Why I like skill challenges as a noncombat resolution mechanic

[Manbearcat]

One repeated issue that's come out of this thread is the "everyone participates" idea.

I've always taken that as "GM, frame and narrate a scene that engages all the PCs. Then all the players have to respond." You could call it "fiction-led" or "fiction-forced" participation.

But it seems like some people, at least, have taken this as a purely meta-level and fiction-independent rule: so have framed and narrated scenes that don't engage all the PCs, and then have - purely at the meta-level - nevertheless insisted that all the PCs act within the scene.

That's a clear failure of the rules text, I think, to explain what is going on.

My hope is, to the extent that there will be a "skill-challenge" derivative module in 5e, that the rules text frames the building (DM) and micro-scene resolution (DM and player) of skill challenges as a practice in fiction evolution via decision-point resolution and subsequent, decision-point creation. These decision points need to intuitively interface with the skill system and organically flow from one to the next. DM and players should be handing off the author baton, resolving the prior decision-point and then creating new decision-points, until the challenge is resolved. The rules should be clear and up-front about how PC fiction-molding empowerment may interpose itself between traditional DnD immersion expectations and the fiction. They should show mechanically how this can be done, with clear nuts-and-bolts examples, and articulate precisely what feel, when done correctly, this conflict-resolution system can bring to the table. The rules should thoroughly break down standard DnD scene conventions and how they can be used to provide interesting decision-points that interface with the skill system and how do you lead them, naturally, to another decision point when constructing and administering a

- wilderness/urban chase
- infiltration of a slavers boat, rescuing slaves and hull sabotage
- parlay with bad guys with legitimate stakes
- recovering from being lost in a hazardous, foreign environment
- forging a plot-relevant item
- navigating treacherous terrain
- shmoozing with the nobility at a masquerade ball toward a specific end

and on and on.

You are on a staggered, wilderness chase on horseback. You have put a few miles between you and your pursuit. perhaps the horse becomes exhausted for the effort. Perhaps there is a farmhouse nearby. Do you steal a horse from the farmstead? Do you attempt a quick barter with the farm-folk? Do you have a child that you have rescued from slave-traders? Perhaps you attempt to quick-talk the farmer into accepting taking the child while you quickly bit and bridle a new horse, double-back to obscure your tracks into the farmstead, and lead the pursuit off into another direction.

The rules need to clearly and concisely canvas standard DnD scene conventions from a how-to perspective (DM), an if-then perspective (DM and player), and a "what feel will this create at the table?" perspective. An accompanying video presentation would likely work wonders here. One section of the video could show behind-the-scenes DM engineering of skill-challenges/out of combat scene resolution (how-to). Another section could provide a strong tutorial for bridging the gap between the current decision-point resolution to a newly created, interesting decision-point (if-then). And finally, there could be several videos of actual game play examples and how this marriage of narrative (meta) and gamist (concrete skill system) mechanics resolves itself in play...and the potential impacts (immersion, weight of responsibility) of handing off the author baton.

Once that is done (the most lacking portion of the ruleset...and unfortunately, the most important), the rules can prescribe the mechanical framework for implementing sensible consequences of success and failure (and provide a robust list of those consequences) for each scene type.

 

[pemerton]

Manbearcat, good post.

These decision points need to intuitively interface with the skill system and organically flow from one to the next.

<snip>

The rules need to clearly and concisely canvas standard DnD scene conventions from a how-to perspective (DM), an if-then perspective (DM and player), and a "what feel will this create at the table?" perspective.

<snip>

Another section could provide a strong tutorial for bridging the gap between the current decision-point resolution to a newly created, interesting decision-point (if-then).

I especially agree that good advice, with examples, for bridging between decision points is impotant.

In the Rules Compendium example of a skill challenge, the GM responds to a failed check in an investigation by having some heavies whom the PCs had previously brushed off turn up, spoiling for a fight. This is a clear example of deciding a consequence, and transition to the next scene, on a basis other than simple extrapolation from the ingame causal circusmtances surrounding the failed check - nothing about the check itself triggered the return of thse thugs.

Yet there is no discussion or explanation to explain what the GM has done here, or how that (or other) techniques might be generalised to the range of situations that might come up in a typical D&D game.

 

[Manbearcat]

Regarding the topic of the post:

The reasoning for why I like skill challenges is the inverse of the reasoning for why I have a measure of antipathy for unconstrained, limited-use, powerful Divinations (Legend Lore, Commune, Scry, etc) and mildly-constrained, borderline at-will, useful Divinations (Detect Evil). The former empowers (and hopefully through practice, emboldens) the PCs to directly interface with the fiction and sculpt it in interesting, dynamic directions that naturally widens the scope of the play before us. Unfortunately, I have found that the latter, when fairly adjudicated RaW, empowers (and inevitably emboldens to the point of SoP) the PCs to directly bypass, rather than interface with, the fiction in predictable, trite ways that narrow the scope of play before us - crowding out the possibility of singularly or (better yet) jointly composing intrigue or investigatory plot (2 tropes that I find seminal to my brand of role-playing). Playing Rock-Paper-Scissors, in my mind, during plot creation against the looming specter of PC Divination resources is writer's block up in your face with a big, nasty sword...with a crystal ball attached to the end to brain you with.

 

[Manbearcat]

Manbearcat, good post.

I especially agree that good advice, with examples, for bridging between decision points is impotant.

In the Rules Compendium example of a skill challenge, the GM responds to a failed check in an investigation by having some heavies whom the PCs had previously brushed off turn up, spoiling for a fight. This is a clear example of deciding a consequence, and transition to the next scene, on a basis other than simple extrapolation from the ingame causal circusmtances surrounding the failed check - nothing about the check itself triggered the return of thse thugs.

Yet there is no discussion or explanation to explain what the GM has done here, or how that (or other) techniques might be generalised to the range of situations that might come up in a typical D&D game.

I think this is key here and is the primary issue. There are game dogma and table feel implications to this mode of mechanical resolution.

Decoupling the next "frame" from its immediate antecedent has very specific (and for some, dire) consequences (which is why I alluded to the tutorial/granular education requirements to illuminate the issues in my post). As an rpg tenant, the pursuit of interesting, dynamic, heroic fiction as ultimate end goal rather than precise, process simulation of causal-induced outcomes within a fantasy setting (and if interesting, dynamic, heroic fiction emerges out of it...hey, good on us) is heresy to a large section of the player bases' formal training/experience with DnD and cuts against the grain of their corresponding expectations of "what DnD is". Cutting out the middle man of direct simulation and appealing directly to the paradigm of "what is a compelling, genre-relevant outcome to this check which forwards the fiction toward a tension-inducing decision-point/reaction" is utterly alien to many (eg - you fail a ride check and a river valley that you cannot leap manifests around the corner...or your horse takes a misstep and is slowed/injured). They need to get to know the moving parts, the moving parts' motives, and the potential impacts on the fiction and how they may interact with the disparate interests at the table.

This "Fiction-First" approach is avant garde in the DnD spectrum and, as such, those that wish to successfully use it must formally train and practice (if they even care to). The better the education, the more coherent the tools, the more likely the outcome will be universally (not quite) satisfying and move this construct from heretical to, at least, acceptance within the larger DnD culture. Unfortunately, the education and coherency were quite lacking in the introductory 4e skill challenge ruleset. Its like attempting to proselytize an ardent follower of a competing religion toward your own with a roughly scrawled pamphlet. The door is already open due to the brand but you have an obscenely narrow window of opportunity when selling a new product to a prospective buyer...especially when you're the one soliciting the product and they're ambivalent, at best. If you want a buy-in, you better be committed to more than just a roughly scrawled pamphlet.

 

[Lanefan]

My problem with skill challenges is very simple: they assume whacking big lists of skills for every PC no matter what class, which I don't want. Never ran 2e which is where the rot set in, didn't like 'em in 3e, and I gather 4e mostly kept them.

If in 5e they can shoehorn most things that are now skill checks and-or skill challenges into ability checks and-or class abilities and thus get rid of about 90% of the skills if not all of them, I'll be happy.

Certain classes having limited skill lists as an extension of their class (e.g. Thieves, Rangers) I'm cool with. After that, all you need are rolls for a few things most PCs would have had an opportunity to learn (or not) in their youth: swimming, boating, and riding. These don't change with level but can change slowly (over a period of months in the game world) if a PC states she is specifically trying to improve.

Lanefan

 

[Manbearcat]

Lanefan,

Do you think you could enjoy an out of combat fiction resolution system whereby a failure of a check meant "something interesting happens which leads to a decision-point" but doesn't necessarily follow directly from the process simulation aspect of the failed check?

For instance, as in above:

You are riding full throttle on horseback, with precious relic in tow (freshly stolen from an evil god's temple in order to bring it...wherever), through treacherous terrain where a single misstep by your horse could mean disaster. You are in the middle of the skill challenge when you fail a check that should indicate that you look like an inept fool and fall off your horse (even though you're an accomplished rider). Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...the check could signify a critical failure within the fiction external to your riding. Perhaps you reach a dead end with an enormous jump (difficult DC) over a rushing river canyon facing you. Outside of the obvious jump attempt, there are a number of interesting decision points that could spawn from this failure at your ride check (and corresponding skill use possibilities).

Would you be alright with this mechanical resolution decoupled from strict, real-world cause and effect?

Would you be alright with the responsibility, as a PC, in bridging that failure of ride check, creating that river canyon and the furthering of the fiction and dynamic decision points that come with it?

 

[Lanefan]

Lanefan,

Do you think you could enjoy an out of combat fiction resolution system whereby a failure of a check meant "something interesting happens which leads to a decision-point" but doesn't necessarily follow directly from the process simulation aspect of the failed check?

For instance, as in above:

You are riding full throttle on horseback, with precious relic in tow (freshly stolen from an evil god's temple in order to bring it...wherever), through treacherous terrain where a single misstep by your horse could mean disaster. You are in the middle of the skill challenge when you fail a check that should indicate that you look like an inept fool and fall off your horse (even though you're an accomplished rider). Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...the check could signify a critical failure within the fiction external to your riding. Perhaps you reach a dead end with an enormous jump (difficult DC) over a rushing river canyon facing you. Outside of the obvious jump attempt, there are a number of interesting decision points that could spawn from this failure at your ride check (and corresponding skill use possibilities).

Would you be alright with this mechanical resolution decoupled from strict, real-world cause and effect?

Would you be alright with the responsibility, as a PC, in bridging that failure of ride check, creating that river canyon and the furthering of the fiction and dynamic decision points that come with it?

I could be alright with that if I had to, but I'd rather not have to; as none of that needs hard-coded mechanics.

DM describes situation, terrain etc., asks for a generic d20 roll* where higher is better, on a low (or even mid) roll DM dreams up some sort of problem on the fly, player reacts, dialogue ensues probably (but not certainly) ending with another d20 roll, rinse and repeat until either the character succeeds, gets caught, gets hopelessly lost in the wilderness, dies falling off his horse, or whatever.

And as one of the very few skills I think is useful to have in the game is "riding", that would come into play as well; the DM would put some sort of modifier on the d20 rolls based on my general skill level at riding and-or the difficulty of what I was trying to do: a poor rider might not be able to stop the horse before it sailed over the cliff into the canyon, for example (though I'd also give the horse its own roll to see if it could stop itself; horses - unlike a lot of PCs - have a pretty strong sense of self-preservation).

* - the mechanics for this roll exist only in the DM's head, and are based only on the current in-game situation which is, of course, different every time and modifies itself as events unfold.

The example you use is a good one, as it's a non-combat situation but not a social interaction.

One problem with hard-coded social interaction mechanics arises when a player-as-PC tries to use them to against another PC. I've seen this done even in 1e - "my Paladin has 18 Charisma, obviously you'll do what he wants" said to another player - and it ain't pretty.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

One problem with hard-coded social interaction mechanics arises when a player-as-PC tries to use them to against another PC.

This was raised by Nagol upthread.

Skill challenges, as written in 4e, can't easily be used to resolve PC vs PC conflict, because they assume that all the PCs are acting against opposition that doesn't roll but rather is narrated by the GM.

Burning Wheel and The Dying Earth both have social mechanics that can be used to resolve PC vs PC conflict. In BW, winning a Duel of Wits doesn't change anyone's mind, but you have to stick to the terms that were agreed prior to resolving the Duel, and if you don't like them must look for collateral ways around them. In The Dying Earth, minds can be changed by social conflict. Much as, in AD&D, there is no prohibition on one PC charming another.

 

[Manbearcat]

Lanefan,

I think we got our wires moderately crossed somewhere within the scene I was attempting to fashion there.

In my example, the failed Ride check doesn't narrow the scope and demand that you ride uncontrollably over the ravine (or attempt to leap it after you re-exert control). It broadens it. The failed Ride check doesn't flow in a linear fashion from or simulate the process of horsemanship. The failed check introduces new adversity relative to the composition of the challenge (the escape from pursuit) - A nearly impassable ravine with a rushing river far below. At this point, the PC has several decisions that can all interface with the skill system and add another success/failure to the resolution process moving it closer toward * its result while furthering the dynamism of the fiction and moving toward a new decision-point which repeats the process:

- (Bluff/Disguise or its equivalent) Tie the saddlebags, rocks, whatever is available to the saddle to make the horse appear to have a rider. Wait for the pursuit to get in eye-shot, then whack the horse on its rump, sending it off in a gallop paralleling the ravine face hoping the pursuit follows after. Skill challenge then proceeds to its next phase and would broaden the scope of the next check/decision-point (perhaps climbing down?...perhaps investigating the terrain for another route)
- (Athletics/Ride or its equivalent) Attempt to leap the ravine to the other side. Failure or success in this could count as 2 successes or failures and would likely narrow the scope of the next check/decision-point.
- (Spot/Perception/Listen/Nature or its equivalent) Use land lore or perceptive capacity to find another route...a narrowing of the ravine...a treacherous switchback to the base of the ravine...a sinkhole...etc...etc. I would likely require my PC to narrate what he finds if he gets a success. This would broaden the scope of the next check/decision-point and engage the player in fiction creation.

And on and on. There are others but I think that is sufficient.

* Besides the process outlined above, I think there is some misunderstanding of the nature of skill challenges and its scene framing/focused goal and its accompanying adjudication of result. They are not used to resolve meaningless, non-complex moments within the fiction. They are used as a noncombat scene resolution mechanic when you have a specific scene in mind that you wish to capture. Further, and this is important, you DO NOT want the results of a singular or a final check to be a linear arbiter of "what results from the scene's success/failure." This is because aggregate successes/failures create layered tension (when done right). If a skill challenge was just a collection of checks, and not a derived result of a compilation of checks and its accompanying emergent fiction, then yes, it would be a superfluous mechanic. However, that is not how they're scene resolution mechanics render themselves upon the fiction. They are a "closed system." The accompanying results are a product of success/failure...not process simulation of each check and definitely not a linear response to the last check.

In the above example, let us say assume the following predisposition and the following checks and the emergent fiction:

- The PC Rider is a thief attempting to steal the Serpent's Eye from a temple of lizardmen who worship some fell god of corruption. A village nearby has fallen ill by some contagion. The local priests assume a pestilent curse has been placed upon them by the lizardmen and it can be undone by destroying the relic in a complex ritual (perhaps another skill challenge).

Skill Challenge (4:3)
- The PC Rider hot foots out it of the temple with overwhelming numbers pursuing him. He attempts to use a check to create obstruction and slow pursuit but fails as the lizardmen are unaffected. They are hot on his heels now (and perhaps a lost resource of some kind or a negative to his next check). 1 failure.
- The PC Rider leaps to his horse and slashes its tied reins in one smooth motion setting off on a ferocious gallop, successfully putting a bit of distance between himself and his pursuit. 1 success:1 failure
- Along the way, in his haste (failed check of some kind), he loses track of the topography. Instead of crossing the landbridge over the ravine, he has backed himself into a corner...his pursuit fast behind him and a treacherous jump across a river laden ravine. 1 success:2 failure
- He needs to get across and to the village. He is desperate. While options are a-many, they narrow in his mind. He draws in a deep breath, rounds his horse back a few paces...he's going for it! He narrowly succeeds the difficult check, right on the DC, but his horse is injured for the effort (negative to ride skill checks or movement rate...whatever might be applicable). 3 success:2 failure
- His pursuit may know a way around...they may successfully jump the ravine...he may not make it back in time to save sick people if his horse cannot make the stetch run. He decides he needs to attempt to temporarily mend the horses wound (a sprained ligament). He attempts to splint it but is unsuccessful in his efforts. 3rd failure.
- He loses the skill challenge.

Ok. He loses the skill challenge here, but many interesting things have happened...he's had some heroic efforts and some setbacks and its been Indiana Jones like genre-relevant (which is what I was attempting to capture). Now, what emerges directly from this closed-system skill challenge is not going to be process simulation from that last check. It will be the aggregate + what will be interesting + relevant:

- Perhaps I decide that due to how heroic that jump was that several lizardmen attempt it with on 1, maybe 2 succeeding, while the rest suffer climactic failures...perhaps he helps a one or more along with a well aimed arrow. A difficult combat encounter ensues.
- Perhaps I decide that the lizardmen give up their pursuit but a shaman curses him with contagion before they make the long trek to the land bridge. Now he is weary, sick and with a lame horse. Perhaps a new skill challenge ensues where he has to make it back to the village, on foot, and adversed by a crippling sickness before he himself dies.
- Perhaps, if I'm feeling particulary cruel, I decide that horrendous weather sets in making it impossible for him to get back in time to save the villagers. All but a few priests remain.
- And on and on.

All because he failed a Heal check...wait that makes no sense? How does a failed heal check cause any of that? The answer is...it doesn't. A skill challenge is a closed system meant to resolve an important scene (through interesting, narrative decision-point evolution) and its emergent consequences.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], I can't XP you again yet but that's a great contribution to the thread, and really nicely captures what I was trying to get at in the OP by talking about "genre logic" and "metagame-driven complication", and in some later posts where I was distinguishing skill challenges from complex skill checks.