Skill Challenges for Dummies

[Vempyre]

Also, why did you have to go and create a new thread? Especially considering you quoted the first post in another thread specifically about this issue in your first post.

Because somebody like me, who stopped reading the stupid math thread because just reading the 1st page it was obvious to me the poster had forgotten to include all the various bonuses a PC can get from various sources and nobody seemed to notice, or care if somebody pointed it to them.

And because I like discussions about skill challenges, as long as they are well thought and not just somebody whining about "4E is broken".

 

[two]

Because somebody like me, who stopped reading the stupid math thread because just reading the 1st page it was obvious to me the poster had forgotten to include all the various bonuses a PC can get from various sources and nobody seemed to notice, or care if somebody pointed it to them.

And because I like discussions about skill challenges, as long as they are well thought and not just somebody whining about "4E is broken".

Way to insult as many people as possible, while coming across as ignorant.

You would not know it, since you didn't read "the math thread," but nobody is claiming that "4E is broken." Sheesh.

And in this thread, a number of questions have been raised about the availability and/or likelihood of a party having skill bonuses... would you like to address these questions? Or is it just a slam-dunk "MAX OUT SKILZ" solution to you?

 

[Dave Turner]

No, what the math calculates is the probability that a certain sequence will take place before any part of it happens to take place. The math is not wrong in that context.

Where the math does not tell the whole story, what it is dismissing, is the fact that each die roll is an independent and unrelated occurance. The result of one die roll does not dictate the probability of the next die roll.

At this point, it seems like arguing with Darth Cyric about math and probability is like arguing with an astrologer about astronomy.

 

[Nail]

Where the math does not tell the whole story, what it is dismissing, is the fact that each die roll is an independent and unrelated occurance.

ROTFL!

You....<ahem>.....<wipes tears from eyes>.....<whew!>......you should read through a bit of the math first before posting this sort of statement.

'Cause your statement is not correct.

 

[Vempyre]

There is a complexity problem only if you conflate complexity with difficulty. The complexity of a challenge should be a function of its significance within the context of the adventure as well as general believability concerns. If it's vitally important that the players win this challenge, or if the basic objective is something that would reasonably take a long time, then it's a complex challenge.

This.

The DMG clearly states that complexity isn't a measure of difficulty. It is a measure of significance to your adventure. Choose a complexity 1 challenge for barely significant (or something that should be resolved quickly as part of another challenge like combat) challenge. Choose a complexity 5 to 8 challenge to replace a whole encounter. Very the complexity according to how much time and importance you want give to this non-combat encounter.

Difficulty is measured by the challenge's level and it's number of failures needed to loose the challenge. The challenge's level (see skill DCs tables) determine the DCs and the math of that table takes into account average items, powers and skill synergies that is possible to achieve in DnD

Complexity equals not difficulty. It works as intended.

 

[Plane Sailing]

All of it comes from inadequate reading and comprehension of the material.

<snip>

The above information is correct but it is hopelessly incomplete.

<snip>
...if you understand the current system.

<snip>

Not understanding this is the acme of failure in Fourth Edition.

<snip>

The original quote was concerned with a 50% failure rate yet never bothered with reading into the design of 4e

Regardless of the level of insight your original post may or may not have had, you ought to realise that lacing it with veiled attacks on the intelligence of other people here isn't really going to help your argument or sway people.

While your assertion about the usefulness of some utility powers and some magic items is interesting data, it doesn't actually invalidate any of the mathematical discussion on the other thread (as Stalker0 has pointed out in a very polite way in this thread - note again the the politeness thing. It is important!).

Please make every effort to be polite and respectful to your fellow citizens here on ENworld.

Thanks

 

[dungeondweller]

Congratulations to the mathematical minds who've generated this buzz. Some of you have a truly dizzying and impressive grasp of odds and statistics. What I think the entire discussion is lacking, however, is perspective.

People with advanced skillsets (mathmeticians being one) tend to try to define and resolve all problems using that advanced skillset. If you're good enough, you can have remarkable success in doing this, to an extent... What you lose, however, is the perspective that your methods and talents are not exclusively qualified to address the bigger picture of the problem.

Speaking for the group of people posting here with less than stellar, but better than average, "math" skills (if I may be so vulgar as to lump advanced odds and statistics with basic mathematics), I have to say there's a definite element of realism and practical application missing from this whole discussion.

Theory is fine and certainly a solid perspective on the subject, but the end result is that each DM should always expect some amount of playtesting and tweaking when introducing a new role-playing system to their group. A perfectly balanced system, speaking mathematically and making no conjecture as to the system at hand, may well be a superior system in many cases, but the simple fact is that the rules, as written, are going to work just fine for many and not as well for others. There are so many factors involved with how an FRPG system plays out that have nothing to do with math... Trying to approach the entire discussion from a strictly mathematical perspective is, frankly, silly.

Speaking for myself and my group, we'll use the rules as written and see how they come out for us. If they're not quite on spot, we will tweak them. I know that probably sounds stupidly simple to some of you, but I've found, for all of our efforts to forge ideal approaches to problem solving, that trial, error, and playtesting are ultimately the most effective.

Still, discussion of this nature can absolutely be effective and productive so long as we understand that the math is only one aspect of a much more convoluted question.

 

[Dave Turner]

Because somebody like me, who stopped reading the stupid math thread because just reading the 1st page it was obvious to me the poster had forgotten to include all the various bonuses a PC can get from various sources and nobody seemed to notice, or care if somebody pointed it to them.

You'll note that the first response in this thread by person who initiated the math thread, Stalker0, does seem to care about your point. He admitted that it was something he should have looked at closer and he promised that he would.

As anyone who read further than the first page in the math thread knows, Stalker0 was paying attention to the math thread. His responses later in the thread show this. Since we know that Stalker0 is receptive to the criticism you raised (based on his response in this thread), then it doesn't seem right to suggest that no one would have cared if your point was raised in the math thread. We can't expect everyone in the thread to note or comment on your point, since that's the nature of Internet discussion threads. Not every comment or point raised is subsequently discussed by all participants. But it seems likely that Stalker0 would have noticed it and cared. This shows that your dismissal of the thread as valueless was, at best, premature.

Can you point to an instance in the math thread in which your point about various PC bonuses was raised and subsequently ignored by everyone? Naturally, your example should be restricted to posts that predate your criticism in this thread.

There is also a difficulty factor in complex skill challenges that hasn't been touched on: finding more ways to narrate/describe what your skill checks are doing in-game. How many ways can you spin "I roll Diplomacy"?

Should 4e also have rules that award more XP if players can come up with enough ways to spin "I hit him with my sword" that aren't keyed off a power's flavor text?

Alternatively, should 4e have rules that award more XP if players find new ways of using attack actions that go beyond "I attack my opponent"?

Higher complexity benefits extremely skilled characters and hurts less skilled characters. This makes some sense from an in-game perspective: highly skilled characters are more likely to succeed if their skills are tested repeatedly, as this gives them an opportunity to overcome a random bit of bad luck.

But this is a design goal that seems to cut against the grain of 4e. WotC seems intent on avoiding large gulfs in effectiveness between characters. It's a variation of the problem in which the wizard overshadows the rogue's strengths with spells like Knock or Invisibility. The old 3e notion that "we've got to have a cleric in order to function as a party" is echoed in the 4e notion that "we've got to have a skill monkey to succeed in any skill challenge."

In the math thread, there was an anecdotal story about a skill challenge in which the players, fearing failure, all resorted to Aid Another actions in support of the one character who had a fighting chance at making a skill check. The situation was described as unsatisfying because most of the party was reduced to secondary role. The "secondary" characters weren't actually "winning" the challenge by providing successes towards the party's goal. They were just chipping in so that one character got the actual successes in the challenge and, by extension, the glory. Why shouldn't we prefer a system in which a character who focuses on skill excellence is rewarded, but those who don't still have a more than adequate chance of succeeding on a skill check?

 

[Tuft]

In the math thread, there was an anecdotal story about a skill challenge in which the players, fearing failure, all resorted to Aid Another actions in support of the one character who had a fighting chance at making a skill check. The situation was described as unsatisfying because most of the party was reduced to secondary role. The "secondary" characters weren't actually "winning" the challenge by providing successes towards the party's goal. They were just chipping in so that one character got the actual successes in the challenge and, by extension, the glory. Why shouldn't we prefer a system in which a character who focuses on skill excellence is rewarded, but those who don't still have a more than adequate chance of succeeding on a skill check?

On the other hand, if you know you have insufficient skills for an upcoming skill challenge, wouldn't it be nice to be able to default to a support roll, rather than be the one that is responsible for blowing it for the team? Remember from the DMG: "In a skill challenge encounter, every player character must make skill checks to contribute to the success or failure of the encounter."

 

[Vempyre]

You would not know it, since you didn't read "the math thread," but nobody is claiming that "4E is broken." Sheesh.

And in this thread, a number of questions have been raised about the availability and/or likelihood of a party having skill bonuses... would you like to address these questions? Or is it just a slam-dunk "MAX OUT SKILZ" solution to you?

* I guess my statement was a bit too strong. It comes from my personal dislike of seeing a group of persons usually trying to find what's wrong with something/anything instead of seeing what's right. My dislike of negativism makes my own personal self negative at times (a trait of mine which I dislike of course). This was such a time and I apologizes for it.

* It is just flat plain impossible to apply simple (or more advanced) maths to DnD skill challenges so therefore useless to discuss it. For me, at least. Some ppl enjoy impossible situations it seems and want their knowledge to be useful to something. NO challenge will use the same skills, the same level, the same situational modifiers or bonus for context or creative use of skills, the same primary skills, the same complexity and even within a single level of complexity the same numbers of failures needed, none will have the same characters with the same skills trained at the same character level, the same item bonuses, the same utility powers, the same decisions by players to use aid another, etc etc. Most of those mentioned situational numbers can stack (or not).

Therefore, it becomes very clear that applying a math formula to skill challenges to see if they are balanced in general is an exercise in futility. What would be useful would be to come with a formula to analyze a single individual skill challenge. Example : analyzing the bonus skill challenge in KotS for the last battle is very well possible using maths because all the variables are set. Hell, even the characters are predetermined as pre-gens. Now it becomes possible to apply maths to that single challenge to determine if it makes sense.

DnD isn't about maths, it's about story and context. Anybody trying to apply maths to DnD in general will see his calculations get screwed over by the context of most of not all encounters. DnD is intuition, not maths. Do you think WotC came out with the DC skills checks table with a complex math formula (or a simple one?). They took a guess, tested it, change it, tested it again until it seemed right, then put down the final format. Did they use maths to test it? Probably (I would), but not to create it.

Being good at maths will not make you a better DM, assuming everybody can determine adding 100+150 = 250 or that 500/4 is 125. If you can't do that, sure a little simple maths would help. Otherwise DMing is all about intuition and knowledge of the context, it's about experience. An attempt to analyze skill challenges in general via maths is therefore useless for DMing as none of the general formulas will apply to the skill challenge you are building for your next encounter.