Revisiting 4th Edition

[AbdulAlhazred]

[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] I'm not sure what you're doing differently than the normal stock SC system, except always giving XP (which given the fact that failures aren't that common probably isn't a huge deal, but is different).

 

[D'karr]

[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] I'm not sure what you're doing differently than the normal stock SC system, except always giving XP (which given the fact that failures aren't that common probably isn't a huge deal, but is different).

The only thing I'm really doing different is that I don't come up with a list of primary and secondary skills to use. I let the play/description of actions at the table completely determine how skills are relevant. Without a preconceived notion of how the PCs will get to the goal, then it's pretty much a back and forth between the DM and the players.

This is in no way different than what I used to do with other editions, the big difference is that the 4e system gives me a consistent reward system. In previous editions I had to completely ad-hoc that piece and it was not consistent at all. Sometimes they got XP, and many, many, many times they didn't.

Case in point, I'm currently running my home group through a converted A1-A4 (Slavers) adventure. One of the locations in A2 has a Medusa that has been kept in captivity by the Lord Commander of the stockade as a guardian for his treasure. The Medusa hates, and fears the Lord Commander. But when the party shows up, they have already killed the Lord Commander, have told her so, and then showed her the body. The Medusa could have easily started attacking as soon as the party opened the door, but instead this turned into a negotiation for her release. She willingly offered the Lord Commander's treasure, and the PCs offered her freedom.

This was handled as a Skill Challenge. I didn't have this "scripted" as a skill challenge at all. The PCs used appropriate skills for the actions they were describing. In the end they got XP, and the treasure without getting into a combat that would have very probably killed at least one PC. This also allowed me to flesh out this particular monster into an NPC that I'll be using in a subsequent adventure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The only thing I'm really doing different is that I don't come up with a list of primary and secondary skills to use. I let the play/description of actions at the table completely determine how skills are relevant. Without a preconceived notion of how the PCs will get to the goal, then it's pretty much a back and forth between the DM and the players.

This is in no way different than what I used to do with other editions, the big difference is that the 4e system gives me a consistent reward system. In previous editions I had to completely ad-hoc that piece and it was not consistent at all. Sometimes they got XP, and many, many, many times they didn't.

Case in point, I'm currently running my home group through a converted A1-A4 (Slavers) adventure. One of the locations in A2 has a Medusa that has been kept in captivity by the Lord Commander of the stockade as a guardian for his treasure. The Medusa hates, and fears the Lord Commander. But when the party shows up, they have already killed the Lord Commander, have told her so, and then showed her the body. The Medusa could have easily started attacking as soon as the party opened the door, but instead this turned into a negotiation for her release. She willingly offered the Lord Commander's treasure, and the PCs offered her freedom.

This was handled as a Skill Challenge. I didn't have this "scripted" as a skill challenge at all. The PCs used appropriate skills for the actions they were describing. In the end they got XP, and the treasure without getting into a combat that would have very probably killed at least one PC. This also allowed me to flesh out this particular monster into an NPC that I'll be using in a subsequent adventure.

LOL, I think I had sort of forgotten about the old skill list enough that I didn't think of that. I list obstacles and resources instead, generally. The "list of skills" format for composing SCs was never that strong, I agree. It isn't always bad, but it is generally a waste of time if you know your players and characters at all. I find the problem with published SCs is mostly that the authors had no really coherent vision of the SC or at least couldn't convey it in that format.

 

[pemerton]

skill challenges sound great on paper but make for poor mechanics in play.

I know plenty of other 4e fans love SCs, but I tend to agree with you.

I'm one of those who think that skill challenges - that is, a complex non-combat scene-resolution mechanic - are a good thing. They impose discipline on the GM's narration, give the players a focus for their efforts, and introduce finality. D&D has always had finality in its combat resolution, but has long lacked it in relation to non-combat situations.

I really like SC but they are hard to pull off sometimes, or in the manner one expects. I found running a bunch of them to be very helpful; I got better the more I ran.

For anyone who is interested, this thread talked about running skill challenges in some detail, with a bunch of different 4e GMs posting about their ideas and techniques.

When I use a "published" skill challenge I always "flip" it to work in this manner. The skill challenges seem to work better when they are organically merged with the actions of the characters trying to achieve a goal, rather than simply a list of "approved" skills. I run the challenges in a way similar to how I run combats. The description of what is happening is very important to the pacing, and the feel of the encounter.

D'karr I'm not sure what you're doing differently than the normal stock SC system, except always giving XP (which given the fact that failures aren't that common probably isn't a huge deal, but is different).

Awarding XP regardless of success in a skill challenge is a core rule in Essentials.

As for the "list of skills" thing, I think that there is a tension there between the GM's conception of the design of the situation, and the invitation to the players to engage it via their PCs. And WotC didn't articulate the resolution of that tension very well.

When I look at a published skill challenge, I treat the list of "primary skills" as indicative of the author's conception of the situation. And if I'm noting up a challenge myself, I will often do something similar. But if the players engage the situation differently, but in a way that still responds to what I, as GM, have narrated to them, then I certainly don't hold them to the list.

A comparison: in designing a combat encounter with an escarpment, I might note a DC for climbing up the slope. But if a player finds a way for his/her PC to fly, or to use a rope, I'm not going to block that just because the DC I wrote down in my notes was for unaided climbing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e 2012/13 is a much better game than 4e 2008 Although the option bloat can be pretty extreme (4e has more feats than 3.5).

And my rule of thumb with respect to skill challenges is that a skill challengs is a bad one if it becomes obvious to the players that there is a skill challenge happening. (OK, so other DMs are likely to notice). If the DM is using it behind the screen for pacing purposes and asking the players what they do rather than giving them a preselected list of skills, I find the whole thing works pretty well.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've also found adapting a D&DN mechanic into 4E has done wonders for my skill challenges... which is using Advantage/Disadvantage.

Basically... the players can use whatever skills they want to try and succeed in the challenge as usual. But if they actually describe what it is they are doing, how they are doing it, and generally roleplay the action really well... I grant them Advantage on the check. Roll the d20 twice and take the best result. Conversely, if they make no effort whatsoever to RP or describe... rather, they just say " I try to Bluff the guy"... I grant Disadvantage on the roll (roll two d20 and use worst).

They now have a really good bennie that they try and work for... and which thankfully doesn't screw up the DCs of the checks (which does happen a bit if you just grant additional +2s to the rolls). It's all a matter of perception... rolling twice and taking best result seems to be much more of something to strive for, than just another +2 bonus. And thus, they go that extra mile in coming up with ideas that they hope will impress me, and thus have me grant them Advantage. That extra d20 roll is something they really, really love.

Does the Advantage mechanic on rolls skew the chance of success on a particular roll higher on average? Of course. But I then counter this by usually increasing the number of successes needed in the challenge (usually skipping 4/3 success/failure and going at minimum 6/3). It's worked really well.

 

[ShogunAssassin]

i really like the CB for how easy it is to quickly make chars, and has the math done for you on most powers which is much needed. I also really enjoyed reavers, great campaign. I agree with you that at the start the chars are to bloated for the first couple of sessions but once you work out the kinks i thought it made the chars deeper

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Another thing I should note.
There's a shift from Magic Items being the domain of the DM to the domain of the players. We've received magic items of level X and are tasked with selecting the items. I'm not sure I like that approach...

 

[B.T.]

Don't tell your players they are in a skill challenge. It's the fastest way to suck the fun and creativity out of exploration.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another thing I should note.
There's a shift from Magic Items being the domain of the DM to the domain of the players. We've received magic items of level X and are tasked with selecting the items. I'm not sure I like that approach...

Yeah, that seems like it can get kind of lame when there's no "item" to speak of in the treasure pile. It kinda of short-changes the narrative. Seems like the DM is taking the concept of the "wish list" and just removing all effort on his own part and putting it all on you.

The original idea of the "wish list" I think was a good one. Rather than populating treasure piles with heaps of magic items that no one gives two rats about and which end up just getting sold off for gold (which begged the question why there *weren't* more magic item shops that sold all these excess magic items that all these adventuring parties didn't want)... the "wish list" gave a DM an idea of what players would actually want and actually use, and thus could populate his treasure piles accordingly (and thus cut down on the extremes of "excess treasure").

Of course, this idea was an anathema to a number of players because that in itself broke narrative immersion a little bit since piles of treasure just always seemed to happen to have the same type of magic weapon that the PC actually used (which I can certainly understand.) Of course granted... many of these same players also decried the idea of the "magic item shop", but yet could never seem to adequately explain where all those +1 longswords went that all these adventuring parties found as part of generic treasure and then sold off to the blacksmith in town. THAT part of the 'narrative immersion' just sort of fell by the wayside.

It makes perfect sense that if you don't want a "magic item shop" in your town... but also don't want to force your players to all use longswords and shortswords (since those seem to be the most popular items that gets enchanted and thus the items in the treasure pile are less likely to "go to waste")... going the "wish list" route is a way to go about it. But it still falls to the DM to care about how his players interact with the fiction and put a little effort to at least in part mask the "wish list" concept a bit. Sure, there might seem to be magical spiked chains in treasure piles a bit more often than would strain credibility... but I'd rather see a little break in the immersion than to tell the players to only use longswords because you want to me more "logical" or "realistic" in what would actually appear in any random pile of loot.