So its all about combat again?

[Neonchameleon]

I don't disagree. The SC system requires narrative razzle-dazzle to gloss over the fact that it's a fairly dull mechanical framework.

Here's where we fundamentally disagree. I consider the skill challenge mechanical framework being a fairly dull mechanical system that essentially provides me with a pacing mechanism to be a feature that encourages narrative razzle dazzle.

Same thing Dausuul pointed out. Things that indicate it needs at least some active opposition and some player-resource-management.

Active opposition isn't actually needed. What's needed is a chance of failure. I don't need active opposition to make crossing a river on a tightrope exciting. The passive opposition will do that very nicely thank you. As for player resource management, we got that. We got utility powers and rituals. (And, often as not, equipment). It's light rather than heavy, admittedly. But it's there.

Part of what encouraged this, I think, was system simplicity. If it takes the DM 15-20 minutes to design a combat encounter, the paths running into it are going to be more important than the paths that mean those minutes were wasted. If the DM took less than a minute to design the encounter (because he pulled up the statblock and rolled for quantity and called it a day), it's much more disposable.

You aren't talking about system simplicity there. You're talking about the balance between system simplicity and system tools. With 4e I've got Vaults full of good monsters. I can just pull up stat blocks (plural) and roll for/choose quantities. All I need above and beyond that is a map preferably with a couple of interesting features. And I can (and do) draw that as I'm describing it.

This isn't theoretical. I've designed combat encounters at the tabletop without breaking the flow of the game. And pretty much only ever design my own statblocks for major league bosses.

So 4e has this advantage. It also (like 1e but in a different way) has mechanical support for gaining significant XP for doing things that aren't combat. When it does combat it does it well. When it doesn't it's a decent rules-light system.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I consider the skill challenge mechanical framework being a fairly dull mechanical system that essentially provides me with a pacing mechanism to be a feature that encourages narrative razzle dazzle.

IMO, that's a weakness of the SC system. Without a DM that actively razzle-dazzles, it's just a series of "attack...attack...attack..."

I mean, think about why you don't use SC's to run all your combats. About why combats are so much more engaging and interesting and varied and supported. About the choices PC's have in combat embedded in their character sheets that they don't have during SC's.

Active opposition isn't actually needed. What's needed is a chance of failure. I don't need active opposition to make crossing a river on a tightrope exciting. The passive opposition will do that very nicely thank you.

I wasn't thinking "active" vs. "passive," I was thinking "active" vs. "inactive." As in, unchanging. Nondynamic. Static.

If all I need to do is roll dice until I get to the other side or not, that's boring.

If each check means something, if the circumstances change after each die roll, and if it is an ongoing process, that's a more interesting scenario.

But SC's only oppose you with static DC's.

As for player resource management, we got that. We got utility powers and rituals. (And, often as not, equipment). It's light rather than heavy, admittedly. But it's there.

It is functionally absent from most games. Given that utility powers are also combat powers, this is bad siloing to begin with.

When it does combat it does it well. When it doesn't it's a decent rules-light system.

Not everyone is happy with "rules-light" when not dealing with combat.

For the same reason that not everyone is happy with "rules-light" when they ARE dealing with combat.

Rules are the things that point at what the game wants you to do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What does a skill challenge do that you can't do without it? Assume the party needs to sneak into a town undetected. What does the skill challenge add to the game that a simpler and more flexible "What do you do?", followed by adjucating actions and reactions, doesn't?

Complex plans and pacing. More accurately I can theoretically handle complex plans without a skill challenge mechanic, but every time I do I end up re-inventing something like a skill challenge.

If the party is sneaking up to the walls and everyone is just hiding then that's simple pass/fail actions and can be handled neatly without a skill challenge.

But let's take a more complex party. We have in it a dwarf cleric in plate armour. It doesn't matter what the cleric does - he clanks as he walks. Sneaking's not going to get anywhere for him. And the wizard's not going to be able to climb the wall. We want to get everyone inside without the guards sounding the alarm - but the guards don't want to cause a false alarm so won't do it at the drop of a hat.

What do we do? A skill challenge. Something where the fighter and the cleric pretend to be the wizard's bodyguards (the fighter glaring and using intimidate as the only social skill he has), the wizard dresses up as a merchant, and the rogue sneaks up to slips over the wall, then greets them from within the town to allay the guards' suspicions.

Yes you could run this as a series of pass/fail skill checks (which is what a skill challenge amounts to) but especially for an inexperienced DM it's tricky to handle such a plan because (a) the PCs have just split the party and (b) there's the spotlight/netrunner problem. And for that matter (c) working out how much time this should take and how much in the way of complications to throw at the party to keep it fun and not silly. The skill challenge structure provides decent guidance on all these questions.

 

[Fenes]

But let's take a more complex party. We have in it a dwarf cleric in plate armour. It doesn't matter what the cleric does - he clanks as he walks. Sneaking's not going to get anywhere for him. And the wizard's not going to be able to climb the wall. We want to get everyone inside without the guards sounding the alarm - but the guards don't want to cause a false alarm so won't do it at the drop of a hat.

What do we do? A skill challenge. Something where the fighter and the cleric pretend to be the wizard's bodyguards (the fighter glaring and using intimidate as the only social skill he has), the wizard dresses up as a merchant, and the rogue sneaks up to slips over the wall, then greets them from within the town to allay the guards' suspicions.

Yes you could run this as a series of pass/fail skill checks (which is what a skill challenge amounts to) but especially for an inexperienced DM it's tricky to handle such a plan because (a) the PCs have just split the party and (b) there's the spotlight/netrunner problem. And for that matter (c) working out how much time this should take and how much in the way of complications to throw at the party to keep it fun and not silly. The skill challenge structure provides decent guidance on all these questions.

No, for an inexperienced DM it could be tricky to handle that as soon as the players don't want to dress up, but use invisibility and silence and have the rogue use a rope to get the weaker characters over the wall. Or arrange a distraction to cover the noise the dwarf makes by doing a bit of arson on the other end of the town. Or decide they don't want to go inside but lure their target outside.

Yeah, I could react each time and adapt the skill challenge, but what for? It's still a useless and counter-productive framework for something that doesn't need a framework, since every decision, every skill used can open a completely different path that throws the entire skill challenge off its rails. Rigid win/lose criteria are not good for a fluid and open and complex situation.

 

[Derren]

Yes you could run this as a series of pass/fail skill checks (which is what a skill challenge amounts to) but especially for an inexperienced DM it's tricky to handle such a plan because (a) the PCs have just split the party and (b) there's the spotlight/netrunner problem. And for that matter (c) working out how much time this should take and how much in the way of complications to throw at the party to keep it fun and not silly. The skill challenge structure provides decent guidance on all these questions.

Not at all.
With a skill challenge the players just need to roll X number of successes using whatever skill they are good at (intimidate, bluff, etc.). It doesn't really matter what they do as long as they roll the skill they are good at.

With individual checks it doesn't only matter that they succeed in checks, it also matters what they do. This is especially important when checks fail. What if the rogue gets discovered when climbing over the wall? That is a very good distraction for the rest to get in, but then they can't help the rogue.
Or what when the guard see through the disguise of the wizard when the rogue comes to greet them which makes the guard even more suspicious (its a conspiracy!) than less.
You can't really have such evolving situation which skill challenges. The situation is practically static till the skill challenge is over.

 

[Herschel]

What does a skill challenge do that you can't do without it? Assume the party needs to sneak into a town undetected. What does the skill challenge add to the game that a simpler and more flexible "What do you do?", followed by adjucating actions and reactions, doesn't?

It gives you a framework/guideline for awarding XP, that's the ONLY difference.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IMO, that's a weakness of the SC system. Without a DM that actively razzle-dazzles, it's just a series of "attack...attack...attack..."

I mean, think about why you don't use SC's to run all your combats. About why combats are so much more engaging and interesting and varied and supported. About the choices PC's have in combat embedded in their character sheets that they don't have during SC's.

Honestly, with the plans two of my players come up with when given time many of the times I use skill challenges are at least as engaging, interesting, and varied as 4e combat. And much more likely to make the table collapse with laughter.

But combat is a small, intense, and well defined situation with limited time. To run a skill system rules heavy to cover the sort of things my PCs have come up with I'd need specific modifiers for:

• Stench levels and modifiers to diplomacy when negotiating with Troglodytes
• Reaction modifiers for headbutting a priest of Kord in the middle of a theological argument
• Intimidate modifiers for pulling a "Fezzik in a Storm Cloak" on a fort (in addition to all the rest of the razzle dazzle the PCs pulled on that fort to terrorize it before they attacked)
• Drinking contest rules, with specific modifiers for dwarves, orcs, tieflings who set their drinks on fire before drinking, and the undead
• Distance and revulsion modifiers to perception checks for spotting that the horse on a "plague cart" ... isn't.
• Asymmetric warfare rules
• Lack of sleep rules (tied to the asymmetric warfare)

And that's just what immediately comes to mind before they break out the magic.

I wasn't thinking "active" vs. "passive," I was thinking "active" vs. "inactive." As in, unchanging. Nondynamic. Static.

Here comes the narrative.

If all I need to do is roll dice until I get to the other side or not, that's boring.

If each check means something, if the circumstances change after each die roll, and if it is an ongoing process, that's a more interesting scenario.

But SC's only oppose you with static DC's.

This is where the narrative comes in. And I fully agree that SCs without narrative are boring. Skill challenges are scaffolding to help you build narrative. Scaffolding by itself looks ugly.

It is functionally absent from most games. Given that utility powers are also combat powers, this is bad siloing to begin with.

It's not absent from any games I've DM'd. And I've only played in one where it was absent (and I wasn't impressed by that DM).

Not everyone is happy with "rules-light" when not dealing with combat.

For the same reason that not everyone is happy with "rules-light" when they ARE dealing with combat.

Rules are the things that point at what the game wants you to do.

Even GURPS doesn't manage to be rules heavy enough to come close to having specific modifiers for all the stuff my PCs are going to try. And I'm never going to remember all the actual modifiers on the spur of the moment. Combat on the other hand is constrained in terms of in character time and has massive opportunity costs - and you don't want to be a victim of an arbitrary death. Rules heavy combat works because the range of good moves in combat is much, much more limited. (Bad moves will get you shanked).

I'm happy with both and both work well, although I can understand arguing with either. (I'm also happy with combat being as rules-light as Wushu).

 

[Herschel]

Not at all.
With a skill challenge the players just need to roll X number of successes using whatever skill they are good at (intimidate, bluff, etc.). It doesn't really matter what they do as long as they roll the skill they are good at.

With individual checks it doesn't only matter that they succeed in checks, it also matters what they do. This is especially important when checks fail. What if the rogue gets discovered when climbing over the wall? That is a very good distraction for the rest to get in, but then they can't help the rogue.

Only if you arer NOT running them as intended. If you're being pedantic, then you can fall in to this habit, but it's not they way they were intended or presented. The framework is just that, a framework. It is NOT the be-all/end-all and actual execution of a Skill Challenge, just the mechanical "guts".

 

[the Jester]

It's been a while, but, I don't recall the DMG wandering monster tables being quite this friendly. Of course, "elven forest" is probably the most friendly place you can be. As I recall, a number of the random encounters were far more combat related, particularly any of the Dungeon Random tables.

Sure- but isn't the point of exploration to find out what's there? My point is that random encounters don't have to be all about combat; and even an encounter with "goblins" or "hobgoblins" is far less likely to be a combat encounter in 1e and earlier than later on.

What does a skill challenge do that you can't do without it?

As Herschel has said, the main advantage is that skill challenges provide a framework for awarding xp for noncombat stuff.

In fact, the two questions I ask when running an interaction are, "Should this be worth xp?" and "Are the pursuing a goal that will be stymied by failure?" If so, I run it as a skill challenge.

 

[pemerton]

it needs at least some active opposition and some player-resource-management.

There is resource management, namely, of powers and rituals that affect or substitute for skill checks:

From the PHB p 259:

In a skill challenge, your goal is to accumulate a certain number of successful skill checks before rolling too many failures. Powers you use might give you bonuses on your checks, make some checks unnecessary, or otherwise help you through the challenge. . .

You can use a wide variety of skills, from Acrobatics and Athletics to Nature and Stealth. You might also use combat powers and ability checks.​

I think it's pretty unambiguous that resources can be brought to bear. Some of the examples I linked to above have illustrations of this. The player of the sorcerer in my game, in particular, uses his attack powers for all sorts of funky effects in skill chalenges.

As for active opposition, that is all in GM narration - as is the case in any "player's roll all the dice" system. If a GM is running a skill challenge, but is not pouring on pressure so that the players can see why their PCs need to engage the situation, then no wonder it is boring! That's like a "combat" encounter in which the NPCs all stand around and don't draw their weapons, but just let the PCs cut them down.

What does a skill challenge do that you can't do without it? Assume the party needs to sneak into a town undetected. What does the skill challenge add to the game that a simpler and more flexible "What do you do?", followed by adjucating actions and reactions, doesn't?

I've indicated this above. It creates a minimum and a maximum narrative heft at the table. It introduces complications, because the players have to have their PCs do stuff, and the GM has to resolve checks and evolve the situation to create the framework for new stuff.

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], a year or so ago (?), gave a nice example of a social skill challenge: the PC coulndn't lose (succeeded on a 1), but had to make 4 checks. And in the course of making those checks, offered a compromise to the NPC (why? because, as part of the resolution of an earlier check, LostSoul had the NPC ask for a compromise, and the player, in making the next check, agreed to it). A single-check system, or a system that focuses only success or failure without focusing on the fiction that generates it, won't give you those sorts of outcomes.

I linked to some examples from my own game above, and have described some others in this post, which also illustrate use of the skill challenge framework to generate complications and outcomes that wouldn't arise otherwise, out of a simple focus on task resolution without any structure to (i) mandate introduction of complications by the GM, or (ii) entitle the GM to call for checks by the players without being vulnerable to accusations of check-mongering or "mother may I?" (because it is within an overall framework).

Absolutely nothing. A skill challenge does not do anything that you couldn't do without.

What it does do though, is provide a nice neat framework from which you can work instead of trying to play amateur game designer all day long. Is it a panacea that cures all ills? Nope. Is it the best way to do things? Certainly not.

But, having that framework makes the job of the DM SOOO much easier.

As my reply to Fenes indicates I don't entirely agree with this. I agree that skill challenges aren't a panacea, and they aren't necessarily the best form of extended contest. But I do think that the history of RPG design since the mid-90s shows that one of the best ways to get dramatic, non-combat game play which is player-driven and centred on the fiction is to have some form of structured extended-contest mechanic.

Without the structure, the GM has no framework to regulate his/her pouring of pressure onto the players - it just becomes arbitrary adversariaism - and the players have no rationale for continuing to make checks - and so you won't get the nuance of compromises and other tweaks in the fiction that add player-driven subtle content to the fiction.

(Imagine if, instead of generating a compromise the way LostSoul did, you said on a success by a margin of 5 or less, you must compromise - how would you work out what the compromise is? You'd have to fiat it. Whereas, the back-and-forth structure of the skill challenge produces a compromis as a natural outcome of the resolution, that reflects the choices the players made in engaging the fiction.)

I do believe that SC is a bland mechanic that rely heavily on DM fiat to succeed

For the reasons that I've given I don't agree with "DM fiat" - but yes, skill challenges are heavily reliant on the GM's adjudication and narration to make them work. That's a general feature of an extended contest mechanic - otherwise it just turns into meaningless dice rolls with no connection to the fiction. Unfortunately the 4e books (DMG, DMG2, Essentials) don't give any advice on how to do this. Luckily for those who are familiar with them, though, there are many other excellent GM resources available which do give extensive advice on this (eg Burning Wheel's Adventure Burner, HeroQuest revised edition, The Dying Earth RPG, etc).

what does a frame help me, unless I plan to press and railroad the players into it?

<snip>

Skill challenges are far too rigid, and do not add anything but traps that turn the game into a dice rolling exercise.

I think this is a bit like asking, how do combat rules help me, unless I plan to railroad players into combats?

If you tell the players that their PCs are attacked by assassins, they may want to fight back. You would then use the combat rules, which set a framework and parameters for adjudication. Some of that you've determined at the start of the combat (eg the assassins have AC, hp etc). Some of that you determine in the course of resolution (eg which assassin moves where to flank with which other assassin).

Suppose instead the players decide that their PCs run away. That's the sort of thing you can resolve as a skill challenge. Some of it you would settle at the start of the challenge (eg how many successes are required). Some of the challenge you determine in the course of resolution (eg a player uses Arcane Gate to give the PCs a 20 square headstart, and you then narrate some salient complication or narrative twist or turn in response to that).

As to being nothing but a trap that turns the game into a dice-rolling exercise, have you read the actual play examples I've posted and linked to? Have you played games like Maelstrom Storytelling or HeroWars/Quest that rely heavily on extended contest mechanics?

It's one thing not to like a mechanic - nothing wrong with that! I don't particularly care for many of the mechanical features of classic D&D. But in this case I think you are seriously misdescribing it. Not everyone likes HeroQuest as a system, but it's rarely accused of being nothing but a dice-rolling exercise.

in many extended skill tests, without a framework, players will fail more often than succeed. Which, in turn, leads players to adopt a "Kill everything" approach because it has a higher chance of success than trying to beat the rigged game that the DM is unwittingly presenting.

Then the DM comes on En World and bitches about how his players always try to kill everything and they won't role play. And a bunch of other En World DM's pat him on the head, tell him that his players suck, and he should keep doing what he's doing.

Ouch! (But true.)