A talk on the concept of "failures" in a skill challenge (no math, comments welcome)

[AllisterH]

I think there's ANOTHER big difference though.

In combat, if you fail, you die and the adventure is pretty much over for you. Basically it's game over.

But with skill challenges, even if you fail the skill challenge, the worse that may happen is that the NEXT battle will be one level harder. Take a look at the examples given.

If say for example you fail the "trek through the jungle" skill challenge in the DMG, the worst that happens is that you have a random encounter.

So I'm not sure why players would be more scared about skill challenges than combat.

 

[shadowguidex]

I think there's ANOTHER big difference though.

In combat, if you fail, you die and the adventure is pretty much over for you. Basically it's game over.

But with skill challenges, even if you fail the skill challenge, the worse that may happen is that the NEXT battle will be one level harder. Take a look at the examples given.

If say for example you fail the "trek through the jungle" skill challenge in the DMG, the worst that happens is that you have a random encounter.

So I'm not sure why players would be more scared about skill challenges than combat.

As long as the consequences for failure are felt by the group in a real tangible way, I don't see any problem with difficult challenges that may result in failure. DMs just have to avoid having no consequences for failure, or having the adventure grind to a halt because of failure. As long as the DM straddles those two extremes, then failure isn't a bas thing, and can even advance the storyline well in many cases.

 

[FireLance]

So I'm not sure why players would be more scared about skill challenges than combat.

Because if combats were run in the same way that skill challenges are supposed to be run by the book, failing an attack roll means that everyone in your party takes damage. Try it as a house rule and see whether your players get scared when they make attack rolls.

 

[Evenglare]

I havnt taken a look into all the math, or anything. But I've been running them by the book, and we seem to get along fine /shrug.

 

[Zurai]

I think there's ANOTHER big difference though.

In combat, if you fail, you die and the adventure is pretty much over for you. Basically it's game over.

Not neccesarily.

Example from a real game last year: Kidnap/assassination attempt on the queen and princess of the country. The party survived the combat with no losses, but the queen was assassinated when the kidnapper decided there was no chance for him to accomplish his primary mission (kidnap the queen).

That's a failure in combat that had nothing to do with a TPK.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

This is another reason for why my system using rounds instead of failures works better for me. In my system (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=229928), standing around doing nothing is worse than trying to do something, anything, even if it has just a small chance of success.




Edit: added link to my skill challenge suggestion.

 

[Icefire78]

I really enjoy the new skill challenge system. The only thing about them is that if your DMing them you have to think them out well in advance. I will use one of my encounters as an example. The main skills for the chase were Streetwise Perception and Acrobatics. The players were a cleric a paladin and a ranger. They were chasing down a pirate with 3 of the city watch helping them. The ranger had the streetwise ability so obviously had a natural advantage over both the cleric and pally. You have to think it out in the broad terms of not only just they chase and if they mess up it's game over. My players were coming up with really innovative ways of playing including using their action to do a insight check (DC= 25 is what I used) to try and discern what direction the guy would run thus giving them a little advantage and allowing them to catch up a little. Another thing the cleric thought up was to do an intimidate check to shout at the crowd to move out of the way so he could run faster while not having to dodge other people. What really caught the pirate in the end was the paladin using a Diplomacy check to have someone try grabbing the pirate and ended up slowing him enough for the ranger to flying tackle him.

What I'm trying to get across with that wall of text is that you have to make them play out of the "we see him we chase him" thought set. Also always have the ability to split your story. Not only did I have a story direction if they failed to catch the pirate. I also had it so when they did catch the pirate they could make a choice to side with him or the city watch. "The city watchmen seeing the man brought down let out a shout and redouble their efforts to catch up.""I'm just a honest merchant, It's that damn corrupt watch whos forcing me into taking whats not mine."

Just have a storyline ready for either scenario as if they teamed with the watch or teamed with the pirate. I even kept a backup scenario in case they just killed everyone.

 

[Icefire78]

apparently spacing in front of words doesn't work for a TAB in these forums and also another thing about the fail = extra encounter post. Most of these skill challenges give more exp than a normal battle.

 

[Quickleaf]

Lots of great ideas in this thread which I'm trying to link...

What if there are 3 types of skill challenge (not mutually exclusive)?
1. Timed challenges (X successes before Y rounds)
2. Opposed challenges (where enemies attempt to accumulate X successes before PCs)
3. Static challenges (X successes before Y failures)

Timed Challenge
The PCs face a challenge which triggers a certain event in Y rounds. Failed rolls have a minor consequence relating to resource management (e.g. costing gold, reducing healing surges, requiring use of a power or a magic item power, initiating a side combat, etc). However, succeeding rolls can allow you to gain these things.

Opposed Challenge
The PCs are actively opposed by their enemies/rivals. Failed rolls could open up weaknesses in your plan, allowing the enemy to undermine your efforts on their next check. However, a PC with a risky success can undermine their enemies' check.

Static Challenge
As in the core. Failure might make certain other checks harder, while success might make certain checks easier.

it would be nice if you could CHOOSE to risk more, again much in the way you can in combat: you decide to risk those 4 attacks of opportunity to get that final flanking blow on the boss in the hopes his buddies will surrender when he goes down.

However doing so should not cause your buddies to die: you took the risk, you take the penalty. So the penalty can't be failing the challenge, it has to be something that only applies to you (and also not contributing to success at the challenge).

Great point! Maybe there are 4 levels of risk players can choose?
Cautious: -5 DC, no benefit on success, no consequence on failure
Calculated: Base DC, standard consequence of success/failure
Risky: +5 DC, increasing consequences of success/failure
Outrageous: +10 DC, counts as 2 successes toward challenge.

 

[AllisterH]

Because if combats were run in the same way that skill challenges are supposed to be run by the book, failing an attack roll means that everyone in your party takes damage. Try it as a house rule and see whether your players get scared when they make attack rolls.

But you can't be knocked to 0 no matter the difficulty of the skill challenge.