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

[DM_Blake]

The way I understood skill challenges was that the DM designs the encounter using skills that the party has a reasonable chance of making. I'm pretty sure that's explicitly stated in the DMG.

This idea breaks down somewhat when you take published adventures into consideration.

Those of us who like to buy modules, like H1, or who like to run adventures from Dungeon magazine (whatever its current incarnation may be), or who even download adventures from various websites.

In those cases, we can't just comfortably play the skill challenges as written - we will have to modify most of them to accomodate our party.

Which defeats the intent, a little, of using pre-made adventures.

******************************

On a different note, consider the improvisational style some DMs like. Making things up on the fly. Allowing the party to decide where they go and what they do. No railroads, no pre-written material (or very little, anyway).

Playing this way, certain situations that arise will lend themselves very well to a skill challenge. When one of those situations presents itself, the DM should feel comfortable with using a skill challenge to resolve the situation.

But not all situations automagically make sense to use only the party's best set of skills.

What happens when a situation comes up, everyone (including the players) thinks it is a perfect situation for a skill challenge, and yet the situation calls for using a bunch of skill that the party is weak in?

Either the DM allows really weird stuff (oh, look, the Baron is really impressed by the fighter standing on his head, so he agrees to finance your expedition) or the DM has to modify the system (e.g. using lower DCs because he knows the party lacks the appropriate skills), or the DM has to assume the party will fail and must sculpt the challenge so that failure still gets the desired results, albeit with consequences.

None of which is ideal.

******************************

And back to the original question of the OP.

Even if the DM assigns a suitable set of skills to a challenge, so that the party has the skills needed, there is always a chance that at least one character in the party doesn't have any of those skills at a reasonably high level. The party is well-suited, but this character, in this challenge, is a weak-link.

How will that player feel knowing that when he rolls the die, is is very likely to make things worse rather than better?

How will that player feel when the party has had its last allowed failure, and now he has to roll, knowing he will most likely fail, and that if he does, the whole skill challenge is failed?

Me, as a player, I wouldn't want to be put in this spot.

 

[DM_Blake]

Yeah, I would hate playing with skill challenges (even if the math did work out.) I despise being forced to come up with "creative uses" of skills, b/c usually it's not creative at all; it's either corny or all the player's ability to BS.

"Oh, god. I have to think of some way to use my Religion skill in a chase scene? Now I have to use Religion to interrogate a guy? blech." I'd rather just have my characters use their skills for the intended purposes, and when my skills aren't relevant, sit it out and let someone else shine.

I have similar problems with trying to get bonuses for creative descriptions of skill-use. DM: "Describe how you climb the wall." Me: "Well, I climbed it so well that on a scale of one to twenty, I'd call it a twelve."

***

Plus, in a skill challenge -- let's say investigating a crime scene -- the player's main thought will be, "If we get X success, we'll win the challenge. How can I use my highest ranked skills here?" Instead of, you know, thinking about the crime scene, asking the DM relevant questions, making appropriate skill checks, discussing things that happened last adventure and how it all might tie together, etc.

I prefer the actual critical thinking and problem-solving to the impromptu theater.

***

I don't get why people want to make skill-challenges like combat. "Combat is fun b/c everyone's involved, so for skill-challenges to be fun, everyone needs to be involved." But they're just not the same. They have different dynamics. There's no need to add initiative rolls and rounds.

Well said. I agree with all of this.

To carry it further, I would rather have the situation define the skills to be used. And no, that doesn't mean the situation defines a list of 10 skills, very few of which actually make sense.

In a diplomatic negotiation, there are only a couple skills tha really matter (diplomacy, bluff, intimidate). A few more can be dragged in as peripheral skills (insight, maybe a knowledge check of some kind to know something that can be a bargaining chip).

Even then, that's a long list.

But allowing for athletics, or stealth, or underwater basket weaving, to play any role at all in a diplomatic negotiation just turns the whole thing into a bunch of silly nonsense. I'll leave that kind of thing for the anime that my kids love to watch.

The last thing I want my players doing is scanning their skill list, asking themselves how they can drag in some unrelated skill, in some wacky, fast-talking, used-car-salesman kind of way, to try to convince me to allow this inappropriate skill, just because they have a high score in the skill, and low scores in any skill that should be relevant to the skill challenge at hand.

I want them to interact with the situation, the skill challenge, the RP at the moment. I don't want them to interact with their character sheet.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

To Stalker0, I agree this failure issue is a problem.

I like the three methods of challenges suggested earlier, but I also have another idea.

Something like: for each complexity, there are a set number of successes, and set number of failures.
In addition, each player has a buffer of one or two failures, which don't count towards the overall total.

So, one challenge might be: you need 8 successes before 2 failures. But each player can suffer one failure for free, that doesn't count towards the total.

Such an approach allows everyone in the group to attempt to contribute to the challenge, and in fact may require it.

Another thing to bear in mind

From memory, there are three types of roles characters may make in a skill challenge.
1. Rolls which Count: a success here counts as one success for the contest, and a failure counts towards the number of failures.
2. Rolls which Aid Another: the listed challenges seem to use a different mechanism for Aid another - it doesn't use the standard Aid Another difficulty.
3. Rolls for dealing with Hazards. Some of the sample tests have things like: "Two players must make Endurance rolls; if they fail, everyone loses a healing surge". These rolls don't count towards overall success or failure, they allow the team to avoid danger while trying to succeed the challenge.

That third option is fertile ground for giving players things to try, that don't count towards overall failure of the challenge. Maybe someone can suggest other types of things skills can be used for during a challenge.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Something like: for each complexity, there are a set number of successes, and set number of failures.
In addition, each player has a buffer of one or two failures, which don't count towards the overall total.

Or - a little simpler - maybe, for each complexity, there is a set number of successes needed, and each player may suffer a number of failures. Once a player has reached his limit, he cannot contyribute to further success, but must aid others or do other things (like avoiding hazards).

 

[Mallus]

My players like to cooperate, to help each other out, and they feel that they can actually hurt the rest of the party if they participate in the challenge.

(pardon the morning crankiness in my initial post)

Sure, cooperation is the soul of most D&D campaigns, but I think its rightly considered in the larger social context. The DM and players should cooperate in creating a friendly, trusting environment where players emphasize participation over success odds, which entails more interesting consequences for failure, and fewer lethal/campaign-ending ones (of which skill challenges are intended to be neither).

 

[Ginnel]

I really can't believe what people are saying on the first page

"I'd be pissed at a player for using a low skill and failing I'd rather he just sat quiet and did nothing"

EDIT rewritten more politely

D&D is a group experience having someone sit on the sidelines during a 30min diplomacy encounter stinks, they should either be observing the room looking at ancient weapons or religious symbols to try and get a handle on the guy they're talking to, they should perform a slight of hand to impress the guys wife, they should be out and about outside the hall checking out if anyone is listening in, they should be using their heal checks to checkout if what the Sergeant told them about the wounds sounded right.

Its a big no-no in my book to not give the players a chance to do things in any encounter and if you have players cajouling or bullying them into not doing things sort them out, but there is the other side if someone insists on trying to do everything say I'm sorry but your character is still currently doing this and don't let them hog the spotlight.

One of the major things I liked about 4e combat it lets all combatents contribute, the same should go for skill challenges, if the players can't think of anything to do, help them out give them a suggestion either during the encounter or after it, ask them to make a roll every now and then for them to pick up on a significant detail, and if you can't think of anything try asking on the boards for suggestions.

Also don't forget character backgrounds a player was a fisherman and its an appropriate skill for the current challenge, that to me means knowledge check with int bonus and quite possibly 5 for trained or maybe a bit lower.

So I wanted to open this up to the community at large and get your opinions on that. When your in a skill challenge, as a player, do you worry that if you roll a "weaker" skill that you are actively hurting the party's chances? Would it (or has it) anger you if a fellow player with a "weak" skill decided to roll instead of aiding another?

It would not anger me if a player in a game they are playing decided to play their character and do an action which was in character but had a low chance of success, we would just enact the frustration, if any the other characters had had in the game and the game would be enchanced for it (in fact characters might blame it on something else entirely slippy climbing conditions, an unreasonable duke etc).
If people can't handle their out of character frustration for an in game failure, I'd have a word with them and if they continued they wouldn't be the kind of person I'd have in my game.

 

[mmadsen]

In combat, generally the worst thing a player can do is....do nothing.

Yes, combat is about manpower, unlike many other challenges (in the game and in real life).

In a skill challenge, a player can do worse than nothing, he can get a failure. He can actually provide a penalty, a drawback, to the entire party.

This sounds just like real life -- a consulting engagement, a legal hearing, just about any business meeting. "Why did he open his mouth?!"

Anyway, yes, that is a useful insight.

They wanted to make sure they found a way to use their best skills, and one openly admitted he would have felt better if he could have "bowed out" of the challenge instead of roll his lower skills and possibly create failures.

It's not just an issue of which are your best skills; it's an issue of how those skills match up with the challenge. A high skill vs. a very high DC is worse than a decent skill vs. a low DC.

Would it (or has it) anger you if a fellow player with a "weak" skill decided to roll instead of aiding another?

Yes, it would anger me, but that would be a good thing; it would be both realistic and dramatic.

 

[Mallus]

Yes, it would anger me, but that would be a good thing; it would be both realistic and dramatic.

So it would anger your character (and add to the drama of the scene)? But not you the player, right?

 

[Shabe]

When I began thinking about skill challenges I wondered how you could make the worst thing a player could do the same as in combat, to do nothing. If the system was changed from say 6 success before 3 failures to 6 successes within 3 rounds then that would happen.

This way each player would be able to roll without having to fear ruining the challenge because they aren't good enough. People who are bad could at least try and contribute, while those who are good can reliably get successes.

I like this, this is good, maybe critical successes could extend the time limit by one "round". I can also see how it would apply with negotiating (the other side gets bored), running away from guards (the guards catch you), navigating a jungle (you encounter a monster), traps (the trap does its thing), stealing the crown jewels (the guard patrol comes round / someone notices you asking too many questions and sets a guard up).

 

[The Grackle]

D&D is a group experience having someone sit on the sidelines during a 30min diplomacy encounter stinks...

The answer here is to not have 30 minute diplomacy encounters.

One of the major things I liked about 4e combat it lets all combatents contribute, the same should go for skill challenges, if the players can't think of anything to do, help them out give them a suggestion either during the encounter or after it, ask them to make a roll every now and then for them to pick up on a significant detail, and if you can't think of anything try asking on the boards for suggestions.

But I don't want to roleplay diplomacy encounters b/c I don't like them. That's why every group has that dude who always plays bards and writes down all the minutia of his character's clothing on his equipment sheet. Let that guy handle the diplomacy.

As Skill challenges stand, I'm forced to participate with my character's often sub-optimal skill selection.