Why I like skill challenges as a noncombat resolution mechanic

nightwyrm · Jul 21, 2012

So I was reading through some old RPG books and to my surprise, Skill Challenges (X success before 3 fails) are essentially identical to TSR Alternity's complex skill checks.

pemerton · Jul 23, 2012

calprinicus said:
narration for an event at my table is:

<snip example>

Thanks for the reply.

What happens if its a social encounter, or something else where the opposition is a bit more dynamic.

So say, in your searching for the forest temple example, what if player 1's action burns down all the trees? Does player 2 get to redclare? Or is his/her action for that round lost.

And in a social confict, player 1 probably doesn't have to do anything quite so extreme to nevertheless significantly change the context of action for player 2.

nightwyrm said:
So I was reading through some old RPG books and to my surprise, Skill Challenges (X success before 3 fails) are essentially identical to TSR Alternity's complex skill checks.

This has been discussed a bit upthread. The main difference from a complex check is not in the mathematical structure, but in the narrative structure. In a complex skill check, the consequences of success/failure on a given check would normally be determined by thinking about the ingame casual consequences of the PC's success or failure at the task undertaken. In a skill challenge, the idea is that success or failure on the skill challenge triggers the narration, by the GM, of further developments and/or complications, but these need not be extrapolated in ingame causal terms from the check itself. So a failed Diplomacy check (for example) doesn't have to mean that the NPC was unimpressed or unmoved. The GM might narrate that the NPC is very moved, but for some reason still doesn't go along eg s/he has a contrary obligation, or as the PC is finishing his/her speech a loud noice suddenly interrupts it, or even (as an extreme version of a possible complication consequent on a failed Diplomacy check) the NPC is shot dead by an arrow, taking the scene in a rather different direction.

calprinicus · Jul 25, 2012

pemerton said:
Thanks for the reply.

What happens if its a social encounter, or something else where the opposition is a bit more dynamic.

There are many ways to handle narrative events. I know my group prefers to actually just roleplay it out without any mechanics behind the scenes, which is fine. However these can be done just as easy with a mechanic for those that prefer that method.

Note: At the end of each round the DM throws in hazards and decision points that are not related to what the players say. These can be planned out by the DM prior to the event taking place.

--------------

Events are all handled the same way. For this example lets do a standard event. There are 3 rounds to complete this event, If at the end of the third round the PCs haven't completed the event, the PCs fail. There are also 3 players, giving a total of 45 hp (5hp per player per round) to the Event.

Example Premise:
"The players are given a appointment with the King at Dinner! The event is to inform the King about a gang of barbaric Dragonborn that taking over one of the villages on the edge of the kingdom. You have been sent to convince the King of this worthy cause inorder to gather reinforcements to help slay the troublesome Dragonborn"

Win Condition: "The King agrees to the cause! He sends reinforcements. This will make the fights against the Dragonborn easier when you return."

Lose Condition: "King is not persuaded. You may have to complete a separate task for the king before he helps you, or return only to take on the dragonborn by yourself which is a harder CR. (DM's Choice)"

ROUND 1:

* All players discuss a plan of action with each other *

Player 1:

• "I want to Persuade the king that his reach as ruler is so great that even the people in the country follow his words, however these people are also now in trouble as a band of dragonborn are now attacking their homes. They wish for your help our Majesty".
• He rolls a Diplomancy check, and succeeds.
• DM determines it's "helpful", and tells him to roll 2d6.
• He rolls 9 damage, reducing the event to 36.

(The DM might choose add dialog from the King throughout the event, i will not for this example)

Player 2:

• " I want to use spell my dancing lights and ghost sounds to make an illusion of vicious dragonborn slaying helpless women and children with no defenses as Player 1 gives his speech."
• He rolls Arcana as he casts the spell, but fails.
• The DM says: "The illusion is blurry and too abstract for the king to understand, which only distracts from Player 1's speach. No Roll."

Player 3:

• " I want to use History to see if there are events like this in the past where a King didn't help those in need and it caused trouble for the ruler afterwards."
• He rolls History and is successful
• The DM says "There was such an event about a band of goblins who assembled and ended up taking out 3 hamlets in their destructive rampage."
• The DM determines this is "helpful" and tells the player to roll 2d6 dice.
• He rolls a 8, reducing the event to 28.

DM:

• "As you negotiate at Dinner, the wine and beer have an effect on those drinking it (increasing the difficulty of the checks against a sober king). One of the King's assistants however begins to choke on his food."

ROUND 2

* All players discuss a plan of action with each other *

PLAYER 3: (There is no real turn order)

• " Without delay I run up behind the assistant, wrap my arms around his gut, and preform the Heimlich"
• He rolls a basic STR check and succeeds.
• The DM determines this is "helpful" to the event, and tells him to roll 2d6.
• He rolls a 5 reducing the event to 23.

Player 2:

• " I want to intimidate the king that without support from the king, the town people will lose faith in their ruler and look else where for support (he mentions the rival kingdom also close to village's terratory)"
• He rolls an intimidation check and it was successful.
• The DM determines that the mention of his rival over his controlled terratory is "very helpful", he tells the player to roll 3d6.
• He rolls a 15, reducing the event to 8.

Player 1:

• " Well since your illusion didn't work I want to use the food from around the table to be used as visuals to help aid illustrate the distance of king's territory in relation to the village and rival kingdom."
• He a Dexterity as he quickly grabs food and shapes it. it was successful.
• The DM determines that the king sees this as child's play and that it is "not very helpful", roll 1d6.
• He rolls a 2, reducing the event to 6.

DM:

•" The Vizier overhears the conversation and stands next to the King whispering into his ear. The king announces that the troops are to be sent off for much needed training and they cannot afford soldiers for this mission unless it's an emergency to the kingdom."

ROUND 3

* All players discuss a plan of action with each other *

Player 1:

• " I want to use Diplomancy to influence that there is no better training than real combat. He should just send the troops to the village for 'Real' training."
• Player 3 interrupts:
• "I want to help Player 1 on his action to sending the trainies to the village"
• Player 1 rolls his check and it fails (probably from the penalty of the wine of both players being a little drunk).
• The DM says: "The King knows better than to send trainies into the heat of battle. No Roll."

Player 2:

• " I want to roll a bluff check saying that his rival will probably gladly send troops in return for rule of the land you refuse to help."
• He rolls a bluff check and is successful.
• The DM Decides that this is very helpful and tells the player to roll 3d6, however using his rival as leverage was already used, so he only deals half damage.
• He rolls a 14, dealing 7 damage, completing the event.

The win condition is triggered since they completed the event before the third round ended.

pemerton · Jul 25, 2012

[MENTION=6696956]calprinicus[/MENTION], thanks again for the reply.

From your example, I got the feeling that while the particular choices made by players affects the number of dice rolled for a successful check, it doesn't really colour the overall narrative or outcome. Is that fair, or am I missing something?

For example, how does the fact that the players have relied heavily upon emphasising the risk posed by the rival monarch factor into the outcome of the challenge?

calprinicus · Jul 25, 2012

pemerton said:
[MENTION=6696956]calprinicus[/MENTION], thanks again for the reply.

From your example, I got the feeling that while the particular choices made by players affects the number of dice rolled for a successful check, it doesn't really colour the overall narrative or outcome. Is that fair, or am I missing something?

For example, how does the fact that the players have relied heavily upon emphasising the risk posed by the rival monarch factor into the outcome of the challenge?

In short, the narrative by the PCs during the event will not change the win/lose condition of the outcome at it's core. No matter how they complete the event the PCs reward is getting reinforcements. Losing might resolve with another Event, harder combat, or some other penalty.

Events are just a way to determine if the party was successful and whats at stake. The PCs could have done a number of different things for the same outcome (getting reinforcements). The DM cannot plan for all possibilies, such as mentioning a rival or not.

However...

I believe it would be up the DM to determine if so much talk of a rivalry monarchy would be weaved further into the story arc. If the DM wants to tie elements from the Event into the main story that's up to them. (and I highly encourage this). In my example the PCs use a lot of rival monarchy chatter. If the DM wants to push that element further he might:

• Maybe when they return with the reinforcements, the Rival monarchy already showed up and cleared the threat...

• Maybe the reinforcements do a horrible job (being trainies) that the village seeks the rival monarchy for their needs...

• Maybe the rivalry monarch hears word and tries to sabatage them as they return. etc

These all lead to interesting story twists that tie into from the event, as well as now having the player faced with something new.
I believe there are a number of things that the DM could do to tie in elements of the event back into the story to add flavor.

The Event system is not a tool to add flavor, but a tool to determine if the party is successful and what is at stake. The DM can add flavor to spice things up as needed.

I hoped I answered that alright.

pemerton · Jul 25, 2012

calprinicus said:
In short, the narrative by the PCs during the event will not change the win/lose condition of the outcome at it's core.

<snip>

I believe there are a number of things that the DM could do to tie in elements of the event back into the story to add flavor.

<snip>

I hoped I answered that alright.

Thanks, that's all interesting.

When I run skill challenges I allow the win/lose conditions to themselves evolve over the course of the challenge, at least if it's a long one. (In a short 4/3 challenge that's probably not going to happen). An example is this one that I linked to in my OP, involving a dinner party where the PCs' arch-nemesis was present as an advisor to the host. At the start of the challenge, the players' goals were to avoid revealing any of their secrets to their nemesis, and to learn more about their host's background, without actually embarassing their host or revealing any of these deeper secrets. By the end of the challenge, however, the goal had changed, into one of goading their nemesis into attacking them so that he would reveal his treacherous nature to his host (as well as to other assembled NPCs).

In other cases, the goals don't necessarily change but become more precise - in one challenge (run as a 6/3 challenge), the PCs stumbled into a room in an enemy fortress where two duergar were hunkering down, keeping out of the line of fire between the PCs and the fortress defenders. The PCs had gone into the duergars' room to take some temporary cover also.

At the start of the challenge, the PCs' goals were simply to maintain peaceful relations with the duergar long enough to take a short rest. But in the course of that, it came out that the duergar were slave traders who had purchased a number of slaves from the fortress, and sent them on already to their underground stronghold (the two remaining duergar were simply resolving some of the finer financial points of the transaction). By the end of the challenge, the PCs had negotiated a contract of ransom with the duergar, to redeem the slaves for an agreed sum to be handed over in a neutral city in a month's time.

So I wouldn't say that the goal changed exactly, but the manner in which peaceful relations were maintained developed and resolved itself in an unexpected way.