D&D 4E 4E Skill Challenges - An Exercise in Dice Rolling?

[Harr]

In fact, I have started handing out a minion's worth of XP anytime a player has a successful check after having their character do something interesting. It really encourages the roll playing and action hero kind of antics that make 4E really awesome.

My experience with the "Do something interesting and get XP" plan has been that is sounds really good in theory, falls apart in practice. Starts out really good, but by the time your players are on their 6th or 7th interesting-thing description to get XP you start to see eye-rolling and a general feeling of 'puppies doing tricks for treats' settles in.

Players are generally not in a submissive position to you; they know just as much as you do what you're doing, and they can resent it if they feel you're making a bad subjective call that impacts their game. Also over the long term, the whole 'do something interesting and get rewarded for it!' thing just gets a bit stale, from players trying to do the something that was "interesting" the first time over and over, having to explain that "interesting" really means "interesting the first couple of times and then not anymore", to player just simply running out of interesting ideas. Everybody has a limited amount of creativity and sooner or later they run out, and then you get the situation of "Ok, I COULD get more XP if I can just think of ONE interesting thing to say but i just can't think of anything" freeze-up problem.

Idono, I mean obviously if it works for you and your group that's awesome, I'm just saying it's really not as simple as it sounds to just say it, and once you actually put it into real practice there are many little niggling things that crop up that make it harder than it sounds. I used to be a BIG proponent of interesting descriptions for XP/+2 bonus/surprise in combat/extra action points/stunts etc etc, but I just had to drop it when I started seeing the consequences of it. This is just my experience, yours may differ.

Edit -> It occurs to me that I may projecting my experiences onto you and that what you're talking about may not be what I'm imagining at all, so if that's the case, my apologies - there are a lot of ambiguous places when speaking about D&D and games and stuff

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

My experience with the "Do something interesting and get XP" plan has been that is sounds really good in theory, falls apart in practice. Starts out really good, but by the time your players are on their 6th or 7th interesting-thing description to get XP you start to see eye-rolling and a general feeling of 'puppies doing tricks for treats' settles in.

This is getting a little off-topic since this is more about miscellaneous skill checks than skill challenges.

You are right. But it has worked well in our group and has worked to get some rollers roleing. The DM always has the discretion to reign it in if it gets out of control.

It is nice tool for a DM to keep in the back pocket.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I don't think I understand your concept. If the PC's are involved in a SC that has the traitor as an antagonist working against them to make life difficult where is the combat part?

I can see it if an actual fight breaks out with the advisor trying to convince the baron that its the PC's who are the traitors as dialogue during the fight. If the PC's win the baron helps them, if they fail, he has them arrested for killing the advisor.

Actually, I had a great skill challenge during one of my home game's early sessions that combined combat and skill challenges.

In the game, the PCs were in the employ of a local Duke. In the first session, one of the PCs was challenged to a duel by a member of a local military order. By the time the PCs got to the site of the duel, the other members of that military order had drummed up a crowd and were in the process of slandering the PCs and the Duke by extension, and had a pretty big head start. The Skill Challenge involved trying to convince the crowd that the other guys were the jerks, etc.

What was fun was that the progress of the duel had an impact on the skill checks the party made during the challenge. This was pre-errata, so the DCs were very high, and the party was doing a LOT of assisting, so a skill challenge that required 6 or 8 successes could take that many rounds. PCs all got a +2 on their skill checks if the dueling PC had had some significant success (critical hit, bloodied the opponent, etc). The dueling PC could also "showboat" -- actually not attack on his round but provide that bonus to the whole party. In the end, the PC was in trouble and wasn't going to win the fight, so started showboating and the PCs managed to end the scene by winning the skill challenge -- which brought the duel to an end as wiser heads put an end to the proceedings.

It was a great scene -- it turned into a real circus, where the antics of the players in the skill challenge, desperately trying to win the support of the crowd, were more entertaining than the give and take of blows in the duel.

-j

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I think skill challenges are a place where everyone, from staff designers to complete newbie DMs, are still learning the ropes.

This has really been coming home to me lately -- especially reading Mike's excellent series of articles on skill challenges, and this thread and others like it, etc.

I imagine that the challenge of writing rules for skill challenges is very, very difficult if you really want to do them well. To really get the most out of writing your own challenges, you're going to have to be really, really flexible -- and approach the system as if everything is negotiable, which is a hard thing to get used to.

For instance, in the most recent article on skill challenges (second in the series), Mike writes about some of the secondary skill options and some of the things that can be accomplished with them -- including things like removing a failure from the skill challenge tally, for example.

When I read that, I had to stop and kick back for a second. It looks like a little thing, but at least from where I'm sitting that's a huge idea, and once again it speaks of a very free-wheeling approach to the game that I really like. But, if your system is freeform and wide open, how do you write solid, black and white rules for it that the rules junkies can chew on?

For me, each skill challenge is different depending upon the scene I'm trying to create -- and I try not to consider any part of the mechanic as gospel. Obviously, though, that's easier to say than do -- after all, I was surprised by the idea of a secondary skill check removing a failure.

I think we're going to see some interesting evolution in skill challenges in the future -- maybe there will be some optional alternatives in the DMG2, or some more developed advice on creating them.

-j

 

[Skallgrim]

As written, skill challenges seem like little more than an exercise in dice rolling. Am I missing something here? How should they be run?

[examples removed:


Which example is right? Neither? What SHOULD I be doing?

I really think that the skill challenge (and the general skill resolution system) was written to be mechanically viable (with the errata) if you run this either way. That, to me, was the point.

You might be playing with a group of extroverted improv actors, and enjoy RPing the heck out of every skill challenge. On the other hand, you might be running a game with several shy, introverted kids. It's not wrong for a player to feel uncomfortable or self-conscious about roleplaying these situations, and the game system itself shouldn't make that judgement. If the group is comfortable with "pick your skill and roll", and that is what is fun for everyone, then that's all good.

I myself like a good bit of roleplaying, but I also remember how much I have "loosened up" about it from when I was running AD&D in junior high. I think that it's a good idea to have a basic, non-judgemental skill resolution in place, and an interested DM and players can build on that as they will.

 

[TheNovaLord]

Skall is right

it depends on the group

i play with a bunch of seasoned rpers whom id expect to add fluff to the skill check within the challenge. If they give me a good yarn, have +10 in the skjill anyway, im likely to give them a success without having to roll and suffer te pain of getting a 1.

occassionally you cant use much fluff in the challenge and its down to one sentence and a roll.

in another group i play in a shop with a group of very 1st timers, introverted for the most part and young children. If they give me one line of speech as part of the skill roll i give them a bonus.

I think the key is not to overdo skill challenges and make them not hang on obscure knowledge.

 

[andarilhor]

Perhaps he meant "combat" as "competition"? Or maybe he's played a game with social combat (which is kinda how this sounds).

Is more like "opposition"
Something which will come in the PCs way to make the skill challenge more... challenging.

Other example is a SC where the players need to climb a mountain and each round there is a rock slide, stealing from then one success.

The encounter will be the SC+the opposition. In the social example, consider the SC XP+the advisor XP as both are part of this encounter.

Other comment: In my understanding, one SC needs to take in consideration the fact it can´t stop the adventure if the players fail in him. So, you can´t convince the baron to look into the tapestry? The players could resolve to invade the casttle and rob the tapestry! This way the game go on.

 

[Nebulous]

I think skill challenges are a place where everyone, from staff designers to complete newbie DMs, are still learning the ropes.

I've tried it a few times, but there is something missing. Maybe it's the structure and flow of a skill challenge that i'm not used to, or that i have to basically be thinking of it as a full encounters-worth of interesting options, not just dice rolling (which is dull in and of itself).