Why I like skill challenges as a noncombat resolution mechanic

Herremann the Wise · Jul 11, 2012

Fifth Element said:
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.

Our group normally prefers a looser structure for out of combat role-playing interactions, rather than the tighter carefully controlled environment of combat. Having a low charisma player roleplaying a high charisma character slightly compromises this looser structure but not that badly. You just play it that the character seems to have good success in getting what the DM believes the character is after. They don't have that much trouble getting to see who they want, pay less for bribes when such are required and they have an uncanny knack for selling high and buying low when it comes to purchasing. You don't need a skill system to assist with this, just an understanding that it is a high charisma character involved (regardless of the charisma of the player).

While a high charisma player makes this aspect more fun, and they are better at facilitating more focus on such events (giving the DM more hooks to branch the role-playing to), the end result in each case is basically the same. I suppose it is an extension of the rulings not rules ethos.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

pemerton · Jul 11, 2012

billd91 said:
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.

Not at all. In the case of the fire, talking about a waste of time or effort would just be (as you say) about the situation getting worse due to pre-specified, ingame causal mechanisms. I'm talking about narrating in new complications - like the wind becomes stronger and gustier, and embers will be blown to nearby buildings, or (for a more Loony Tunes feel to match your peeing gnome) it turns out the building had a box of fireworks in it, and now they've started igniting.

pemerton · Jul 11, 2012

[MENTION=11300]Herremann the Wise[/MENTION] - with the sort of your approach you describe, how to you achieve outcomes that weren't expected by the participants going in to the situation.

(For examples of unexpected outcomes of the sort I have in mind, I'll refer back to the links in my OP: in one, the PCs turned up to a dinner party only to discover that their worst nemesis was the trusted advisor of their host - at the start of the party, their goal was to get through the evening without offending their host or giving away information to the nemesis, while by the end of the party, and the end of the challlenge, this had changed into a goal of goading the nemesis into attacking them, and therefore revealing his true colours to the host; in the other, what started out as a simple interrogation turned into a series of offers, counter-offers and promises by which the PCs ended up being bound in spite of themselves.)

Herremann the Wise · Jul 11, 2012

pemerton said:
...How do you achieve outcomes that weren't expected by the participants going in to the situation.

Just as you plan a skill challenge, you likewise plan a scenario like how you describe. You work out who the major players are, their various attitudes and agendas and try to craft a few irons over the fire (some unexpected) to be used if the roleplaying goes in one direction or the other. Overlaying this is the impromptu stuff. Sometimes off the cuff you'll get a cool idea that you have to act on: imagine if Mrs. X walks in now!?! What if subject Y was brought up? What if situation Z happened about now? I think that spur of the moment cat-among-the-pigeons twist has seen some of the most fun and impactful story elements in our various campaigns.

This is where you can get the situation to go in wildly different and unexpected directions. You take the weird hook that a PC may give you and run with it in a fun direction. I think the end result is somewhat similar to what you describe but with the DM going on gut and inspiration without worrying about keeping score. For our group, it keeps their attention on what's happening, who's involved and what the stakes are rather than worrying about the mechanics involved. Admittedly, we found skill challenges challenging to implement without the framework getting in the way. We seem to prefer the framework to be front and centre (such as in combat) or way out in the background (in the DM's head and notes), rather than somewhere in between.

Having said that, I would eagerly embrace sitting at a table (and your table in particular) where skill challenges worked so well and were so effective in conveying the experience that your table is after. Your imagination and creativity with skill challenges seems pretty darn good.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

GSHamster · Jul 11, 2012

Very interesting discussion. One thought I had is that it might be better if "opposition" in Skill Challenges was independent of the player's action, rather than dependent.

If you look at combat, the dragon attacks the paladin even if the paladin does not attack the dragon. Right now, the situation with Skill Challenges is more like the dragon automatically swipes the paladin for damage if and only if the paladin attacks and misses.

This has a lot of ramifications. The cost of failing is so high that a lot of players try to avoid taking an action. As well, you always play the attack that will succeed, rather than the low-percentage chance that might do a lot of damage.

In combat, if the wizard is cornered and out of spells, well, the dragon's going to get whacked with a staff. It's unlikely that the dragon will actually get hurt, but by god, the wizard is going to swing for the fences.

I wonder if a model like the following might be better:

1. Player A takes action.
2. DM introduces complication.
3. Player B takes action.
4. DM introduces complication.

The DM complications are independent of the player's action, and force a reaction from a player. If the player fails the reaction, the DM's side scores a success.

Then it's like a penalty shootout in hockey or soccer. First side to get to five successes merits the overall success.

Example: Wilderness survival challenge

1. Player A goes hunting. Makes check and catches a rabbit. (1-0)
2. DM Complication - Player D is stung by a scorpion. Needs to make a Con save. Fails it and is poisoned. (1-1)
3. Player B attempts to suck the poison out of the wound. Fails. (1-1, notice nothing bad happens.)
4. DM Complication - Possible allergic reaction to the poison for Player D. Player D makes his Con save. (1-1)
5. Player C spreads some healing salve on the wound. Makes her check and the poison's spread is halted. (2-1).

and so on.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 11, 2012

GSHamster said:
I wonder if a model like the following might be better:

1. Player A takes action.
2. DM introduces complication.
3. Player B takes action.
4. DM introduces complication.

The DM complications are independent of the player's action, and force a reaction from a player. If the player fails the reaction, the DM's side scores a success...

What you are describing is for action to action, micro-level stuff. But I find it interesting that this is very similar to the structure that Mouse Guard uses at the opposite extreme, going from one "adventure" to the next. Basically, after the players have taking a few shots at solving whatever they are trying to handle (win or lose), the DM has a "turn" to introduce complications. If they had a lot of success during the "player turn", they can negate and/or trade some of that in for stuff they want, but if they had a rough time, they may have needed to avoid injury by giving the DM the right to hit them harder on his "turn."

Basically, the structure is that you can try anything you want, but eventually you run out of "attempts". Running out of attempts lets the DM hit you mildly. But failing badly lets the DM hit you harder, while great success lets you avoid some of the later hits.

In something like a 4E skill challenge, drifted to this, I'd set up a couple of options for the players:

1. You can go for something "neutral" on your turn, which is basically a low-risk, low-reward option. You have to beat the normal DC by 5 to achieve a success in the challenge, but you have to fail it by 10 to get a failure. Usually, this doesn't accomplish anything, but it is better odds than sitting out your turn if nothing good presents itself. Crucially, if you make the normal check, you get to mitigate/cancel a mild complication. If you fail the normal check, the DM hits you with an extra one. (This would be exclusive with the success/fail results at the ends.)

2. If you go for a more normal check, ti's succeed on normal DC, fail on DC -5, and minor complication in the middle.

After everyone has given it their best shot in a round of checks, the DM gets to unleash the complications.

I may have the math off (talk about needing playtesting), but the idea here is that you can "succeed" on the main challenge but still pile up a bunch of complication that may affect you downstream. Or you can "fail" the challenge outright, of course but his is a lot less likely than in 4E standard. Or you can "fail" by building up some many complications that the players decide to abandon the challenge as more trouble than its worth or too hot to now handle. The normal SC fail state can now be "hard fail" with serious consequences, because it is relatively rare. The usual failure is now that party works through the challenge, getting the XP, but now has to deal with the side effects. In this case, I would not give XP for a hard fail.

pemerton · Jul 11, 2012

Herremann the Wise said:
Just as you plan a skill challenge, you likewise plan a scenario like how you describe. You work out who the major players are, their various attitudes and agendas and try to craft a few irons over the fire (some unexpected) to be used if the roleplaying goes in one direction or the other.

Am I right in thinking that "unexpected" here means "unexpected by the players"? (That's not an attempt at "gotcha" - just trying to make sure I'm getting what you're saying.)

Herremann the Wise said:
Overlaying this is the impromptu stuff. Sometimes off the cuff you'll get a cool idea that you have to act on: imagine if Mrs. X walks in now!?! What if subject Y was brought up? What if situation Z happened about now? I think that spur of the moment cat-among-the-pigeons twist has seen some of the most fun and impactful story elements in our various campaigns.

This is where you can get the situation to go in wildly different and unexpected directions. You take the weird hook that a PC may give you and run with it in a fun direction. I think the end result is somewhat similar to what you describe but with the DM going on gut and inspiration without worrying about keeping score.

yes, this souns exactly like what I'm talking about!

I find that with the "keeping score" it happens more often than otherwise, just because the mechanics impose a discipline on me as GM. Also, because the skill challenge procedure makes the narration keep coming back to "So, what are you doing? What skill check are you making?" - so the wacky improvisational stuff gets brought back into connection with the stuff the players are having their PCs do.

I find that the "keeping score" also brings scenes to an end. I've found in the past - and I'm thinking especially here of GMing Rolemaster, which has fairly intricate task resolution rules but no conflict resolution rules - that good scenes can be, through no one's fault, allowed to drag on and peter out. The pressure to move to the next check, and then the next, until things are settled, at least for the moment - I've really enjoyed its enhancement of the pacing of my game.

That's not an attempt at conversion, just some more explanation of why I've enjoyed a system that goes beyond gut and inspiration. (Soon I'll be able to give you more XP, I hope.)

pemerton · Jul 11, 2012

[MENTION=20187]GSHamster[/MENTION], how important do you think it is in your suggestion that the player and GM actions are discrete?

In HeroQuest revised extended contests, instead of your (1,2) and (3,4) pairs of player/GM actions, each action is rolled for by both the player and the GM (playing either an opposing NPC, or the hostile environment). Whoever wins that contested check scores the points (more points for higher degrees of success), and then we go to the next contest check. The points from each check are tallied (both for the players and the GM) and the first to N points wins.

Can you say a bit more about how your approach would compare to that?

Herremann the Wise · Jul 11, 2012

pemerton said:
Am I right in thinking that "unexpected" here means "unexpected by the players"? (That's not an attempt at "gotcha" - just trying to make sure I'm getting what you're saying.)

I think this sort of planning "unexpectedness" comes about in two ways. One is certainly things and situations that the players would not be expecting. The other is where you change your initial plans to add in something new that you had not previously planned. This is still before the actual game session and before the players have gotten their teeth into it. Then of course is the real unexpected impromptu stuff where you get a weird idea and run with it during the game. As a DM, I derive enjoyment from each of these aspects of storycrafting. They keep the campaign fresh and alive for the DM.

pemerton said:
I find that with the "keeping score" it happens more often than otherwise, just because the mechanics impose a discipline on me as GM. Also, because the skill challenge procedure makes the narration keep coming back to "So, what are you doing? What skill check are you making?" - so the wacky improvisational stuff gets brought back into connection with the stuff the players are having their PCs do.

I find that the "keeping score" also brings scenes to an end. I've found in the past - and I'm thinking especially here of GMing Rolemaster, which has fairly intricate task resolution rules but no conflict resolution rules - that good scenes can be, through no one's fault, allowed to drag on and peter out. The pressure to move to the next check, and then the next, until things are settled, at least for the moment - I've really enjoyed its enhancement of the pacing of my game.

These are two good points regarding skill challenges. They place the players in the decision hot seat and they guide the DM in pacing and resolving the role-played scenario. We have a DM in our group who is notorious for using these roleplaying scenarios to convey his story and that of the NPCs. Unfortunately, he often overlooks that it is how the players interact with the story that should be the focus, rather than his fiction just on its own. The other example is the hour of roleplaying that accomplishes very little, does not resolve what was hopefully going to be resolved and thus leads to a repeat scenario to try and achieve something similar. I agree that the skill challenge rules provide a very good framework for avoiding these problems and as you say, keeping the DM disciplined and on task.

I think someone mentioned the d20 Star Wars galaxy of intrigue book that covered some excellent guidelines and skill challenge examples. I think if they are going to do SCs as a module option, then this treatment would be a better way of presenting SCs than what was done in the early 4e books. Either that or they can search these forums for some of your excellent examples.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Nagol · Jul 11, 2012

GSHamster said:
Very interesting discussion. One thought I had is that it might be better if "opposition" in Skill Challenges was independent of the player's action, rather than dependent.

If you look at combat, the dragon attacks the paladin even if the paladin does not attack the dragon. Right now, the situation with Skill Challenges is more like the dragon automatically swipes the paladin for damage if and only if the paladin attacks and misses.

This has a lot of ramifications. The cost of failing is so high that a lot of players try to avoid taking an action. As well, you always play the attack that will succeed, rather than the low-percentage chance that might do a lot of damage.

In combat, if the wizard is cornered and out of spells, well, the dragon's going to get whacked with a staff. It's unlikely that the dragon will actually get hurt, but by god, the wizard is going to swing for the fences.

I wonder if a model like the following might be better:

1. Player A takes action.
2. DM introduces complication.
3. Player B takes action.
4. DM introduces complication.

The DM complications are independent of the player's action, and force a reaction from a player. If the player fails the reaction, the DM's side scores a success.

Then it's like a penalty shootout in hockey or soccer. First side to get to five successes merits the overall success.

Example: Wilderness survival challenge

1. Player A goes hunting. Makes check and catches a rabbit. (1-0)
2. DM Complication - Player D is stung by a scorpion. Needs to make a Con save. Fails it and is poisoned. (1-1)
3. Player B attempts to suck the poison out of the wound. Fails. (1-1, notice nothing bad happens.)
4. DM Complication - Possible allergic reaction to the poison for Player D. Player D makes his Con save. (1-1)
5. Player C spreads some healing salve on the wound. Makes her check and the poison's spread is halted. (2-1).

and so on.

This is an area I thought skill challenges suffered in as well. That why I have modeled a bunch of challenge types.

Tug of War - all sides in the conflict have agency and act against a single target. Winner is determined by "first past a post". This is closest to D&D combat. An example would be two factions attempting to sway the King.

Race - all sides have agency, but act against their own targets which need not be the same difficulty. An example would be attempting to stop an orc carrying a bomb from reaching a flaw in the wall.

Reactive Opponent - only one side takes initiative, but the target will react to stimulus and take action. Examples include clandestine infiltration of a thieves' den holding hostages or disarming a complex trap.

Oblivious Opponent - only one side is capable of taking action. This is closest to 4e's skill challenge though DM narration can make 4e's seem like one of the others. An example would be trying to repair an engine.