Skill challenge design -- still wonky

[Frostmarrow]

I think there should be a 'skill zone' rather than a challenge. In a skill zone things work pretty much as a skill challenge only there is no predefined goal. Instead the goal is derived from the aim of the skills used by the players. When you win or lose you exit the zone but something is now different.

If you try to intimidate the duke you imply that you want the duke to submit to your will (perfectly alright in my book). So the duke's court is the zone, and the stuff you try there could lead to several victorious exits as well as loser exits.

Just because the adventure author thinks it's a good idea that winning the duke over and be levied troops, doesn't necessarily mean the players will think of it as a victory. Maybe they don't want any troops. Maybe they just want carte blanche to solve the invasion problem as they see fit. And maybe the players only realise what they truly want through the course of the negotiation.

 

[avin]

Skill challenges for social iteraction don't work for me.

I'm using it only for more physical things.

 

[Felon]

My problem with skill challenges as-is is that they lack a certain feeling of dynamic tension because there's no back-and-forth between the players and the DM. The PC's make a series of rolls, quickly learning which are the best skills to use. Meanwhile, the DM just sort of sits there announcing results for failure. Imagine if combat were reduced to a bunch of rolls by the players, and the bad guys only get a lick in when the players fail a roll.

I'd rather see skill challenges that let the DM switch up pitches, and that's what I'm currently working to build. For instance, a chase might start using Endurance checks after the first turn. Or in a negotiation, another character might enter the room--one who's not as susceptable to Intimidate as the other NPC's. Or in an overland trek, the players might encounter quick sand and need to use Athletics for that particular turn.

 

[FireLance]

My problem with skill challenges as-is is that they lack a certain feeling of dynamic tension because there's no back-and-forth between the players and the DM. The PC's make a series of rolls, quickly learning which are the best skills to use. Meanwhile, the DM just sort of sits there announcing results for failure. Imagine if combat were reduced to a bunch of rolls by the players, and the bad guys only get a lick in when the players fail a roll.

I'd rather see skill challenges that let the DM switch up pitches, and that's what I'm currently working to build. For instance, a chase might start using Endurance checks after the first turn. Or in a negotiation, another character might enter the room--one who's not as susceptable to Intimidate as the other NPC's. Or in an overland trek, the players might encounter quick sand and need to use Athletics for that particular turn.

One way that I considered tweaking skill challenges was to have some form of active opposition that would accumulate failures for the PCs unless they managed to succeed at skill checks. For example, in a leaking boat, the PCs might accumulate one failure every round unless one PC succeeds at an Endurance check to bail out water. In a negotiation scenario, there might be a third party that causes the PCs to accumulate failures unless one of them succeeds at a Diplomacy or Bluff check to counter his arguments.

 

[Frostmarrow]

One way that I considered tweaking skill challenges was to have some form of active opposition that would accumulate failures for the PCs unless they managed to succeed at skill checks. For example, in a leaking boat, the PCs might accumulate one failure every round unless one PC succeeds at an Endurance check to bail out water. In a negotiation scenario, there might be a third party that causes the PCs to accumulate failures unless one of them succeeds at a Diplomacy or Bluff check to counter his arguments.

Skill Complications: A Combat-Like Approach to Skill Encounters; was your idea, wasn't it?

I did this building off of it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/234938-opposed-skill-challenges.html

 

[Rolzup]

My problem with skill challenges as-is is that they lack a certain feeling of dynamic tension because there's no back-and-forth between the players and the DM. The PC's make a series of rolls, quickly learning which are the best skills to use. Meanwhile, the DM just sort of sits there announcing results for failure. Imagine if combat were reduced to a bunch of rolls by the players, and the bad guys only get a lick in when the players fail a roll.

See, this I would argue.

We had our first Skill Challenge in our game last Friday, and it succeeded in convincing me to make more regular use of them.

In brief, for a variety of reasons -- mainly involving a goblin-rights organization and their planned blockade of the docks -- the PCs decided that they had to incite a riot outside the office of one of the city's magistrates.

I had not really expected this. I should have, knowing this group, but....

So the party's wizard summons a floating disk, and the paladin climbs atop it and begins to address the crowd as the disk rises to about 6' off the ground.

The ensuing back and forth between the players and myself was one of the best parts of the night. The Paladin began by using Diplomacy to get the attention of the crowd, followed this with a blown Bluff check to convince them that the magistrate in question was a pederast, and then used Initmidate to keep the crowd from attacking him.

Other party members used History to recite past incidents of judicial corruption, Heal to describe the horrifying consquences of the sort of abuse that the magistrate was being accused of, and...something else that slips my mind to seal the deal and convince the crowd that it was time for the rule of King Mob.

I set the difficulties too low -- 15 instead of 20 for the target number -- but they still managed to blow two of the checks. There was good tension, an excellent penalty for failure (a severe beating from the outraged crowd), and best of all it sparked a lot of creative and IC thinking from the players.

Plus, it made them a really powerful enemy.

So a win on every score from this DMs point of view.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Even so, something still doesn't sit right with me. The "within the game" penalty for failing a skill challenge shouldn't be a relatively easy fight that yields more xp and treasure than a success.

Even if focus on in-game consequences, the quality of a (skill challenge) design depends on the PCs' goals. If the characters really just want to gain experience and treasure, why not just go monster hunting (instead of following whatever story line you have in mind)?

IMC, the players seemed to think it was the coolest thing we did that session when I gave them a skill challenge to avoid what was essentially a wandering monster / random encounter, which would have been a pretty easy source of XP for them, honestly. The characters just wanted to get on with their mission, not pick a fight with every monster they saw.

True, they would have wound up with more experience (per game day) if they had failed the challenge, but I think of this experience as the kind of learning experience we have in real life when we fail. IRL, people often (ideally) learn more from their mistakes than from being right.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I'd rather see skill challenges that let the DM switch up pitches, and that's what I'm currently working to build. For instance, a chase might start using Endurance checks after the first turn. Or in a negotiation, another character might enter the room--one who's not as susceptable to Intimidate as the other NPC's. Or in an overland trek, the players might encounter quick sand and need to use Athletics for that particular turn.

My most successful skill challenges have been dynamic in exactly this way. The encounter begins with some initial situation. Every time a PC attempts to use a skill, I simply make up the outcome depending on their roll, evolving the situation in some way. The set of skills that make sense (and their appropriate difficulty levels) therefore changes throughout the challenge. In this sense, the scene is almost entirely improvised, with just the die rolls dictating whether the overall situation improves or worsens.

One lesson I've learned from running this kind of skill challenge is not necessarily to drag the encounter on until the PCs reach a predetermined complexity level (number of successes). If the scene evolves in such a way that the PCs overcome all their obstacles after only 4 or 6 successes, so be it. (Of course, they then only earn the XP for a challenge of the appropriate complexity.)

 

[bert1000]

Even if focus on in-game consequences, the quality of a (skill challenge) design depends on the PCs' goals. If the characters really just want to gain experience and treasure, why not just go monster hunting (instead of following whatever story line you have in mind)?

Well, in my P1 example I am assuming that the players decided they wanted to find the evil lair and do so in the most straightforward/quickest/easiest way possible. If that is not their goal, then this skill challenge would not be run.

So with that as a goal, the penalty for failure as written is a relatively easy fight that yields +2,000xp and +1,500gp vs. "success". And they find the evil lair.

Yes, I acknowledge that their story goal was delayed, which is a failure in itself but it still seems odd.

As others have pointed out rpgs are open ended, so many folks won't really care. If they succeed at the skill challenge the PCs get 1,000xp and get to engage the next encounter which could yield the same XP and treasure as the "failure" encounter.

What is really going on is that the designers seem to think that the story delay by itself is a reasonable failure outcome. I want more of a real consequence, otherwise skill challenges don't mean much.

I don't want failure to be a complete stopage of action. "Ok, you failed the skill challenge, you can never find the evil lair". But I don't think it has to be.

DM: "Despite your best efforts, you can't find the evil lair"
Player: "I think we need to find a guide..."

Real consequence, chance to introduce something interesting, players know that sometimes they fail and have to come up with another plan. This to me introduces some good opportunities for player creativity, and gives the players a sense of accomplishment when they do succeed at a skill challenge.

 

[FireLance]

Skill Complications: A Combat-Like Approach to Skill Encounters; was your idea, wasn't it?

Yes, it's nice to be remembered.

The key idea of that mechanic was to get more PCs to participate by removing the automatic penalty for failing a skill check, and to shift the process of accumulating failures to some form of active opposition. Your opposed skill challenges also do the same thing quite nicely.