everyone has to make their checks every round, whether it makes any sense or not, because the system demands it. I understand the intent is to be inclusive and not have players feeling left out of the action, but when that involvement is coming up with contrived reasons that a particular skill is somehow applicable to the situation it just feels like jumping through hoops for the sake of the exercise.
4) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it!
Because a character may not have skills that are practical to apply to the challenge they end up having to come up with hokey justifications for using various secondary skills round after round, and unless they're attempting to aid a primary skill checker they are more likely to hurt the efforts of the group than they are to help. Sometimes discretion is the better option; not everyone can be useful in every situation.
5) We're playing dice, not D&D.
Sometimes a skill challenge plays out in a way that you feel you have no real control over: you need to notch up some number of successes before tripping up too many times - it all comes down to the dice. If there's no way for me to interact with and attempt to influence the situation beyond the random roll of a die then it's a pretty meaningless challenge.
II. As a DM reflecting on how to run skill challenges
Having identified some of the issues with skill challenges that I feel get in the way of having a good time as a player, I'll go over a few ideas for running skill challenges in a manner that is more conducive to a natural flow of play.
1) Let the players play.
When engaging enemies in combat a DM does not disclose which defenses of the enemy are strong or weak; when engaging in a skill challenge the DM should not disclose which approaches, in the form of primary or secondary skills, are likely to be most successful. Present the situation to the players and let them decide how they respond. Players will usually choose to act in line with the abilities of their characters in a way that makes sense in the context of the situation, the DM then translates their action into the most appropriate skill and resolves it against the specifications of the skill challenge. The role play determines the mechanics that will be used, not the other way around.
2) Just let it flow.
The order in which players act will often be determined by the actions they choose. Again, unless there is some conflict between the players over their response I think there is no need to look to the rules to tell us who goes when.
3) Roll 'em, but only if you need to.
If a character is taking action that translates into an application of a skill then the player makes a roll as necessary; if a character is taking action that meaningfully assists another then the player makes a roll as necessary; if a character is not taking any direct involvement in the situation at this time then they can stand back and let those who are in their element earn their keep.
4) Well, okay, if you think that'll work.
If the situation plays out in a manner that makes sense for more than one application of a secondary skill to be viable, then why not let it be viable? A character should not be stopped from attempting something if there's no in game reason for it.
5) So what happens when I do this?
When an interaction takes place the player should get feedback on it so that they can adjust their actions. With no feedback on an action there is no real interaction going on and the challenge devolves into a meaningless procedure of rolling dice until an arbitrary number of successes or failures have been resolved. A large part of role playing is the cycle of attempting an action, receiving feedback on how the environment responds from the DM, and then adjusting and proceeding on. Without some cycle of action and feedback we're just sitting around rolling dice for the hell of it.
6) Success and failures as guidelines and not requirements.
In some cases there will be physical conditions in which the requirements for successes and failures make objective sense, but if the skill challenge specifies that ten successes are required but the role play has progressed to a situation that seems resolved with only five successes what is gained by stringing it out any longer than necessary? Just wrap it up and move on if it makes sense to do so.
I think just having an arbitrary number of successes and failures silly, a point you touched on in 6.
If you have 4 successes required then each success should have a goal.
Such as:
Success Track.
1) Get into the noble's court.
2) Get an audience with the noble.
3) Get on good terms with the noble.
4) Convince the noble to send aid.
Failure Track.
1) Offend the noble.
2) Display lack of ettiquettte.
Something like that. Make it objective based for each step rather than just the whole challenge. Each step should be as general as possible and the PCs can accomplish that goal anyway they wish.
This is a fairly poor example, but this principle needs exploring, as the main problem I see with skill challenges is the DM may as well just say to the PCs roll some skill checks until I say stop. I'll tell you if you won or lost.
The main purpose of the skill challenge system is to break an action into a number of parts so that it cannot be succeeded or failed in a single action or die roll. It needs developing past its current base state. As long as you keep its main purpose in mind it should not be difficult.
Several steps may be accomplished in a single action/roll or a single step may need several actions/rolls. The steps may not have to be accomplished in any particular order such as in the case of a trap.
Success Track
1. Block the nozzle.
2. Jam something in the clockwork.
3. Reset the pressure plate.
4. Snap the wire.
Fail Track
1. Break nozzle.
2. break pressure plate.
Another poor example, but just of the top of my head.
Or perhaps a lock.
Success Track
1. Set Pins
2. Add right rotation tension
etc.
These are just off the top of my head, so they aren't great, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point. I just need to make the elements as general as humanly possible so as to allow imagination and diversity.
Last edited by Bleoberis De Ganis; 26th April 2009 at 12:52 PM..
I think that the overall concept is ok: let the player describe what they want to achieve that contributes to the goal, be flexible in what you allow to contribute and have some sort of concrete ending condition to avoid the whole thing dragging out for too long.
Unfortunately the mechanics presented are pretty bad in terms of an enjoyable system. The flexibility is false (ie - the level of punishment exacted for using nonstandard skills is enough to be prohibitive anyway), the concrete ending condition makes little sense, and there isn't enough depth to the system to make it tactical. Given that, it's not surprising it turns into a grindy session of rolling the dice for people who are good at the skill, and creatively avoiding doing so for people who are bad at it.
Bleoberis: Personally I think that your first example should actually be multiple skill challenges. Getting into the nobles court, subsequently gaining an audience and finally convincing the noble are big enough tasks that they could be considered seperate encounters.
On the other hand: I think you're adding too much detail on the trap department. Personally I don't think that traps should be skill challenges at all: a simple DC should be enough to cope with the disable device roll, and disabling should be a simple task than simply smashing the traps components.
Last edited by Saeviomagy; 26th April 2009 at 03:25 PM..
Great thread, thanks Mephistopheles. "Skill challenges" lumps a lot of different ideas together, and should have been approached in a more individuated way, for example with separate headings for "timed challenge", "PC vs NPC challenge", "on the fly skill challenge", etc. I'm hoping we'll see this in the DMG2, even though it should have been in the first one, or at least offered free on-line. The skill challenge "system" D&D players recived in a non-solution - it's uninteresting, poorly designed, and improperly used subtracts from the game. However, the *idea* behind it has so much potential, and hints that D&D is evolving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mephistopheles
3) Roll 'em.
I think this is one aspect of skill challenges that makes them feel particularly forced. Everyone has to make their checks every round, whether it makes any sense or not, because the system demands it. I understand the intent is to be inclusive and not have players feeling left out of the action, but when that involvement is coming up with contrived reasons that a particular skill is somehow applicable to the situation it just feels like jumping through hoops for the sake of the exercise.
Though I have no problem with rolling, I don't like how it always boils down to a *skill* check. This is why I prefer to think of them as "non-combat challenges". I may include notes on particular useful powers from each class, actions that require no roll and are auto-successes with some role-play, ability score checks (with augmented DCs), not only skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mephistopheles
5) So what happens when I do this?
When an interaction takes place the player should get feedback on it so that they can adjust their actions. With no feedback on an action there is no real interaction going on and the challenge devolves into a meaningless procedure of rolling dice until an arbitrary number of successes or failures have been resolved. A large part of role playing is the cycle of attempting an action, receiving feedback on how the environment responds from the DM, and then adjusting and proceeding on. Without some cycle of action and feedback we're just sitting around rolling dice for the hell of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mephistopheles
6) Success and failures as guidelines and not requirements.
In some cases there will be physical conditions in which the requirements for successes and failures make objective sense, but if the skill challenge specifies that ten successes are required but the role play has progressed to a situation that seems resolved with only five successes what is gained by stringing it out any longer than necessary? Just wrap it up and move on if it makes sense to do so.
I'm not convinced this is a problem in a well-designed pre-designed skill challenge. This is why the development track Bleoberis De Ganis suggests is so important - I think it's arguably the most important part because it identifies stages the PCs need to go through.
However, when it's a spur of the moment skill challenge, I can see this being a real concern for the DM. Some guidelines in the DMG would have been nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleoberis De Ganis
If you have 4 successes required then each success should have a goal.
Such as:
Success Track.
1) Get into the noble's court.
2) Get an audience with the noble.
3) Get on good terms with the noble.
4) Convince the noble to send aid.
Failure Track.
1) Offend the noble.
2) Display lack of ettiquettte.
I really like that you've identified the most important part of skill challenges - the development and unfolding in play. As I've been writing my first adventure, this sort of "development track" is exactly what I've been doing. Except for the rare most open-ended of skill challenges, every skill challenge should be designed this way, I think.
One of the more glaring differences between skill challenges and combat - which both primarily boil down to 'roll high a bunch of times' - is that dice rolls are not the only thing happening mechanically in combat. You have movement, HP tracking, terrain features, status conditions, etc. The die rolls are couched in a ton of other decisions and that buffering causes it to feel like something other than what is really is: roll often, roll high. The Skill Challenge on the other hand is utterly naked. There are no other meaningful decisions or even distractions from the repetitive rolling. So what can we add to Skill Challenges to get some clothing on them? Some of my ideas:
1) Enemies Bite Back - only critical failures (roll of 1) create failures for the party. Otherwise, rolls made by the NPCs against the PC's Skills or maybe Defenses count as 'failures' for the PCs. You don't take damage in combat when you miss an attack, do you? Neither should you take 'damage' for 'missing' a skill (most of the time) either.
2) Environmental Effects - Even the most timid speaker earns a little bit more attention from an audience when he is above them or is standing behind a podium. We're sort of trained to recognize certain body positioning or environmental cues as meaningful. Give the gal a +2 for properly (or -2 for improperly) positioning herself relative to the audience.
3) It Does What It Needs to Do - Maybe that lock is really too small for two people to work on and so all 'aid another' Theivery checks are at -4. The merchant's young apprentice may be easily Intimidated, giving PCs a +2 to those checks. Heck, maybe giving the right roleplay idea automatically garners a success. A Skill Challenge with DC 17 for every Skill possible may be statistically balanced but it's boring as all get out. Even more so if all Skill Challenges are always DC 17 at level X.
4) Status Conditions - I'm less sure how this one would work, exactly. For instance, an NPC might make some sort of check to 'frustrate' a PC, limiting him to 'Aid Another' this round. An NPC could end up with the 'removed' condition, prohibiting her from getting environmental bonuses. The mark would be an awesome Skill Challenge mechanic - my witty barb has gotten under your skin and so you take a -2 to interact with anyone but me.
The DM in the game I play in has been holding off on skill challenges so far. It's a new concept the entire group is still looking for the right way to make it interesting. The first hint of how this could work and be exciting / fun I saw in a posting PC put together.
This case it's combat, not a role play. That said, the ah-ha that struck me is to give the players some of the information around the skill challenge. This could allow players to come up with their own tactics. For me, as a player, this was the big puzzle piece that was missing. The second ah ha is to some degree it could be run like combat, with rounds and turns. This will get everyone involved through aiding or other needs.
I still see a need for a DM to be ready with a success or fail path, probably mitigating either one to a more mild result depending on how close the success or failure was. For that reason for now I would suggest only using them for designed skill challenges, not something on the fly.
Again, this is coming from someone with no real game experinece with a skill challenge. That said, for the first time I am actually a bit interested in them.
I have been using skill challenges more flexibly than presented, precisely because they seem so disruptive of gameplay. If a player can roleplay convincingly, no roll is used, they just rack up a success. Also, my skill challenge goes in parentheses after the problem it represents - Ex: "Gain audience with Duke (Diplomacy 10/Intimidate 16)" If my players cannot come up with any other approach to getting that audience, they fall back on dice. Otherwise, I follow their reactions and solutions, which often are way beyond what my skill challenge foresaw.
I think it is a great back-up to keep the game rolling and on-plot, but it plays a back-up role in my games so far.
This case it's combat, not a role play. That said, the ah-ha that struck me is to give the players some of the information around the skill challenge. This could allow players to come up with their own tactics. For me, as a player, this was the big puzzle piece that was missing. The second ah ha is to some degree it could be run like combat, with rounds and turns. This will get everyone involved through aiding or other needs.
Hey, looky there! It's my post!
For me, greater structure was crucial to having this be fun. I went around the table clockwise: monsters went, then each PC had a chance to take an action. People could change their order if they wanted to. Giving them enough information to make an informed decision meant that the excitement was in the success or the failure, not the trying to guess what they should do, and that made a HUGE difference.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
For me, greater structure was crucial to having this be fun. I went around the table clockwise: monsters went, then each PC had a chance to take an action. People could change their order if they wanted to. Giving them enough information to make an informed decision meant that the excitement was in the success or the failure, not the trying to guess what they should do, and that made a HUGE difference.
Bad structure reminds me of a DM we had. We had virtually no world information (locations/history/npcs etc) and we were in a town at the beginning (know nothing about it though). He kept asking "What do you want to do?"
With what?
This can be the same problem as is common with skill challenges.
Two things that can be done: Do not work it in rounds, and have only those who wish to participate do so.
By not doing it in rounds, it feels less like an encounter and can feel a bit more organic or "arising from play." Go in whatever order feels natural for the situation, and include those who wish to be included. Which takes me to....
I'm an editor while my buddy is a computer specialist. Why would he go at a document with a red pen when I'm there? Likewise, why would I yank the case off of a server and start meddling? The way it's written for skill challenges, if you force everyone to participate in something when they have the legitimate option to abstain, you'll just make them feel like they're the ones adding up the failures while those better suited are supplying the successes. Don't force what isn't there. A Barbarian with average Intelligence, whose skills are all Str or Con related, isn't going to open his mouth during an important negotiation or an appeal with a lord. The current system forces him to, for no gain. Personally, if it were me, I'd know my best contribution would be to shut it and let the Bard, Warlord, etc. do the talking.
In order to balance that, include both a mental and physical skill challenge per session (or one of each alternating every session).
__________________ "When two tigers fight, one will lose." - Chinese proverb
Currently GMing a Burning Wheel game and playing in a Mouse Guard game.
Two things that can be done: Do not work it in rounds, and have only those who wish to participate do so.
When I ran one the other day, I made sure that there was always something that anyone could do; this mostly meant Aid Another, but that's okay. I encouraged people to make skill checks by having bad consequences (continuing attacks) each round, ensuring that they'd want to have the challenge over with as quickly as possible.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
Two things that can be done: Do not work it in rounds, and have only those who wish to participate do so.
That's one of the flaws of the current system: there's no incentive for you to take part unless you're good at the task.
A better system is one where the challenge racks up failures in some time-based way (ie - each round X failures are racked up, or each round the challenge makes skill tests and racks up failures if it meets a DC etc), while the players make rolls to rack up successes. That means no matter how bad you are, you don't hurt your team by participating.
Something like that. Make it objective based for each step rather than just the whole challenge. Each step should be as general as possible and the PCs can accomplish that goal anyway they wish.
I like the development track idea for skill challenges to represent an actual progression of events rather than the abstract successes before failures. I'll most likely base my challenges on that kind of model if I decide to run a 4E game or write an adventure for it. Thanks for the input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickleaf
Great thread, thanks Mephistopheles. "Skill challenges" lumps a lot of different ideas together, and should have been approached in a more individuated way, for example with separate headings for "timed challenge", "PC vs NPC challenge", "on the fly skill challenge", etc. I'm hoping we'll see this in the DMG2, even though it should have been in the first one, or at least offered free on-line. The skill challenge "system" D&D players recived in a non-solution - it's uninteresting, poorly designed, and improperly used subtracts from the game. However, the *idea* behind it has so much potential, and hints that D&D is evolving.
I agree. I definitely think a section with some general guidelines on different ways to play out different situations would have been more helpful than presenting a system and expecting people to shoehorn situations into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaslov
This case it's combat, not a role play. That said, the ah-ha that struck me is to give the players some of the information around the skill challenge. This could allow players to come up with their own tactics. For me, as a player, this was the big puzzle piece that was missing. The second ah ha is to some degree it could be run like combat, with rounds and turns. This will get everyone involved through aiding or other needs.
That's a big part of what I was trying to get at. I find that play flows a lot more naturally when players are thinking about the situation in terms of what they'd try to do if they were in the shoes of their character and then using the rules to resolve the action, it's also going to leave the floor open to creative solutions rather than simply going through the motions of the skill challenge.
I was hinking of doing something along the success track idea, but instead using a sort of tree type structure.
Each Point in the tree has Success and Fail end points. If you earn a fail you move towards the left side of the tree (left branches) where the DCs and options become more difficult. A Success moves you towards the right side of the tree where the DCs and options become better.
At the bottom of the tree, the end of the skill challenge, you either earn a fail or success. The further over the left, the worse the consequences of failure. The further over to the right the better consequences of success.
Something like that. But I have to keep in mind that each point needs to be as general as possible to allow imagination and options. Make it too specific and it is basically railroading, too linear, imagination stunting and leaves the DM stuffed when it comes to having to improvise in sticky player actions.
EDIT: Oh, and for the sake of improve allow side jumping along the same line. If it doesn't count as a success or failure and progress down the tree, allow a side step to either improve or worsen the trail the PCs are going down. This would count as negating a failure in the standard skill challenge.
Might take some designing, however.
EDIT 2: Just checked - far too many points to be possible. Must think of another degrees of success(failure) mechanic.
Last edited by Bleoberis De Ganis; 1st May 2009 at 03:07 AM..
Along with the post above about making skill challenges work like combat, it made me think that perhaps each element in a success track could be considered a monster that needs bashing into submission. A failure track could be considered the monster smashing back.
Each Monster could have hitpoints. Perhaps effects and conditions such as ongoing damage. Ongoing Damage: Social Humiliation 5. Make save (witty retort.)
Just some more thoughts.
Last edited by Bleoberis De Ganis; 1st May 2009 at 06:55 PM..
I read the same article. The thing that I didn't like was the addition of a HP mechanic. It complicates the whole thing for no real gain.
I have been thinking about this for a while, and my best idea up to this point is that each obstacle in the challenge could be given a certain nimber of successes to complete, the default being one success. Disable a lock? One success. Sneak into the courtyard past the guards? Three successes. Make the Visier seem like a jackass in front of the princess? Two successes. If a monster is an obstacle in the challenge, it takes one to three (or maybe more) successes that make sense (attacks, maybe skill checks, maybe attribute checks) to overcome or kill it. This makes any challenge a series of mini challenges, without a set order that you would need to do them in.
I use the Obsidian Challenge rules to encourage every player to participate, even if they are not well suited to it. For a short synopsis on Obsidian, you count successes but not failures, and the characters have a set number of rounds (default is 3) to complete the chalenge before it is over. In my working hack of this, I have decided that instead of a set number of rounds, I will add in a different mechanic for determining when the challenge ends. Either a timer track, where a saving throw type 50-50 chance adds failures until the critical number are failed, or in a combat type challenge, just use the same 50-50 save mechanic at the end of each round to determine if healing surges are lost. This creates a variable timer instead of the static timer of Obsidian, and you can add in objective consequences as time goes on.
The Skill Challenge rules were probably one of the things I most anticipated with 4e, and the only way that I have been able to enjoy them is when I started using the Obsidian Challenge rules by Stalker0. His rules are great for most situations, and I am currently trying to adapt them a little for a little more granularity in success/failure as well as mod them to include combat that is more narrative focussed, and ignores a lot of the regular combat minutia. The 4e combat rules are fantastic, but there are times that I want a more narrative way or resolving conflict. Skill challenges could fulfill that. I just need to work out the kinks.
Skill challenges were always my least favourite part of the game, because they felt too forced; 'round and 'round in circles, rolling dice. Then came the revelation that not EVERYONE had to take part in EVERY CHALLENGE. It never really did make a lot of sense for the wimpy Warlock to be carrying rocks, when there were other things he'd be better off doing.
These days we play it fairly free-form, but with the skills generally stated up front. in social skill challenges we just roll play it out, with the GM making rolls at points that are appropriate based on what is said or done. Screwing up and getting caught out might well block one avanue of questioning during an interrogation, for instance (captive sees through the deception), then we need to come up with an alternate method of attack. It's not just mindless, "I bluff him, then I intimidate him, then I'll bluff him again." We're voicing our bluffs and methods of intimidation and the GM considers the merits of the angle used, adding or subtracting a modifier to the roll on the fly.
Even the completely uncharismatic members of the party get into it by trying to explain how their support actions play out. They can't just say, "I roll a 12 and support!", they have to outline what they've done in order to aid the primary character. On one occasion (and only one) the GM allowed the Rogue character to support an intimidate roll by saying, "I'm a Drow." Usually it requires much more effort, like when I was bluffing while interrogating a high level evil Cleric by saying that I couldn't hold the party's Barbarian back much longer, while he in turn gnashed his teeth and foamed at the mouth while 'trying to force his way past me' to the prisoner by way of making a support roll.
It makes for a much better time, overall, and makes you feel like you actually earned that few hundred experience points.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
