Do you use skill challenges?

I've used skill challenges (so named because 4E formalised them with that name) in every edition of D&D, although I didn't always call them that. Here's my super-simple way of doing it. I'd be curious how others implement it.

1. Set an overall difficulty for the challenge. All checks are the same difficulty. Usually 10/15/20.
2. Each PC states what they are doing towards the skill challenge. If it makes sense to the DM, they make a check.
3. Reach x successes before the same number of failures to succeed in the challenge. Usually 3. Always the same number for each (I know 4E used to say things like "6 successes before 4 failures" but for me it's just "first to 3").

Nice and simple. Been doing it for donkey's years.

The important part -- I'd never ever mention that we'd entered a skill challenge. It has to feel organic for me, so I narrate the task ahead of them and simply ask what they're doing. While my payers know what I'm doing, it's not so in-your-face as to break the immersion.

Occasionally, I might require a specific sill be used at least once or twice.

Since I effectively started with 5e I've no idea what a "Skill Challenge" is and why I'd want to use it!

Anyone care to provide a typical example?

Sure! This is a really crappy example, and badly narrated, but you'll get the idea. They are usually more exciting than this.

The wagon has come off the road. It's all broken and stuff. The PCs have to get it working again before the pursuing bandits find them. The horse is agitated and whinnying.

DM: What do you do? (secretly sets DC as 15)

Ranger: I scout in the nearby woods to find some appropriate materials to repair it. (Rolls 12 on a Wis survival check)

DM: You can't find anything. (marks off one failure).

Fighter: I am going to chop down a tree so we have wood to repair it. (Rolls 18 on an Str athletics check)

DM: With some mighty swings of your axe, you bring down a tree. (marks off one success)

Cleric: I'm going to soothe the horse so it doesn't attract attention. (rolls 16 on Wis animal handling check)

DM: That helps immensely. The horse is soothed and calm. (marks off a second success)

Rogue: I'm going to hide our activity from those bandits using scrubs and bush. (rolls 13 on Dec stealth check)

DM: You don't do a great job; you hear the hoofbeats getting closer and the wagon is still clearly visible from the road. (marks off a second failure)

...etc.

So it's at 2 successes and 2 failures now. The next skill check is going to decide it - either the wagon will be up and running, or the bandits will find them first. At each check, the DM decides if it's appropriate (if the cleric had said "I'm going to juggle!" the DM would tell him it wouldn't help in this particular situation).

You can use them for all sorts of tasks. journeys, social situations, climbing, getting through a door or past an obstacle, sneaking through an enemy camp, building a bridge, etc.

I frame the goal and set forth specific complications that must be overcome to achieve the overall goal. I don't specify DCs in the abstract because the DCs are set only after a player states an approach to overcoming the complication, assuming the outcome is in doubt (maybe it's not!). I do not set forth a specific number of failures that leads to failing to achieve the goal. You either overcome all the complications or you don't. I may use success at a cost in some cases to resolve a complication.

One thing I see DMs doing is setting forth the overall goal, but not getting into specifics, leaving it a bit too abstract for players to latch onto. So they end up asking to make ability checks that fit their particular expertise and making up the fiction around that instead of thinking about how to overcome specific complications which may or may not call for a check.

iserith said:

they end up asking to make ability checks that fit their particular expertise and making up the fiction around that

Click to expand...

Yeah; mine is definitely a player-narrative slanted approach. I like to do that from time to time, and it's so easy to do impromptu.

Morrus said:

Yeah; mine is definitely a player-narrative slanted approach. I like to do that from time to time, and it's so easy to do impromptu.

Click to expand...

That would definitely be how I would do it in D&D 4e, but I don't feel it fits the D&D 5e paradigm, so I modified the skill challenge approach accordingly so that the skill challenge doesn't stand out from the rest of the resolution mechanics.

If anyone wants to review D&D 4e skill challenges, I recommend reading the D&D 4e Essentials Rules Compendium and not any material on skill challenges that came out before that book.

iserith said:

That would definitely be how I would do it in D&D 4e, but I don't feel it fits the D&D 5e paradigm, so I modified the skill challenge approach accordingly so that the skill challenge doesn't stand out from the rest of the resolution mechanics.

If anyone wants to review D&D 4e skill challenges, I recommend reading the D&D 4e Essentials Rules Compendium and not any material on skill challenges that came out before that book.

Click to expand...

Oh, I never did 4E challenges as written.

robus said:

Since I effectively started with 5e I've no idea what a "Skill Challenge" is and why I'd want to use it!

Anyone care to provide a typical example?

Click to expand...

The way I do them it would be something like this structure:

1. Overall Goal (XP value for non-combat challenge)

2. #Complications to Overcome to Achieve Goal

3. What Victory and Defeat Looks Like

Once you've framed the Overall Goal for the players and telegraphed what Victory and Defeat Look Like, you present complications. You might do that one by one or in total and let them choose the order in which they deal with them, whichever makes the most sense and is the easiest to manage.

The number of Complications might be equal to the number of PCs (or twice the number of PCs for a more difficult challenge). Or you might peg it to one or two Complications per Ability Score, meaning that the complication might speak to a particular means of resolution which allows you to present a wider variety of things to overcome. (The PCs might not resolve the complication in a way you might expect though, so don't get attached to a particular complication getting resolved via a task appropriate to the ability score you staked out.)

The PCs state a task to resolve a complication. You adjudicate as normal. You might do success at a cost here though if you want the Overall Goal to be achieved. This is good if the challenge is a bottleneck of some kind - the PCs can still fail all the checks, but succeed on goal. It just costs them - maybe time, hit points, hit dice, gold, contacts, makes future challenges more difficult, etc. Whatever makes sense.

When they've achieved the goal or failed, narrate accordingly and describe the environment as it stands after that. Award XP if applicable and carry on!

Morrus said:

Oh, I never did 4E challenges as written.

Click to expand...

I highly, highly recommend running them as per the Rules Compendium if you're still playing D&D 4e. And making participation as compulsory as a combat challenge, plus using the standard D&D 4e initiative. It has a big effect on how the players build their characters.

iserith said:

I highly, highly recommend running them as per the Rules Compendium if you're still playing D&D 4e. And making participation as compulsory as a combat challenge, plus using the standard D&D 4e initiative. It has a big effect on how the players build their characters.

Click to expand...

I’m not playing 4E. I’m playing 5E and describing how I’ve done them for many years. Why did you think I was playing 4E?