Excerpt: skill challenges

[ObsidianCrane]

Lets take a movie example;

Princess Leia is captured and Darth Vader wants to know where the Rebel Base is - Leia can be persuaded to reveal this information through Bluff, Diplomacy or Insight. Intimidate automatically fails. Vader, bad guy he is, goes for Intimidate, but no mater how much he uses the skill it still fails. In the end Vader and co have to resort to other solutions to their problem. ie they fail at the Skill Challenge creating a complication which must be overcome - the DM then brings in people who are going to try and rescue the Princess....viola another solution is possible.

Lets take a more DnD example. A Duke is a landholder of significant power, Dukes are typically subservient to only the King and usually have several Barons and landed Knights in their service, along with many unlanded Knights. These guys have armies at their disposal. So you go to the Duke's court, because you have found some clues that the neighboring Duke is in league with Asmodeus, and you need help to do somethign about it (maybe travel papers or similar diplomatic documents). Now this is a delicate situation, the Duke doesn't have to help you, and if the neighboring Duke has the King's ear helping you could be a problem for him. The best way to get him to help is through Bluff, Insight and Diplomacy. If you Intimidate him into helping he capitulates but betrays you to cover his own butt - after all the other Duke is more influential and getting into his good graces is a good plan.

Remember Failure doesn't mean you stop, it means that things don't work out the way you want. The only absolute is that getting X Failures in the Skill Challenge means it doesn't work out the way the PCs wanted so no rewards, ie complications will ensue (and need to be overcome).

Also you need to remember that there are still Skill Checks - you want to use History to learn something about the Duke before rolling thats fine. That might reveal he responds poorly to intimidation, and he is proud of his family history. The first is a clue not to use Intimidate, the second informs an approach to Diplomacy - an approach that if done well enough might create and auto-success, and open up the History use in the Challenge. Imagine using History as sidetracking him with his favorite topic before hitting him up for help.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Why can't the players use intimidation to get what they want? Sure, maybe the DM wants them to negotiate, but when you enforce that will it's railroading.

Um...

This example isn't railroading in the slightest. There are plenty of things the PCs can do to continue the adventure, with or without negotiating with the duke.

But deciding that the PCs only get the duke's aid if they negotiate? That's not railroading. That's DMing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Didn't 4e snag this puppy from other RPGs?

As far as I understood, yes. But this might still leave the hope that,if the market leader uses is, others will follow.

But then, I am not sure if all skill systems are "fit" for this. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay uses its percentile dice, and the success chances seem relatively low, and that won't improve with adding more rolls. I suppose the system would have to be rigged - like making the number of failures you can achieve higher then the number of successes. In non-level based system (or rather: in systems where skill doesn't improve automatically with level, nor does it give an indication of the range of skill modifier/sucess rates), finding a suitable difficulty for each skill will also be harder.

 

[illathid]

Why can't the players use intimidation to get what they want? Sure, maybe the DM wants them to negotiate, but when you enforce that will it's railroading.

All I could think of when I read was "Why can't the players use this fish to chop down that tree?"

Would you complain that a DM was railroading if he didn't allow you to use a fish to cut down a tree? I think not. Asking why one can't use intimidation in this template is almost the same thing as the fish scenario above (although substantially less silly).

 

[Mirtek]

So what would happen if a PC tried to impress the duke with his acrobatics skill? Would it be an automatic failure, or would it not count for anything?

Duke: Wow! You do such great somersaults, I will gladly lend you the help of my army

No, doesn't really cut it. I like it that there's only a limited set of skills to chose from for solving the current situation. If anything would really be "pick whatever skill you want as long as you succeed" it would indeed be stupid.

So there are situation which allow less skills and others which allow more (or even all) skills, but most of the time it should be a limited set of skills for a given challende.

 

[Frostmarrow]

As far as I understood, yes. But this might still leave the hope that,if the market leader uses is, others will follow.

But then, I am not sure if all skill systems are "fit" for this. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay uses its percentile dice, and the success chances seem relatively low, and that won't improve with adding more rolls. I suppose the system would have to be rigged - like making the number of failures you can achieve higher then the number of successes. In non-level based system (or rather: in systems where skill doesn't improve automatically with level, nor does it give an indication of the range of skill modifier/sucess rates), finding a suitable difficulty for each skill will also be harder.

Warhammer does have lots of interesting skills though (even though success rates are low). In Warhammer you could win the duke over with consume alcohol or even hedge magic.

The system could be reworked. Let's say each success adds cumulative +25% to the next skill check. Once you succeed in the first attempt at 100% you win. Failures subtract -10% instead. -Just a suggestion.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Warhammer does have lots of interesting skills though (even though success rates are low). In Warhammer you could win the duke over with consume alcohol or even hedge magic.

The system could be reworked. Let's say each success adds cumulative +25% to the next skill check. Once you succeed in the first attempt at 100% you win. Failures subtract -10% instead. -Just a suggestion.

That's also an interesting approach.

 

[Mirtek]

I think intimidate is a stupid skill. First it is stupid that an epic character who lack the skill can't intimidate anyone.

Because in the D&D context intimidating someone means to frighten him into obeying you.

An epic character who lack the skill just frightens the other to curl up in the corner, wet his pants and sobbing unintelligibly.

Is he intimidated? Yes, but not in any way that is helpfull to the character who wanted to get him to perform a specific action.

Why don't I get a bonus from being ugly?

You don't. See below for two great description of what charisma means in D&D

As a wise man once wrote on these boards, having a low charaisma doesn't mean your frightening to behold, it means you're unnoticeable. You're the wallflower at the dance who can never think of anything to say. You're the girl who no one asks to the prom or the guy who can't muster the courage to ask anyone.

A charisma of 3 means that no one wants to talk to you, or cares what you think about any subject. You might offer your opinion, though likely you'll annoy people if you do (and they may well just try to talk over you). If, by chance, they do listen and if you have a good idea people might use it...but they probably will forget who suggested it and give you no credit for thinking it up.

If you single-handedly save the village from the rampaging horde of ogres, someone else may well take all the credit right out from under you (unless they think you'll kill them...if they merely think you'll get mad, then who cares, because they don't care what you think of them).

A 3 charisma character is eminently forgettable, not intimidatingly terrifying

The big half-orc with the 6 Charisma and 18 Strength? He's the guy who stutters when he talks because he's so nervous. Or who says "uhh" after every second word. A low Charisma means you are socially backward. The half-orc with rippling muscles, massive scars, and a leer that makes women faint and children scream has a high Charisma score. If your Charisma is low, you're not so ugly you're scary. You're unnoticeable, to possibly worthy of pity.

 

[Primal]

I'd like to know the first part as well, as regards the second..

You're not *supposed* to whip it up on the fly.

You're not supposed to whip up combat on the fly either.

Maybe you, personally, can, but that's not the intent, and planning gives better results, most cases.

Good combat challenges are no less complex than this.

I beg to differ -- I thought it was kind of the primary design thesis and intent in 4E to be able to "whip up" any combat/social encounter in less than 10 seconds? To save all those poor DMs from the agony of pre-play planning and the complexity of 3E? ;P

Alright, all sarcasm aside, I think this seems to be a pretty solid sybsystem, and I like it. If it's clearly presented in the books with solid examples, I could see it adding a whole new level of excitement (both to DMs and players alike) into the game. And, I think I could modify that template to pretty much work for any negotiation challenge.

I also like how the designers have "cleaned up" the skills in 4E. A lot of them make more sense now, although I'm a bit doubtful that some skills may enable you to do "too much" -- at least from a simulationist's POV (i.e. if you're a good liar, you're good at disguising yourself, too). I did not like that "+1/2 rank per level to all class skills"-system initially, but after conceretely recalling all the pains of playing a 3E fighter with average (or low) INT, I can understand why it's probably a lot better that way.

It may feel a bit intimidating and "complex" for newbies (especially younger ones), but in the hands of a good DM, this skill challenge system will certainly add a lot of excitement and character immersion in D&D. Shortly put: me like! (and this coming from an anti-4E grognard )

 

[Frostmarrow]

Because in the D&D context intimidating someone means to frighten him into obeying you.

An epic character who lack the skill just frightens the other to curl up in the corner, wet his pants and sobbing unintelligibly.

Is he intimidated? Yes, but not in any way that is helpfull to the character who wanted to get him to perform a specific action.

You don't. See below for two great description of what charisma means in D&D

This is all to convoluted for me.