Skill Challenges: Please stop

[jdcash]

There have been a few times when a player has been really creative in a situation that did not have a lot of bearing on the overall story. All of these situations were outside of actual skill challenges. I asked for a skill check as a way of making their efforts seem important to the story and that it was a meaningful contribution. A couple of times I gave them a bonus to a future skill check.

- I should probably note that these were all in LFR and the player's idea was not even close to the story, so I could not let them go to far down the path at all and de-rail the whole thing.

Anyway, the point is I used the mechanic as a reward for RP.

EDIT: I sincerely hope that someone understands what I am attempting to communicate. After re-reading it a couple of times, I am doubtful.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you are going to do away with skill checks, so as to highlight good roleplaying (which is certainly the group's perogative), why not just do away with combat rolls too? Should we not allow the fighter who eloquently describes his strike, or the wizard who gives a wonderful description of his spell, to auto-hit?

I never said to do away with skill checks. I never said to do away with skill challenges.

I like skill checks at appropriate times. I think it is important to make some skill determinations via dice rolls.

I'm not too keen on skill challenges. Most of the ones I've experienced have been fairly lame and have taken up a lot of time to accomplish something that I thought could be accomplished a lot easier and faster with just a few skill check rolls (or even with common sense and sometimes zero skill check rolls).

I also think that skill challenges are sometimes ways for some DMs to try to force their players to come up with imaginative solutions. The players are rewarded if they come up with good ideas that the DM likes and penalized (one way or another) if they don't (as opposed to combat encounters which tend to be cut and dry unless the DM goes out of his way to fudge the scenario for or against the PCs mid-combat). Skill challenges feel more subjective ("hmmm, that's a good idea, +2 to your next Perception roll") whereas combat feels more objective.

Not everyone's brains are geared towards imaginative solutions. That's not fun for every player. Some players don't want to try to figure out how to part the illusionary mists with their Arcana skill. They want to get to the darn island and cut to the chase. Some people like more tangible challenges and not abstract ones or ones that require more extreme out of the box thinking.

Skill challenges are sometimes like puzzles. If your brain is geared towards puzzles, the DM throwing out a puzzle is enjoyable. If not, it might not be. One part of skill challenges that is not always enjoyable is that they are kind of like an encounter: they continue on until the PCs either succeed, partially succeed, or fail (typically). Sometimes when I am in the middle of one (considering that they are usually not life or death situations), I sometimes just want my PC to say "Screw it. This is too much of a pain in the butt to figure out. Let's just go back to the tavern and drink. The mayor can track down his own clues to rescuing his daughter and when he finds out where she is, he can come tell us.".

 

[Wyckedemus]

On making skill challenges entertaining...

Something I'm interested in trying in my game is give the characters different types of role-playing opportunities created by their skill checks. In a "round" of a skill challenge, I'd ask each of the players how they want to contribute to the situation at hand, essentially choosing a skill that they want to implement.

I will then ask them to roll their check, and I will determine how successful that roll is. If it successful or very successful, I would tell those players that they did (or are doing) a good job, and for them to roleplay appropriately. Hopefully they will do their best to roleplay the result, and my DM filter will adjudicate the attempt appropriately.

For whoever rolls poorly, or very poorly, I will ask them to roleplay an appropriate unsuccessful attempt. They get to choose how they foul up, despite their best intentions.

I'd like to see a social interaction occur between the party and the NPCs after each player has an idea of how they contribute. In a "meet the noble patron family" scenario, let's say the flirtatious bard rolled poorly for Diplomacy, and so chooses to roleplay the inability to avoid staring at the the Baroness' chest as he's expounding upon how useful the heroes will be if the Baron would hire them. The Baron looks like he's getting pissed.

The rogue however knew he rolled well on Bluff, and so uses it to successfully distract the Baron from the bard. "Psst, my friend Llellewyn the Loquacious here has lazy eyes. Two of 'em in fact. Four, when he wears his spectacles. Poor crooked-eyed bastard has a voice like a dwarven metal band though. Now how much is the reward for the gnoll demon cultists? We sent them straight to their underlords. What to you mean, what gnolls? You didn't know? Boy, do I have a story for you." (Success)

The low-Cha, Low Int barbarian chose History (he's a role-player!), and accidentally rolled very well on his History check. So he gets a chance to portray how he thinks his arrogant, vapid warrior helps out. He says he remembers a battle that his grandfather spoke of. "Hey. You are of Clan (House) Hartmaster? A Hartmaster clan-chief led many warriors, including my grandmother to slaughter the orcs at Vangerdeth Vale 40... or 80 winters ago. Something like that. My grandmother said he had mighty thews. So are you him? You don't look too old for an old guy. You look tough, though. We should break staves later, cuz I think I can take you. Where is the food?"

The Wizard botches his Arcana check to impress everyone, and therefore he decides that he is going attempt to light the noble uncle's cigar, and accidentally catch the uncle's robes on fire with a particularly explosive flamefinger. "Wow! That was not supposed to happen. Here, let me clean that off with my mystical presti- oops. Nope. The water just does not make it better. My most sincere apologies. I'm rather used to destroying bloodsucking vampires and malevolent, baby-stealing scarecrows with cascades of fire. I'll stand over here, and instead use my immense talent for the Art against your foes. It's better this way."

I like the idea of giving the players some variety in role-playing opportunities. Instead of saying. "OK, give me your best shot to try and convince the Lord to hire you." Then he belts out an impressive speech, and then roll a 1 on his Diplomacy check. Come on, where is the verisimilitude in that? So I say...why not roleplay the roll? What do you think?

 

[pemerton]

The Jester put up a really cool example of a skill challenge; the only thing I would question about it is the infinite number of sodden ghouls. At some point, I would allow the PCs to persevere simply by dispatching them -- doing so makes the situation tJ describes in his skill challenge perfectly in light with what I am calling "fiction-first".

In this particular case, though, there is no real difference (except format, obviously) between the kinds of DM's notes early modules would contain about what characters might try, and what the results might be.

RC, agreed.

I've been posting for a few weeks now that the example skill challenges in a module or the DMG have to be seen as analgous to a GM's prep notes.

Of course, they may not be notes to an adventure that you have any interest in GMing, but they're not about railroading or force-feeding something to the players.

I was just re-reading some of the other posts on that thread, in light of some of the more recent discussions about 4e, mechanics vs fiction etc. And that only reinforced my view, that the differences between 4e and earlier editions, as far as action resolution and encounter design are concerned, are in many ways quite subtle.

I don't think it's about the sequence of resolution and narration, which is in practice often rather fluid in both games. Nor do I think it's about whether narration matters to resolution - I think it does in both systems. I think it's about whether there is also a strong metagame element in the injection of complications into a situation as its being resolved, in the GM's framing of situations in the first place, and so on.

That is, it's about "fiction first" as you defined it in one of your recent posts on the General board.

 

[Goonalan]

I heard there was a skill challenge in this thread to make the perfect calimari?

Is that right... uh, I don't see it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I like the idea of giving the players some variety in role-playing opportunities. Instead of saying. "OK, give me your best shot to try and convince the Lord to hire you." Then he belts out an impressive speech, and then roll a 1 on his Diplomacy check. Come on, where is the verisimilitude in that? So I say...why not roleplay the roll? What do you think?

Nothing wrong with RPing a situation, but if you- the DM- have asked for a roll, you should stand by the results (with appropriate bonuses) or risk seeming arbitrary & playing favorites.

That speech coupled with a botched Diplomacy roll ...perhaps he closed by saying, "...and lets give our gracious host a great-big hand!"...forgetting for that brief instant that the host lost his right hand in a freak carriage accident just last year.

Or he drank a toast, raising his goblet using the LEFT hand, which as all the locals know is the symbolic hand of EEEeeeeeeeevil.

Maybe he showed up for dinner in the colors & preferred symbology of the deposed Tyrant who was recently overthrown.

Or, like a past US President, he barfed.

There is your verisimilitude: RP matters, but the roll controls.

It doesn't take much to botch a diplomatic situation. A professor of mine was sent to negotiate a deal in a foreign country that was very elitist and classist. His polish, wit, intellect and charm got him the assignment, and it seemed like it was going to pay off. Negotiations were going excellently.

The night before the signing, he revealed that his father had been a blue-collar worker who had worked hard to help his kids have a better life. A very typical American story.

The deal died. Those on the other side did not wish to associate with the son of a laborer- to them, the entire negotiations process had been tainted.

 

[Jhaelen]

Stop trying to add rules to something that doesn't need rules. Just play!

Yay for freestyle roleplaying! Forget rules! All you need is your imagination anyway!

To which I can only say: I'm glad this approach works for you - have fun!

I'll just go back and follow an approach that is working for me and that happens to be an approach that includes skill challenges. Cheers!

 

[Iron Sky]

Just read this on pretty much the same subject last night. Seems appropriate.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just read this on pretty much the same subject last night. Seems appropriate.

Interesting, and with good points...but not 100% accurate. Several things that are now gathered into Spot or Search checks were once class or race abilities in AD&D.

Just sayin'.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just read this on pretty much the same subject last night. Seems appropriate

Hm...

How did those primitive gamers survive, you ask? Simple: players listened to the GM’s description of the game world. Then they asked questions. Then the GM (ahem, DM) told them the results.

Rolling dice is not supposed to replace your brain. Making Spot checks all the time is just a lame way of saying “well, you haven’t asked anything that would really tell me if you would notice this or not, so we’ll just roll and let the dice decide.”

AKA: "Mother-May-I" Gameplay.

"Oh wise and powerful DM, I check the room for traps."
"You don't see any."
"I move through the room."
"A trap is sprung!"
"WTF?! I CHECKED!"
"You checked the room. This trap was technically on the ceiling."
"The ceiling is part of the room!"
"No it isn't, you would've had to specificially check the ceiling."
"Well, that sucks, and now I am dead, and this game blows."

...etc.

This works fine if the DMs are universally good, skilled, fair, accurate judges 100% of the time (or even 90% of the time with adequate player trust). But DMs are human, DMs make mistakes, DMs can be biased or needlessly specific. DMs can be rules lawyers going by RAW instead of RAI, both from the books and from what players say.

I prefer dice. I also prefer dice as a DM, since that means I don't have to parse what the players are saying as if I was the King's Quest computer.

>LOOK AT ROCK
"There is no rock here."
>LOOK AT BOULDER
"There is no boulder here."
>LOOK AT STONE
"The stone is unremarkable."

...I can just say, "How observant are these characters in this situation? DICE! TELL ME!"

Easier, faster, less messy, moar dakka....er...more fun.

And if the information you may or may not notice is pertinent to the plot, it is asinine-by-design to decide whether to reveal it with a die roll. Scene from a GM lynching: “well if you had rolled better you would have seen that the tribe had red banners instead of black and that whole game would have probably made more sense to you, but hey, you failed your Spot check…”

VALID POINT ALERT.

It is never a good idea to stick something essential behind a wall that the players may not pass through. It's also a bad idea to bottleneck so that there's only one way to ever learn something. If it's essential, jam it in their craws, either directly, or with multiple, disparate opportunities to discover the same thing.

This isn't a problem with spot checks, though, it's a problem with adventure design (which, I'll fully admit, future DMGs need to do a better job on -- though 4e's is not bad).

The trick is that dice are supposed to improve the game, not replace the gamer. What’s the final outgrowth of resolving more and more things with dice instead of brains? The one-roll adventure: if you make the roll you win! Game over. No player decision making needed.

Oh slippery slopes, you are my favorite thing to slide down!

This is like saying that if you just have to ask the DM, you will never roll dice, and every game will turn into Amber Diceless.

There is a broad middle ground.

D&D is firmly rooted in that middle ground, and doesn't seem likely to go off the edge into one-roll adventures any time soon, since those things don't seem like very much fun to very many people, I'd wager.

Of course, really, this just points out that all the rules we abide by are arbitrary, which, yeah, we're playing a game, so they are.

What are dice supposed to do? They’re supposed to resolve things that cannot be resolved in the polite confines of a kitchen table or in the physics of our world. Does my car explode when I crash into that tanker truck? Does my broadsword cut off that dragon’s head? Does my magic spell levitate the castle?

As diceless systems prove, you can do this pretty easily without dice. You can do all of this without dice.

No, dice are there to be an impartial arbiter, to improve trust between the DM and the players, to help the players feel like they have some agency, to help the DM feel like he can make a clear ruling, to resolve things that have a chance of failure. Dice are also there because rolling dice is fun -- the risk, the fear of the unknown, the thrill of a 20 and the agony of a 1.

Dice are a useful tool for when you want to bring a character's abilities to bear on a particular task that might not succeed. You can do that without dice, too, but dice are fast useful and impartial and random and all of those things add (to me) significant amounts of fun.

Here’s the challenge: if it’s not a combat situation or about to become one (aka checking for surprise or attacks at unawares), don’t use Spot checks. At all. None. Zero. Let players describe what they look for or how they are behaving and just arbitrarily decide what they see or don’t see.

Once your players get the gist of it, see if they become more inquisitive, interactive and basically just play more instead of falling back on the Spot check crutch.

Here's a challenge: go play some Amber. Either have fun and enjoy your diceless world of thoughtful, inquisitive players, and don't worry too much about injecting that into D&D, or get back to me when you figure out why it's not quite as fun for you to play as D&D, and tell me why.

For me, I don't like Mother-May-I gameplay, either as a player, or as a DM. I prefer to play a game using randomness, luck, chance, and chaos, one that depends on the character rather than the player to be successful (but relies on the player to use the character's abilities in the first place).

Depending on the DM's judgement alone causes all sorts of problems and complications. Like any tabletop game, when the DM is an awesome, great, superb, 90th percentile DM, it'll work great anyway. But when the DM is merely average, or only kinda good, or even a little bad....yeah, you've got problems. Dice help solve those problems.

Plus, rolling dice is fun so .