D&D 4E Heavy Concrete Data on 4e's Skill Challenge System (long, lots of tables)

[Ydars]

I think the +5 to DCs, on the bottom of the table in the DMG, refers only to skill checks made outside of skill challenges, not to skill checks made as part of a skill challenge (I realise this is abstract, but I think this is how it was meant to be played).

However, this doesn't entirely fix the problem because then things become too easy, as Stalker's analysis shows.

Maybe building in some automatic failures is one way of handling this; like the attempt to intimidate the noble in the DMG example. Or perhaps what needs to happen is for the number of allowable failures to decrease slightly as the complexity increases.

 

[Aegir]

I'm starting to think that the biggest issue isn't in the skill DCs (the original analysis after all shows that single skill checks start around 50% success, and very slowly scale upward, which is in line with the rest of the system), but in the success/fail conditions (complexity).

I really like the work Stalker has done on his system, but I suspect a much simpler fix would be to just tweak the complexity table so that #1 is about 50/50 (4/4 or so), and as you scale up, that balance shifts down. Say, 4/4 for 1, and add +1-2 to the required successes for each level beyond that, but failures stay at 4.

 

[Tuft]

and cooperation should use the level appropriate "easy DC" and not a flat DC 10).

The flat DC10 is odd anyway in a system where the skills rise automatically with level. But, on the other hand, automatic rises becomes meaningless without any flat DC:s as a baseline....

 

[ve4grm]

From Kieth Baker, the problem isn't quite as big as we're making it seem.

This is because the party isn't expected to succeed (fully) on every skill challenge.

http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/11638.html?thread=198518#t198518

This is the key. I'd actually thought this was specifically called out in the DMG, but it looks like it's not. In designing a skill challenge, I often put in effects for partial success. I don't necessarily expect people to succeed - but the closer they get, the closer to the goal.

For example, PCs may be trying to gather information in a bar, trying to locate someone staying at the tavern. Each success gives them a piece of information; I have a little chart of things that can be rvealed as appropriate. If they fully succeed, they can actually get the key to the guy's room. However, even if they fail - at which point, the people in the bar clam up - they'll still have learned SOMETHING about their quarry, what he's been up to, etc. I'd certainly do the same with an Investigation. It's not "Make eight checks and then I'll tell you if you've found anything"; instead, each success provides a new piece of information, which may then inspire people to new action. So the first successful Perception check reveals the blood spatters; at this point, you can use Heal to gain additional information. Total success may get you some very useful poiece of information; but partial success still gives you something to work with.

Likewise, even in something as black and white as a chase scene: if you fail, your quarry gets away. But if you get CLOSE, you may at least be able to figure out what part of town his hideout must be in.

In a Diplomatic negotiation, I'd say that absolute and dismal failure means that the envoy sides with your enemy; an even split means he reamins neutral; a victory means he sides with you. In a courtroom drama, level of success would determine severity of punishment; total success might get you off scott-free, but close failure won't be the end of the world.

 

[saitir]

Having run my first full on skill challenge in my game tonight, I have to say that these tables and calculations are ultimatley meaningless.

As long as you don't tie yourself down to the lists of primary skills and allow characters to play to their strengths (within the realms of plausibility anyway) then you end up with a great scene with everyone contributing.

Also, I started off believing that it was going to fail miserably because I believed these numbers. Another player was convinced that it was such a rotton system that he abandoned it for his game.

The most extreme example of imagination was a character using dungeoneering to get ahead of an npc in an urban chase (in this particular example it was a fantasy pseudo housing high rise they were chasing through and decided to use garbage chutes to drop down a few levels quickly. Sounded like spelunking to me...).

Yes, you have to make many off the cuff decisions, bonuses here and there and reward the party one way or another along the way and sure you need some good rolls (rolling a bunch of 1s in a row can't really be allowed for in any system with dice), but it really created an organic story telling experience that left the players with a great little chunk of story. For those saying 'yeah well, you just had to change things as you go 'cause the system is broken' I say not true. You change things as you go because if you don't, your forget the reason for the rules... To help have fun and generate a story.

I'm a convert.

Don't believe the raw maths against actual experience.

 

[Spatula]

As long as you don't tie yourself down to the lists of primary skills and allow characters to play to their strengths (within the realms of plausibility anyway) then you end up with a great scene with everyone contributing.

Secondary skills use the "hard" DCs (25 at first level) and their use generally makes it more likely that the group is going to fail the challenge.

Yes, if everyone rolls 15+ the party succeeds and a good time is had by all. That's not going to be the average experience.

 

[Nail]

From Kieth Baker, the problem isn't quite as big as we're making it seem.

This is because the party isn't expected to succeed (fully) on every skill challenge.

http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/11638.html?thread=198518#t198518

As has been pointed out to me in another thread:

• Keith Baker isn't a 4e designer. So what he thinks the rules *should* say is completely irrelevant.
• If the system was designed so that partial failing is "still okay", then the system pointless.

 

[AllisterH]

As has been pointed out to me in another thread:

• Keith Baker isn't a 4e designer. So what he thinks the rules *should* say is completely irrelevant.
• If the system was designed so that partial failing is "still okay", then the system pointless.

Hmm?

Isn't this the default situation with skill challenges as written?

You fail at combat, game's over, since you die.

You fail at a skill challenge, worst that happens is the next combat becomes slightly harder

 

[Asmo74]

Ive just skipped to the end so this may have been asked and if so I apologise.

I have a question about the math used...

When you make dice rolls in skill challenges each roll should be considered seperately i.e. if the challenge required 5 successfull rolls for the best result, you do not roll 5d20's at the same time and hope each one is a success (multiplying the individual results to obtain an outcome).

So unless you completely stuff up the first roll and the DM decides with such failure furthering the skill challenge is now moot. i.e. in a diplomacy challenge and the first roll is a 1 and the DM decides you've just accidently called the local nobles ancestry into question and you're lucky your not in the dungeon... unfriendly to hostile, therefore skill challenge over time to make a hasty retreat before he calls the guards.

Therefore each successive result stands by itself.

So could you elaborate on how you come to your percentages?

Cheers, Rob

 

[Cavalorn]

Secondary skills use the "hard" DCs (25 at first level) and their use generally makes it more likely that the group is going to fail the challenge.

What boggles me is the later example of secondary skill use, in the bit about rewarding creativity: 'The fighter wants to climb a tree with Athletics to get a good vantage point on the surrounding forest, thinking that gaps in the trees might indicate the presence of a river. That's an easy DC check.'

Aren't all secondary skill checks supposed to be against Hard DCs? If there's potential for a secondary skill check not to default to Hard, doesn't that make the system far more susceptible to players' inventiveness?