Skill Challenges: Please stop

[jbear]

Wow. What a lot of work putting this skill challenge together.

And then the players miss the rolls, fail, and it all goes to waste and they move on in search of a different adventure.

This is why I always build into my challenges what happens at each fail point and what happens when only partial success or total failure is achieved.

If I want them to get to the island 'cos that is where i've prepared lots of awesome adventure but I want getting there to be a challenge a partial success might have them arrive on the island but under very disagreeable even deadly conditions.

A failure wouldn't have them expulsed from the illusion surrounding the island, giving the PCs the easy option to simply say 'screw that, lets hit the tavern and do some wenching'. Getting out at that point would be as difficult as going deeper in and attempting to finally pierce the barrier. Lost in the mists facing a a deadly illusion that twists the PCs sense of reality, until they can break free of that situation (which I would have prepared beforehand in case of this eventuality) they can't try to leave or continue onwards.

Hell, the more I think about it I might even prepare for the eventuality that having failed they try to abandon. So why not give the PCs the illusion that they can easily leave the mists and return wherever they came from, only things strat getting gradually wierder and wierder, until those they know and love go freaky and things get deadly until they realise they are still battling the illusions of the mist and they have been sailing in circles lost and delusional. New challenge, they don't know what direction they are going, whether out or in. Success at this point could easily have them arrive on the island even if they were trying to get out.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, the skill challenge mechanic is pretty much like a block of combat stats: it's a tool that you can use to resolve some sort of question or conflict.

I have to admit that I find a lot of the WotC 4e adventures to be very heavy-handed as to how things should play out; I tend to think that the Delve Format encourages that heavy-handedness.

The Jester put up a really cool example of a skill challenge; the only thing I would question about it is the infinite number of sodden ghouls. At some point, I would allow the PCs to persevere simply by dispatching them -- doing so makes the situation tJ describes in his skill challenge perfectly in light with what I am calling "fiction-first".

In this particular case, though, there is no real difference (except format, obviously) between the kinds of DM's notes early modules would contain about what characters might try, and what the results might be. Of course, not all of those older module set-ups were "fiction-first", either........


RC

 

[fanboy2000]

Generally speaking, I like the idea that my NPCs do things I wouldn't do. In fact, I like the idea that they might do things that I think they wouldn't do. Unlike a PC, who's every action is filtered through the player's "would my character do this?" prism, NPCs provide a chance for characters who wholly unplanned for things.

Consider a situation that's come up fairly regularly in my games.

I used to have a group of players who, for whatever reason, love to go to the highest authority in the area and look for work. Sure, they'll take work from other people, but left to their own devices, they'll ask me where the baron or king lives and then seek an audience with them. I try not to leave them to their own devices, but their a crafty bunch. So I'm left trying roleplay the various people one has to go through to get to these people, and sometime even the noble.

Now, I could just make it impossible to get to the noble. I sometimes do that. You know, so and so is out doing important things. But I like the idea that, even though I don't think the noble would bother with my pitiful party, if the party is good enough and lucky enough, the noble will aqueous to the request.

IOW, the game is more interesting to me when the party has a chance of success independent of my expectations.

Of course, this means that the we have a chance to enter into terra incognito, but it's a risk that I'm often willing to take.

As the DM, do you:
a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."

If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.

I think that, generally speaking, option a creates more meaningful choices. It also creates more excitement. The players can calculate the odd (or at least estimate them if their bad at math) and they know that both outcomes are possible. Having the outcome based on a die roll means that the wizard's choices are meaningful, by choosing to make Str a dump stat, he's made it so that this situation has a low likelihood of success, while other situations have a higher chance of success.

Of course, not everyone likes this. Some people do like randomness. I've certainly had my issues with it. But I like the idea that, should the wizard succeed, it's special. The odds were stacked against him, but he pulled though. That makes for a more compelling story to me because I know it wasn't pre-ordained by the DM, or based on my own skills in interactions with the DM, but on the choices I made about the PC.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IMO, this is one of the traps that skill challenges lead you into. When that player playing that Cha 8 shaman makes a clever or moving statement that is strongly in character, you want to reward him for it. Immediately. If you, instead, you ask him to roll a Diplomacy check then you're opening the possibility of punishing him instead. Will that same player get into the game as much the next time there's a social encounter? I say no. Instead, he'll just roll his Diplomacy check like everyone else and the scene will die with a whimper...

Sometimes the eloquence, essence and truth of the message is obscured by the personality of the messenger. To get extreme, how much attention would you pay to a stinking, seemingly insane man who is standing on the corner saying something loudly? Would you listen attentively enough to ascertain that he's doing a passionate recital of The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám?

As the DM, do you:
a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."

If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.

There is nothing wrong with praying to Kord for help, but there's nothing wrong with option A either (nor are they mutually exclusive). It may actually encourage the player to use his PC's better attributes to solve the problem.

Knowing that he is weak and the boulder is large, he should use his Int.

1. Perhaps he can grab a board and a smaller rock to use as a fulcrum and lever and use his body weight to move the boulder.
2. Perhaps he can lift or shift the boulder enough and cast Grease upon the body of his ally and the boulder itself will squeeze him out.
3. Perhaps he props smaller rocks under the boulder to keep it from shifting and uses a shovel to dig under his pal to free him.
4. Does he have Reduce, Enlarge, Bull's Strength or Shrink Item on his spell list? Each could help.

 

[Storminator]

How do you turn a dungeon crawl into a skill challenge? Do you mean, make a series of dungeoneering rolls to see if they return the correct way to the surface? And, then a new series to see if they find their way back to the same location? I get the impression that it's more than that, however.

(BTW, I have been DMing for 30+ years and have rarely had players map their way through dungeons.)

Most recent example: the PCs find an old map to the Khyber shard mine deep in the Underdark. They can use Dungeoneering to figure out where they are or are going, History to use the map to navigate, Arcana to guess where the shards would naturally grow, Streetwise to find old miners' marks. After a stage there's a group Endurance check. At any time the players can convince me that something I didn't think of is appropriate and make a check.

Each check is narrated by the players and me in conjunction.

Success and they arrive at the mine in good shape. A failure might mean they get lost for a while, or the miners are alerted, or I give some misinformation that will affect the outcome when they arrive.

PS

P.S. We used to map all the time in the old days. Good lord, never again!

 

[jbear]

You've been playing this game too long. I'm sure you know better than that!



YES!!! Yes, this is my point. The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him. He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is. He makes an empassioned plea to Kord. Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here. The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock. As the DM, do you:
a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."

If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.

Err ... not buying it.

A wizard with 3 Strength should consider leaving Kord out of this. They've never talked before. Why would kord listen to him now.

He'd be better served trying to get that rock off the barbarian using his arcane skills and powers because he might have a chance of success.

To be honest the game wouldn't be as fun if player description automatically resulted in success. The group had a roof collapsed on their head two sessions ago. The ranger was the only one on the outside clearing rubble. You would adjudicate that regardless of the ranger's strength and skill she would have done so successfully if she had offered a prayer to an appropriate god and expressed her desire to save her fellow adventurers. Meh. This wasn't even a skill challenge but I allowed the PCs to make checks to speed up the rubble clearing because time is an issue at the moment. The archer rolled a critical 1 and so I ruled that she had caused a secondary collapse catching herself in the falling debris and the old man they had recently rescued who had come to help her clear the rubble. She quickly got out from the blocks but the old man was pinned and unconcious.
At this stage again by your method she would have offered a second prayer and described how badly she wanted to rescue the poor old codger to avoid dealing with her 10 Strength. Actually the second collapse never would have happened by your method. Well as she lifted the heavy stone from his chest she rolled a second critical 1 and dropped it down on his already damaged ribs, crushing him and killing him. I assure you this was fun. So far the PCs have rescued 3 NPCs (minor quest on present mission), one is in a catatonic state, another is a complaining old bag who criticises everything they do and the only useful one the archer crushed beneath a rock. So now they have a dead body to lug around.

So how would your 'don't roll dice' method have added to anything be it for better or worse to the situation? How would it have been more fun?

If you simply said 'as you dig at the rubble the roof begins to collapse in on you again, you and the old man are struck by the falling rubble and are trapped beneath their crushing weight' (whisper* sorry mick, your prayer to Kord wasn't very convincing) i might feel a bit annoyed but i'd deal with it. But when the stone slips out of my hand and crushes the life out of the old fullah (whisper* need to work on your descriptions Mick, things will go better for you) I'd be beyond frustrated.

I guess the dice rolling helps randomly control my meddling with player actions and the results achieved by their best intentions. That is a great element of fun for me. Things don't always go the way the players want or expect, hell, not even I know what is going to happen. And that keeps things fun for me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Err ... not buying it.

A wizard with 3 Strength should consider leaving Kord out of this. They've never talked before. Why would kord listen to him now.

This is also my first thought.

My second is that Kord might be actively displeased with the presumptuous mortal who dared call on him now, but never acknowledged him before.

"We've known each other many years, but this is the first time you ever came to me for counsel or for help. I can't remember the last time that you invited me to your house for a cup of coffee, even though my wife is godmother to your only child. But let's be frank here. You never wanted my friendship. And, uh, you were afraid to be in my debt.....I understand. You found paradise in America, you had a good trade, you made a good living. The police protected you and there were courts of law. And you didn't need a friend like me. But, uh, now you come to me, and you say: Kord, give me strength. But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me Godfather."

(with apologies to the original.)


RC

 

[MarkB]

Playing and running LFR, I've seen skill challenges running the gamut from great to terrible, and when they're good they can enhance the playing experience greatly - but when they're bad, they can kill it just as readily as a badly-designed combat encounter.

At the last convention I attended, I got to experience two LFR scenarios. In the first, the skill challenge - involving pursuing an escaping suspect - was truly terrible, requiring everyone to roll initiative, then act in order, and choosing to miss a turn or even Delay for another player to act was considered a failed check. Options were limited, substituting powers or other actions instead of skill checks was disallowed, and everyone generally felt pressured into trying to do things they weren't good at. Nobody was surprised when the party failed the encounter, but the results of failure were poorly written up, leaving the DM flailing for some way to bring the characters back to the plot.

The second scenario presented a skill challenge to investigate the location of an elusive criminal. This time, the presentation was entirely different - the challenge was broken down into stages as the party progressed in their investigation, with multiple alternate paths at each point to accomodate any of several lines of investigation they might pursue, and ways to accomodate other options if players took them. It was broken up with two encounters to keep things interesting, and failure was accommodated in the form of a third encounter which would provide clues to put them back on track (not that it was needed in this case).

This is where skill challenges stand or fall. Depending upon who's putting them together and how they do it, a skill challenge can be a constraint upon player creativity, forcing them into taking actions by rote that they don't feel invested in - or it can provide the structural narrative support in which players' creativity can be allowed to flourish, whilst still guiding them towards some defined goal.

Basically, skill challenges can suffer from poor encounter design, just like combat encounters. What it takes to make a good one is experience and some good examples to show what works, and what doesn't.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am 100% okay with mechanics giving structure to the vagaries of RP experience. This is how it is a game. There are arbitrary restrictions on you accomplishing the goal. The arbitrary restriction I accept in D&D is you need to roll dice and add your modifiers in order to friggin' do anything.

I can't just describe how well I hit the black knight with my intimate knowledge of medieval swordplay. That's not a game, that's a trivia quiz. "Parry! Dodge! Shield length! Thrust!"

Similarly, personal interaction should not be a "personality quiz." Can I convince the barmaid to give up her secrets? I shouldn't have to convince the DM, I should be able to roll a few dice around and see what happens.

I like this. I enjoy this more. I want this.

I have issues with the skill challenge mechanics, but they're mechanical problems, design problems, problems with how the system is employed at the table, problems with the lack of variety in 4e outside of combat encounters in general.

They're not this problem.

This, for me, is not a problem.

This, for me, is why even social interaction in D&D is part of gameplay.

 

[the Jester]

Wow. What a lot of work putting this skill challenge together.

And then the players miss the rolls, fail, and it all goes to waste and they move on in search of a different adventure.

Actually, the pcs failed, spent a day doing research and set out to try again with the results of that research for help.

Just because the pcs took an approach that I didn't anticipate doesn't make it a valid approach, nor does the fact that I am open to creative solutions and approaches to a skill challenge make my approach unique. I suspect that a lot of 4e dms that have used skill challenges a bit have evolved good open approaches that their groups really enjoy (I'll cite Piratecat as another example, based on his campaign discussion threads).

So in this case, the pcs start off with a couple of bonuses and "gimmes" that will help them, but they can't find the island without getting in the water.