D&D 5E Skill Challenges in 5E

[Starfox]

I do. I just wrote a pretty abridged post regarding the formalization of Quests in 4e and how, by my eyes and certainly by the effect on play at my table, it is D&D's version of "establish transparent and focused premise" and the PC build tools and resolution tools are D&D's version of "address transparent and focused premise."

Cool. A continuation of this argument might well propel much of the RPGs I play into narrativism also. Not that I particularly call what they are called as long as we have fun, but it is interesting to try and grok (as opposed to merely read) Forge.

Case in point; if you start a campaign with the stated goal of playing the Skull & Shackles AP, and then everyone creates characters that are both rules-wise and personality-wise suited for this, that is a sort of "transparent and focused premise". If the players then choose to solve most problems in such a way that the local outcome is vastly different (fewer corpses, more allies), the GM is willing to accommodate the players in this ambition (by making some NPCs less suicidally stupid), but the overall plot still continues... I guess that is pretty close to Narrativism as described in Forge.

Ops, sorry for hijacking the thread. Lets go back to the usual edition warring!

 

[pemerton]

Here you go... emphasis mine

[MENTION=33132]WhatGravitas[/MENTION] says "and success/failures aren't focussed on a particular task, but overall progress". That doesn't mean that a skill check doesn't correspond to a particular event - it means that adjudication of the outcome of that event pertains to success or failure at the overall challenge - hence WhatGravitas's suggestion upthread that a failed skill check might be consistent with succeeding at the task at hand, but not making progress at the overall challenge due to some other consequence (eg the wall crumbling as you climb it).

This is basic "intent and task" stuff from Burning Wheel.

Dude it's logic, I just explained it... you either succeed at your goal or you fail

<snip>

Do skill challenges as designed by the rules have a distinct success outcome and a distinct failure outcome? If so then are there any rules for achieving both or either of these in part (if you think so tell me how many X successes vs. Y failures equal this supposed condition of partial success or partial failure)?

I don't really understand this, either as a point about logic or a point about gameplay.

As a point about logic, it seems to entail that partial success is impossible, because partial success entails that everything desired was not achieved, which is to say that there was not (full) success, which entails that there was failure.

That's fine if you want to use "success" to mean "full success" and "failure" to mean "anything short of full success". But once the notion of partial success is introduced, I'm assuming that we're liberalising usage a bit.

As a point about gameplay, here are some ways in which partial success is possible:

• the challenge succeeds, but due to failed checks along the way the group loses surges, or even has a PC die;
  
  
• the challenge succeeds, but due to concessions made by PCs along the way (eg as part of making social skill checks) they have to make compromises they didn't want to make;
  
  
• the challenge fails, but due to successes along the way the PCs get some of what they want (eg they don't persuade the duke to give them troops, but along the way a successful check has led to the duke or an advisor telling them something about the lay of the land, or the disposition of the troops, that is helpful for the party).

This is much the same as how combat can have partial success (if the PCs beat all their enemies but take casualties in the process) or have partial faiure (if the PCs fail to beat all their enemies but do defeat some of them, thereby weakening them, or otherwise achieve some of their lesser goals even while failing at their overall one of victory).

 

[Imaro]

@WhatGravitas says "and success/failures aren't focussed on a particular task, but overall progress". That doesn't mean that a skill check doesn't correspond to a particular event - it means that adjudication of the outcome of that event pertains to success or failure at the overall challenge - hence WhatGravitas's suggestion upthread that a failed skill check might be consistent with succeeding at the task at hand, but not making progress at the overall challenge due to some other consequence (eg the wall crumbling as you climb it).

So let me get this straight... you're claiming that a success/failure can be focused on a particular task... but the adjudicated outcome can have nothing whatsoever to do with the task at hand but instead be based on the overall skill challenge... if the outcome of the success or failure of a skill check, can have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual task that was undertaken then how can you claim that the skill check corresponds to a particular event, since the outcome is part of that check?

This is basic "intent and task" stuff from Burning Wheel.

This would be great if we were discussing BW, but we are not. Though going back to the point I and Starfox made earlier, it is amazing to me how many times you reference and pull from other games to discuss SC's in 4e...

I don't really understand this, either as a point about logic or a point about gameplay.

Seems pretty clear to me.

As a point about logic, it seems to entail that partial success is impossible, because partial success entails that everything desired was not achieved, which is to say that there was not (full) success, which entails that there was failure.

It entails partial success is impossible, because (as per the rules) there is no stated partial success or partial failure conditions or goals. Now on a personal level you can choose to define whatever you want as "partial success"or a "partial failure" but these are not states achievable in the SC rules as presented.

That's fine if you want to use "success" to mean "full success" and "failure" to mean "anything short of full success". But once the notion of partial success is introduced, I'm assuming that we're liberalising usage a bit.

How about we stick to how they are defined in the rules... If you get X successes before Y failures you succeed at the skill challenge and attain the success goal. If you instead get Y failures before X successes you fail and are instead subject to the failure conditions... anything else is just stuff you're houseruling in.

As a point about gameplay, here are some ways in which partial success is possible:

• the challenge succeeds, but due to failed checks along the way the group loses surges, or even has a PC die;
• the challenge succeeds, but due to concessions made by PCs along the way (eg as part of making social skill checks) they have to make compromises they didn't want to make;
• the challenge fails, but due to successes along the way the PCs get some of what they want (eg they don't persuade the duke to give them troops, but along the way a successful check has led to the duke or an advisor telling them something about the lay of the land, or the disposition of the troops, that is helpful for the party).

Ok I'll respond to each...
1. Per the rules this is a success...X successes before Y failures.
2. Again this is a success the PC's attain the goal, how or why isn't important to the outcome state, only that they got the X successes before Y failures.
3. This is a failure and they shouldn't get some of what they want (unless this is in the fail result for the SC). The failure state of a SC is defined when the SC is created and that is what should happen if they fail... again this seems like you modifying the rules to your own "version"of SC's.

This is much the same as how combat can have partial success (if the PCs beat all their enemies but take casualties in the process) or have partial faiure (if the PCs fail to beat all their enemies but do defeat some of them, thereby weakening them, or otherwise achieve some of their lesser goals even while failing at their overall one of victory).

There can be goals to a combat but they are not required to have precise, pre-defined success and failure results, combats are more organic than SC's as presented in the book due to this... and they don't have to have precisely defined victory or failure conditions. i.e. 5 successful attacks before 3 successful enemy attacks. This is a defining feature of SC's not combats.

 

[keterys]

For example:
If the challenge is to "Return Home", each island in Odysseus' way might be one or two checks or encounters, so while one Bluff check allows him to free his captured crew from a cyclops, it also adds one success to his overall goal of returning home. There might also be a "level of success" consideration in how many years it takes him. If each check is a year, then his 8 successes and 2 failures led up to 10 years.

 

[Starfox]

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think discussing the merits of 4E's skill challenges are going to lead anywhere. We have exhausted that topic. If this discussion is to lead anywhere, we should rather discuss the goals for eventual 5E skill challenges, and methods to get there. Other games can be interesting as inspiration and as comparison.

Sorry to contradict myself a few pages back when I said discussing 4E skill challenges is interesting. To a point it is, but past that point it just becomes edition waring.

A game that might be worth looking up for inspiration on skill challenges is Mouse Guard. A very structured game. They have a universal resolution system that are used for all more dramatic scenes that is quite similar to a skill challenge, but which does include conditional successes and consequences besides winning and losing. And which also interestingly enough has a reward mechanism that rewards failure quite a lot - each roll gives xp, there are "fail xp" and "success xp" and you need both to advance. Failing the initial roll in a skill challenge grants a fail xp, and also forces more rolls, each of which gives more xp.

This system is a bit too complex to reference here, but if anyone has read it it is quite interesting as an exercise in formal game structure. Not sure it is good - only played a single session of it and have some reservations - but certainly interesting.

 

[Imaro]

For example:
If the challenge is to "Return Home", each island in Odysseus' way might be one or two checks or encounters, so while one Bluff check allows him to free his captured crew from a cyclops, it also adds one success to his overall goal of returning home. There might also be a "level of success" consideration in how many years it takes him. If each check is a year, then his 8 successes and 2 failures led up to 10 years.

Yes but in your example the check's outcome is very much tied to the individual task. He is bluffing the cyclops to free his men... he succeeds and his men are freed. In this example the outcome of his bluffing of the cyclops was not that the wind picked up and his journey became easier (that would be a focus on the overall SC as opposed to the task). It also wasn't narrated as him getting his men back but half of them are dead (I mean if a failed roll can be narrated as a successful attempt, why can't a successful roll be narrated as a failure??).

Now the other point some people are claiming is that this means he has partially succeeded in the SC, but I don't see it that way since getting back his men has nothing to do with whether the set goal of the success state of the SC is attained (Unless of course it is the final success that decides it). It also does not mean he has a "partial success" since his goal is not to free his men but to return home and that is a binary outcome, either he does or he doesn't.

 

[Blackbrrd]

@WhatGravitas says "and success/failures aren't focussed on a particular task, but overall progress". That doesn't mean that a skill check doesn't correspond to a particular event - it means that adjudication of the outcome of that event pertains to success or failure at the overall challenge - hence WhatGravitas's suggestion upthread that a failed skill check might be consistent with succeeding at the task at hand, but not making progress at the overall challenge due to some other consequence (eg the wall crumbling as you climb it).

This is basic "intent and task" stuff from Burning Wheel.

I don't really understand this, either as a point about logic or a point about gameplay.

As a point about logic, it seems to entail that partial success is impossible, because partial success entails that everything desired was not achieved, which is to say that there was not (full) success, which entails that there was failure.

That's fine if you want to use "success" to mean "full success" and "failure" to mean "anything short of full success". But once the notion of partial success is introduced, I'm assuming that we're liberalising usage a bit.

As a point about gameplay, here are some ways in which partial success is possible:

• the challenge succeeds, but due to failed checks along the way the group loses surges, or even has a PC die;
• the challenge succeeds, but due to concessions made by PCs along the way (eg as part of making social skill checks) they have to make compromises they didn't want to make;
• the challenge fails, but due to successes along the way the PCs get some of what they want (eg they don't persuade the duke to give them troops, but along the way a successful check has led to the duke or an advisor telling them something about the lay of the land, or the disposition of the troops, that is helpful for the party).

This is much the same as how combat can have partial success (if the PCs beat all their enemies but take casualties in the process) or have partial faiure (if the PCs fail to beat all their enemies but do defeat some of them, thereby weakening them, or otherwise achieve some of their lesser goals even while failing at their overall one of victory).

Some good points here and something that I think should be incorporated into the 5e skill challenge rules - if they are created. One of the problems with 4e skill challenge examples (from wotc adventures) really don't go in this direction. They are very black/white and leaves the rest up to the DM. If 5e had examples of skills used in their adventures that go in the direction you are going here, I think skills could be used in a much less disruptive way than in 4e.

 

[pemerton]

A game that might be worth looking up for inspiration on skill challenges is Mouse Guard.

Yes. I've referenced it multiple times upthread under its other name - Burning Wheel. (Mouse Guard is written by Luke Crane, the BW designer, and is a sort-of "Burning Wheel Lite".)

One of the problems with 4e skill challenge examples (from wotc adventures) really don't go in this direction. They are very black/white

I agree this is a bit of a problem, though I can think of some partial success challenges in adventures (eg in H2).

I think worse in both 4e adventures and 4e rulebooks is (i) they don't say much about how to maintain pressure on the PCs, so as to motivate players to make checks, and (ii) they don't give the GM any advice on resolution techniques - in the examples of play in both DMG and Essentials, for instance, the GM uses certain techniques that aren't self-evident, but that aren't called out by the designers. This contrasts poorly with the rules on combat encounters, for example, which talk very clearly about how terrain, monster roles, etc are being used to support resolution.

 

[pemerton]

So let me get this straight... you're claiming that a success/failure can be focused on a particular task... but the adjudicated outcome can have nothing whatsoever to do with the task at hand but instead be based on the overall skill challenge.

Mostly (though "nothing at all" is too strong). If you read the example skill challenge in the Essentials book, that is how it works when the 3rd failure occurs.

And here is an example from p 77 of the DMG:

Jarret: I’m going to try to handle this with diplomacy. My good Duke, if you grant our petition for aid,
it will not only help us complete our quest, but it will also secure your duchy from the ravages of the goblin horde for a season or more. Surely you can see the sense of that. (Makes a Diplomacy skill check and gets a success.)

Duke: Hmm, well said. I do remember the Battle of Cantle Hill. Nasty business. (The DM informs the players that the History skill can now be used to aid in this challenge.)​

The narration of the success isn't in terms of the Duke being persuaded to help. It's in terms of opening up a new opportunity.

How about we stick to how they are defined in the rules... If you get X successes before Y failures you succeed at the skill challenge and attain the success goal. If you instead get Y failures before X successes you fail and are instead subject to the failure conditions... anything else is just stuff you're houseruling in.

Can you reference some rules text here?

DMG p 72:

The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical
risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions.​

Nothing here about absence of partial success or partial failure.

DMG pp 74, 76 (under headings about "Consequences"):

What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?

When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure. .

If the characters fail the challenge, the story still has to move forward, but in a different direction and possibly by a longer, more dangerous route. You can think of it like a room in a dungeon. If the characters can’t defeat the dragon in that room, they don’t get the experience for killing it or the treasure it guards, and they can’t go through the door on the opposite side of the room. They might still be able to get to the chamber behind the door, but by taking a different and more arduous path. In the same way, failure in a skill challenge should send the characters down a different route in the adventure, but not derail them entirely. .

Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do. . .

Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure—the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure. If the characters get lost in the jungle, that leads to further challenges, not the end of the adventure.​

I don't see anything there about the resolution of the challenge - including checks made, and narration thereof - having no effect on the outcome. In a 10/3 challenge to navigate through the jungle, for instance, it strikes me as obvious that the "more arduous" path would be different depending on whether the 3rd failure came after zero successes or 9 successes. And also that a group who arrives at the temple after 10 successes and no failures might be in better shape than one which arrives after 10 successes but 2 failures.

getting back his men has nothing to do with whether the set goal of the success state of the SC is attained (Unless of course it is the final success that decides it). It also does not mean he has a "partial success" since his goal is not to free his men but to return home and that is a binary outcome, either he does or he doesn't.

Under ths conception of what counts as a goal, could you give an example of a partial success? I would have thought getting only half one's men home might count.

 

[D'karr]

Under ths conception of what counts as a goal, could you give an example of a partial success? I would have thought getting only half one's men home might count.

In addition to the fact that the stated guidelines for skill challenges specify that not getting home would be, de facto, stopping the adventure, which is clearly not the intent of the guidelines to begin with. So the consequences of failure should obviously not be that he can't make it home.

Making the success/failure on the skill challenge binary is obviously not the intent of the guidelines.