Transparency in Skill Challenges

[Rel]

M'yeah but doesn't it kind of break the fourth wall or something like that? I suppose a lot depends on your group's style and I think my own group would be happy with it, tbh (we have no problem with breaking play for lengthy rules discussions, for example). But it really rather ruins it for me.

That right there is your problem. You've got a playstyle gap between yourself and the players on this issue.

If all your players prefer it to be transparent then that's how I'd suggest you run it. At the same time I'd look for ways to find enjoyment in Skill Challenges even if you must run them transparently for the sake of the group. I'd imagine that you are not running so many Skill Challenges that you'd feel that it ruined the game as a whole for you.

On the other hand if you feel like it's a total dealbreaker then you can lay down the law about it. But generally I'd vote for a majority rules philosophy about stuff like this.

 

[LightPhoenix]

If all of them want to do the same action, that should definitely fall under Aid Another. So, the group only gets one success/failure for all of them rolling the same skill at the same time.

 

[FireLance]

I'm not sure how feasible it is to do the following in an online environment like VTT, but at the table, I try to ensure that the dice are rolled one at a time, and I describe the results of each to ensure that the players get feedback about what is happening, in particular, whether they are getting closer to their objective or getting further away from it. This way, I don't have to explicitly tell players, "This is a skill challenge," but they get cues from me when they need to be more careful.

I will say it again: if you are running a "Three Failures" model skill challenge, and you don't want to explicitly tell the players, "This is a skill challenge," giving feedback to the players after each skill check is vitally important.

The next bit you might want to consider is whether every skill ought to result in a "Failure" for the purposes of the skill challenge if the skill check is failed. This is where you might want to do some advance planning. If you go through the list of skills and find some skills for which you can't think of a plausible way to narrate to the players why using that skill would make things worse for them, hinder their ability to reach their goal, or prevent them from achieving their objective, don't make failing a skill check using that skill a "Failure" for the purpose of the skill challenge. To balance that, limit the usefulness of that skill towards achieving successes as well, e.g. a successful skill check only grants a bonus to another skill check, or the characters can only score a maximum number of successes using that skill.

Alternatively, you could even consider changing the "Three Failures" model. One possibility is a timed skill challenge, in which the PCs have to score a certain number of success within a certain number of rounds instead of before three failures. Narrating failures in skill challenges of this nature is easy because the PCs simply run out of time. Or instead of a hard time limit, perhaps the PCs suffer some other penalty while the skill challenge has not been overcome, e.g. the loss of hit points or healing surges. Many traps can be considered skill challenges of this nature (the party gets attacked until the trap is overcome).

 

[Skywalker]

I would advocate that except under exceptional circumstances (with a design to match) Skill Challenges shouldn't be fully transparent i.e. all the rules revealed. Though they can work mechanically, they focus players on aligning their PCs trained skills with the lowest DCs and effectively remove any need for creativity.

On saying that, there should be some level of transparency IMO. I recommend following the DMG guidelines and letting the players know:

1. A Skill Challenge has commenced.
2. Its Complexity.
3. If not obvious from play, give examples of likely skill use i.e. primary skills.

I tend to smooth the introduction of a Skill Challenge by adopting the consistent practice of placing red and green poker chips (equal to failures and success) in front of the DM screen when one starts. That avoid me having to verbally confirm 1 or 2 and has got to the point where it does not interrupt play at all.

Edit: Yes, Initiative has been removed from Skill Challenges, though it might still be used if appropriate i.e. an in combat SKill Challenge or one where time is very tight.

 

[keterys]

When I DM LFR at one of the stores in Cambridge, I often present a challenge and note something along the lines of 'Figuring out how to defuse the ritual will be challenging' and/or 'It'll take all your skills to overcome this barrier' and the players pretty much always figure it out.

I don't ever say what the complexity is, but that leaves me more freedom to modify things on the fly as appropriate to the RP.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't ever say what the complexity is, but that leaves me more freedom to modify things on the fly as appropriate to the RP.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment to an extent, I think one of the strengths of Skill Challenges is to make every roll matter and remove the ability of the GM to influence a result merely through asking for more or less rolls, or changing the intepretation of results. This behaviour is quite common and kind make players feel somewhat neutered.

This idea is related to the GM "letting it ride", which is a health development in RPGs IMO.

As such, I would personally be leery of a GM would made complexity non-transparent purely so that they could alter it to influence the outcome. After all, the GM has the ability to set the complexity to begin with and award bonuses etc.

If you needed added flexibility when the PCs seriously jumped ship, then as a DM I would simply say that the SC has evolved to such an extent that a new SC is approrpriate.

 

[keterys]

*shrug* A lot of skill challenges don't end when they would naturally do so in the natural course of RP. So if the RP has been chugging along, they've made a bunch of good checks, but they're one shy, I don't feel a need to go 'So, yeah, make another Diplomacy or something, cause you need 1 more' though I've been in games where the DM has done that.

Similarly, if the RP is baking along, there's still some RP left to do, but the party has hit the necessary number of successes, I don't need to make any further checks they do feel useless just because they've already won.

I've never gotten a complaint for concealing it, but I have gotten several compliments for the skill challenge and the RP dovetailing more smoothly.

 

[Rothe_]

I actually recommend using the Obsidian skill challenge (in the resources section) to solve these situations. In that system, it is easy to include everyone, so they all get to roll. Failures do not fail the whole thing, you just need x successes from three rounds of rolls. This might better suit the group in the OP.

It does mean that you don't allow the players to roll when they like. You ask them what they do, only one roll per round. This is pretty much needed regardless of the system.

 

[keterys]

Obsidian has a lot going for it... but it may be worth noting that 'X successes over 3N rolls' is pretty much equivalent to 'Y (defined as 3N+1-X) failures to fail the whole thing'. So it doesn't completely dodge that bullet. It does have a lot going for it, though, but trying to explain it for something like an LFR game with rotating players, meh.

 

[DNH]

Either way, make sure to describe as people are hurling dice about _even when not in a skill challenge_ the ways in which they are both helping _and_ hurting. So it's not just that someone rolled a 5 knowledge check so doesn't remember while the guy who rolled a 20 knows, good for him. The guy with the 5 _knows the wrong thing_ and confuses the issue.

So if the group says 'What do we know about vampires?' and rolls 25, 20, 15, 10, 5 for example, you might include truthful and false information. 'Well, you've heard many stories and rumors about them. You know that they are vulnerable to sunlight and radiant energy, but after that you've a muddle of campfire tales and myths (etc)'

And depending how mean you were, that could include things like 'Vampires' domination gaze is so powerful that the only safe approach to fighting them is with a blindfold' and 'Vampires are resistant to all weapons, except for wooden piercing weapons such as stakes and crossbow bolts. You could easily prepare some improvised weapons' (and let them use shoddy spears, dagger, and crossbows to fight instead of their usual stuff, until they realize it doesn't seem to help)

I like this approach but doesn't it mean that knowledge rolls should be made in secret? We would all like to think that we can separate our own knowledge from our character's knowledge but it's hard to do, and doubly so if you roll a 5 and the DM tells you that you should be fighting vampires blindfold.

I can see it working in two ways:

• Either you make all knowledge rolls in secret (so that only the DM sees them, I mean)
• Or have all the rolls made before giving out any information, and then provide that information as a single "stream".

The problem I can see with the second approach though, is that players will want to know who contributed what and there it all falls apart.