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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Skill Challenges: How Much Have They Improved?
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5199445" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Sorry, I find this line if inquiry very odd because what I see in the system as it exists now in DMG and DMG2 addresses every one of these points. Some are given more consideration than others but the SC system as it exists IS what you're looking for.</p><p></p><p>Some points:</p><p></p><p>It is ALWAYS up to a GM to arbitrate the results and consequences of all player actions. This is inherent in the structure of TT RPGs. I don't understand why the designer of an RPG would need to recapitulate what the nature of DMing is in this specific context. It seems terribly redundant to me.</p><p></p><p>When a skill is used the player obviously MUST state what action they are trying to take and what the intended successful outcome is. In the majority of cases this is implicit but if the player has NOT stated these things then no amount of rules structure is going to help because the situation can't be arbitrated without more information. No DM, regardless of the system, can possibly arbitrate an empty statement like "I use Diplomacy" made by a player. The DM is going to have to elicit more information and again this is the sort of thing that is general to all RPGs at all times.</p><p></p><p>As for questions about difficulty levels, again this is simply part and parcel of GMing an RPG. We could ask the same question about combat encounters for example. Difficulty is going to be determined by what level of challenge the DM wants to present. It may have motivations in plot structure, pacing, game setting consistency, etc. Its fine to have a discussion of it, but I would point out that 4e has a pretty good handle on this, PCs of a given level are typically presented with challenges in a difficulty range related to their level. Realistically anything far below that should be trivial and not need rules and anything far above that should be effectively not an option for the players (though in a sandbox they certainly can go march off a cliff if they really feel like it).</p><p></p><p>Ironically I think part of the issue people are having here with SCs is that WotC made such a big deal out of incorporating them into the game that DMs seem to have lost their minds when they get into that aspect of the game. Its like they fail to think to apply even the most basic concepts they already know in an expectation that the SC is a big platter that everything will be handed to them on. It isn't. It was never meant to be.</p><p></p><p>What I'm saying is that the skill system is perfectly straightforward and so is the SC system really. Its just ordinary RP where you do the same things you've always done. The player does something, some dice may be rolled, and the DM informs the player of what happened. This is just what always goes on at any table using any rules set.</p><p></p><p>Now, SCs do magnify a couple of questions to a higher level of importance. One is what are the boundaries of a given interaction. This can be illustrated with your question about bribing the guard to get into the lair of the bad guy and assassinate him. You questioned why bribing the guard wouldn't simply cause the challenge to succeed. You assumed what I would call a poor scope for the challenge. Its not a challenge to get into the lair, its a challenge to pull off the assassination. In this context the bribing of the guard is only a single component. It is necessary go get in. Bribing the guard is one way that can happen, thus the check to do that allows the challenge to proceed.</p><p></p><p>This brings up a structural aspect of challenges. Lets assume that success means the bad guy gets assassinated. That's the goal. Now, we have to ask what failure represents. We know its 'not success', but what limits the players chances of success? Somehow enough failures have to change the situation enough that the opportunity no longer exists. In this context failing to bribe the guard won't be a show stopper, there need to be other ways to get in. This might include using thievery to get in a back window, or stealth to sneak past the guard. </p><p></p><p>Of course one could take a different tack and use small complexity one challenges for each aspect of accomplishing the mission, so bribing the guard or sneaking past him is one SC, getting into the back room might be another SC, neutralizing the assassin's bodyguard might be another, etc. </p><p></p><p>So really scope is the big thing that isn't specifically part of the system. I'm not sure how that could be part of a rules framework though. Some guidelines might be possible.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5199445, member: 82106"] Sorry, I find this line if inquiry very odd because what I see in the system as it exists now in DMG and DMG2 addresses every one of these points. Some are given more consideration than others but the SC system as it exists IS what you're looking for. Some points: It is ALWAYS up to a GM to arbitrate the results and consequences of all player actions. This is inherent in the structure of TT RPGs. I don't understand why the designer of an RPG would need to recapitulate what the nature of DMing is in this specific context. It seems terribly redundant to me. When a skill is used the player obviously MUST state what action they are trying to take and what the intended successful outcome is. In the majority of cases this is implicit but if the player has NOT stated these things then no amount of rules structure is going to help because the situation can't be arbitrated without more information. No DM, regardless of the system, can possibly arbitrate an empty statement like "I use Diplomacy" made by a player. The DM is going to have to elicit more information and again this is the sort of thing that is general to all RPGs at all times. As for questions about difficulty levels, again this is simply part and parcel of GMing an RPG. We could ask the same question about combat encounters for example. Difficulty is going to be determined by what level of challenge the DM wants to present. It may have motivations in plot structure, pacing, game setting consistency, etc. Its fine to have a discussion of it, but I would point out that 4e has a pretty good handle on this, PCs of a given level are typically presented with challenges in a difficulty range related to their level. Realistically anything far below that should be trivial and not need rules and anything far above that should be effectively not an option for the players (though in a sandbox they certainly can go march off a cliff if they really feel like it). Ironically I think part of the issue people are having here with SCs is that WotC made such a big deal out of incorporating them into the game that DMs seem to have lost their minds when they get into that aspect of the game. Its like they fail to think to apply even the most basic concepts they already know in an expectation that the SC is a big platter that everything will be handed to them on. It isn't. It was never meant to be. What I'm saying is that the skill system is perfectly straightforward and so is the SC system really. Its just ordinary RP where you do the same things you've always done. The player does something, some dice may be rolled, and the DM informs the player of what happened. This is just what always goes on at any table using any rules set. Now, SCs do magnify a couple of questions to a higher level of importance. One is what are the boundaries of a given interaction. This can be illustrated with your question about bribing the guard to get into the lair of the bad guy and assassinate him. You questioned why bribing the guard wouldn't simply cause the challenge to succeed. You assumed what I would call a poor scope for the challenge. Its not a challenge to get into the lair, its a challenge to pull off the assassination. In this context the bribing of the guard is only a single component. It is necessary go get in. Bribing the guard is one way that can happen, thus the check to do that allows the challenge to proceed. This brings up a structural aspect of challenges. Lets assume that success means the bad guy gets assassinated. That's the goal. Now, we have to ask what failure represents. We know its 'not success', but what limits the players chances of success? Somehow enough failures have to change the situation enough that the opportunity no longer exists. In this context failing to bribe the guard won't be a show stopper, there need to be other ways to get in. This might include using thievery to get in a back window, or stealth to sneak past the guard. Of course one could take a different tack and use small complexity one challenges for each aspect of accomplishing the mission, so bribing the guard or sneaking past him is one SC, getting into the back room might be another SC, neutralizing the assassin's bodyguard might be another, etc. So really scope is the big thing that isn't specifically part of the system. I'm not sure how that could be part of a rules framework though. Some guidelines might be possible. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Skill Challenges: How Much Have They Improved?
Top