Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Help Me Make My Skill Challenge Fun
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6660431" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>It only creates that incentive if the GM frames the fiction in such a way that <em>nothing bad is going to happen if no one else acts</em>. Given that D&D is a party-based game, we don't generally design and adjudicate combat encounters in that way, so why would we do so for non-combat encounters?</p><p></p><p>But those successes are a function of attacking and missing, because if you attack and <em>hit</em> then you take the opponent out of the fight.</p><p></p><p>Not if the fighter is allowed to take on the orcs one-at-a-time, in a series of gentlemanly duels.</p><p></p><p>But it is taken for granted, in the design and adjudication of combat encounters, that they won't unfold like this. If the same principle is applied in the design and adjudication of non-combat encounters, then even players not optimised for whatever is going on will declare actions for their PCs.</p><p></p><p>Imagine how D&D combat would look if it was just a series of static, sequential rolls to hit (in the fiction, that is my line of duelling orcs). Of course groups would send the fighter in to make those rolls. But no one frames combats like that. (Sometimes players manufacture such a situation, eg by having the fighter hold a chokepoint. But that is by dint of their play; it's not generally just handed to them on a platter by the GM.)</p><p></p><p>If non-combat challenges are framed as a series of static, sequential rolls against a predetermined fictional element of a predetermined difficulty (like a monster's AC, or a lock's DC) then players will send in the bard, or thief, or whomever to make all the rolls. In general, I think that is not good encounter design out of combat any more than it is good design in combat.</p><p></p><p>That doesn't seem to me to be a very interesting skill challenge - it is really just a complex skill check, and it is the sort of thing that, in 4e, works best integrated into a broader situation which engages the other PCs (examples I've used include shutting down demonic gates, or unlocking doors to safety, while the rest of the party hold off onrushing hordes).</p><p></p><p>A skill challenge that is meant to engage the whole party needs to exert pressure, in the fiction, upon each PC, just as is the case in the typical combat. In combat, players are expected to use their resources to change the fictional situation so that their PC can work effectively rather than be ineffective - for instance, the player of a melee fighter is expected to declare actions that bring his/her PC into melee contact with the monsters/NPCs (and similarly the player of an archer or wizard who finds his/her PC in melee is expected to declare actions that restore to his/her PC the advantages of range). Or players (and their PCs) can help one another - eg the wizard teleports the fighter into melee, or the fighter holds off an enemy while the wizard or ranger falls back.</p><p></p><p>Similarly in a skill challenge: if the players have PCs who are strong at A but not B, and the GM is confronting them with a B-situation, then the players should be bringing their resources to bear to turn it into an A-situation, and hence one in which they can do well. Players who don't try and change the fiction, but just hurl themselves futilely at the GM's initial framing hoping that they get N successes before 3 failures are like players who leave their wizards in melee and their melee fighters throwing stones rather ineffectually from range.</p><p></p><p>Because there is no action economy in a skill challenge comparable to D&D combat, the onus falls on the GM to be fair and reasonable in the way that s/he applies pressure. For instance, if the NPCs strike up conversation with the low-CHA fighter, and the player rollls and fails some appropriate social check, and then another player declares an action that succeeds and that takes the low-CHA fighter out of the social situation, the GM shouldn't just turn the pressure back onto the player of the fighter (assuming it's not a two-player game) - there are other players whose PCs are there to be engaged. I don't adopt a strictly round robin policy - I try to be even-handed in my applications of pressure, but I also follow the lead of the fiction, which includes letting the players enjoy the benefits of their successful checks. For instance, if the fighter is successfully extracted from the social situation, then it would be unreasonable to apply further <em>social</em> pressure to that PC unless the fighter reenters the social situation. (Which s/he might do for any number of reasons, the most obvious of which would be to avoid looking anti-social.)</p><p></p><p>In short, in an interesting skill challenge the GM will be applying the pressure to all the players (via their PCs), and the players will be using their action declarations and their PC abilities to make their own luck, just as happens in the typical D&D combat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6660431, member: 42582"] It only creates that incentive if the GM frames the fiction in such a way that [I]nothing bad is going to happen if no one else acts[/I]. Given that D&D is a party-based game, we don't generally design and adjudicate combat encounters in that way, so why would we do so for non-combat encounters? But those successes are a function of attacking and missing, because if you attack and [I]hit[/I] then you take the opponent out of the fight. Not if the fighter is allowed to take on the orcs one-at-a-time, in a series of gentlemanly duels. But it is taken for granted, in the design and adjudication of combat encounters, that they won't unfold like this. If the same principle is applied in the design and adjudication of non-combat encounters, then even players not optimised for whatever is going on will declare actions for their PCs. Imagine how D&D combat would look if it was just a series of static, sequential rolls to hit (in the fiction, that is my line of duelling orcs). Of course groups would send the fighter in to make those rolls. But no one frames combats like that. (Sometimes players manufacture such a situation, eg by having the fighter hold a chokepoint. But that is by dint of their play; it's not generally just handed to them on a platter by the GM.) If non-combat challenges are framed as a series of static, sequential rolls against a predetermined fictional element of a predetermined difficulty (like a monster's AC, or a lock's DC) then players will send in the bard, or thief, or whomever to make all the rolls. In general, I think that is not good encounter design out of combat any more than it is good design in combat. That doesn't seem to me to be a very interesting skill challenge - it is really just a complex skill check, and it is the sort of thing that, in 4e, works best integrated into a broader situation which engages the other PCs (examples I've used include shutting down demonic gates, or unlocking doors to safety, while the rest of the party hold off onrushing hordes). A skill challenge that is meant to engage the whole party needs to exert pressure, in the fiction, upon each PC, just as is the case in the typical combat. In combat, players are expected to use their resources to change the fictional situation so that their PC can work effectively rather than be ineffective - for instance, the player of a melee fighter is expected to declare actions that bring his/her PC into melee contact with the monsters/NPCs (and similarly the player of an archer or wizard who finds his/her PC in melee is expected to declare actions that restore to his/her PC the advantages of range). Or players (and their PCs) can help one another - eg the wizard teleports the fighter into melee, or the fighter holds off an enemy while the wizard or ranger falls back. Similarly in a skill challenge: if the players have PCs who are strong at A but not B, and the GM is confronting them with a B-situation, then the players should be bringing their resources to bear to turn it into an A-situation, and hence one in which they can do well. Players who don't try and change the fiction, but just hurl themselves futilely at the GM's initial framing hoping that they get N successes before 3 failures are like players who leave their wizards in melee and their melee fighters throwing stones rather ineffectually from range. Because there is no action economy in a skill challenge comparable to D&D combat, the onus falls on the GM to be fair and reasonable in the way that s/he applies pressure. For instance, if the NPCs strike up conversation with the low-CHA fighter, and the player rollls and fails some appropriate social check, and then another player declares an action that succeeds and that takes the low-CHA fighter out of the social situation, the GM shouldn't just turn the pressure back onto the player of the fighter (assuming it's not a two-player game) - there are other players whose PCs are there to be engaged. I don't adopt a strictly round robin policy - I try to be even-handed in my applications of pressure, but I also follow the lead of the fiction, which includes letting the players enjoy the benefits of their successful checks. For instance, if the fighter is successfully extracted from the social situation, then it would be unreasonable to apply further [I]social[/I] pressure to that PC unless the fighter reenters the social situation. (Which s/he might do for any number of reasons, the most obvious of which would be to avoid looking anti-social.) In short, in an interesting skill challenge the GM will be applying the pressure to all the players (via their PCs), and the players will be using their action declarations and their PC abilities to make their own luck, just as happens in the typical D&D combat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Help Me Make My Skill Challenge Fun
Top