Two Example Skill Challenges

Delgar · Apr 28, 2008

So in an attempt to show some players how a skill challenge might work, I cooked up a couple of examples of how one might play out. I figured I'd throw them up here, maybe give people some ideas.

The door slams shut behind you and the walls begin moving slowly together. Roll Initiative:

Dave: 10
Mike: 25 WOOT, I rock!
Jon: 12
Tim: 1

DM: Okay Mike what do you want to do the walls are closing in on you.
The door behind you slammed shut and is locked.

Mike: Alright I start looking for some sort of mechanism to try and shut this thing down.

DM: Okay go ahead and roll a perception check, it's going to be very hard.

Mike: Oh come on, I do this for a living! Roll Sweet 18+12 in perception is 30, that's got to be good enough.

DM: Nice, okay you spot a small imperfection on the right side of the door, because you succeeded at a hard check you can choose another skill to try and use, and you get a +2 bonus to it.

Mike: OH hell yah, I'll start working on the panel see if I can figure this thing out.

DM: Okay well if you want to start disarming it with Theivery it will be difficult, BUT if you want to try and use your insight to try and figure out how it's working it will make further Thievery rolls easier.

Mike: Okay I'll study the mechanism. Insight of 12+7=19 is that good enough.

DM: Yes, you figure out how the mechanism is working, any theivery attempts to disarm it now will be a normal check instead of a hard one.
Okay that's two successes for you guys so far. Jon your up.

Jon: Alright I'll use my Knowledge: Dungeoneering to see if I can give Mike any help with disarming this trap. Roll 1+8=9 crap I failed.

DM: Okay you've never seen or heard of anything quite like this before.
That's 2 successes and 1 failure. Dave your up the walls are still moving in on you.

Dave: Alright, I want to take a look at the mechanism and see if I can help figure it out. Is it possible for me to gamble on a difficult Insight, to give us some more information?

DM: Sure why not go ahead and roll

Dave: Alright woot 16+10=26. Is that good enough?

DM: Sure is, you can definitely tell Mike what levers are responsible for the walls moving. Okay because you succeeded at a hard check you get to try another skill at a +2 bonus.

Dave: Hmm, I think I'll just take another look around and make sure we didn't miss something, we don't want to be surprised by anything.
Perception 12+7=19.

DM: Taking another quick scan of the room, your pretty sure that you can see a trap door in the ceiling, perhaps another way out if all else fails. That's 4 successes and 1 fail. Your up Tim.

Tim: Well I'll try to use my brute strength to slow the progress of the wall to give us some more time. I'll use my athletics skill.

DM: Okay but that's definitely going to be difficult.

Tim: That's okay I'll try it. Roll 15+10=25

DM: That's just good enough to make it, you dig in and use all your might to slow the progress of the wall. Okay Mike back to you. You guys have 5 successes and 1 failure.

Mike: Well here goes nothing guys. I'll attempt to rig the levers to move the wall back into it's original position.

DM: Okay go for it.

Mike: Thievery roll 10+12=22. Good? Good?

DM: You manage to move the levers into the apporpriate position and the wall, comes to a stop and slowly moves back into it's original position.

Here's another example of a skill challenge combined with a combat encounter:

DM: Okay you've just run across the ten foot wide stone bridge, and are on a small landing with a doorway, the wave of orcs is still hot on your heals. Initiative. (everyone rolls, heres the order Mike/Tim/Jon/Orcs/Dave)

DM: Okay Mike what do you do.

Mike: Okay I check the door for traps.

DM: Okay roll a perception.

Mike: 25

DM: Okay it looks like there is a needle trap and the door appears to be locked, you can make another skill check with a +2 bonus.

Mike: Okay I'll start to disarm the trap.

DM: Okay Thievery roll.

Mike: crap I rolled a 1, that's a 13...good enough?

DM: You start working furiously on the trap, but your hand slips and you drop your tool.

Mike: Oh crap did the trap go off?

DM: doesn't seem like it. Okay Tim.

Tim: Goddamnit Mike, get that damn door open! Okay I'll try and stall them at the bridge. (Uses some power to help him out)

DM: Okay Jon your up.

Jon: Alright I'll stand beside Tim and hold them at the bridge. Get that door open, and make it fast, there's got to be hundreds of them! (Jon uses some power to help out)

DM: Okay the orcs come thundering over the bridge. (Combat rolls are made, Tim and Jon take some damage). Dave your up.

Dave: Alright I'll throw up a wall to block the orcs for a bit, and hopefully give us enough time to get out of here.

DM: Okay, Mike back to you.

Mike: Okay, I pick up my took and try to disarm the trap again. Can I wager a difficult roll on it?

DM: Sure, you decide to try to disarm the trap quickly, making it more difficult.

Mike: Okay thievery of 27. YES!!

DM: You hear a click, as you successfully disarm the trap. For succeeding at a difficult skill, go ahead and roll another skill check at +2.

Mike: Can I try to open the lock?

DM: Sure

Mike: Okay Thievery of 22.

DM: the lock clicks open and you can open up the door.

Mike: Alright guys the doors open, lets get the Heck outta dodge.

DM: Tim your up....

In this case the encounter was:

Overwhelming force of orcs. Wave after wave will just keep coming till your dead or escape.

Skill challenge. Locked door with poision needle trap, Skill Challenge (3/2). Failure results in setting off the trap.

Is that not a thing of beauty?

Daeger · Apr 28, 2008

I like it.

Novem5er · Apr 28, 2008

Yes, very neat! I really like the idea that Skill Challenges now need multiple successes or failures. I hope the DM has a table or something that shows DCs for different level skill challenges, combined with expected success/failure ratios. Otherwise, I expect a lot of problems with various DMs.

For example, which skill challenge is more difficult:

High DC, but success/failure ratio is 4/2.
Low DC, but success/failure ratio is 8/2.

?

I just hope we have some guidelines.

ThirdWizard · Apr 28, 2008

Yeah, this is an element of the game I'm going to try to fully exploit. I'm already plotting out several possible skill challenges to use in different situations.

Wepwawet · Apr 28, 2008

Delgar said:
... because you succeeded at a hard check you can choose another skill to try and use, and you get a +2 bonus to it.

Huh?!?

Is this really how it works?

Btw what are the DCs for Easy/Medium/Hard checks? Same as in 3.5?

Delgar · Apr 28, 2008

Wepwawet said:
Huh?!?

Is this really how it works?

Btw what are the DCs for Easy/Medium/Hard checks? Same as in 3.5?

I'm only going by what was presented by people that participated in Escape from Sembia, it's the only info we have.

The DC's are set by the DM. Took me probably 1 minute to come up with the challenge, just longer to type it all out. The players are free to tackle it however they want.

Celebrim · Apr 28, 2008

I think this just goes to show how difficult the skill challenge is going to be able to pull off in practice.

In both cases, I believe the situation is not one that lends itself to a skill challenge. And in neither case are the skill challenge mechanics either helpful or (untweaked) the obvious way to handle the encounter.

The first example is the better of the two, but even it has problems. For example, in the first case, how much time elapses before the walls close? Is inaction explicitly failure in the system, or if I stand back and let the skill player work is the group punished? Does this ensure group participation more than a round by round 'what do you do to solve the puzzle' approach would? As it is, the encounter plays out as a pretty standard 'search, think, use skill' investigative procedure that could have happened in any edition - even those that didn't have a skill system. In the example, the Insight skill is a bigger change than the skill challenge and I percieve already that its going to be the all-purpose win any challenge skill. I mean, when won't Insight apply? The players did do anything remotely out of the box, and its not clear how the skill challenge system would help a DM handle out of the box propositions.

The second example really illustrates the problems though. It basically plays out as 'the party provides cover while the thief tries to get the door open'. Exactly what is the skill challenge doing for the DM in this case? Is inaction explicitly a failure in the system? Does this ensure group participation more than the traditional round by round approach would? Once again, its a pretty standard 'search, disarm, open lock' sort of affair. Hows this for an approach, 'Difficult diplomacy - (in orcish) - 'Hey, does anyone have the key to this door?'. Or how about following that with, 'Difficult nature - I emulate the sound of a hungry Cave Lion to scare the orcs' Finally, 'Can I use a climb check to allow the party to escape while the Orcs are terrorized?' So does this really help the DM when the players go out of the box? And if it is nothing more than 'search, think, thief stuff', hows that really any different than what we've been doing?

ThirdWizard · Apr 28, 2008

Celebrim said:
I think this just goes to show how difficult the skill challenge is going to be able to pull off in practice.

I don't quite understand. It seemed really easy in the examples. The two I ran myself (one underground whitewater rafting, the other convincing a dwarven king for aid) were very smooth and the players caught on immediately. As far as I can see it is very intuitive from both sides of the screen. I don't believe I've read a report where the players and DM struggled with it yet (although I don't read all the reports - there are a whole lot of them).

Xorn · Apr 28, 2008

Celebrim said:
The first example is the better of the two, but even it has problems. For example, in the first case, how much time elapses before the walls close? Is inaction explicitly failure in the system, or if I stand back and let the skill player work is the group punished? Does this ensure group participation more than a round by round 'what do you do to solve the puzzle' approach would? As it is, the encounter plays out as a pretty standard 'search, think, use skill' investigative procedure that could have happened in any edition - even those that didn't have a skill system. In the example, the Insight skill is a bigger change than the skill challenge and I percieve already that its going to be the all-purpose win any challenge skill. I mean, when won't Insight apply? The players did do anything remotely out of the box, and its not clear how the skill challenge system would help a DM handle out of the box propositions.

Three rounds. This is up to you as the DM, when you design the challenge.

If the player always defaults to "I use Insight." Then you say, "You use Insight to do what, exactly?" When my characters in 3.x say, "I'll search." I ask them what they are searching. If "just everything" then I bump the DC to find something drastically. Even if the skill challenge system just presents a game plan for DMs on handling non-combat (or mixed, loved the second scenario), then that will be great. If you are already following a resolution system you're happy with, bully for you. My fiddling around with skill challenges has been very entertaining. Not once was it something that couldn't be done previously--it was just cleaner and less from the hip.

The second example really illustrates the problems though. It basically plays out as 'the party provides cover while the thief tries to get the door open'. Exactly what is the skill challenge doing for the DM in this case? Is inaction explicitly a failure in the system? Does this ensure group participation more than the traditional round by round approach would? Once again, its a pretty standard 'search, disarm, open lock' sort of affair. Hows this for an approach, 'Difficult diplomacy - (in orcish) - 'Hey, does anyone have the key to this door?'. Or how about following that with, 'Difficult nature - I emulate the sound of a hungry Cave Lion to scare the orcs' Finally, 'Can I use a climb check to allow the party to escape while the Orcs are terrorized?' So does this really help the DM when the players go out of the box? And if it is nothing more than 'search, think, thief stuff', hows that really any different than what we've been doing?

Inaction? Well you have to fight orcs till you finish--so I guess inaction leads to failure. I like the idea of a trap being more than a single skill check, or only being dealt with through Thievery.

Diplomacy - Instant failure, not a feasible use.
Nature - Interesting enough, but the challenge is the barrier, not the orcs. The orcs are the incentive to overcome the barrier. Still, I'd allow that to impact the fight with the orcs for a round.
Climb - Sure. If the barrier is passable by climbing--I'd count that as feasible, and it could include securing a grapple/rope for the rest of the party (less climbing inclined) to use.

I had a party trying to climb over a wooden fort wall (20 feet high) with grapple after a patrol passed by. They had to make a perception to time when to go, the grapple throwers had to make climb checks to scale the wall, and I called for a stealth check to find a hiding place before the patrol passed again. Technically it was a skill challenge--and I only made one person roll perception, two climb checks (two grapples), and one stealth check. Apparently I wanted 4 successes.

But I wanted 4 applicable successes. If the patrol is not in earshot, I would count making lion noises as no impact, and if they are in earshot, instant failure. But the stealth check? I'm fine with the rogue pointing to a good spot and herding the party in there to hide. So yes, I did a challenge in 3.x. But I've been DMing for 24 years--and still I was the one saying, someone make this skill check. The idea of letting the players come up with something applicable? My narrative just got 4-6 brains added to it--and I'm sure they'll come up with applicable ideas I didn't think of.

Nahat Anoj · Apr 28, 2008

Celebrim said:
The first example is the better of the two, but even it has problems. For example, in the first case, how much time elapses before the walls close?

From what I understand, there is no set time limit. The walls close after however many failures. The OP didn't say how many failures players could take, or what, exactly failure means, but there is no set time limit. Personally, I wouldn't have the players killed by the closing walls when they get that final failure, but I would have them be captured or something. Failure on a skill challenge should be more about setbacks than actual death, IMO.

Is inaction explicitly failure in the system, or if I stand back and let the skill player work is the group punished?

The purpose of skill challenges is that no one will simply stand back and watch the skill player any more, just like how the cleric no longer has to stand back and heal during combat. Everyone will probably have some way to contribute in a skill challenge.

If you decide not to participate, it's not failure for the group - they can continue making whatever rolls they need to. You simply aren't contributing - you aren't advancing the group toward success, nor are you accumulating any failures. Depending on the nature of the scenario, the group may not mind or, if they are beset by ravening orcs, they would be pissed that you would just stand there and do nothing.

Does this ensure group participation more than a round by round 'what do you do to solve the puzzle' approach would?

To me it's not so much about group participation as it is about a more structured, dynamic pacing system. It keeps the tension high, like in Star Wars when the garbage pit is closing in and, at the last moment, seemingly out of nowhere, Luke manages to get C3P0's attention.

Puzzles *could* be handled as a skill challenge, and that might be a good way to model the frantic, "Think of something already!" moments such as solving a puzzle while the ceiling is caving in (I saw this on an episode of Stargate SG-1, actually). But if there's nothing else going on then players can just scratch their noggins as they try to figure it out.

As it is, the encounter plays out as a pretty standard 'search, think, use skill' investigative procedure that could have happened in any edition - even those that didn't have a skill system. In the example, the Insight skill is a bigger change than the skill challenge and I percieve already that its going to be the all-purpose win any challenge skill. I mean, when won't Insight apply? The players did do anything remotely out of the box, and its not clear how the skill challenge system would help a DM handle out of the box propositions.

I'm not sure exactly what Insight does, but I think it has more to do with social situations than with generic "getting an idea," so it may be the OP used it "wrong."

The second example really illustrates the problems though. It basically plays out as 'the party provides cover while the thief tries to get the door open'. Exactly what is the skill challenge doing for the DM in this case?

It's just a way to pace the system. If the players need 4 success and can only take 3 failures, and they've got 3 successes and 2 failures, the tension is going to be pretty high, just like in baseball when it's the 9th inning, there's two outs, a full count, and the bases are loaded. DMs could always do this on the fly (I've done it before), but now there's a structured system for it.

Is inaction explicitly a failure in the system? Does this ensure group participation more than the traditional round by round approach would?

Again, everyone should be able to participate, so there's no reason to anyone should be inactive. I mean, why would someone stand around while his buddies are holding off the orcs and the rogue is trying to disarm the trap? He's going to want to do *something* - he can either help fend off the orcs, or try to bring a skill to bear to help the rogue out with the door.

Once again, its a pretty standard 'search, disarm, open lock' sort of affair. Hows this for an approach, 'Difficult diplomacy - (in orcish) - 'Hey, does anyone have the key to this door?'. Or how about following that with, 'Difficult nature - I emulate the sound of a hungry Cave Lion to scare the orcs' Finally, 'Can I use a climb check to allow the party to escape while the Orcs are terrorized?' So does this really help the DM when the players go out of the box? And if it is nothing more than 'search, think, thief stuff', hows that really any different than what we've been doing?

From everything I'm hearing, it sounds like what characters can do is constrained by the situation. So, no, Diplomacy won't work on a horde of frenzied orcs - that's just common sense. I would say no, sounding like a hungry cave lion wouldn't work either, because the skill challenge is opening the door, and the door doesn't care about sounds. And honestly, the climb thing makes no sense - I would not allow a player to pull that kind of BS on me.

So honestly, I think it's just a more structured way to pace the situation. If players are creative and the DM willing everyone has a way to contribute. And no one, not even the DM, knows how things will play out. That sounds fun to me.