In the Persuasion thread, I mentioned that 4e D&D's skill challenges have some strengths compared to social conflict systems where both the players and the GM roll, such as Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, Torchbearer, Marvel Heroic RP, etc.
That strength is that skill challenges centre the fiction in the process of action declaration and resolution.
In opposed check-type systems, or roll-to-hit-and-reduce-hit-points systems, there is a real risk that the fiction drops out of play and the action declarations turn into nothing but dice roles and resulting ablation ("My roll of X beats your roll of Y, so lose Z amount from your pool"). Skill challenges don't have rolls or action declarations from the GM - all the GM does is frame checks and narrate consequences. As the 4e DMG sets out (p 74), "You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results." So the GM is always bringing the focus of play back to the fiction.
This centrality of the fiction is reinforced by this from the DMG (pp 72, 75):
In other words, the GM needs to use the fiction to put the pressure on the players that will make them declare actions for their PCs (ie the fiction gives rise to the skill challenge), and needs to use the fiction to establish consequences. The DMG2 usefully builds on the core ideas of the DMG in relation to consequences (p 83):
The players likewise need to engage the fiction to bring their skills to bear: as the 4e PHB says to them (p179), "It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face."
The centrality of the fiction to skill challenge resolution is important to preparing to run a skill challenge. Consider what is involved in preparing to run a combat encounter: as a GM, you look over a monster or NPC's stat block and think about the fictional situation (in D&D, the terrain is especially important here) and thereby think of actions you might declare for the creature in combat, things that will be interesting, exciting, and prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs. In other words, the core of prep is reflecting on the tools that the game gives you, and thinking about how to use them to produce engaging play. In a skill challenge, as a GM you don't have a stat block, or mechanically significant terrain: your tools are the fiction. And so preparing for a skill challenge as a GM means getting to grips with that fiction, thinking about ways the players might engage that fiction - given the obstacle(s) it is likely to pose to the goals they have for their PCs - and the sorts of consequences that might ensue if the players succeed or fail in the range of actions that the fiction involves. Those consequences are first and foremost fictional ones, but they can also manifest in mechanical terms (eg healing surge or hit point loss, modifiers to future action declarations, etc).
The DMG explicitly addresses this need, in prep, to come to grips with the fiction in relation to social encounters (p 72):
What I would add to that is that, as the challenge unfolds, those NPCs' motivations and goals, even their interests, might develop and change as a consequence of the actions the players are declaring for their PCs. We can see this in the example of the negotiation with the Duke (DMG, pp 76-7): a successful Diplomacy check prompts the NPC Duke to reflect on a relevant event from his past, and that then opens up the possibility for the players to have the PCs take advantage of that in some fashion (achieving a success via their knowledge of History); in the example of play, a player has their character remind the Duke of the stakes of a past battle, so as to make the point that helping the PCs here and now would avoid putting at risk what was accomplished back then. And the way the prep for that skill challenge is set out provides an illustration of how a GM can think about consequences: the prep notes the relationship between a successful Diplomacy check, the NPC's response, and hence the opening up of the possibility of using History in the challenge.
From my own experience with 4e, the more experienced you become as a GM with the skill challenge structure as well as the broader mechanical workings of the game, the easier it is to establish and manage complex fictional situations with only modest, or even no, prep. But it always remains crucial to focus on the fiction and keep it at the centre. Because of the way skill challenges work, with the players declaring all the actions and making all the checks, it is only by presenting fictional circumstances and fiction consequences that the players will be prompted to engage the situation and declare actions for their PCs.
That strength is that skill challenges centre the fiction in the process of action declaration and resolution.
In opposed check-type systems, or roll-to-hit-and-reduce-hit-points systems, there is a real risk that the fiction drops out of play and the action declarations turn into nothing but dice roles and resulting ablation ("My roll of X beats your roll of Y, so lose Z amount from your pool"). Skill challenges don't have rolls or action declarations from the GM - all the GM does is frame checks and narrate consequences. As the 4e DMG sets out (p 74), "You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results." So the GM is always bringing the focus of play back to the fiction.
This centrality of the fiction is reinforced by this from the DMG (pp 72, 75):
a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure. . . . In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . . it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation.
In other words, the GM needs to use the fiction to put the pressure on the players that will make them declare actions for their PCs (ie the fiction gives rise to the skill challenge), and needs to use the fiction to establish consequences. The DMG2 usefully builds on the core ideas of the DMG in relation to consequences (p 83):
Each skill check in a challenge should . . . Introduce a new option that the PCs can pursue, . . . Change the situation, such as by sending the PCs to a new location, introducing a new NPC, or adding a complication [or] Grant the players a tangible consequence for the check's success or failure (as appropriate), one that influences their subsequent decisions.
The players likewise need to engage the fiction to bring their skills to bear: as the 4e PHB says to them (p179), "It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face."
The centrality of the fiction to skill challenge resolution is important to preparing to run a skill challenge. Consider what is involved in preparing to run a combat encounter: as a GM, you look over a monster or NPC's stat block and think about the fictional situation (in D&D, the terrain is especially important here) and thereby think of actions you might declare for the creature in combat, things that will be interesting, exciting, and prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs. In other words, the core of prep is reflecting on the tools that the game gives you, and thinking about how to use them to produce engaging play. In a skill challenge, as a GM you don't have a stat block, or mechanically significant terrain: your tools are the fiction. And so preparing for a skill challenge as a GM means getting to grips with that fiction, thinking about ways the players might engage that fiction - given the obstacle(s) it is likely to pose to the goals they have for their PCs - and the sorts of consequences that might ensue if the players succeed or fail in the range of actions that the fiction involves. Those consequences are first and foremost fictional ones, but they can also manifest in mechanical terms (eg healing surge or hit point loss, modifiers to future action declarations, etc).
The DMG explicitly addresses this need, in prep, to come to grips with the fiction in relation to social encounters (p 72):
If the challenge involves any kind of interaction with nonplayer characters or monsters, detail those characters . . . In a complex social encounter, have a clear picture of the motivations, goals, and interests of the NPCs involved so you can tie them to character skill checks.
What I would add to that is that, as the challenge unfolds, those NPCs' motivations and goals, even their interests, might develop and change as a consequence of the actions the players are declaring for their PCs. We can see this in the example of the negotiation with the Duke (DMG, pp 76-7): a successful Diplomacy check prompts the NPC Duke to reflect on a relevant event from his past, and that then opens up the possibility for the players to have the PCs take advantage of that in some fashion (achieving a success via their knowledge of History); in the example of play, a player has their character remind the Duke of the stakes of a past battle, so as to make the point that helping the PCs here and now would avoid putting at risk what was accomplished back then. And the way the prep for that skill challenge is set out provides an illustration of how a GM can think about consequences: the prep notes the relationship between a successful Diplomacy check, the NPC's response, and hence the opening up of the possibility of using History in the challenge.
From my own experience with 4e, the more experienced you become as a GM with the skill challenge structure as well as the broader mechanical workings of the game, the easier it is to establish and manage complex fictional situations with only modest, or even no, prep. But it always remains crucial to focus on the fiction and keep it at the centre. Because of the way skill challenges work, with the players declaring all the actions and making all the checks, it is only by presenting fictional circumstances and fiction consequences that the players will be prompted to engage the situation and declare actions for their PCs.
