D&D 5E The Problem with Skill Challenges and a Solution I Use

[Rhenny]

DM Advice: Setting DCs for Contests rather than Having Contests

Often in my games, I get into situations where players have contests against foes, but the results don’t seem consistent with the game world. For example, it is crazy when the really strong Ogre loses a tug of war with the 10 strength Elf. It also takes more time for me as DM to roll for the Ogre add bonus and then compare with player's roll plus modifiers. Then there is the problem of sense motive (or insight checks). How many times in a campaign does a PC roll a really high check to see if they can notice that the NPC has a “tell” or “tick” that indicates he or she is lying or trying to cover something up? When that happens in my games, I always feel some dissonance. Should I tell the PC more about what he notices and often ruin any surprise that the NPC has planned, or do I cheat and hold back information?

Well, to solve these problems, I’ve decided to get rid of contests most of the time. Instead, as DM, I will set the DC depending on NPC or monster traits or story elements so that PCs still have chances, but the chances are controlled more by the situation.

To do this, I will just borrow the same rules for setting a DC that already exist in the game. For example, if the PC and the monster are nearly equal in size and strength....PC needs to roll a DC 10 to succeed. If there is a slight advantage in the monsters favor, DC 15, or a big advantage, DC 20. On the other hand, if the situation is in the PCs favor, a mere DC 5 may be the difficulty (or only fail on a natural 1). For the Ogre vs. the Elf, make it DC 20. For a situation where the PCs are interrogating a hardended criminal, make the DC 25 for sense motive.

Using these numbers, the DM can just tell the PC that the attempt will be trivial, easy, hard, very hard, nearly impossible…and no numbers are even necessary.

Setting the DCs this way is consistent with other aspects of the game. Additionally it becomes quicker to resolve because there is only 1 roll instead of comparing 2 rolls. Also, players will more or less know the odds of each attempt through narrative not numbers, and the odds will make more sense within the context of the game world

I basically do this already in my games, and it makes my games move more smoothly.

What do you all think?

 

[N'raac]

Often in my games, I get into situations where players have contests against foes, but the results don’t seem consistent with the game world. For example, it is crazy when the really strong Ogre loses a tug of war with the 10 strength Elf. It also takes more time for me as DM to roll for the Ogre add bonus and then compare with player's roll plus modifiers. Then there is the problem of sense motive (or insight checks). How many times in a campaign does a PC roll a really high check to see if they can notice that the NPC has a “tell” or “tick” that indicates he or she is lying or trying to cover something up? When that happens in my games, I always feel some dissonance. Should I tell the PC more about what he notices and often ruin any surprise that the NPC has planned, or do I cheat and hold back information?

I think the easy answer here is to take the Defense Roll approach. Every creature has an attack bonus and a defense bonus, but we assume the defensive roll is waived in favour of Taking 10. The defense bonus + 10 = the DC to hit the creature in combat.

So you don't need to set the DC for winning the Tug of War against the Ogre, or Sense Motive against the NPC. Just Take 10 on the STR/Bluff check - that is the DC, no die rolling required.

If that NPC has a +5 Bluff, the Sense Motive DC is 15 - if you set it at, say, 20 or 25 because you want the PC's to have great difficulty discerning the NPC's tells - why? Why is it more difficult when this NPC only has a +5 to Bluff?

Now, perhaps your issue is that the 21 STR Ogre has a +5 STR bonus, so the 10 STR Elf really does have a 30% chance of winning a Tug of War by the rules as written. The d20 is a pretty wild swing of potential results - so there will be results like that. It's part of the game. You could revise the mechanics - no more 1d20 rolls - roll 3d6 instead. Same average of 10.5, but much less variation. But that changes the game pretty significantly.

So, out of curiosity, how likely did you set the 10 STR Elf winning the Tug of War? Did you make it easier than the RAW would suggest, or more difficult? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you made success more difficult for the PC. Would you make success way easier if the bonuses were reversed? If so, maybe you should switch to 3d6 instead of d20 - that will reduce the impact of random chance and increase the impact of bonuses/native ability. Overcoming a 5 point difference (assuming the same "take 10") requires that Elf to roll 15+ on 3d6, a 9.23% chance of success. But less than a 10% chance of failure if the PC's hold that +5 advantage.

This has a lot of ripple effects - bonuses and penalties start to mean a lot more when they cause a slight deviation from needing to roll 10 or more (62.5% chance) to needing a 12 or more (37.5%), so it's not a change that should be taken lightly. It will massively reduce the impact luck has on success or failure - but that's what it sounds like you are after.

 

[N'raac]

To do this, I will just borrow the same rules for setting a DC that already exist in the game. For example, if the PC and the monster are nearly equal in size and strength....PC needs to roll a DC 10 to succeed. If there is a slight advantage in the monsters favor, DC 15, or a big advantage, DC 20. On the other hand, if the situation is in the PCs favor, a mere DC 5 may be the difficulty (or only fail on a natural 1). For the Ogre vs. the Elf, make it DC 20.

Effectively granting the Ogre the benefit of a 30 STR, rather than his 21.

For a situation where the PCs are interrogating a hardended criminal, make the DC 25 for sense motive.

Effectively giving that criminal the benefit of a +15 Bluff skill. Will the PC's get a similar auto-bonus, or do they have to spend character resources to be harder to beat with the NPC's Sense Motive?

 

[Quickleaf]

Well, I have three thoughts, the third one being the most important / complex.

First of all, nothing in your "solution" prevents a player from rolling really high and beating the odds. That's still possible regardless of whether there is a contest or a straight DC.

Second, you risk double penalizing certain PCs. Take your elf in a tug-of-war with an ogre. You think to yourself, the elf is so scrawny with a low strength stat compared to this massive hulking ogre, so it's very hard (DC 20). Now take the same situation only with a burly human warrior instead of the elf; you might think to yourself, well he's trained for physical contests and has a high strength stat, so it's only hard (DC 15). Isn't this what the Strength stat is supposed to address, however? Is a force multiplier really necessary to exaggerate the Strength difference between elf and ogre / human and ogre?

Third, and most important, I don't think the problem is in the randomness of the d20 or player luck or what have you. If that really was the issue you could replace d20 with 3d6 or 2d10 to reduce randomness. Rather, the problem is interpretation of die results. Take your Insight check example. Your solution is to just hitch the DC ever higher to avoid a PC acting as a human lie detector. Instead I would propose that's not how Insight works, nor Perception, nor any of the social skills which can be problematic. For a really good breakdown of how to use Insight correctly, check out: http://at-will.omnivangelist.net/2010/11/serious-skills-insight/

To sum up the link: Insight is global (about the entire demeanor of an NPC), not local (rolled for each and any phrase uttered that might be a lie). Here's an example:

DM: Your NPC companion points you thru the tangle of buildings in the thieves' district to a dark alleyway with a single door lit by a blue lantern at the end.
Player: Is the NPC hiding something? *Rolls really high*
DM: The NPC keeps looking over his shoulder like he is nervous or expecting to be back stabbed at any moment. He has been very cooperative, but his words have been terse, like he is revealing only precisely what you ask.

Notice the DM did not say "yes, he's lying to you."

Now it's up to the players to converse more with the NPC, threaten him, or use what they already know to decide whether the NPC's jitteriness is because he is being coerced by the party to guide them, because the NPC has bad history with the thieves' guild, or because the NPC is setting them up for an ambush.

 

[billd91]

Well, to solve these problems, I’ve decided to get rid of contests most of the time. Instead, as DM, I will set the DC depending on NPC or monster traits or story elements so that PCs still have chances, but the chances are controlled more by the situation.

To do this, I will just borrow the same rules for setting a DC that already exist in the game. For example, if the PC and the monster are nearly equal in size and strength....PC needs to roll a DC 10 to succeed. If there is a slight advantage in the monsters favor, DC 15, or a big advantage, DC 20. On the other hand, if the situation is in the PCs favor, a mere DC 5 may be the difficulty (or only fail on a natural 1). For the Ogre vs. the Elf, make it DC 20. For a situation where the PCs are interrogating a hardended criminal, make the DC 25 for sense motive.

Using these numbers, the DM can just tell the PC that the attempt will be trivial, easy, hard, very hard, nearly impossible…and no numbers are even necessary.

Setting the DCs this way is consistent with other aspects of the game. Additionally it becomes quicker to resolve because there is only 1 roll instead of comparing 2 rolls. Also, players will more or less know the odds of each attempt through narrative not numbers, and the odds will make more sense within the context of the game world

I basically do this already in my games, and it makes my games move more smoothly.

What do you all think?

I do much the same for opposed checks. I just assume the NPC is taking 10 on his check, add his modifier, and that's the DC. I don't add +5 to the DC as difficulties go up. I just leave that to the modifiers the NPCs have. And yes, it does make the game go a bit faster and smoother since the player just rolls and I check the target. I also think we get less extreme results - like the NPC rolling a 1 and the PC rolling a 20 on opposed stat challenges (like the tug of war style of example). The PC could still get an impressive 20 on their roll, but the giant/ogre isn't being such a pushover that a halfling with an average roll could beat him.

 

[Atomo]

Perhaps, a solution is do not solve the Tug of War with just one check. Let us say that one side needs three successes on a row to win. The 10-Str elf still is able to win, but the chances are really low to his side.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am thinking in my next d20 game to just use skills and ability checks, especially opposed ones as d10s instead of d20s.

d20 is just too random for me.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Perhaps, a solution is do not solve the Tug of War with just one check. Let us say that one side needs three successes on a row to win. The 10-Str elf still is able to win, but the chances are really low to his side.

I think doing multiple rolls in opposed checks is a good idea also.

 

[Rhenny]

Thanks for the comments. Some food for thought indeed.

 

[Argyle King]

I have found that I much prefer multiple dice and a bell curve for many of the reasons you mention. In particular, I've used 2d10 for D&D. It has more of a curve than a flat d20 roll (what I like), but it's still a little more swingy than 3d6 (which is good for my players who enjoy the randomness of d20.) The only thing you lose is being able to roll a 1 on a check.