D&D 5E Skill Challenges in 5E

[Pseudopsyche]

In a skill challenge, as presented in 4e and modelled on comparable mechanics from other RPGs, the decisions that the players take are not primarily mechanical. They are primarily decisions that change the fiction. These changes in the fiction then open up new options. So, for instance, if I say something polite to the duke, and he accepts my compliment, then I can now ask for an alliance. Whereas if I say something fierce to the duke, and he is shaken by that, then I can now demand his aid. Resolving a skill challenge is about the interplay between the GM's narration of new fictional circumstances in response to successful or failed checks, and the players leveraging those new fictional circumstances in the directions that they want. The logic is that of story and genre, not mechanics and tactics.

Your characterization of skill challenges sounds great in theory, but in my experience, too many skill challenges devolve into, for example, a player asking, "Can I use Athletics?" Yes, I know, I must be a horrible DM who's doing it all wrong. Maybe it's just because most of my experience lately has been with organized play.

But I'd like to point out that every skill challenge I've seen in an adventure published by WotC (or in LFR) has simply listed skills, their DCs, and some narrative justification. The DCs almost never depend on the "narrative state" of the encounter. Once in a while you'll be able to use Insight or Perception to "unlock" some other skill or grant some bonus, and often there's a maximum number of successes possible for a given skill. The main issue is that these published skill challenges are always organized by skill (game mechanic), not by narrative elements (the duke's personality, goals, motivations, weaknesses).

I certainly believe that others have had better experiences with skill challenges. But I wonder how much value the skill challenge mechanics added, and how much was due to your personal skill as a DM? How much of the value of 4E skill challenges could be replaced simply by the following pieces of DM advice:

• Don't let the outcome of an entire scene hinge on a single skill check.
• Give players some sense of their progress toward their goal in the scene.
• Grant some XP based on the number of successful skill checks in a scene.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

The same should be true of skill challenges. The challenge for the players should *not* be rolling high enough (or consistently medium enough, when you need a lot of low DC rolls), but to come up with ideas for how best to handle the situation.

But when, as DMs (or adventure writers) we define skills applicable to a skill challenge -- and then explain exactly which skills can be used to the players as we describe the situation -- we really kill that potential for creative fun in the skill challenge, and it becomes just an exercise in rolling dice.

Yes, exactly. I know not every table suffers from this problem, but too often I have seen players spend combat encounters looking through their power cards, then spending skill challenges looking through their skill bonuses.

 

[D'karr]

Your characterization of skill challenges sounds great in theory, but in my experience, too many skill challenges devolve into, for example, a player asking, "Can I use Athletics?" Yes, I know, I must be a horrible DM who's doing it all wrong. Maybe it's just because most of my experience lately has been with organized play.

Yes, exactly. I know not every table suffers from this problem, but too often I have seen players spend combat encounters looking through their power cards, then spending skill challenges looking through their skill bonuses.

I think that is mostly a problem with the presentation of the skill challenge, and the underlying mechanics. I've had great success with skill challenges when it is simply a goal oriented situation and the players are not concentrating on the "rules". The same applies to combat. When I'm spending my time describing the combat in an organic manner instead of just rolling and giving damage my players start getting more descriptive also.

 

[D'karr]

But I'd like to point out that every skill challenge I've seen in an adventure published by WotC (or in LFR) has simply listed skills, their DCs, and some narrative justification. The DCs almost never depend on the "narrative state" of the encounter. Once in a while you'll be able to use Insight or Perception to "unlock" some other skill or grant some bonus, and often there's a maximum number of successes possible for a given skill. The main issue is that these published skill challenges are always organized by skill (game mechanic), not by narrative elements (the duke's personality, goals, motivations, weaknesses).

Yes, this is a matter of presentation and the horribly bad advice/examples on DMG1. Every "published" skill challenge has had that problem because the underlying presentation, the one the DM must do at a table, is not the overt on the page presentation. DMs have not had good advice on that play presentation. The on the page presentation is the framework. The underlying play of the skill challenge is what WotC never got a clear picture on. Though they did do better with DMG2 and subsequently with the DM Kit they never seem to have gained the correct perspective that you see successful DMs talk about here.

I certainly believe that others have had better experiences with skill challenges. But I wonder how much value the skill challenge mechanics added, and how much was due to your personal skill as a DM? How much of the value of 4E skill challenges could be replaced simply by the following pieces of DM advice:

• Don't let the outcome of an entire scene hinge on a single skill check.
• Give players some sense of their progress toward their goal in the scene.
• Grant some XP based on the number of successful skill checks in a scene.

I agree and that is how I'm running skill challenges. But that last part (XP Rewards) is something skill challenges provided that did not exist before. 3.x had comments on ad-hoc rewards but it was just that a comment, and not even an example.

 

[pemerton]

Your characterization of skill challenges sounds great in theory, but in my experience, too many skill challenges devolve into, for example, a player asking, "Can I use Athletics?"

The answer to that question is - "What are you doing with Athletics? How is it helping you achieve your goal?" I gave an example upthread of how the situation might be developed by another PC so that Athletics became applicable to persuading the duke. (It's not just theorycraft, either - more-or-less that thing happened in a skill challenge I ran.)

every skill challenge I've seen in an adventure published by WotC (or in LFR) has simply listed skills, their DCs, and some narrative justification. The DCs almost never depend on the "narrative state" of the encounter.

Yes, this is a matter of presentation

<snip>

The on the page presentation is the framework.

Adding to what D'karr said: a module, in offering information for a combat encounter, typically will list some monter stats, set out some terrain, and perhaps make a few remarks about how the monsters might fight. But there is an expectation that a GM will fill in a lot of detail during play, such as "Which PC does monster X attack in round Z?" or "Is monster X going to stand still, or move away?"

Information for a skill challenge in a module is a bit like that - it is some basic advice on the starting situation, the range of likely end points, and the sorts of technqiues the players might use to get from A to B (or B' or B'' or . . .). But the GM has to actually make the situation come alive during play and resolution.

That said, I think that Robin Laws, in his sample adventures in the HeroWars Narrator's Book, does a better job of setting out skill-challenge-style encounters and making it clear to the GM that what is suggested is a tentative template for how things might unfold, and offering the GM a wider range of suggestions on the directions in which the resolution might head, and how the GM might handle that.

As far as DCs, they shouldn't depend very much on the "narrative state" - they are taken from the DCs by level chart, and default to Medium. What the narrative does is open up or close of opportunities to make meaningful use of skills.

I wonder how much value the skill challenge mechanics added, and how much was due to your personal skill as a DM?

In my own case, skill challenges as a mechanic add a lot. They impose finality, and also provide a structure for the resolution that obliges me to keep the scene alive (if more rolls have to be made) or to bring it to a close (if they don't), thereby ensuring that interesting complications and opportunities are narrated. I've had outcomes in skill challenges - compromises, changes of mind, etc, by both PCs and NPCs - that I wouldn't have achieved under GM fiat resolution.

 

[Libramarian]

Seems to me that the problem with skill challenges is that the 4e DMG presented them as being like a combat system for noncombat scenes, when they're not analogous to the combat system at all. Completely different kinds of fun. Skill challenges are not a *game*; if you approach them as a game then the roleplaying will feel "tacked on" because it doesn't affect the underlying mechanics and doesn't affect your chance of winning or losing. Skill challenges provide a structure that encourages everyone to contribute to the narration of noncombat scenes and makes it difficult for the DM to railroad them. They should only be used with players who like to roleplay for its own sake or for the impact that their description has on the narrative. They should not be used with players who only like to describe their skill check in the fiction if they can squeeze some sort of tactical advantage out of it.

The problem with how skill challenges were explained is epitomized in their name: "skill challenge" sounds really gamist, doesn't it? They should have been called the group shared narration mechanic or something.

 

[Starfox]

Skill challenges provide a structure that encourages everyone to contribute to the narration of noncombat scenes and makes it difficult for the DM to railroad them. .

TBH, I felt the exact reverse of this was true.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Actually, I think this Vine is the perfect demonstration of what ended up happening in a lot of our skill challenges.

[video=youtube;mbLYiloNmic]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbLYiloNmic[/video]

Because players focused on what they could do well, they wound trying to use backflips to do everything, including catch a purse snatcher.

 

[Libramarian]

TBH, I felt the exact reverse of this was true.

You found that skill challenges encouraged one player to take over the scene and made it easier for the DM to railroad the result compared with either using simple skill checks or handling it by DM fiat?

I dislike skill challenges and prefer to handle noncombat encounters with either specific sim-y rules or a reaction roll followed by free roleplay for social encounters. But I sometimes struggle with one player dominating the scene and I rely on a broader commitment to sandbox play to convince players that I don't care to railroad them. I think skill challenges by their nature would at least help with those two things.

 

[Mistwell]

Skill Challenges seemed like a good idea to me when they first came out, and I believe some DMs got good use out of them. But I think on-balance they caused more harm than good to most games they were used in, and prefer a return to a simple skill check and DM fiat system.