D&D 4E Who's still playing 4E

EzekielRaiden · Feb 20, 2016

Pobman said:
I'd love to see a video of a group playing through a "Skill Challenge done right". Does anybody know if such a video exists?

In theory, I could post the chatlog for some of our skill challenges. We aren't able to use mic and sound because the DM can only play late at night, when the little one and his better half are abed. Thus all of our stuff is spelled out in the text, and for a skill challenge in particular, almost all of it is represented there (since we don't use the Roll20 battlemap for that much, except for the DM to keep tally of successes/failures).

However, I'd want to get group agreement before I did anything like that. It's one thing to share a few cool memories and file the names/numbers off. It's quite another to post exact quotes of the people involved without their knowledge or permission.

Nibelung · Feb 20, 2016

Balesir said:
FWIW I find increasingly that DungeonWorld's advice about player moves can be extrapolated to SCs. Use them only when you can identify a specific intent that the players/characters have, and use it to judge progress toward that intent. Each failure brings some cost, hard choice or dilution of that intent - complete failure means that the intent is not realised, but you should keep the outcome interesting and moving in an interesting direction ("Fail Forward").

That is a major point.

I, as a DM, hate the concept of "fail forward". If your failure will made you arrive at the same place I wanted you to arrive in the first place, then you actually remove a lot of consequences from the player's decisions. Sure, you can add some stuff to what was planned in the first place, but for the players, they see what they see. They don't know that you changed the next encounter to have two extra hobgoblins and a magic crystal. They only see the encounter they found out.

In, for instance, a videogame, fail forward works because when you replay the game you can actually notice the differences. This don't happen in RPG because you only play each scenario once. That is why I believe SC are flawed. Because once you codifies the success and the failure, I believe the players should be aware of what they are risking ("This will decide if you will arrive at the temple before the villains"), or in their heads they will just roll dice for the sake of rolling dice. And doing this will put them into the SC mindset where improvisation goes to die.

Manbearcat · Feb 20, 2016

Pobman said:
I'd love to see a video of a group playing through a "Skill Challenge done right". Does anybody know if such a video exists?

I don't have any video either, but I've got several cases of the next base thing!

Starting with this post 290 and ending with this post 295. That is a level + 3 (24), Complexity 2 Skill Challenge where the PCs' objective was to make a mad dash/climb down a treacherous mountainside in order to intercept a band of fleeing refugees before they are overcome by a hoard of fleeing mutates and malignant, Far Realm mists. This is an example of a "Chase" SC. Nested in there was a combat.

Here is an example of a "Seeking Shelter" Skill Challenge, level (6), Complexity 1 Skill Challenge which starts with post 18 and ends with post 24.

Here is an example of a "Perilous Journey/Exploration" Skill Challenge, level (6), Complexity 3 Skill Challenge. It starts with post 27 and ends with post 44. Nested in there was a Combat and a complexity 1 SC to Pursue Fleeing Prey.

Here is an example of a "Parley (Social)" Skill Challenge, level (7), Complexity 2 (in post 52, you'll see the denoument of the prior action scene where I gave the PC an Advantage to use in any upcoming social action scene), starting with post 53 and ending with post 72. There is a nested level (7), Complexity 1 SC in there.

That covers a decent number of classic D&D tropes. If you have any questions, you can PM me or start a thread or post in the thread that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] linked to.

Balesir · Feb 20, 2016

Nibelung said:
That is a major point.

I, as a DM, hate the concept of "fail forward". If your failure will made you arrive at the same place I wanted you to arrive in the first place, then you actually remove a lot of consequences from the player's decisions.

That is why it's important that "the intent is not realised". Maybe you are missing this bit of the "fail forward" model?

Example: the party decide to try to reach a city that lies across some wilderness. Success = the party reach the city, obviously. Maybe the first and second failures in the SC give encounters that they could do without. Failure in the skill challenge, though, means they don't reach the city - failure of intent. "Fail forward", however, means that they don't just end up stuck on the road - they end up somewhere else that is interesting and exciting (i.e. dangerous!), like getting deeper and deeper into a goblin-spider infested forest, or being caught by a tempest that makes travel impossible and survival a stuggle...

AbdulAlhazred · Feb 20, 2016

Balesir said:
I would be surprised if it does, because capturing one would be like trying to bottle laughter. Running a really good SC is hard, even if supremely satisfying when it comes off. Very much like running really memorable combats, I think. I can usually manage "pretty fun and moderately satisfying", but "memorable and amazing" strikes randomly and more seldom.

FWIW I find increasingly that DungeonWorld's advice about player moves can be extrapolated to SCs. Use them only when you can identify a specific intent that the players/characters have, and use it to judge progress toward that intent. Each failure brings some cost, hard choice or dilution of that intent - complete failure means that the intent is not realised, but you should keep the outcome interesting and moving in an interesting direction ("Fail Forward").

Also FWIW I posted some systemic notes that I use with moderate success here in the "Open Skill Challenges" thread. These were an attempt to underpin a more reactive, game-like approach to skill challenges with player planning and mechanical systems.

As Manbearcat just put it, CONFLICT is the central thing. SC is a conflict resolution system, so be sure you have your conflict framed in the challenge. If you can express what you want to do in those terms, then it can work. Things like "get the door open" don't count, they're simply too lacking in plot and they don't really RESOLVE anything that anyone cares about in and of themselves. If you DO want to do those sorts of things using the SC system, make them Complexity 1 challenges, which are short enough that they can almost survive being "roll the same 3 checks a few times".

AbdulAlhazred · Feb 20, 2016

Nibelung said:
That is a major point.

I, as a DM, hate the concept of "fail forward". If your failure will made you arrive at the same place I wanted you to arrive in the first place, then you actually remove a lot of consequences from the player's decisions. Sure, you can add some stuff to what was planned in the first place, but for the players, they see what they see. They don't know that you changed the next encounter to have two extra hobgoblins and a magic crystal. They only see the encounter they found out.

In, for instance, a videogame, fail forward works because when you replay the game you can actually notice the differences. This don't happen in RPG because you only play each scenario once. That is why I believe SC are flawed. Because once you codifies the success and the failure, I believe the players should be aware of what they are risking ("This will decide if you will arrive at the temple before the villains"), or in their heads they will just roll dice for the sake of rolling dice. And doing this will put them into the SC mindset where improvisation goes to die.

There are many possible forms which a 'fail forward' can take. In fact its hard to really clearly define the term if you start analyzing it too carefully (I seem to recall a LONG thread or section of a thread where we waded through this sometime in a last several years).

For instance there could be resource utilization consequences (do this SC to traverse the desert, fail and you arrive at the other side half dead with no supplies). The consequences could be more in the nature of plot, fail to recruit the mercenaries and you fight the orc tribe on your own, and presumably have to find alternate tactics. Fail to sneak into the bandit camp and you have to fight several stiff encounters that drain your surges and dailies before you can try to grab the stolen goods and escape. It could be more significant and be a 'fork in the story arc', fail to escape the city guards and you end up in prison instead of wandering in Elfwood at night.

And there's no reason why the consequences cannot be severe. SC mechanics are robust enough, failure could result in character death. It could spell the end of an adventure. These are less common results for such things, but not untoward or ridiculous.

Nibelung · Feb 20, 2016

Balesir said:
That is why it's important that "the intent is not realised". Maybe you are missing this bit of the "fail forward" model?

Example: the party decide to try to reach a city that lies across some wilderness. Success = the party reach the city, obviously. Maybe the first and second failures in the SC give encounters that they could do without. Failure in the skill challenge, though, means they don't reach the city - failure of intent. "Fail forward", however, means that they don't just end up stuck on the road - they end up somewhere else that is interesting and exciting (i.e. dangerous!), like getting deeper and deeper into a goblin-spider infested forest, or being caught by a tempest that makes travel impossible and survival a stuggle...

I like that you used this specific example, because that is used a lot when I say I don't like Fail Forward.

I don't see this specific example as "failing forward", because if the player's objective was to reach that city, it is for some reason, usually bound to the plot (find a mcguffin, consult a sage, get a ship, etc). By making the failure equal to them NOT reaching the city, you basically failed the adventure. The fact that you used the hook to start a new adventure (getting lost into the goblin-spider forest) don't mean they continued with the adventure they wanted.

On the other hand, making the failure being something that just expend extra resources (time, consumables, surges, etc), then the check is no longer interesting. Is as interesting as rolling to avoid being smashed by the giant boulder: You want success, but had no control on why you have to make the roll in the first place.

So, to me, when my plot demand the players to reach a city because they need to reach that city, I just skip to them finding the city. If there is a time limit and I want to add tension or drama, I don't link it to a SC with the Fail Forward motto. I put an encounter with some mercenaries hired to delay them. I give the villains access to a linked portal that allow them to arrive first. I take some hints from Julio Scoundrél. But I make them reach that city just because failing to do so means the story is over.

If the concept works for you, congratulations. I hope you make good use of it, and that it make great games on your table. It just never "clicked" on me as something good, but on the other hand, I also don't like Call of Duty and some people do. Different people, different types of fun, I guess.

MwaO · Feb 20, 2016

Nibelung said:
By making the failure equal to them NOT reaching the city, you basically failed the adventure.

Kind of...

That's an example of how the DM works/trusts their players. If your group is okay with not reaching the city, then it isn't a failure. If your group must reach the city or the players consider it a failure, then one of two things has to happen:
The fail forward is not about reaching the city. It is about things that happened as a consequence. Maybe they got spotted. Maybe an ally got compromised and made some sort of really bad deal. Maybe they violated some sort of time limit. Maybe some evil plot managed to hit fruition.

You need to talk to your players about what your goals as a DM are and explain that you don't necessarily consider hooks to be set in stone. It might appear that the world is saying to go to city X, but the world has a few options, which are ready to go at any time. And they need to trust that when they fail a skill challenge, you're looking to make things exciting and awesome, not that you consider it some personal failure on the part of the players.

AbdulAlhazred · Feb 21, 2016

Nibelung said:
I like that you used this specific example, because that is used a lot when I say I don't like Fail Forward.

I don't see this specific example as "failing forward", because if the player's objective was to reach that city, it is for some reason, usually bound to the plot (find a mcguffin, consult a sage, get a ship, etc). By making the failure equal to them NOT reaching the city, you basically failed the adventure. The fact that you used the hook to start a new adventure (getting lost into the goblin-spider forest) don't mean they continued with the adventure they wanted.

On the other hand, making the failure being something that just expend extra resources (time, consumables, surges, etc), then the check is no longer interesting. Is as interesting as rolling to avoid being smashed by the giant boulder: You want success, but had no control on why you have to make the roll in the first place.

So, to me, when my plot demand the players to reach a city because they need to reach that city, I just skip to them finding the city. If there is a time limit and I want to add tension or drama, I don't link it to a SC with the Fail Forward motto. I put an encounter with some mercenaries hired to delay them. I give the villains access to a linked portal that allow them to arrive first. I take some hints from Julio Scoundrél. But I make them reach that city just because failing to do so means the story is over.

If the concept works for you, congratulations. I hope you make good use of it, and that it make great games on your table. It just never "clicked" on me as something good, but on the other hand, I also don't like Call of Duty and some people do. Different people, different types of fun, I guess.

I could just as easily criticize the standard 'corridor trap' for being 'fail forward'. You fail to find/disarm the thing, everyone takes some damage, encounters some delay, etc and then they're right back where they were before, headed down the corridor. Nobody has ever criticized this for either ending the adventure (when characters beat feet because they got mauled or maybe even outright die) nor for whatever else.

I think the problem with your "just add an encounter with some mercenaries" is, what chance to the PCs have to avoid this? What if they're careful? What if they employ some magic to try to get past? etc. There IS a challenge latent in there, including potentially an encounter. All 4e did was put some structure on it so the players can easily cast dice and know that happened. I think the whole 'fail forward' meme is a red herring. Every challenge has some effect on the plot, positive or negative for the characters.

Nibelung · Feb 21, 2016

AbdulAlhazred said:
I think the whole 'fail forward' meme is a red herring. Every challenge has some effect on the plot, positive or negative for the characters.

This I can agree with. As I said, my problem is with the basic concept of the fail forward philosophy. Actions and dice rolls having consequences is not fail forward, is just the basic of the game. Anyway, I think this has arrested long enough, and I'll stop derailing the thread.

D&D 4E Who's still playing 4E

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way

Nibelung

First Post

Manbearcat

Legend

Balesir

Adventurer

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Nibelung

First Post

MwaO

Adventurer

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Nibelung

First Post

Similar Threads