So its all about combat again?

[Neonchameleon]

No, for an inexperienced DM it could be tricky to handle that as soon as the players don't want to dress up, but use invisibility and silence and have the rogue use a rope to get the weaker characters over the wall. Or arrange a distraction to cover the noise the dwarf makes by doing a bit of arson on the other end of the town. Or decide they don't want to go inside but lure their target outside.

Yeah, I could react each time and adapt the skill challenge, but what for? It's still a useless and counter-productive framework for something that doesn't need a framework, since every decision, every skill used can open a completely different path that throws the entire skill challenge off its rails. Rigid win/lose criteria are not good for a fluid and open and complex situation.

Quite the reverse.

The skill challenge is not about the method it's about the result. It's a generalised framework for handling a situation with minor setbacks but a desired endgame. The start to the skill challenge is "all PCs outside the walls". The successful result of the skill challenge is "all PCs inside the walls and the guards not alerted". How the PCs wish to go about this is up to them.

As a rule I only start skill challenges when PCs have told me what their plans are. And the skill challenge is how I assess whether they complete the plan.

Not at all.
With a skill challenge the players just need to roll X number of successes using whatever skill they are good at (intimidate, bluff, etc.). It doesn't really matter what they do as long as they roll the skill they are good at.

If the PCs aren't engaging with the fiction they don't get to roll skills. Period. This is Rules As Written.

Now you can say that this encourages PCs to try to use the skills they are good at wherever they can find a good use within the fiction. I don't see this as a problem.

With individual checks it doesn't only matter that they succeed in checks, it also matters what they do. This is especially important when checks fail.

Agghhh!

A skill challenge is a narrative and mechanical framework that strings together a collection of skill checks into a coherent scene. Absolutely everything that applies to skill checks applies to the skill checks within the scene framed by a skill challenge.

You can't really have such evolving situation which skill challenges. The situation is practically static till the skill challenge is over.

Nonsense. The fiction is dynamic and unfolding in exactly the same way it would be if they were rolling skill checks that weren't in a skill challenge framework. And because their successes and failures change the narrative they open up the skills usable (or, more rarely, close them down).

To use an analogy, if skill checks are sentences that help you write an argument then Skill Challenges are the five paragraph essay structure. It might not always produce the best results, but it almost always produces consistent and clear arguments using your sentences. And if you want to put together a good and clear argument that looks professional under time pressure, using the five paragraph essay is a good place to start.

 

[pemerton]

With a skill challenge the players just need to roll X number of successes using whatever skill they are good at (intimidate, bluff, etc.). It doesn't really matter what they do as long as they roll the skill they are good at.

Do you realise that the rules, which have been quoted both by me and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] upthread, say the exact opposite of this?

Only if you arer NOT running them as intended.

Right. I mean, how much clearer could the rulebooks be than this:

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail. (PHB p 259)

It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face. (PHB p 179)

You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results. (DMG pp 72, 73)

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it… 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… This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth… However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation… you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge. (DMG pp 73, 75)​

It's not very ambiguous, in my view!

IMO, that's a weakness of the SC system. Without a DM that actively razzle-dazzles, it's just a series of "attack...attack...attack..."

Without a GM who plays the monsters, and has them do stuff, a combat encounter is just "attack", "attack", "attack". Is that a weakness of D&D's combat mechanics?

I mean, of course a system based on strong sceneframing and active and engaged GM adjudication during resolution - such as skill challenges - won't work if the GM isn't able or prepared to frame strong scenes and adjudicate cleverly and deftly. That's why the best rulebooks for that sort of game are chockfull of advice to GMs on how to do this. (4e unfortunately is not an example of the best in this field.)

But it's not a weakness, in my view. I'm from the school who regards this as one of the best ways of making the referee + players approach to play actually deliver gripping, engaging, player driven RPGing.

I wasn't thinking "active" vs. "passive," I was thinking "active" vs. "inactive." As in, unchanging. Nondynamic. Static.

You can't really have such evolving situation which skill challenges. The situation is practically static till the skill challenge is over.

I'm baffled. How do you two reconcile this view of skill challenges with the words in the DMG, quoted directly above, that say "You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results. . . it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation"? Are you imagining that the GM describes the situation, the players then make 12 - or however many - skill checks, with no narration, and then the GM narrates some gestalt outcome?

If so, I find that bizarre. That's not how any other extended contest works in any other RPG that I'm aware of, and I'm 100% sure that that's not how the 4e designers intend a skill challenge to be run, given that it is an entirely derivative extended contest mechanic.

(A meta-comment: a lot of online discussions about skill challenges seem to take place as if they sprang from nowhere into 4e. It seems that many posters aren't aware that this sort of mechanic wasn't invented for 4e, but was cribbed for 4e from mechanics invented by other designers - the earliest version I know of is in Maelstrom Storytelling, from 1997, but I haven't done a comprehensive survey.)

 

[Blackwarder]

The thread got derailed pretty badly, I don't think that we need a new thread bout wether SC are good or bad.

What we do need is to move forward and try to think about what we would like to see in 5e.

Personally, what ever they'll come up with, I want to have VERY CLEAR guides on how to use them, Mike Mearls just said on tweeter that its an interesting question that he looks forward to answer.

Warder

 

[bert1000]

The thread got derailed pretty badly, I don't think that we need a new thread bout wether SC are good or bad.

What we do need is to move forward and try to think about what we would like to see in 5e.

Well, I would like to see well thought out non-combat extended contest mechanics. This would be an amazing add from 5e to D&D. I'm not going to defend 4e's Skill Challenges because it is just ok, but at least 4e tried.

What would make for good non-combat extended contest mechanics?

1) Must give the Player options (equivalent to moving, selecting a power, selecting a target, etc. in combat) so it presents interesting choices for the player. Player choices matter but are not the overriding factor in success/failure.

2) Success must depend heavily on character skill since I want character resources put into non-combat things to matter. (equivalent to to-hit values, AC, HP, damage dice, spell effects, etc. in combat)

3) Must allow for flexibility in approach but also a mechanical non-arbitrary way to determine success or failure, or more likely degree of success or failure. (combat mostly does this as well)

4) Mechanics support and encourage interesting situations in the narrative to evolve as a result of the non-combat situation being resolved

I'd be quite ok will a non-combat extended resolution system that is much less codified than combat and doesn't give players as many options, etc. but I would like something.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Skill Challenges are an anathema to me (like blindness to the Fremen), interfering with that other part of the game.

 

[Libramarian]

I want to see particular rules for classic D&D stuff like disease, poison, assassinations, lycanthropy, henchmen, alchemy, crafting, magical research, sage research, libraries and laboratories, dungeon exploration, wilderness exploration, underwater exploration, aerial combat, naval combat, sea voyages, weather, random encounters, morale, loyalty, reputation, pursuit and evasion, relationship maps, negotiations, timekeeping, trading, stronghold construction, sieges, mass combat.

Then I don't mind if Skill Challenges or the descendant of Skill Challenges are also included to cover other stuff, as long as it is clearly explained how they work and how to use them (they're able to cover a wide variety of different situations because they're a metagame mechanic that relies on post-hoc narrative rationalization)

5e is (supposedly) about options. For me that means it's about free competition. I want to see how many people bother developing their Skill Challenge fu if they have good, concrete "minigame" rules for all the classic D&D stuff.

 

[nnms]

What does a skill challenge do that you can't do without it? Assume the party needs to sneak into a town undetected. What does the skill challenge add to the game that a simpler and more flexible "What do you do?", followed by adjucating actions and reactions, doesn't?

[OSR] We can also extend this to all the game play. Combat as well. Everyone can declare what they do and then the DM will adjudicate actions and reactions. We don't need huge involved systems for anything, really. [/OSR]

 

[Crazy Jerome]

What would make for good non-combat extended contest mechanics?

Must come to grips with how the game approaches scene framing, stakes and intentions, and so forth. It doesn't necessarily need a particular approach here, but whatever approach it does take needs to be somewhat consistent and then explained well. Furthermore, if it takes multiple approaches here, these need to be called out separately and then discussed somewhat separately. What works for one doesn't always work for another.

I note with some mild hope that the playtest document, sparse as it is, already has a passing reference to stakes and intentions.

 

[MichaelSomething]

5E better be able to do epic battles like the one on this video. Watch out! This stuff is intense!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK-4JEETt88]YUGI VS JADEN - BATTLE! - YouTube[/ame]