Why I like skill challenges as a noncombat resolution mechanic

Radiating Gnome

Adventurer
I've always liked Skill Challenges, warts and all. I think they're an incredibly useful, flexible, and potentially very interesting part of 4e.

One of the big turning points for me with Skill Challenges was to really understand that the idea of "exceptions-based design" was not just for PCs, Monsters, and tactical encounters. It could -- and should -- be used for skill challenges, too. And just like monsters, just about every skill challenge should probably have exceptions and unique elements that help it tell the story, etc.

So, I pretty much only use the "classic" skill challenge when I'm adjudicating something on the fly -- the PCs have come up with something I'm not really prepared for, and we're just rolling with the flow. As a simple mechanic for handling things like that, it's great.

But when I have a few minutes to think about what the challenge might look like, anything and everything about the skill challenge is something that I think is important to consider changing.

  • My primary goal when designing a challenge is to give the PCs interesting choices to make. It should be more that just find the "highest total bonus on your list of skills and make a check."
  • I only require contributions from every PC in the part when that seems to make sense for the scene.
  • I often use ticking clock mechanics rather than simple failures. This allows for players who don't have a good chance of helping to give it a shot without really hurting the effort.
  • I'll make heavy use of secondary checks that do things like help avoid hazards and evade trouble during a skill challenge.
  • I'll use skill challenge type mechanics to abstract less exciting combat scenes that I still want represented in the game
  • I've used a variety of mini game mechanics to help model different situations.
  • I have always felt that it was a good thing to share the structure and rules of the skill challenge with the players (in most cases). After all, players understand very clearly how the combat rules work, and are able to make interesting, creative, often surprising choices in combat because of that. A good skill challenge should give them those opportunities for cool, creative choices. For me, that often comes from allowing the PCs to see how the challenge is working. (Of course, I make exceptions to this all the time, like anything else)

The key, as I said, is that element of making choices. In the game session I ran this past sunday, there were a couple of skill challenges.

- In one case, during a fight, a building the PCs owned (and were fighting in) was set on fire. I gave the PCs very little structure and a lot of latitude, but they also had to try to fight the fire while fighting the fire elementat ambush that started the fire, too.
  • Any round (of combat or after) that ended without the PCs earning at least one success in the challenge resulted in a failure. They needed 6 to get the fire under control
  • There failures and the fire would be out of control
  • Any skill check the PCs repeated to try to put out the fire became more difficult each time (+2)
  • PCs could use appropriate powers, etc, if they had an idea for how it could work.
In the end, the fire went out of control, but mostly that was because one PC didn't think they should save the building, and managed to convince/confuse the others enough that they were not able to maintain the one success per round pace.

But just a few exceptions to the rules made this a cool way to represent the scene.

I'm saddened to hear things like "skill challenges die in a fire" from the DDN developers, but I'm hoping that we'll see something like it in a add-on module. Certainly I'll be cobbling it together for my own games.

I mean... look, we've had 30 years of playing D&D to get combat right, and we're still tweaking it. We've been making monsters for decades, and they're still perfecting that. The idea of complex resolution systems for non-combat actions is a lot newer, and has had a tiny fraction of the development time invested in making them sing.

In creating that DDN module of Skill Challenges That Survived The Fire (tm), I think we need to encourage some changes to the way skill challenges have been presented and taught. Certainly, lots and lots of examples are good (the way lots and lots of monsters are good, as others have pointed out). But there really ought to be a toolbox of ideas & possible exceptions included. And in addition to scripts of examples of skill challenges in play, lets include some examples of the thought processes that a DM goes through designing a skill challenge to model a specific scene. It should champion the idea that, like monsters, no two skill challenges should be exactly the same -- and the more choices you make for your players instead of giving to your players, the less exciting/interesting the skill challenge will be.

-rg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Steely_Dan

First Post
I have never been comfortable with conflict resolution rules for role-playing/social interaction encounters in a RPG, and Skill Challenges are an anathema to me.
 
Last edited:




billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It seems that you're thinking more in "complex skill check" terms - focusing on ingame causal relationships between the consequence of checks. Whereas the sort of skill challenges I'm interested in rely upon metagame driven adjudication of consequences and complications.

So in your example, if the gnome fails his "pee on flames" check, the GM narrates something external - say, the fire starts growing out of control - which makes the situation for the other PCs harder.

This looks like the difference between po-TAY-to and po-TAH-to to me filled with enough buzzwords to beguile rather than illuminate.

Your metagame driven adjudication of consequences for a failed check to "pee on the flame" is really just an in game causal mechanism for saying that the flames are getting out of control - mainly, that the gnome wasted time when he should have been actively fighting the fire and now the situation is worse.
 

Steely_Dan

First Post
I've never been convinced of the idea that combat and "role-playing" are so different that rules are required for the one and are anathema for the other.

Not trying to convince, we obviously prefer different approaches to this game, when I leap across an icy chasm and throw a spear at an Ice Devil, bring on the dice, when carousing with one in Sigil, I can however live without them.
 


Not trying to convince, we obviously prefer different approaches to this game, when I leap across an icy chasm and throw a spear at an Ice Devil, bring on the dice, when carousing with one in Sigil, I can however live without them.
Okay, so I guess the issue is that's not what anathema means.

My question is such cases is how you handle socially-inept players whose characters have an 18 Charisma.

This then isn't about skill challenges, it's about the skill system itself.
Good point.
 

pemerton

Legend
My primary goal when designing a challenge is to give the PCs interesting choices to make. It should be more that just find the "highest total bonus on your list of skills and make a check."
Agreed.

I only require contributions from every PC in the part when that seems to make sense for the scene.
Agreed. And I think this and the point above are (or at least can be made to be) related. If you want a player to have his/her PC make a check or get involved, turn up the pressure on that PC. And once you've done that, the player will hopefully be engaging the situation rather than just looking for a big number (of course the player will look for ways to bring his/her big numbers to bear on the situation - but that's a natural consequence of giving players a range of resources at different degrees of capability).

I often use ticking clock mechanics rather than simple failures. This allows for players who don't have a good chance of helping to give it a shot without really hurting the effort.

<snip>

Any round (of combat or after) that ended without the PCs earning at least one success in the challenge resulted in a failure. They needed 6 to get the fire under control
[*]There failures and the fire would be out of control
I like this sort of structure and have used it too. In one case, the challenge involved a ritual being undertaken by a demonic gnoll cultists. Two peasants were in the summoning circle, and I had determined in advance that on the second failure one peasant would die, and on the 3rd failure the other would, as the ritual came to its resolution.

The players fought the combat very cautiously, ignoring the ritual as they worked their way piecemeal through the gnoll's frontline bodyguards. Then the first peasant died - and it was great to see the dramatic change in the players' attitude, and therefore the change in their PCs' behaviour, as they started taking steps to bring the ritual to an end and save that second peasant.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top