Good rewards and penalties for winning or losing a skill challenge

[I'm A Banana]

If you get lost in the mountains, is there anything stopping you from finding a trail? No. So yeah, you can try again. (You might be too late to stop the slavers you're chasing from reaching the crossroads, though.)

Well, personally, I'd say what stops you from trying again is the fact that you failed to find one in the first place. That failure means that any trails that may exist are beyond your skill at this point.

Effectively, it's the skill challenge determining the reality of the situation. Are the mountains too hard to cross? I don't know -- here's a skill challenge. If you fail, then they are too hard to cross, and you need to do something else. It's a level of abstraction. You get one chance to find the path, and if you fail, you don't just get to take an extended rest and try again. If I give the party a TPK, they don't get to just take an extended rest and try again. They have to do something else.

The penalties for failure should be permanent and irrevocable, IMO. Otherwise, you might as well not have the challenge in the first place -- players can just keep trying until they roll 20's and get through.

I like the way Burning Wheel deals with this: When the situation changes enough. You failed to cross the mountains because an avalanche blocked the pass? Wait for summer.

When does the situation change enough? That requires a judgement call from the DM. That's fine, it's a good thing - it allows the DM creative input into the game.

That makes sense, too, but it's effectively the same idea: you lost this challenge, and if you want to try again, you have to have a different sort of challenge. You don't just get to repeat your attempt.

 

[bert1000]

Since only successful skill challenges earn rewards, having skill challenges to avoid fights works very well. The thing is, if the skill challenge and the encounter has the same xp budget, you get the same xp wether you succeed at the challenge, or fail the challenge and play out the fight. Only the fight take a lot longer to play out at the table and can consume some resources. The successful skill challenge is a free lunch, comparatively.

So I'd say yes and no. Yes, I think avoiding a combat for the same XP (and it should be the same XP) does effect the story somewhat and is better than some of the bad examples we've been citing on this thread. But No, in that in the end win or lose the challenge it's just "another way to win". Consuming resources IMO rarely actually effects the ultimate outcome of subsequent encounters. You do raise an interesting point about time at table -- if the players' goals are to level up as quickly as possible, then this is a real reward of doing a skill challenge vs. combat. I'm just not sure how many groups where leveling up as quick as possible is a high priority goal (the groups I play with like to level up at a decent pace but don't think about game satisfaction this way).

 

[LostSoul]

The penalties for failure should be permanent and irrevocable, IMO. Otherwise, you might as well not have the challenge in the first place -- players can just keep trying until they roll 20's and get through.

I agree with this;

Effectively, it's the skill challenge determining the reality of the situation.

I disagree with this.

If there is no shortcut through the mountains, the PCs can't find one and there's nothing to roll for. If there is a shortcut through the mountains, it's hard to justify their inability to ever find it, no matter how much searching they do. (Though you could say, "You found the trail, but there was a landslide..." That's probably a better answer.)

If you, as DM, don't know if there is a shortcut there or not, make a choice. It's your job to know.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In a skill challenge, it's just too abstract. It doesn't matter whether your Nature check represents you making a good shelter, or hunting successfully, or collecting enough fire wood, because whatever you do, it's just the same mechanic: Nature check. Worse, it's not even like the environment will respond to what you do. You either succeed or fail.

I think this nails it. The environment must react. To every roll; every success; every failure. Challenges must be devised so that not only do rolls determine success or failure, but they change the environment so as to (1) impact future rolls, and (2) impact what future rolls represent (i.e., not every skill is usable all the time; circumstances dictate what works based on description).

"I roll, and then I narrate what the roll means" leads to meaningless results, because the terms of the roll cannot be based upon the narration.

"I narrate what I am attempting, and then I roll" leads to meaningful results so long as the terms of the roll are based upon the difficulty of what is being attempted.

This rewards players for actually thinking about the environment, what is happening, and how they should react. Good ideas lead to better odds of success. Just like good ideas (tactics) lead to better odds of success in combat.

IMHO, IME, YMMV, and all that jazz.


RC

 

[Steel_Wind]

I think the one undercurrent in many of these posts and in similar discussions is trouble with the concept of the "reward" for success and the "penalty" for failure.

The trouble arises outside of the context for the XP resulting from the skill challenge itself. Obviously, succeeding at a skill challenge earns XP. That's a tangible reward.

But with reference to the "combat" that is sometimes imposed on characters as a "penalty" for failing a skill challenge, the players may not see it, in least in any meta-game sense, as a real "penalty." Most will not see it as a penalty unless you decide to run a combat following a failed skill challenge as a "penalty", either.

Indeed, players may see a combat as an opportunity to earn even MORE XP, more than they would have had they "succeeded" at the skill challenge. Frankly, in many cases, the players probably have a point. This is the meta-game in action - and you need to deal with it overtly and directly when required - not just subtly.

So try these elements in crafting your rewards for a skill challenge which is tied to combat for penalty/failure:

1 - The combat that proceeds only in the event a skill challenge is failed does not earn any XP. Period. It consumes party resources and might kill a character. The loot the such a combat yields is always very poor, too.

If you have your combats for failed skill challenges proceed in that fashion, your players are not going to like failing the skill challenge and will put more effort into suceeding at them. You need to make the "penalty" a "penalty" in the meta-game sense, too.

2 - When a skill challenge "penalty" results in a combat, it is a better design to set up your adventure so that the combat ALWAYS happens, whether the skill challenge succeeds or fails. Simply change your approach so that the skill challenge affects HOW the combat happens and WHEN it happens - not IF it happens at all.

Example: Assume the combat that is going to follow the skill challenge, pass or fail, is with 6 CR 8 creatures.

If the Heroes succeed at the skill challenge, they may encounter those creatures in two separate groups of three CR8 critters, not just one group. This will not only make the combat much easier for the PCs, it will also give more encounter powers to the heroes, too. You will observe that the underlying XP earned for the encounter(s) does not change either under 4E XP rules.

When the XP is the same, and the treasure is the same, often the the players will prefer the eaiser combat (though not always - depends on your group.) Use this device if the players see it in the meta-game sense as a real reward/penalty.

3. Alternatively, instead of splitting up the monsters/foes in the battle to follow, the Skill Challenge grants a bonus during the fight through some effect, and failing the skill challenge imposes a penalty during the fight -- or permits them to recover treasure from the fight that will follow that they would not otherwise recover.

These are pretty ham-fisted rewards/penalties, admittedly, but don't ignore the direct method -- especially when trying to coax PCs into really getting into the spirit of the skill challenge system.

Again - the meta-game focus is upon making the ultimate success a real reward so that the players commit to making skill challenges fun - not perfunctory.

Not every skill challenge needs to work this way, of course, but the ones that lead to combat should often work this way, imo.

When the meta-game rewards "failure" you need to change the meta-game rules so that there is no reward for failure. Pure and simple.



Point of Privilege: Skill Challenges may have been introduced as part of 4E, but they are not restricted to 4E any longer. The same mechanic is in Star Wars: SE. There are even some D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder DMs now using the skill challenge system in their games. Accordingly, please refrain from using the "4E" Topic Header when posting on Skill Challenge design discussions. It's just not a system specific discussion anymore. Moreover, that's why the topic is not in the system specific "Rules" sub-forums, either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If there is no shortcut through the mountains, the PCs can't find one and there's nothing to roll for. If there is a shortcut through the mountains, it's hard to justify their inability to ever find it, no matter how much searching they do. (Though you could say, "You found the trail, but there was a landslide..." That's probably a better answer.)

If you, as DM, don't know if there is a shortcut there or not, make a choice. It's your job to know.

It's probably more of a playstyle difference, but I don't really think it's my job to know. I think it's my job to challenge the PC's. If they choose to try and find a shortcut through the mountain, I might let them find one, I might not, and I usually won't decide beforehand if there is one or not. The point is, they'll be meeting a challenge.

If they fail, then it's basically saying "there's not a shortcut you can find, with your skill level."

If they succeed, then it's basically saying, "Sure, there's a shortcut here." Even if I didn't plan to put a shortcut there.

I might make the challenge dependent on my desires as a DM, or on the seeds I've planted before, but, for my games, until something is used at the table, it doesn't really exist.

I guess it's sort of an esoteric idea, but it certainly saves me a lot of needless decision-making and speeds up my improv and even surprises me on occasion, which I love. My favorite outcome is when the PC's try something I didn't expect, and succeed at it, and I need to quickly align my plans for the night around what they've done, in a way that grants them meaningful success, but still challenges them with the possibility of failure.

I like it when the players amuse me for a while.

 

[LostSoul]

It's probably more of a playstyle difference, but I don't really think it's my job to know. I think it's my job to challenge the PC's.

I don't think you can challenge the players if you don't also control the setting. That's probably worth a discussion of its own.

I should clarify that I'm not talking about having every trail and shortcut mapped before play. You can ad-lib it while you're playing. But you (the DM) need to make a decision.

If you don't then the actions the players take don't have meaning (an exaggerated generalization, but you get my point). Is looking for a shortcut through the "Impassable Peaks" a good idea or not? If the value of that decision is determined by a die roll, only the die roll matters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think you can challenge the players if you don't also control the setting. That's probably worth a discussion of its own.
...
If you don't then the actions the players take don't have meaning (an exaggerated generalization, but you get my point). Is looking for a shortcut through the "Impassable Peaks" a good idea or not? If the value of that decision is determined by a die roll, only the die roll matters.

The actions still have meaning. In fact, they have all the meaning -- they can tell me what happens in my world. Without the action of "trying to pass the mountains," the game would never have a reality for those mountains.

And if they fail, and they need to try a different route, then that determines the reality of that route, too.

Different things happen. There are different DC's, different skill, different complexities, different encounters. So the choices have variety -- it's not a false choice. The fact that I might not know exactly what those mechanical fiddly bits are until the exact moment a character rolls against them doesn't mean they're meaningless or arbitrary. It just means they're not specific.

Forex, if the mountains were said to be "impassible" at some point, for some reason, I'd probably set a high DC, based on that reason. Impassible why? Due to hippogriff atttacks? Due to snowstorms? Due to steep drop-offs? These all inform what the rules could be, but they don't have a specific meaning until they're used at the table.

 

[LostSoul]

Forex, if the mountains were said to be "impassible" at some point, for some reason, I'd probably set a high DC, based on that reason. Impassible why? Due to hippogriff atttacks? Due to snowstorms? Due to steep drop-offs? These all inform what the rules could be, but they don't have a specific meaning until they're used at the table.

What I'm saying is that the DM should make that decision instead of letting the PC's skill check decide for him. There are a number of ways the DM can make that decision (some that might involve rolling on random tables), but he should be the one to make that choice.

The PCs decide to look for a shortcut through the Impassable Mountains.
Good choice?

Roll, success: Good choice.
Roll, failure: Bad choice.

vs.

DM: You get to the mountains and see they're like walls of stone - sheer cliffs rising hundreds of feet high. You look around for about an hour for a shortcut, but it soon becomes obvious that there isn't one. Bad choice, guys. They're called the Impassable Mountains for a reason!

edit: Or...

DM: The mountains are just like any other. Make a roll to find a shortcut. Oh yeah, while you're looking, you hear screeches echoing through the mountains. Maybe they're impassable for some other reason...

 

[Starfox]

I think the one undercurrent in many of these posts and in similar discussions is trouble with the concept of the "reward" for success and the "penalty" for failure.

The trouble arises outside of the context for the XP resulting from the skill challenge itself. Obviously, succeeding at a skill challenge earns XP. That's a tangible reward.

But with reference to the "combat" that is sometimes imposed on characters as a "penalty" for failing a skill challenge, the players may not see it, in least in any meta-game sense, as a real "penalty." Most will not see it as a penalty unless you decide to run a combat following a failed skill challenge as a "penalty", either.

Indeed, players may see a combat as an opportunity to earn even MORE XP, more than they would have had they "succeeded" at the skill challenge. Frankly, in many cases, the players probably have a point. This is the meta-game in action - and you need to deal with it overtly and directly when required - not just subtly.

The only REAL penalty for the PLAYERS is not having fun. Whatever we do at he playing table that is fun is a reward to the players. Hopefully, a skill challenge can be fun whether it succeeds or fails - or it might be time to reevaluate your game time.

So, we are not talking penalties for the players here, we are talking penalties for their characters and the progress trough the story. And in such a context, the skill challenge "avoid the patrol", with the penalty of a fight, works perfectly well. The players also have the choice of not avoiding the patrol and instead choosing to fight - which results in an automatic fight and might also have consequences making later skill challenges to avoid raising the alarm harder.

Win or loose, I never aim at making my PLAYERS feel frustrated by introducing "penalty fights". But then again, I am not playing Squad Leader with them, we are collaborating on making an exiting story.