D&D 5E (2014) Skill Challenges in 5E

[Mistwell]

Has anyone at WOTC given any indication, any even vague whiff of a hint of a possibility, that skill challenges could maybe possibly play some role in 5e?

I have not seen it.

 

[D'karr]

Has anyone at WOTC given any indication, any even vague whiff of a hint of a possibility, that skill challenges could maybe possibly play some role in 5e?

I have not seen it.

Well Rob Schwalb, one of the designers, specifically mentioned that Skill Challenges should die a horrible death by fire, IIRC. This was during the designers Q&A at DDXP before it (DDXP) reverted back to Winter Fantasy. It was also the first public showing of D&D Next.

 

[keterys]

As a general rule, WotC is disavowing all knowledge of 4e. Much like they disavowed knowledge of 3e. It's a bit peculiar, but I definitely don't expect to see skill challenges show up in 5e unless they're a very remote rules module.

 

[Mistwell]

So, if there is almost no chance at all that Skill Challenges are a part of D&D Next...why are we on page 7 of a thread that purports to be about Skill Challenges in 5e?

 

[Manbearcat]

Because Skill Challenges love threads where dissenting opinions can clash like misery loves company.

 

[Blackbrrd]

So, if there is almost no chance at all that Skill Challenges are a part of D&D Next...why are we on page 7 of a thread that purports to be about Skill Challenges in 5e?

Because skill challenges - or rather a varation of it - would be a great addition to a combat system. Personally, I think it should be something more loosly defined than skill challenges and more like a chapter on how to run something else than combat that relies on game mechanics.

 

[Mistwell]

Because skill challenges - or rather a varation of it - would be a great addition to a combat system. Personally, I think it should be something more loosly defined than skill challenges and more like a chapter on how to run something else than combat that relies on game mechanics.

I agree I'd like a good set of advice in the 5e DMG on how to run non-combat challenges. I don't agree it needs to be done through game mechanics though. It could be, but I'm more concerned about simple good advice on how to run it in a way that plays well.

 

[pemerton]

What incongruence?

Between the DCs for a single check and the DCs for a skill challlenge.

Skill challenges don't have partial failure/success, they are binary.

Why do you say this?

As for A SC being in a between state, it's not... a skill challenge is in the same neutral state of non-resolution that a skill check is in before someone actually rolls the die. Until the final success or failure is accrued... you have not partially succeeded and you have not partially failed because until that last roll none of the previously gained successes or failures affect what you roll next and you are simply in an unresolved state.

I don't unerstand why you say this. Look at the example in the DMG, for instance, of the conversation with the Duke. Each check reflects an event in the fiction, which then has a consequence within the overall development of the challenge. This is also what the DMG advice (quoted by me upthread) says. The fiction changes as the resolution unfolds.

there is a severe problem with narrating things when the DCs have to all be 18 but the players decide what they are doing. If they come up with a decent idea but the DC should be extremely easy, does the DC become easier for that one roll?

Perhaps (that's an option). Or there is a +2 bonus. Or it has a more dramatic impact on the fiction (which might set up subsequent advantageous checks, or change the consequences of failure, or some other sort of benefit).

some other arbitrary element (like rain in a diplomatic meeting or a newly discovered ravine appearing in a pursuit - examples from when we butted heads on this topic before)

I don't see why these are arbitrary. Part of the skill of good GMing in a closed scene resolution system with freeform descriptors feeding into resolution (or loose approximatins to freefrom descriptors, like 4e skills) is narrating complications in a way that isn't arbitrary because it puts pressure on the PCs in ways that are salient to and engaging for the players.

As to DMG 2... I don't consider it a corebook, it's an add-on and not something all or even most groups playing 4e are going to purchase. That is why I specified core.

One of the adages of 4E was "everything is core". That adds a lot of complications, both in game and in discussions like this one.

Well, there are two ways to update/improve the rules and advice for a game. One is to release revised versions of already-published books. Another is to publish more/better material in follow-up books. 4e adopted the second model.

If your real point is that the advice in the DMG would benefit from supplementation, I haven't seen anyone deny that. If you contention is that the DMG2 changes the rules, I don't agree with that.

No, the point of a skill challenge is to give XP out for a non-combat challenge.

That's not my view. XP in 4e are awarded, basically, at the rate of one level-equivalent combat's worth per hour of play. They are a pacing mechanism rather than a reward. (Essentials confirms this, by awarding XP for failed skill challenges - what is key is that they are played, not that they are won.)

In my view the point of skill challenges is to provide a system for resolving non-combat situations that is different from both free-form narration and GM fiat.

 

[LostSoul]

My guess is that skill challenges work better when they are resolving an abstract situation.

If you have all the details of the situation nailed down, then it's difficult to change those details based on the result of a skill check. You can't introduce a secret door, a wandering monster, or a frayed rope if you know there are none of those things before you start the challenge. That means you can't introduce those elements if the PC succeeds or fails on their check.

If the situation is abstract - and almost all social conflicts are abstract, since the DM can't possibly know all the details of an NPC's personality - then there's a lot of room for the DM to react to the skill checks of the PCs and prompt the players for more.

The abstract situation allows the DM to directly address the player's reason for playing the game, as telegraphed through their PC's actions and build. If the situation is too detailed to allow the DM to do that, then it fails.

4E is a strange game. It's almost a very powerful Story Now engine hidden under a mass of character build options. I think that, if the build options were more obviously thematic - representing the conflict inherent in the 4E world - and the reward system were a little different, it would be similar to Burning Wheel. As it is, I think it's missing the mark.

Which gets me thinking: If someone were to hack 4E in such a way that all powers had an obvious thematic crunch to them, and the XP system was mostly Quest-based, what would that look like? It'd be tricky, as there are so many interactions between elements, but you could probably make it work.

 

[Manbearcat]

Between the DCs for a single check and the DCs for a skill challlenge.

It seems that this one is particularly dissonant for folks; how do you have a system with objective DCs for task resolution and subjective DCs for conflict resolution? I think this is why they see Skill Challenges as opaque, dysfunctional oddities. For them, conflict resolution DCs seem arbitrary, incoherent. They're expecting to simulate a micro-process, with granularity of phenomenon through zoomed-in, high resolution and tight accounting for cause and effect. They seem to want Skill Challenges to be a succession of that procedure.

I really don't know how to convince them otherwise on this specific issue as I know you, myself and others have tried many times. My answer has always been that conflict resolution is (i) zoomed-out, lower resolution and (ii) context-driven. That means that each check/stage/panel/micro-resolution is going to have a lot more vectors than "can I physically jump across this pit?" Further, that consideration will be a 2nd or 3rd order consideration. The 1st order consideration (the reason to break out the conflict resolution framework in the first place) is typically bound up in what is at stake; "if I don't make this jump my loved ones die". Further, the "jump", due to its zoomed-out, lower resolution (with respect to time, space, overall events) will likely involve much more than just the jump over the pit. It may involve dodging incoming artillery from pursuit. It may involve spatial awareness to not get lost. It may involve a forensic understanding of where you are and where you need to go. You're abstracting multiple tasks/tests at once and choosing the most-fitting, broadly applicable arbiter. So there is a lot going on. Further, the inherent assumption is that the GM is framing the PCs into genre-relevant, challenge-relevant situations with respect to their level. Tally all of that up and you have subjective DCs for conflict resolution. It makes sense by my eyes.

I don't see why these are arbitrary. Part of the skill of good GMing in a closed scene resolution system with freeform descriptors feeding into resolution (or loose approximatins to freefrom descriptors, like 4e skills) is narrating complications in a way that isn't arbitrary because it puts pressure on the PCs in ways that are salient to and engaging for the players.

I don't see them as arbitrary either. In fact, they are a fundamental necessity. A necessity for both the reasons mentioned above (due to the abstract, zoomed-out resolution, multiple vectors) and for the agenda of a dynamic narrative. Its basic logic that the more contracted/bound each possible input is (each check/stage/panel), the more constrained, and predictable, the output will be (the narrative evolution, ultimate resolution, denouement). If you want dynamism, open up the variables. If you want constraint, lock down the variables.

In my view the point of skill challenges is to provide a system for resolving non-combat situations that is different from both free-form narration and GM fiat.

Agreed.

My guess is that skill challenges work better when they are resolving an abstract situation.

If you have all the details of the situation nailed down, then it's difficult to change those details based on the result of a skill check. You can't introduce a secret door, a wandering monster, or a frayed rope if you know there are none of those things before you start the challenge. That means you can't introduce those elements if the PC succeeds or fails on their check.

If the situation is abstract - and almost all social conflicts are abstract, since the DM can't possibly know all the details of an NPC's personality - then there's a lot of room for the DM to react to the skill checks of the PCs and prompt the players for more.

The abstract situation allows the DM to directly address the player's reason for playing the game, as telegraphed through their PC's actions and build. If the situation is too detailed to allow the DM to do that, then it fails.

Great post here except I would say that Skill Challenges work only, not best, when they are resolving an abstract situation. They don't work at all when you're premising your expectations upon granular, zoomed-in process simulation. If you want that, then you should be using task resolution (see pit > check > gauge pit > check > dodge artillery > check > navigate terrain > check > jump pit > check) and objective DCs. I would reserve "they work better" for when they're resolving a high stakes scenario.