Skill Chellenges - unfun?

[Ryujin]

Perhaps the problem with skill challenges isn't the mechanics, but rather the way in which they're used? Using a skill challenge in interaction with a single creature, as when trying to buy your way into a dungeon or questioning a captive, is as I've called it before a paint by numbers. Boring. Same thing when used to perform a single task, like disarming a trap. In these cases a single roll would suffice.

When used to perform an extended task that requires multiple pieces in order to be successful, like Prism's ship building exercise, it makes sense and could be fun. It's something that takes days or weeks. If you build a keel but can't find sails, then the ship is going nowhere. Or maybe you can throw some oars and rowers in? Different skills used, but providing the same vital component.

 

[LostSoul]

Exactly.

Can you please quantize how much awesome I should bring, where to bring it, and most importantly, how you expect me to bring it? "Engaging with everything I have" also fails to explain what I'm supposed to do after making each die roll "count", so....no, that's not bringing awesome. How do the die rolls count?

I can't really quantize it, it's an art. But let's try anyway.

1. How much awesome should you bring? As much as you can. You, as a player or DM, are entertaining the rest of the table with your contributions. Do it.

2. Where should you bring it? Everywhere.

3. How do I expect you to bring it? First, I expect you to know the tastes of your fellow players. I expect you to know what's cool, what's lame, and what crosses the line into bad taste.

So, keep in mind what you want to do and the tastes of the other players.

Then play your character agressively, driving towards his goals. This might create internal conflict, and if it does, show us. The same goes for the DM, playing his NPCs. These NPCs should be created with an eye towards challenging/opposing the PC's goals.

4. How do you make each die roll count? It's simple. It changes the situation. If it's a success, it changes things in favour of the PCs. If it's a failure, it makes things harder for them.

How's that?

 

[Varis]

I've been toying with the idea of doing the skill challenge d20 for for the players, so they don't know the result if it's a conversational skill challenge (and perhapse not even announce that a skill challenge in progress).

So if I role a natural 20 on a players behalf, the only thing to guide a player would be the response of the individual they were talking to.

The idea is, to keep the situation tense, and to keep the players guessing as to how well its going.

I havent completely sold myself on this idea though,..I'm sure there are pitfalls I haven't recognised yet.

Your thoughts?

 

[Kzach]

So if I role a natural 20 on a players behalf, the only thing to guide a player would be the response of the individual they were talking to.

Just as a minor quibble, a natural 20 in 4e is not an automatic success, even for an attack roll. For skill checks, it's not an automatic success either.

 

[Varis]

Fair enough, but what do you think about the idea?

 

[Kzach]

I can't see the point of it.

Player's should roll dice for their characters, not the GM. It's part of the fun of the game.

 

[Wraith Form]

I can't see the point of it.

Player's should roll dice for their characters, not the GM. It's part of the fun of the game.

Why not take the idea to the next level, then?

Ask the players to roll a handful of 20's. Grab their responses. Parse those results into a meaningful dialog, then say, "Here's what happens..."

Basically, they roll the physical dice but you seamlessly create the story results behind your side of the screen and narrate those results to them.

 

[Gort]

I always liked the rules from Spycraft 2 for doing opposed skill challenges. I forget what they were called in that book though.

You basically played a little game with your DM - you each had a number of maneuvers available to you given the situation, some that you could only use if certain conditions were met. Then, you and your DM would pick one in secret. Depending what maneuver you chose, you got a bonus to your opposed D20 roll at the end.

You used them for stuff like hunting down fugitives, seducing people, infiltrating organisations, hacking, and car chases.

So, for example, you're chasing an enemy car. The DM decides to do a bootleg reverse, where his car stops suddenly and reverses to change direction, trying to escape. You chose to redline your engine, so you go flying past him, and take a -6 on your check.

I thought it was a pretty cool system, and not too hard to adapt to D&D.

 

[SabreCat]

Ask the players to roll a handful of 20's. Grab their responses. Parse those results into a meaningful dialog, then say, "Here's what happens..."

Basically, they roll the physical dice but you seamlessly create the story results behind your side of the screen and narrate those results to them.

Do the players have any input at all beyond the dice rolls, under this setup?

The DM's screen causes the "one player telling everyone else a story" situation often enough already in D&D, I wouldn't be very eager to take away even the players' ability to roleplay and declare actions.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Why not take the idea to the next level, then?

Ask the players to roll a handful of 20's. Grab their responses. Parse those results into a meaningful dialog, then say, "Here's what happens..."

Basically, they roll the physical dice but you seamlessly create the story results behind your side of the screen and narrate those results to them.

That would bring the game to a screeching halt. Very tense situation...okay wait for 10 minutes while the DM preps. No thanks, not fun. And, I refuse to believe the DM could do that on the fly or do it well in only a few seconds. I'd say that even a few minutes is way too long. As a player, I also hate the concept of pre-rolling because it removes an important "interactive" part of the game, which is essentially the action of the PC. The die roll is the action, in a manner of speaking.

By the way, count me in the rather large group who has trouble with skill challenges. LostSoul, you're still saying the exact same things over and over again with simple rephrasing. What you've said has no meaning without examples. Additionally, your comments on conflicts conflicts with the Duke example in the book. Why does the Duke oppose the PCs? And, if he does, why doesn't he just get his way? I'm curious how you would run that skill challenge in the context of your first post regarding antagonists and how they should be proactive. A proactive duke antagonist seems like an auto-fail.