official revision to skill challenge system

[clearstream]

IMO, I'd like to see the following changes, which use a similar idea but link it to use of daily resources to "buy" the benefit...

3) add rules to allow expenditure of limited resources to cancel a close (within 5 and not a 'natural 1') failure. AP, Healing Surges (representing frustration and lost self-confidence as success eludes you), Daily Powers (I would limit those to Powers from a Class for whom the Skill in question is a Class Skill, though I would allow it even if this character is not personally Trained in it), and even Daily Magic Item Uses if there's some good story why that power could help. Possibly limit each of these options to once per Challenge (perhaps more Healing Surges).

This would seem to make Skill Challenges more like Combat Encounters, in that they usually end in success but sometimes at a cost in limited resources.

I quite like this. To me the issue is the mechanics, not the numbers. They're extremely crude.

The templates break down into about 8 distinct mechanisms.

Counts toward successes or fails needed
Required must be used Nx/round of the challenge
One-shot can be used once
Costs either for use or for failure, costs a resource
Modifier roll against this skill instead of the main skill to aid another
Hidden that this skill counts is revealed when you use another skill
Auto-fails
Effect triggers an effect off the first N successes or failures

The core mechanism is then a linear rocker. It's not even as detailed as Tennis, which includes the interest-adding Deuce mechanism.

Any numbers plugged into this structure will not mitigate its intrinsic poverty. The minimum intervention necessary is to detail the rocker, possibly adding one dimension or featuring it interestingly, and to detail the risks-pay-offs.

Even simple systems, well engineered, can be engaging; as many Parlour games attest. The pages spent on Skill Challenges were wasted on pointless exemplars that could have been summarised in one page of crunch.

Anyway, enough scathing criticism; suffice to say it's deplorable and the designer ought to be ashamed. To fix it, we need to know some things.

The first I can think of is whether it will work to let players up the stakes by committing a power to the challenge, that power not to be usable for the next encounter or next day if it is burnt by the challenge?

What do you think?

-vk

 

[Jhaelen]

In your analysis, keep in mind as well that for a skill challenge, players are expected to use their best skills. So while the paladin has a nasty stealth check, he probably won't be using it for the challenge. Which makes the challenge much easier....in fact it jumps it into the 95% range in many cases.

I've already figured that in. That's why I wrote:

For a skill challenge it is safe to assume that only those character that are best at a given skill will participate (the rest will probably use Aid Another).

The numbers I arrived at in the last three lines assume the average probability of success if every skill check is made by the one with the best chance, i.e. 78%, 88%, and 98%, respectively.

The introductory comparison was just meant to demonstrate how big the variance can be. It's why I assume the DC numbers were chosen with a single skill check in mind, not a skill challenge involving several checks.

What WotC seems to keep overlooking is that you _cannot_ use the same DC numbers for single skill checks and skill challenges; especially since you're longer required to participate in the latter.

There's several possibilities how to get the DC numbers and probabilities right for skill challenges. I'm not sure yet, which ones to use.

I also dislike that after the errata, 'skill focus' went from a must-have feat to a feat that is completely worthless.

It's further obvious they didn't fix all of the DCs that should have been affected, e.g. the ones for the traps. There's definitely further errata required.

These errata have been a classical case of overcompensation:
It definitely reminded me of 'balance patches' for computer rpgs:
If people are complaining that class X is too strong vs. class Y, they'll typically make class X stronger vs. class Y _AND_ class Y weaker vs. class X, thus reversing the original problem.

 

[Stalker0]

There's several possibilities how to get the DC numbers and probabilities right for skill challenges. I'm not sure yet, which ones to use.

In my original system I created "curbing" mechanics to help limit the variance inherent to the system. Even with that however, I still used skill DCs that were different from the regular ones. To me, that's not a big deal. As long as the DM is given a nice clean chart he can easily figure out what DCs to assign skills for a challenge.

Afterall, a challenge tends to have a little more forethought than a casual skill check.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

2) What is the best mechanism to force the less optimal characters to make any given skill check without making success unattainable, and without punishing a player for having an effective build?

I'm considering implementing diminishing returns in my skill challenges. In short, when a PC achieves a success with a particular skill, the DC for that skill increases for that player for the remainder of the challenge. A PC optimized for a certain skill can still ensure one success with that skill, but at a certain point it becomes optimal for other players or other skills to come into play.

Since skill challenges seem too easy now, imposing conditional penalties seems the way to go to me. The justification for these penalties is that doing the same thing over and over the same way shouldn't be quite so effective. For example, the same person bringing the same diplomatic perspective to a negotiation shouldn't be as effective as multiple people bringing diverse arguments and using other skills. (The duke gets tired of talking to the same guy, or whatever.)

The question is how large a penalty to impose on subsequent attempts to use the same skill. I'm going to try -2 then -5 then disallowing more than three successes for the same PC and skill, but of course this question is one of playtesting.

 

[Rechan]

So, who has the best "Fix" for Skill Challenges, since there are several ones over in the House Rules/Fan Creation section?

 

[Hambot]

Stalker0, could you please do a little write up explaining the ramifications of these changes? I really enjoyed how clearly you explained your system, so I would love to see you break down how this changed system would affect gameplay.

I've got a concussion so I can't think straight at the moment.

Does anybody know if errata like this will be incorporated into the next printings of the core books? So people like me whose preorders are now due in August might get books with all the little typos fixed?

 

[Stalker0]

Stalker0, could you please do a little write up explaining the ramifications of these changes? I really enjoyed how clearly you explained your system, so I would love to see you break down how this changed system would affect gameplay.

Hehe, there was nothing "little" about that last write up. While we have some good statisticians on the forums, I'm an engineer, so most of the insights I developed last time were from tons of examples, calculations, and trial runs. I will likely do something for the new numbers, but that stuff takes time.

 

[JGulick]

I quite like this. To me the issue is the mechanics, not the numbers. They're extremely crude.

<snip>

What do you think?

-vk

In general, I agree. My improvement effort is not to change the underlying numbers so much as to involve more PCs in more ways. That is, while I'd like a wider reasonable DC range for a given group of PCs, my more significant goal is to keep more of those PCs involved and give them more meaningful choices in the process.

I think by letting them roll and then chose to count the failure or spend some sort of resource to cancel it, they become more engaged in the process.

The exact mechanism isn't nearly as important as the engagement.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

Firelance and Frostmerrow had come up with an alternate system on the homebrew forums that addressed some issues that the current skill system and even Stalker0's Obsidian (which, btw is a solid system - no slight to Stalker0 for all his hard work here ) didn't address directly. It didn't catch on, and that's fine. I won't detail it here, but I do want to bring up the theory behind it for public consideration.

In 4e, it's very simple to write up a trap or monster. The designers have made it very clear how that works. Why is it that skill challenges don't have statblocks? Furthermore, half the fun of a combat encounter is that stuff gets to hit back. If combat counted failures in the same sort of way the current official skill challenge system does, it would be just as boring and would discourage total character involvement in a similar fashion.

The metaphor is obviously not entirely transferrable, but IMHO, an optimal skill challenge would have these components in a standard statblock sort of formula (and I shall keep it short so as to not constitute being on the homebrew forum again):

"HP": The number of successes required to defeat the challenge. If you can "bloody" the challenge before losing, consider it a partial success.

"Defenses": Preferably 3 or 4 grouped by type of action attempted - not necessarily Skill. Perhaps Force (for when you attempt to simply overpower or intimidate the challenge), Reason (for when you attempt to think or negotiate) and Awareness (if you attempt to bluff or trick the challenge). Seems like there should be a fourth, but these are kinda off the top of my head right now.

"Powers": Things the challenge gets to actively do to stymie the PCs after each round of PC skill rolls. Interesting flavor text that sets up the final stat section...

Failure: This has no combat equivalent. M'eh. The condition under which failure occurs, related to the skill challenge's Powers. It could have a Power which activates once per round of PC skill rolls and if it activates three times, the challenge ends (this is sort of like Obsidian. Sort of.) Conversely, the challenge Powers might make specific PCs roll additional skill checks in either single target or 'burst' "attacks" ; the challenge "wins" after a certain number of these checks fail. (The Powers could alternatively roll, with appropriate bonuses for level, against player's Passive Nature or Passive Diplomacy, whatever.)

I'm not sure how the tactical aspect would carry over, even if it could. However, I'd like to know why WoTC didn't errata to something that looked more like what 4E already has going for it instead of this bizzare stepchild of a subsystem.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

The whole thing has been a huge boondoggle.

It's really been a black eye to WOTC, because everyone seems to love the concept of a skill challenge. It makes sense, it sounds exciting, it should be fun.

We WANT it to be fun, and to work.

They just keep screwing up the execution.

If it was a small company, well, that's one thing. For a multi-million dollar company to fail so egregiously at one of the major "improvements" to the game (which they proudly promoted pre-release)... that's just weak.

I agree that the need for any reworking of this system is a huge pain in the ass.

However, the basic upshot is that if you consider 4th edition to be like a car, this problem is no more serious than a broken tail light. Fixing this problem is not especially intrusive. Swapping out a broken tail light is pretty simple. Having to replace the engine / transmission / brakes is not.

We know how to scale the DC's as the players go up in level. All we need to do is decide which system of checks gives you the desired success / failure rate, and what DC's are reasonable for letting an untrained PC have a reasonable chance without making a challenge trivial given the presence of trained PCs.

At the moment, I am convinced that the Skill Challenge system is going to be the one thing that will get the most custom revisions in this verison of the game. And I am also convinced that this is not really a bad thing.

END COMMUNICATION