D&D 5E Skill Challenges in 5E

[JamesonCourage]

My personal experience is that social challenges are easiest to run, and that environmental challenges are consierably harder, for just the sorts of reasons you give. But @Manbearcat does a lot of environmental challenges.

My preference is for tense action-y scenes, like "deal with the out of control portal" skill challenge I ran, or the upcoming "the cavern is collapsing" skill challenge I plan to run. I've run both social and exploration skill challenges, though, and both do work (for my groups). I just prefer them wherever tension is highest, which can be either one (but is more likely to be social than exploration in my campaigns).

 

[Starfox]

That is poor GMing and anything near or around it is poor GMing. The same holds for combat and social scenes. I attack. You haven't killed him enough. I attack more. I convince the King. Roll Diplomacy. 15. He agrees but you haven't convinced him enough. I convince him harder/more. Roll Diplomacy...etc. Poor GMing. I can't imagine that is controversial.

Emphasis mine.

I agree, it's not controversial, I was making an intentionally bad example to point out a possible pitfall. I completely believe it is possible to make a physical skill challenge exiting (or any skill challenge, or even any time spent gaming), especially if you have Rl experiences to quote from. I used to rock climb in the past, and I still draw inspiration from that short time hobby to describe climbs even tough it was just a few short months 30 years ago. I am sure that more experience => more narrative ideas. That was never in doubt.

The problem I was trying to focus on is that it becomes harder to narrate a series of events if you make that series very long, as skill challenges tend to do. Many rolls -> many narrative steps - > small progress in each step -> hard to narrate. If you are better at narrating this problem will kick in later, if you are worse, it will kick in sooner. For each of us there is a limit on how long a progression of events can be before we run into repetition narrating it. A GM with little imagination will have that "one rock, another rock" approach" I used above and run out of steam quickly. A better GM can run a long skill challenge without becoming repetitive. The more skill and familiarity with the situation you have, the more variety you can add, but there is always a limit. The trick is to keep the resolution mechanic long enough to be an interesting challenge yet short enough not to lose narrative tension.

Not even Indiana Jones climbs rock-by-rock for more than maybe 5-10 rocks, and that's with a visual vista adding to the excitement. Showing more than that of a climbing scene, and it becomes an Endurance test more than a Climb test in the eye of the audience.

 

[pemerton]

The problem I was trying to focus on is that it becomes harder to narrate a series of events if you make that series very long, as skill challenges tend to do. Many rolls -> many narrative steps - > small progress in each step -> hard to narrate. If you are better at narrating this problem will kick in later, if you are worse, it will kick in sooner.

A discussion of this issue, grounded in an actual play example, occurred a couple of years ago on this thread. The key to keeping the scene alive is a wide range of vectors of complication, that fit the scene put push and pull in new directions. I think this is one of the basic GMing skills for this sort of resoluti

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Can you give any clue what this earlier system was like? Was this the earlier system?

It's wasn't as different as I may have made it sound. Without goin' into detail, t' key difference was that t' last beta really encouraged t' DM t' narrate and force t' PCs t' make t' skill checks he asked for based on t' situation at hand. Like t' example above, it encouraged more o' a "You come t' Davy Jones' locker end o' an alley, you must make an Athletics check t' climb. Now you be on t' roof, make a Stealth check t' move without bein' seen."

T' final version reads more like "Pick a couple o' skills that you know will be allowed no matter how many times t' PCs roll them but allow them t' use any other skills they have with a good enough explanation". Now, keep askin' t' PCs t' tell you what skills they be usin' t' solve t' skill challenge until it be complete.

This changed later with t' DMG 2, where it started suggestin' that you limit t' use o' some skills t' only 1 or 2 uses durin' a skill challenge and that some skills might be limited t' a certain portion o' a skill challenge.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's wasn't as different as I may have made it sound. Without goin' into detail, t' key difference was that t' last beta really encouraged t' DM t' narrate and force t' PCs t' make t' skill checks he asked for based on t' situation at hand. Like t' example above, it encouraged more o' a "You come t' Davy Jones' locker end o' an alley, you must make an Athletics check t' climb. Now you be on t' roof, make a Stealth check t' move without bein' seen."

T' final version reads more like "Pick a couple o' skills that you know will be allowed no matter how many times t' PCs roll them but allow them t' use any other skills they have with a good enough explanation". Now, keep askin' t' PCs t' tell you what skills they be usin' t' solve t' skill challenge until it be complete.

This changed later with t' DMG 2, where it started suggestin' that you limit t' use o' some skills t' only 1 or 2 uses durin' a skill challenge and that some skills might be limited t' a certain portion o' a skill challenge.

The excessive uses of apostrophes made me skip most of this post. Not saying you need to change it, but I'm certainly turned off by this (new?) style. Just a heads up.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That is poor GMing and anything near or around it is poor GMing. The same holds for combat and social scenes. I attack. You haven't killed him enough. I attack more. I convince the King. Roll Diplomacy. 15. He agrees but you haven't convinced him enough. I convince him harder/more. Roll Diplomacy...etc. Poor GMing. I can't imagine that is controversial.

It be not. This be me point, however. Given a description o' a skill challenge in an adventure that says:

Get to the top of the cliff
8 successes before 3 failures
Primary Skills: Athletics and Acrobatics

most DMs will look at it and fall back t' your example o' "Handhold 1, Handhold 2". Because they can't come up with anythin' else interestin' t' narrate given that much information and no personal experience with climbin'.

Plus, in this particular example thar be no reason why you need 8 successes. You need as many successes as it takes t' get t' t' top. If you fall, you need t' start over again, so it might take 16 successes. Assignin' this t' structure o' a skill challenge doesn't make it better in any way. It only causes problems.

In fact, thar be so many situations where it's a bad idea t' use a skill challenge t' resolve it that thar doesn't appear t' be much benefit t' havin' a skill challenge rule in t' first place.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The excessive uses of apostrophes made me skip most of this post. Not saying you need to change it, but I'm certainly turned off by this (new?) style. Just a heads up.

I be apologizin'. It be talk like a pirate day today. I understand some landlubbers will be upset. It won't last long, I can assure ye of that.

 

[Manbearcat]

The problem I was trying to focus on is that it becomes harder to narrate a series of events if you make that series very long, as skill challenges tend to do. Many rolls -> many narrative steps - > small progress in each step -> hard to narrate. If you are better at narrating this problem will kick in later, if you are worse, it will kick in sooner. For each of us there is a limit on how long a progression of events can be before we run into repetition narrating it. A GM with little imagination will have that "one rock, another rock" approach" I used above and run out of steam quickly. A better GM can run a long skill challenge without becoming repetitive. The more skill and familiarity with the situation you have, the more variety you can add, but there is always a limit. The trick is to keep the resolution mechanic long enough to be an interesting challenge yet short enough not to lose narrative tension.

While I understand the concern here (and I've seen this specific qualm voiced multiple times over the course of several threads), I'm left wondering what is different here from any other area of focused expertise required to round out GMing skill? A good GM possesses a broad spectrum of knowledge including physical sciences, social sciences, history, genre trope understanding/logic, practical or theoretical understanding of martial exploits (primarily combat but up to and including climbing, hiking, building, survivalist techniques, etc), accrued literary exposure (including an understanding of how to hook, properly pace, and structure dramatic conflicts), a creative reservoir to call upon, the ability to process information quickly in real time (for functional, coherent improv), and a deep understanding of game mechanics and how the particular resolution mechanics of the system in play come together (and what playstyle agenda(s) they facilitate). What makes this specific skill-set, amongst the breadth of required knowledge/acumen, so evasive such that the worry becomes so visceral and the task so daunting? It seems that we could place this same concern on any number of things and say "well, this can't work because it takes too much practice/honed skill for functional output."

 

[pemerton]

It's wasn't as different as I may have made it sound. Without goin' into detail, t' key difference was that t' last beta really encouraged t' DM t' narrate and force t' PCs t' make t' skill checks he asked for based on t' situation at hand.

<snip>

T' final version reads more like "Pick a couple o' skills that you know will be allowed no matter how many times t' PCs roll them but allow them t' use any other skills they have with a good enough explanation".

I don't fully agree with your description of what the DMG said (I don't know about other internal WotC guidelines). But I think the idea that the narration forces a check - though the player might decide what sort of check or other action (like using an item or a spell) - is key to skill challenge dynamics.

Given a description o' a skill challenge in an adventure that says:

Get to the top of the cliff
8 successes before 3 failures
Primary Skills: Athletics and Acrobatics

most DMs will look at it and fall back t' your example o' "Handhold 1, Handhold 2". Because they can't come up with anythin' else interestin' t' narrate given that much information and no personal experience with climbin'.

This is where I refer again to Robin Laws and his Narrator's Book for HeroWars. It shows how you can present a pre-packaged skill challenge in a way that gives the GM the information they need to run it without degenerating into "handhold 1, handhold 2".

Plus, in this particular example thar be no reason why you need 8 successes. You need as many successes as it takes t' get t' t' top. If you fall, you need t' start over again, so it might take 16 successes. Assignin' this t' structure o' a skill challenge doesn't make it better in any way. It only causes problems.

In fact, thar be so many situations where it's a bad idea t' use a skill challenge t' resolve it that thar doesn't appear t' be much benefit t' havin' a skill challenge rule in t' first place.

You are looking at this from the point of view of process simulation - that each skill check equates to moving X feet up the cliff-face, and that each faiure is a fall down. Looked at in that way, of course the skill challenge framework is pointless.

Skill challenges (except for some complex skill checks, like "4 thievery successes to disarm the trap") are an alternative to process simulation (like hp: you don't narrate the first 10 hp of damage to the storm giant with 180 hp the same as you narrate the 10 hp of damage that finally drop it). The GM has to narrate the consequence of success or failure so as to fit the framework. The point of the framework, in term, is to support pacing and provide finality.

 

[Starfox]

I be apologizin'. It be talk like a pirate day today. I understand some landlubbers will be upset. It won't last long, I can assure ye of that.

Ah dinna' know 'ey 'ad majursh amon' da piratesh, matey?

Plus, in this particular example thar be no reason why you need 8 successes. You need as many successes as it takes t' get t' t' top. If you fall, you need t' start over again, so it might take 16 successes. Assignin' this t' structure o' a skill challenge doesn't make it better in any way. It only causes problems.

If a climb is played out as "succeed 8 times, and if you ever fail by more than 4, you fall, take 1d6 damage per accumulated success, and need to start over", then a skill challenge is an improvement even if using the "Athletics - 8 successes before 3 failures" thing. But really interesting skill narration is either a progression similar to what seems to be the first skill challenge idea "You are at the base of the cliff. You can begin climbing (Athletics) or plan a route ahead (Nature)" and so on with different steps and option at points in the climb. Add special failure paragraphs like "First failure leaves you hanging in a precarious situation. Acrobatics lets you land safely a bit further down (lose one success), Perception lets you spot another, harder path (increase DC next roll). And so forth - narrating each situation as it comes up, but needing a couple of failures before the whole task fails.

You can have such "save yourself" situations with recursion, creating an infinite safety net if desired. "You walk down the corridor.. Check perception (fail). A pit trap opens! Check reflexes (fail). You start to fall down the pit. Roll Climb to see if you can catch yourself (fail). Your companion behind you might be able to catch you... (fail). And so on unto infinity, giving the player(s) a potentially unlimited number of chances to chances to save themselves. A skill challenge variant could be to just limit the number of such saving rolls the players are allowed could work. That is, you only need to make one successful roll, difficulty is high, and you are allowed a number of failures. As opposed to a 4E skill challenge which is is a lot of easy rolls with a few failures allowed and many successes required. There are many, many ways to do this.

While I understand the concern here (and I've seen this specific qualm voiced multiple times over the course of several threads), I'm left wondering what is different here from any other area of focused expertise required to round out GMing skill?

My concern is not on how to educate gamemasters, it is on writing rules so as to make the most out of whatever skills the gamemaster has. Two drivers of equal skill in two different cars, one of them will still drive better in a car with better handling - this is what I am after, rules that make it easier to excel.