Doh! Killed my party with a skill challenge

ad_hoc

(they/them)
I really don't like these structured skill challenges.

Present the situation and then have the players describe what their characters are doing. Don't have them choose a skill and then make a roll.

Ability checks might be called for, but they might not as well. Maybe what they're doing is easy and they have aptitude so it is trivial. Maybe they have the right approach/tool/power/spell for the job and can get it done that way.

I wouldn't have X checks with Y difficulty. Instead judge it as it goes. Some efforts will be more effective than others. Some might have worse consequences. Some might be both a success and a failure. It's fine to have a ballpark in mind when starting but I wouldn't go so gamey with it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Supporter
Just adding this in case some future reader wants some context...

[video=youtube_share;GvOeqDpkBm8]https://youtu.be/GvOeqDpkBm8[/video]
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Supporter
So re-reviewing Matt's video I think his hard 3 failures rule seems overly rigid, but even he thinks needing 6-9 successes is difficult. 10 (at level 6) seems daunting :)
 

Nagol

Unimportant
The math shows a 10 successes before 3 failures with a 65% chance of success at each test has a <16% of overall success. That's what I mean about the probability being opaque.
 


Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I've been following the advice of Matt Colville from YouTube, and introduced a Skill Challenge to model the party's escape from an exploding dungeon. Using some of the guidelines from his video (and the 4e rules), I came up with the following skill challenge for five 6th level characters....

10 successes before 3 failures. DC 15 checks. Accepted skills included: Perception, Athletics, Acrobatics, Survival, Nature, (or others if you could make a convincing argument). Failure was 9 points of damage unless someone could negate the failed check with a successful check.

So the group didn't come close to the 10 successes. After setting up the conditions of the skill challenge, it became impossible to "walk it back" even as things were clearly going bad. However, after letting the dice fall where they may, I tried to be accommodating for letting the players bring in new characters or to bring back their previous characters with as little setbacks as possible.

I guess my question is ... do any of you think skill challenges are worth having? Do you have any rules of thumb when designing them?

"Skill" Challenges are great things. Formally defined skill challenges are the antithesis of creativity. Plus 4e style skill challenges by definition artificially exclude anything that isn't a skill - often a "success" can be had through consuming a resource (a spell slot, a one potion, etc.) at the least. And there are time when a "no roll needed" activity also can provide a success - either there is no reasonable way to fail, or it's something like characters remembering pertinent information. But most of all, never get in the way of player creativity.

Here's an example from my campaign, similar to the idea of an exploding dungeon. Having defeated the Frost Giant Vampiric Sorceress, her castle is collapsing around them. They way in they knew they had blocked up to prevent hordes of Frost Giant Zombies who were coming out of the melting walls, so they didn't know how to get out. Just that they had a very limited time and no teleportation magic.

The group ended up melting through a wall, finding a grand stairwell of ice, half the party sledding down on the warforged magic shield as a toboggan bouncing occasional Frost Giant Zombies out of the way as the rest of the party tried to run after.

Just parse that for a second. No way I would have come up with that in planning, you need to be flexible on what works and what doesn't. In this case clearing FGZombies was causing them damage as well, but they were freeing up space for those running down behind. Things like melting through the wall used up spells, the sledding was crazy skill use. Bouncing FGZ out of the way was attack rolls. The other half were making athletics checks to go as fast as they could on slippery, melting ice stairwells.

I wasn't counting failures, I was counting time. As the castle came tumbling down. Luckily the sled was fast - IF they didn't hit into anything.

They finally saw double doors with sunlight around the cracks and managed to turn the shield-sled and slam into it. Unfortunately it was a balcony several stories up which with their momentum they were going over.

This is because of how they were looking to get out, looking for windows or sunlight. None mentioned anything about trying to make sure to get down to ground level first. I gave them options to try to roll off up top if they wanted - the all declined.

The rest of the party came up, running through the horde of Frost Giant Zombies who had been piling up at the bottle of the stairs. The rogue, who had messed earlier, was last. In order from closest to furthers I had them dodging the FGZ and moving to jump out. Some focused on dodging because they didn't have far to go, others used spells or stuff for the final bit or to help take less damage from the jump off the balcony. Again, two parts going on - time to escape and avoiding damage on the way. Let player creativity run and figure otu how to adjudicate it.

All out but the last, the rogue. Who then promptly rolls a 1 on his acrobatics check to tumble out. And this was the last round before collapse.

At this point the challenge was over, with the rogue failing. But for epicness and one last shot I started another.

I set the scene - ice castle collapsing NOW, rogue on his back surrounded by Frost Giant Zombies. Everyone else three stories down off the balcony. Everyone but the rogue had a single action, to do in whatever order they wanted, to try to save him.

It ended up not going well. The wizard turned the rogue invisible impulsively to help deal with the Frost Giant Zombies without thinking about the others trying to over him. It was a great bit of inadvertent dialog at the table:

Fighter: We can't watch him die!
Wizard: I cast invisibility.

In the end, all but one character had gone and they hadn't saved the rogue, when the Sorcerer used a short-range transpose-self-and-another spell and teleported the rogue our - and himself in. Martyred himself to save the rogue.

Great moment around the table. But to get back to Challenges, think like this:

I started with a goal: Get out of the castle, which you could think as requiring a certain number of successes.
And problems:Countdown timer to castle destruction, and random damage/grappling from Frost Giant Zombies.

From there I left it up to them to describe what they wanted to do. It could be skill, or resource usage, or whatever. I evaluated how hard it was, and if it would help with either the goal or either of the problems. (For example, no one did anything like Wall of Ice to help delay the castle from crumbling, but that was a valid thing they could have done. Also the "number of successes" to get out varied by path. Try and get to the top and survive the collapse? Retreat the way they came (their own barrier to overcome, more FGZ, but a known route), look for a safe way out? Look for ANY way out? The idea of sledding down the stairs helped the first group move a lot faster - but those same melting stairs would have been a big delay if the rest of the party had to dodge FGZ - so it was only so helpful because the sledders were slamming into them (and taking damage doing so).

In other words, set up your environment, but then completely let the party try to resolve it and don't balk at creativity.
 

TallIan

Explorer
So...just something to keep in mind: At level 6, the max skill bonus a non-rogue or bard will likely have is +7. If the DC is consistently 15, then the chance of failing is 35%. Which means that MORE THAN HALF THE TIME, with maximum skills, your party will get the 3 fails before they succeed 10 times. In practice, several PCs are likely to make attempts even WITHOUT optimal skills...meaning that the chance of success falls even more. If the price of failure is TPK, I might suggest you improve the odds a bit in the PCs' favor...or provide them with options (e.g. aiding each other for advantage or something) for improving their luck.

Pretty much this. I've watched many of Matt Colleville's videos and I did like the skill challenge one.
[MENTION=42040]Retreater[/MENTION] has essentially set the party up for failure here and since failure was a TPK that's pretty harsh.

I don't say this to be a dick, but you need to consider the chance of success and allow for other options. Did they HAVE to go that way though the dungeon? If they had another option was it clear that there was another option and that one choice was deadly (and maybe quicker) and the other choice was safer (but maybe slower). As long as the player have a choice that has good odds of success all is fine, when they have no choice but to gamble on good dice rolls you're not creating a good playing environment.

If you are using a skill challenge, it's more important that it seems exciting because of how you describe the action, rather than the players feeling stressed because of mounting failed rolls. You can also pressure the players by demanding quick responses, and keep the narrative going from your end if they dither, or forcing checks that they might not like because they took too long.

You can also avoid a lot of the problems by having a flexible bar for success. Don't explain the mechanics of how to succeed (ie don't tell them ALL checks are DC 15 and you need 10 to pass) Maybe they come up with a really cool way to make a check - lower DC. Part way through you might realise you've set the criteria for success too high. eg if you're sitting 2 failures and 3 successes, you could have decided then that maybe 5 successes was good enough. This applies for everything really, always leave wiggle room in the mechanics to get a good story - the player won't know you cheated.

Consider this. The player you has to act is a STR based fighter with low DEX
DM: "Stone blocks big enough to crush a horse are falling from the ceiling. What do you do?"
PC: "err...."
DM: "Crash! Another block lands just feet from you."
PC: "I...ah..."
DM: "With a hideous grinding noise a block directly above you falls. Can you get out the way in time? Make a DEX save."

That way the players get the idea that if they act quickly they can use their strengths to overcome the problem, if they dither they lose the initiative and will have to react with sub-optimal actions.

IIRC Matt also allowed another PC to take an action to negate a failure at a cost; damage, spell slot etc. In the above example another PC could try and push the fighter out the way, but will take damage (Now that I think about it that might be the example in the video - its been a while).
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Formally defined skill challenges are the antithesis of creativity. Plus 4e style skill challenges by definition artificially exclude anything that isn't a skill

In practice this was often true. However, the rules for skill challenges in D&D 4e specifically say "A skill challenge should not replace the roleplaying, the puzzling, and the ingenuity that players put into handling those situations." So the DM should be granting auto-successes from time to time.

What I often saw 4e DMs do is present the goal and then just say "Have at it." The players would then individually go their best skill and try to imagine a way to shoehorn it in, knowing that the real choice wasn't in how to engage with the setting to solve the problem but to just roll the best skill they could to earn a success. Hence the old joke, "I Intimidate the grass."

Now, if instead the DM frames the specific challenges in the context of the overarching goal, then hits up the characters in initiative order* to tackle those challenges, we end up with what I think is more in line with the D&D 4e rules where the DM determines if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation, based on the player's response. Of course, the player can suggest or ask to make a particular check relevant to how he or she is dealing with the situation in that rules system, too. The DM is encouraged to say "yes" to such requests, but should not forget the line I quoted above. Sometimes, no check is necessary because the player's roleplaying, puzzling, or ingenuity won the day.

Anyway, I still don't think this is a great system to import directly into D&D 5e. It's just not a great fit as is.

* This is supported by the D&D 4e rules specifically. In practice it makes it more of a tactical challenge and actually disincentivizes skill specialization in favor of more well-rounded builds and encourages actually taking utility powers that help you in skill challenges instead of stuff for more damage or whatever.
 

Yunru

Banned
Banned
Consider this. The player you has to act is a STR based fighter with low DEX
DM: "Stone blocks big enough to crush a horse are falling from the ceiling. What do you do?"
PC: "err...."
DM: "Crash! Another block lands just feet from you."
PC: "I...ah..."
DM: "With a hideous grinding noise a block directly above you falls. Can you get out the way in time? Make a DEX save."

All that does is teach them to not play if they can't think fast.
 

Slit518

Adventurer
I've been following the advice of Matt Colville from YouTube, and introduced a Skill Challenge to model the party's escape from an exploding dungeon. Using some of the guidelines from his video (and the 4e rules), I came up with the following skill challenge for five 6th level characters....

10 successes before 3 failures. DC 15 checks. Accepted skills included: Perception, Athletics, Acrobatics, Survival, Nature, (or others if you could make a convincing argument). Failure was 9 points of damage unless someone could negate the failed check with a successful check.

So the group didn't come close to the 10 successes. After setting up the conditions of the skill challenge, it became impossible to "walk it back" even as things were clearly going bad. However, after letting the dice fall where they may, I tried to be accommodating for letting the players bring in new characters or to bring back their previous characters with as little setbacks as possible.

I guess my question is ... do any of you think skill challenges are worth having? Do you have any rules of thumb when designing them?

I ran a few "skill challenges" in my day.

Back in one of my D&D 3.5 campaigns characters were escaping some lava which was flowing down a tunnel at them.

The challenge included some skills, such as a
Climb; Jump; Balance checks.

If the player came up with a creative way to overcome it, such as a spell, they would be able to pass without consequence.

If they failed a skill check, the lava would inch closer to them (I think they were 3 rounds ahead of the lava, and dungeon terrain made it impossible to dash).

We had a few close calls, where a couple characters each failed 1 check, and we had 1 character fail 2 checks.

It was a fun, and memorable dungeon "skill challenge" that they got to do, and reminded them of either Gladiators, American Ninja Warrior, or Indiana Jones and the boulder scene.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top