Do you use skill challenges?

[Nagol]

I find the problem here is that you discourage players from taking long shots, or contributing to anything outside their bailiwick, and if nobody is willing to attempt anything, then the hazard... does nothing?

Personally I do this sort of thing much closer to a combat, wherein the PCs advance their cause by successful actions (rolls or otherwise), and the hazard advances it's own cause in some way (flat successes per round, rolling checks, forcing saves, whatever).

Now, is it possible for a PC to advance the hazard's cause? Sure - they could totally misread the situation and do something counterproductive. But they won't advance it just by failing, and meanwhile the hazard is racking up successes on it's own time, so they're encouraged to at least try.

The passivity of the environment is one problem I have with skill challenges. I ended up developing/raiding other games for mechanics to cover situations where the opposition is passive (effectively anyone skilled enough can win if they devote sufficient time and attention), reactive (probably the closest mechanically to 4e's skill challenge -- things happen only as reaction to attempts), races (multiple actors attempting to achieve independent goals; first success usually prevents other actor's advancement), and conflict (multiple actors working to achieve mutually exclusive goals).

 

[5ekyu]

What do you do when a player makes a sucessfull skill check but then describes a course of action that will not help in the least for the overall challenge?

As always, i just describe the results of the effort. if those results do not help the task they are working towards that is not my problem.

But as a matter of course, if they describe some effort that is not immediately obvious as to what they are doing and why, i do ask them for what they think it will accomplish. After all, maybe i am misunderstanding them, not them misunderstanding the situation.

99% of the info about the scenes and events they get from me so when players go off on a "inexplicable" effort, i usually find it good to see why they got that idea. its not uncommon for it to be a miscommunication or flawed description.

 

[dco]

Personally I think SC's are an impressive tool which can assist immensely in the social and exploration pillars. I feel they have largely been misunderstood and misused at tables mostly because much of the guidance for the mechanic was not properly thought out and explained well enough for its users. So most DM's fumbled with it (I know I did), growing increasingly frustrated before dropping it all together.

Supposedly it is a mechanic based on the need of a number of successes using some determined skills checks to surpass a challenge, or a number of failures to fail it, and usually all players can contribute.

I'm not sure what I'm not understanding, from the examples I've seen it seems a die rolling exercise. If I have to tell the players they need X number of successes doing some skills checks at that point I'm not narrating anything more than some rules to surpass something, a minigame that doesn't come from the actions of the players, the DM determines what they can do and they roleplay the consequences. If you explain them the rules and let them choose the possible actions the minigame will be expanded to what actions are valid or not for the challenge, in the example I've read of fixing a vagon a player could decide to fan other players, to carry the logs, etc and depending on what you allow they could suceeed without rolling to fix the vagon. If I don't tell the rules of the challenge probably the players will not take enough actions to acomplish it, won't know what is hapenning, why the fail, etc. It would not make sense to tell a group that they are lost, late, etc because they didn't do more things than following their guide who suceeded at a survival check.

 

[Imaro]

Not really a fan of the SC for a couple of reasons... The first being that the skill or abilities of an antagonist are not taken into consideration. Perhaps overall level is but the actual DC's are set independent of the actual stats, skills, etc. of an antagonist and the fiction is created independent of such as well.

But what I don't like even more so is deciding beforehand that X successes are necessary to "succeed" at this task, or for that matter that Y number of failures will "fail" the task. It's letting the mechanical process dictate parameters of the fiction as opposed to letting the fiction inform the mechanical processes. IMO it doesn't take into consideration that the fiction being created doesn't necessarily lead to a resolution of the situation since successes can (and should) be generated for actions that help... what if all you get are X successes of actions that, while helping, do not ultimately do much or anything to resolve the situation... or a more likely issue what if that final success is not a closure type action? This is where I really feel SC's fall down.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I’ve never had that happen. The opposite is more common, where players suggest things which the DM has to turn down.

Yeah, I suppose I've never had players actively not engage with a hazard. But I have had them (all) do things which aren't interacting with the actual hazard because they're distracted by set dressing.

I've definitely had players sit out of things because they see an obvious path to success that their character will be bad at.

 

[Sadras]

I'm not sure what I'm not understanding, from the examples I've seen it seems a die rolling exercise.

On that note, I could also describe combat as a die rolling exercise.

If I have to tell the players they need X number of successes...

This is actually not mandatory according to the Rules Compendium.

...(snip)... doing some skills checks at that point I'm not narrating anything more than some rules to surpass something, a minigame that doesn't come from the actions of the players, ...(snip)

You do not do some skills without framing a scene and without any player action declaration.

...(snip)... the DM determines what they can do and they roleplay the consequences.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you say the DM determines what they (the PCs) can do - the example provided in the Rules Compendium reflects on the player's deciding on the skills utilised. And nothing stops you from running a skill challenge without limitations on skill use. In fact the Rule Compendium reflects on Secondary Skills.

If you explain them the rules and let them choose the possible actions ...(snip)...

You're supposed to let the players make their own declarations.

...(snip)... the minigame will be expanded to what actions are valid or not for the challenge ...(snip)...

So your concern is that you cannot say yes or tick a success to an ingenious idea provided by the PCs which does not require a skill check?

The first being that the skill or abilities of an antagonist are not taken into consideration.

Antagonists do not always come into play. i.e. weather, elements, nature (mountain, desert), unorganised library...etc

Perhaps overall level is but the actual DC's are set independent of the actual stats, skills, etc. of an antagonist and the fiction is created independent of such as well.

That could easily be remedied with passive DC scores. In 5e you only roll if the result of the action declaration is uncertain so you're not going to set up easy DCs for a higher level party as the results of the action declaration would for the most part succeed. The challenges would have to be significant or at least appropriate.

But what I don't like even more so is deciding beforehand that X successes are necessary to "succeed" at this task,

Do you have a similar issue with deciding on how many hit points an opponent has, or how many opponents to use?

or for that matter that Y number of failures will "fail" the task. It's letting the mechanical process dictate parameters of the fiction as opposed to letting the fiction inform the mechanical processes.

I find this akin to deciding the difficulty of the encounter. You decide in advance whether the combat encounter will be easy, moderate, hard or deadly.

IMO it doesn't take into consideration that the fiction being created doesn't necessarily lead to a resolution of the situation since successes can (and should) be generated for actions that help... what if all you get are X successes of actions that, while helping, do not ultimately do much or anything to resolve the situation... or a more likely issue what if that final success is not a closure type action? This is where I really feel SC's fall down.

I can see how this might become an issue, HOWEVER I can see how one survival check for a 10 day journey might be an issue for some DMs and I can also see how 10 survival checks for a 10 day journey could be called out as a die rolling exercise. As a middle ground I prefer the SC mechanic which enforces scene framing, player action declaration and a shaping of the fiction as a result of the ongoing successes or failures which produces at least a decent narrative in my view.

EDIT: [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] nothing stops you (as DM) from narrating the success or failure of the overall SC once the required successes or failures have been reached - which leads to narrative closure.

 

[cbwjm]

I rewatched that Matt Colville video and I think running a skill challenge the same way as he does would be my preferred method. Forget trying to seamlessly fit it into the story, instead let players know it is happening and mention a few skills that will be useful. He may have also let them know the penalties for failure and what you can do about it. I'd also probably only use them for something dramatic, I probably wouldn't bother using them when trying to navigate the wilderness to reach a destination or anything like that. I'm not sure if I will ever actually use a skill challenge but I might think a bit more about situations and decide whether or not I a skill challenge might fit a situation.

 

[Imaro]

Antagonists do not always come into play. i.e. weather, elements, nature (mountain, desert), unorganised library...etc

I never made the claim antagonists always come into play but unless you are claiming that they never do in a SC... I'm not sure how this addresses my stated issue?

That could easily be remedied with passive DC scores. In 5e you only roll if the result of the action declaration is uncertain so you're not going to set up easy DCs for a higher level party as the results of the action declaration would for the most part succeed. The challenges would have to be significant or at least appropriate.

So wait there's no uncertainty in an easy DC? An easy DC in 5e is 10, a character with an average score with no training has a 45% chance of failing that irregardless of level... even a trained 20th level character with no ability modifier bonus has a 15% chance of failing an easy check.

In other words, even presupposing a mid to high level party...Wouldn't your above assumptions depend on who is making the check (trained vs. untrained/high ability score vs. low ability score/expertise vs. non-expertise), especially with bounded accuracy involved? So I don't think you can dismiss the situation with the party, for the most part, succeeding just because the party is high level... I don't think the assumptions you are making here are necessarily correct.

Do you have a similar issue with deciding on how many hit points an opponent has, or how many opponents to use?

Not sure how this apples to oranges comparison applies. In other words me designating the hit points or number of opponents does not in and of itself place limiters on how the PC's must deal with said opponent... whereas if I say the encounter must last X rounds (irregardless of what the PC's do) and they must eliminate Y hit points before it ends (eliminating such actions as running away or negotiating, etc. that could end the encounter before the prerequisite hit points are loss)... well that's a different can of worms.

I find this akin to deciding the difficulty of the encounter. You decide in advance whether the combat encounter will be easy, moderate, hard or deadly.

And I find it totally different as I don't set predetermined conditions on how the encounter must be interacted with before the encounter begins. I don't set the number of attack rolls that must be made successfully before the interaction with the encounter is a success... there may not be a single attack roll made if negotiation, trickery or even intimidation are employed...

I can see how this might become an issue, HOWEVER I can see how one survival check for a 10 day journey might be an issue for some DMs and I can also see how 10 survival checks for a 10 day journey could be called out as a die rolling exercise. As a middle ground I prefer the SC mechanic which enforces scene framing, player action declaration and a shaping of the fiction as a result of the ongoing successes or failures which produces at least a decent narrative in my view.

And again this doesn't address my issue. The SC structure in no way enforces that the narrative must actually create a solution to the fictional challenge... only that X successes must be achieved to enter a "success" state before Y failures cause a "failure" state.

EDIT: [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] nothing stops you (as DM) from narrating the success or failure of the overall SC once the required successes or failures have been reached - which leads to narrative closure.

Yes but I am not going to narrate actions for characters that haven't been taken to force a narrative conclusion the mechanics didn't create (Because now it really is just a series of dice rolls).

Honestly as a DM this is a pet peeve of mine, I don't narrate what my player's characters do while they just roll dice. My players interact with the fiction and use the mechanics when there is uncertainty as to whether they can achieve the results they desire. If I have to step in and narrate how all of these skill checks and fictional actions they've taken actually come together to provide a solution to the challenge... well then I would rather free-form individual and group checks until I and my group reach a fictional conclusion that is satisfactory to all of us.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I never made the claim antagonists always come into play but unless you are claiming that they never do in a SC... I'm not sure how this addresses my stated issue?




So wait there's no uncertainty in an easy DC? An easy DC in 5e is 10, a character with an average score with no training has a 45% chance of failing that irregardless of level... even a trained 20th level character with no ability modifier bonus has a 15% chance of failing an easy check.

In other words, even presupposing a mid to high level party...Wouldn't your above assumptions depend on who is making the check (trained vs. untrained/high ability score vs. low ability score/expertise vs. non-expertise), especially with bounded accuracy involved? So I don't think you can dismiss the situation with the party, for the most part, succeeding just because the party is high level... I don't think the assumptions you are making here are necessarily correct.



Not sure how this apples to oranges comparison applies. In other words me designating the hit points or number of opponents does not in and of itself place limiters on how the PC's must deal with said opponent... whereas if I say the encounter must last X rounds (irregardless of what the PC's do) and they must eliminate Y hit points before it ends (eliminating such actions as running away or negotiating, etc. that could end the encounter before the prerequisite hit points are loss)... well that's a different can of worms.



And I find it totally different as I don't set predetermined conditions on how the encounter must be interacted with before the encounter begins. I don't set the number of attack rolls that must be made successfully before the interaction with the encounter is a success... there may not be a single attack roll made if negotiation, trickery or even intimidation are employed...



And again this doesn't address my issue. The SC structure in no way enforces that the narrative must actually create a solution to the fictional challenge... only that X successes must be achieved to enter a "success" state before Y failures cause a "failure" state.



Yes but I am not going to narrate actions for characters that haven't been taken to force a narrative conclusion the mechanics didn't create (Because now it really is just a series of dice rolls).

Honestly as a DM this is a pet peeve of mine, I don't narrate what my player's characters do while they just roll dice. My players interact with the fiction and use the mechanics when there is uncertainty as to whether they can achieve the results they desire. If I have to step in and narrate how all of these skill checks and fictional actions they've taken actually come together to provide a solution to the challenge... well then I would rather free-form individual and group checks until I and my group reach a fictional conclusion that is satisfactory to all of us.

The reason skill challenges exist is because no one seems to know how to write a guide for freeforming individual and group checks until a satisfactory fictional conclusion is reached.

 

[5ekyu]

The reason skill challenges exist is because no one seems to know how to write a guide for freeforming individual and group checks until a satisfactory fictional conclusion is reached.

BTW was there anything in "skill chalkenges" which removed the whole declare actions taken, assess DC or applicability etc mechanics? I ask because it *serms* like some critics think that is gone with some of their comments about checks that wont help or address the problem.

That said, i myself do not employ variable numbers of successes vs failures. I let the baseline i use - 3 wins vs 3 losses - stay constant across all challenges as a basic "measure of progress".

The narrative "how long for each check", DCs, etc provide plenty of differentiations between each scene.

From back in the WoDv1 days, i grew *very* dissatisfied with not having there be *one* static element in the resolution mechanics with their original vary number of dice, threshold and successes needing mechanics.