Two Example Skill Challenges

[Celebrim]

Since almost everything that people are reporting is that this works rather well and is making it more fun, it seems your contrariness is just for your own sake of argument.

Give it time. So far people are using the rules very loosely to do things that they barely need rules for. So far people are still in the stage of dealing with the skill challenge as a novelty. Of course it seems to work rather well. That's like saying your brand new car handles well when you've never driven faster than 35 mph. If in 12 months no one is complaining about the issues I'm raising, I'll put the 'I'm so sorry' song in my signature.

I'll say this. Apparantly alot of 3.X groups were in a rut and needed some new ideas to shake them out of it. That's all to the good.

 

[D'karr]

Obviously, because I'm still promoting the sometimes disparaged idea that DMs should have a referee stance.

If the DM wrote the adventure that he is running he is also much more than just a referee. I can see this type of situation in a tournament type of setting where you are running a prewritten adventure for a bunch of strangers, but not in a campaign run in someone's house with a bunch of friends.

My stance as DM has always been be fair and use the rules to provide the most fun. Not use the rules in the strict letter of the rules, to the detriment of the fun, even if it is fair.

 

[A--A]

I've been following the 4e news on enworld but not had anything to comment worth joining.

The skills challenge system intrigues me.

I am reminded a bit of 'matrix games'

some slightly random links
http://www.20by20room.com/2004/10/the_engle_matri.html
http://www.onr.com/user/bturner/far_colony/fc_matrix.html


Each argument is assessed for probability by the GM. In a dungeon exploration a player might open with an argument that the dungeon is old, which is supported by the history given already in the game, so traps are often old and rusty. The GM says that's a strong argument and you only need to succeed on 2+ on a d6. Player rolls a 3 and succeeds. On the players next turn he says I don't get hit traps because I have a good light source, a high perception skill, and we know traps are often old and rusty.

A player may do something easy in order to support later arguments. Player A playing a heroic warrior could say I kill fifty goblins which makes me a more experienced fighter, it works because I have a magic sword, great strength and experience improves skill. Player B playing the evil dungeon lord says I send sixty goblins to fight the heroic warrior which exhausts him, this happens because I have huge numbers of goblins, the goblins fight as skirmishers, the goblins know the dungeon well. On later turns if the arguments were successful the player can use experience or weariness as supports to new arguments. The referee will have put limits on the game to prevent the A and B fighting and finishing in 1 turn. Player A (with friends or rivals) may have to advance through a map or there maybe a minimum number of turns. Repetition has of supporting statements has to be control, for instance you can only use magic potion once and magic sword on every third turn.

If Escape from Sembia was played out then the following could happen?
Player R fails a skill roll whilst trying to sneak out and several guards spot the character.
Player S says I sneak out in my disguise and this is easier (lower DC) because guards have spotted R's character and are chasing them.


I am looking forward to seeing what the skills challenges system suggests. Does anyone know if the GM is supposed in advanced to generate a list of difficulties for each skill that could possibly be used in the challenge or is it suggested that's how the player presents and supports use of a skill that sets the DC? The latter encourages roleplay but may disadvantage less persuasive players.

 

[hbarsquared]

I'll say this. Apparantly alot of 3.x groups were in a rut and needed some new ideas to shake them out of it. That's all to the good.

Granted, imaginative players, an inventive DM, and a group willing to house rule likely had no problem with so-called "skill challenges" in 3.x. Fine.

First, by the core rules, you could not run a skill challenge. Diplomacy was one roll, by the rules, period. Disable Device was one roll, period. Sure, if you wanted to house rule it, fine. But then it's not 3.X. It's "house ruled 3.x."

Second, the skill challenge system provides a balanced framework, a basis for all DMs to start from. Target number of successes before failures and easy/moderate/hard DCs provide a framework for a challenge that 3.x never did. Again, 3.x never provided such a thing. Again, a good group could play out skills for hours on end all they wanted, and the DM could hand out as much XP as a reward, but that was a house rule experience. NOT 3.x.

With the Skill Challenge system (as a part of 4E), I, as DM, have several advantages over pulling off the same thing in 3.x:

• Skills with comparable modifiers. I don't have to worry about one character with +53 with the others averaging +12.
• Broader skills. Much easier to invest in, and to use, skills that match character concept or creative idea.
• Target successes before failures. A built-in duration mechanic and way to judge completion of an encounter.
• DCs determined by level. Knowing that DCs will be an appropriate challenge for the party.

Again, a heavy RP group with little focus on dice does not need the system. But for those of use who like the tension of dice-rolling as well as a balanced encounter where all players can participate - the Skill Challenge system is an elegant mechanic.

 

[Celebrim]

Granted, imaginative players, an inventive DM, and a group willing to house rule likely had no problem with so-called "skill challenges" in 3.x. Fine.

Or first edition for that matter, even though it did not have a formal skill system.

First, by the core rules, you could not run a skill challenge.

I get really tired of people claiming that the rules forbid things that they were silent on. That that the rules don't forbid, they permit.

Diplomacy was one roll, by the rules, period. Disable Device was one roll, period. Sure, if you wanted to house rule it, fine. But then it's not 3.X. It's "house ruled 3.x."

I can design a skill challenge under the RAW even without the slightlest stretching of interpretation. It's not hard. One example would be 'Convince the council of Lords to elect you the new king.' Each of the 9 city council members must be convinced of your claim to the throne using whatever means appropriate to that NPC. Since each council person has different goals and personalities, no one single roll will do the trick. Five successes required to win the challenge. Another example would be a door which has 3 (or more) separate simple locks and traps on it. Multiple successful rolls may be required to open the door without penalty. Another example might be a 'survive the ship wreck'/'hurricane'/'night in the mountains in a snow storm' type encounter. Again, no one roll generally does the trick within a larger more abstract goal like that. I've been facing and designing encounters like this since 1st edition.

Second, the skill challenge system provides a balanced framework, a basis for all DMs to start from.

I've never denied that. In fact, since the very start I've said that the point of a skill challenge was to provide a non-combat system which did not depend significantly on DM fiat and so was suitable for using within tournament modules (and computer games).

Again, 3.x never provided such a thing.

Agreed. I would argue however that for casual PnP play such an inflexible system is generally inferior to one in which DM judgement and invention is allowed to occur within the framework in responce to player creativity.

Again, a good group could play out skills for hours on end all they wanted, and the DM could hand out as much XP as a reward, but that was a house rule experience. NOT 3.x.

Story awards are most certainly not against the 3.X rules. What 3.x lacked wasn't story awards, it was any kind of system for matching a story award to the difficulty in accomplishing it.

With the Skill Challenge system (as a part of 4E), I, as DM, have several advantages over pulling off the same thing in 3.x:

• Skills with comparable modifiers. I don't have to worry about one character with +53 with the others averaging +12.
• Broader skills. Much easier to invest in, and to use, skills that match character concept or creative idea.
• Target successes before failures. A built-in duration mechanic and way to judge completion of an encounter.
• DCs determined by level. Knowing that DCs will be an appropriate challenge for the party.

The majority of these are advantages you accrue from other aspects of 4e that have nothing to do with the skill challenge system.

Again, a heavy RP group with little focus on dice does not need the system. But for those of use who like the tension of dice-rolling as well as a balanced encounter where all players can participate - the Skill Challenge system is an elegant mechanic.

Use of the 3.x system does not preclude having an RP centric group that also heavily relies on the skill system to resolve non-combat events.

 

[pemerton]

I can design a skill challenge under the RAW even without the slightlest stretching of interpretation. It's not hard. One example would be 'Convince the council of Lords to elect you the new king.' Each of the 9 city council members must be convinced of your claim to the throne using whatever means appropriate to that NPC. Since each council person has different goals and personalities, no one single roll will do the trick. Five successes required to win the challenge.

Isn't this a little cheeky? The five successes here correlate directly to ingame causation, and the question of whether skill check successes lead to council members voting the PCs' way is left up to GM arbitration of the ingame causal consequences of a player's successful skill roll.

That is quite different from how (I assume) a 4e skill challenge will work.

Another example would be a door which has 3 (or more) separate simple locks and traps on it. Multiple successful rolls may be required to open the door without penalty. Another example might be a 'survive the ship wreck'/'hurricane'/'night in the mountains in a snow storm' type encounter. Again, no one roll generally does the trick within a larger more abstract goal like that. I've been facing and designing encounters like this since 1st edition.

For the same reasons I don't think that these resemble skill challenges either. You could do all that you describe in RM or RQ or The Wilderness Survival Guide. They do not use the sort of success/failure mechanism that more modern narrativist-type games use, and that skill challenges in 4e appear to at least resemble.

Use of the 3.x system does not preclude having an RP centric group that also heavily relies on the skill system to resolve non-combat events.

Of course not. Nor does RM or RQ preclude such gaming - indeed, it strongly supports it. The play experience that skill challenges are intended to deliver, however - at least if one looks at the internal logic of the mechanics and compares them to other known RPG systems that resemble them - is one in which player control over the story is increased. This is achieved (rougly) by using the dice to distribute narrative authority, rather than to resolve ingame causation.

In fact, since the very start I've said that the point of a skill challenge was to provide a non-combat system which did not depend significantly on DM fiat and so was suitable for using within tournament modules (and computer games).

This also comes across as a little cheeky. The notion that HeroWars mechanics, or skill challenge mechanics that resemble them, are best suited to tournaments or computer games does not seem right to me. For a start, neither of those play environments lends itself to the narrative interaction that skill challenges support, and that makes them more than just a number-crunching exercise.

I would argue however that for casual PnP play such an inflexible system is generally inferior to one in which DM judgement and invention is allowed to occur within the framework in responce to player creativity.

The question is whether the judgement and invention is to be narrative, or ingame causal. If the former, then skill challenges clearly support and facilitate it - and also player narrative creativity.

 

[hbarsquared]

Or first edition for that matter, even though it did not have a formal skill system.

Or not even playing D&D at all, and having a group of friends making up stories in their living room. The point is, if your entire goal is simply to tell a story, you don't need D&D at all, any edition. The goal of D&D is to tell a story via a framework with dice rolls. 3E was the first real attempt to do so outside of combat. 4E actually does it well.

I get really tired of people claiming that the rules forbid things that they were silent on. That that the rules don't forbid, they permit.

The rules did forbid multiple uses of certain skills.

I can design a skill challenge under the RAW even without the slightlest stretching of interpretation. It's not hard. One example would be 'Convince the council of Lords to elect you the new king.' Each of the 9 city council members must be convinced of your claim to the throne using whatever means appropriate to that NPC. Since each council person has different goals and personalities, no one single roll will do the trick. Five successes required to win the challenge.

Sure, but I don't see everyone participating. I see the one +53 Diplomacy character rolling five times.

Another example would be a door which has 3 (or more) separate simple locks and traps on it. Multiple successful rolls may be required to open the door without penalty.

Same thing. The rogue with the highest skill modifier rolls Open Lock 3 (or more) times.

Another example might be a 'survive the ship wreck'/'hurricane'/'night in the mountains in a snow storm' type encounter. Again, no one roll generally does the trick within a larger more abstract goal like that. I've been facing and designing encounters like this since 1st edition.

Yes, you narrate the whole thing instead of rolling. That's fine, but not D&D. The point is that the 4E skill system interacts with all players on a mechanical basis where 3E and previous editions did not.

I've never denied that. In fact, since the very start I've said that the point of a skill challenge was to provide a non-combat system which did not depend significantly on DM fiat and so was suitable for using within tournament modules (and computer games).

And neither am I saying that. I would hazard that some differences between a "game" and a "story" are (1) a random element, and (2) codified turns. If you all want to sit around a table narrating a skill challenge, fine. It's not D&D, it's not a game: it's telling a story. D&D is a game, for which I appreciate a mechanical system that does not solely depend on DM fiat, just as I appreciate a mechanical system for combat (since D&D has existed) that does not depend solely on DM fiat.

Agreed. I would argue however that for casual PnP play such an inflexible system is generally inferior to one in which DM judgement and invention is allowed to occur within the framework in responce to player creativity.

What is the code for the icon?!?!

Story awards are most certainly not against the 3.X rules. What 3.x lacked wasn't story awards, it was any kind of system for matching a story award to the difficulty in accomplishing it.

...exactly. A couple lines in the DMG saying only to the effect, "You can give XP if you want as a story reward" doesn't cut it. "Matching a story award to the difficulty" is intrinsically more helpful.

The majority of these are advantages you accrue from other aspects of 4e that have nothing to do with the skill challenge system.

Also (partially) true: part of the reason why I like the 4E skill challenge system is how it sork with the rest of the 4E mechanic.

Use of the 3.x system does not preclude having an RP centric group that also heavily relies on the skill system to resolve non-combat events.

Only if you are pretending to use "rules" as the basis for non-combat encounters.

 

[Celebrim]

Isn't this a little cheeky? The five successes here correlate directly to ingame causation, and the question of whether skill check successes lead to council members voting the PCs' way is left up to GM arbitration of the ingame causal consequences of a player's successful skill roll.

That is quite different from how (I assume) a 4e skill challenge will work.

First, 'successes correlating directly to ingame causation' is more or less how the two example skill challenges played out. Secondly, I think you are making the mistake of assuming that HeroWars is being ported into D&D and basing your whole argument around that assumption. The example in the excerpt on skill challenges looked much more like 'successes correlating directly to ingame causation' than they do look like a mechanism for distributing narrative control.

I freely concede that I've never played D&D with formal mechanisms for distributing narrative control. (I have had third parties sit in as co-DMs or major NPCs, but attempting to elaborate the narrative in that way is a different thing with a different motivation.) However, at its heart the skill challenge doesn't look like a way of distributing narrative control. It looks like a way of ensuring a challenge is not resolved in a single die roll.

For the same reasons I don't think that these resemble skill challenges either. You could do all that you describe in RM or RQ or The Wilderness Survival Guide. They do not use the sort of success/failure mechanism that more modern narrativist-type games use, and that skill challenges in 4e appear to at least resemble.

Yet, they are also a series of success/failure mechanics leading up to a scene resolution. Moreover, I'm less convinced than before that there is any nar play being ported into D&D. The elements that I do see - like carrying over success to the next role - are only superficially related to HeroWars. I don't see any bidding going on for the right of the player to tell the story.

This also comes across as a little cheeky. The notion that HeroWars mechanics, or skill challenge mechanics that resemble them, are best suited to tournaments or computer games does not seem right to me.

If you toss out the unnecessary assumption that the skill challenge mechanic requires or even encourages the distribution of narrative control, then my proposition doesn't seem so cheeky at all.

For a start, neither of those play environments lends itself to the narrative interaction that skill challenges support, and that makes them more than just a number-crunching exercise.

Mechanically speaking the example skill challenge in the recent excerpt is nothing but a number crunching exercise. It does not lend itself to narrative interaction any more than the absence of a skill system would. Any narrative interaction or distribution of narrative control in a system such as the excerpt is going to be purely through DM-player negotiation - which is exactly what you have when you don't have a system.

The excerpted system is so causal that it has linearity built into it in the form of primary and secondary skills which are opened up by success in the primary skill. The equivalent method would be to say that in resolving the trap scenario, search and insight are the primary skills and the first success in search allows you to attempt a disable device check. We could easily imagine extending the system with tertiary skills made available by success in the secondary skill and so forth.

 

[Celebrim]

Or not even playing D&D at all, and having a group of friends making up stories in their living room. The point is, if your entire goal is simply to tell a story, you don't need D&D at all, any edition. The goal of D&D is to tell a story via a framework with dice rolls. 3E was the first real attempt to do so outside of combat. 4E actually does it well.

Which is irrelevant because I was mentioning earlier editions specifically with the thought of having used dice as a fortune mechanic to determine how a story plays out during points of conflict or action. Third edition was not the first attempt to do so outside of combat. It was merely the first edition of D&D to attempt to unify all the disparate and somewhat ad hoc mechanics that had developed in earlier editions of play. In first edition, you would have resolved out of combat actions with a combination of ability checks, secondary skills, non-weapon proficiency checks, saving throws and unique subsystems to handle specific cases like NPC reactions or searching for something invisible. It wasn't that there was no attempt to provide a fortune mechanic outside of combat, it was simply that there were no guidelines for doing so consistantly and the various methods all left something to be desired.

I see no evidence that 4e is 'doing it well'. It's so busy trying to codify how to be a DM with a simple system that its forgetting that we prefer PnP precisely because the DM doesn't have to stick to the rote mechanical but can handle the unexpected, invent resolution mechanics on the fly, and transcend the rules and the scenario when needed.

The rules did forbid multiple uses of certain skills.

So does the example skill challenge in the recent excerpt.

Sure, but I don't see everyone participating. I see the one +53 Diplomacy character rolling five times.

Nothing in the skill challenge in the recent excerpt suggests that the +53 Diplomacy character cannot or should not resolve the whole skill challenge himself.

Same thing. The rogue with the highest skill modifier rolls Open Lock 3 (or more) times.

Nothing in the skill challenge in the recent excerpt suggests that it can't be resolved by rolling Diplomacy 8 (or more) times.

Yes, you narrate the whole thing instead of rolling.

Who said anything about 'instead'?

The point is that the 4E skill system interacts with all players on a mechanical basis where 3E and previous editions did not.

I've argued repeatedly that that would be difficult or impossible to inforce in the general case, and it would appear based on the recent example that in fact the 4E system doesn't even try.

If you all want to sit around a table narrating a skill challenge, fine. It's not D&D, it's not a game: it's telling a story. D&D is a game, for which I appreciate a mechanical system that does not solely depend on DM fiat, just as I appreciate a mechanical system for combat (since D&D has existed) that does not depend solely on DM fiat.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I was hostile to dice. I mean sheesh, must I repeatedly address this nonsense? Where any of my examples remotely diceless?

A couple lines in the DMG saying only to the effect, "You can give XP if you want as a story reward" doesn't cut it. "Matching a story award to the difficulty" is intrinsically more helpful.

More helpful, perhaps. Revolutionary and fundamentally different than what we've had before? No, not at all. Besides, I did not need to demonstrate that story awards existed in a systematic way in order to suggest that skill challenges have always been a part of D&D. I freely concede 4e's take is more systematic than what's come before. My whole complaint all along is that the experienced play group not only gains very little by such a framework, but that such a rigid framework in fact gets in the way and detracts from play.

Only if you are pretending to use "rules" as the basis for non-combat encounters.

That sentence doesn't even make any sense. You think we set target DC's and modifiers and then throw the dice just for show? You don't think that 3e really had rules for skill checks? What in the world are you talking about?