Do you use skill challenges?

[jgsugden]

I don't use SCs. Instead, I set objectives in the game that can be met with skills, spells, or just creative role playing and I let the PCs go at it however they choose.

As an example, a bandit robbed a merchant near the PCs and they decided to chase him down. In 4E, this would have been an excellent option for a skill challenge. However, PCs might just cast hold person, teleport ahead of the NPC, persuade him to stop with a good threat, etc... Or they might engage in a lengthy chase involving several skill checks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Cheated? Interesting choice of word.
If you have the fear of being cheated by your DM, then I suggest your problem is much larger than whether you will incorporate a SC mechanic at the table.

SCs were part of a system that generally played best 'above board,' and they share that quality. SCs work when the DM shares the set-up, and the resolution all takes place in the open. There's tension as the PCs rack up success & failures, there's game-play skill for the players to indulge in, an the abilities of the PCs, themselves, matter to the resolution.

5e, OTOH, works best with some resolution taken behind the screen. Players declare actions and the DM narrates results, the dice may come into it on either side of the screen, or not. That doesn't lend itself to a structured challenge, as the players puzzling through what needs to get done to complete their objective is a big part of the player skill involved.

 

[Imaro]

I don't use SCs. Instead, I set objectives in the game that can be met with skills, spells, or just creative role playing and I let the PCs go at it however they choose.

As an example, a bandit robbed a merchant near the PCs and they decided to chase him down. In 4E, this would have been an excellent option for a skill challenge. However, PCs might just cast hold person, teleport ahead of the NPC, persuade him to stop with a good threat, etc... Or they might engage in a lengthy chase involving several skill checks.

Yep this is pretty much how I play it as well. It was one of the reasons I cited earlier about not liking the pre-determined number of "necessary" steps for a SC... How do I know that ahead of time unless I know for sure how the PC's will approach it?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The 'encounter' could be a series of checks spaced within the DM's narration of the group traversing through the Spine of the World within a limited period of time or navigating the mind of a deranged mindflayer through careful interrogation for a piece of information. The trustworthy DM is well within his/her rights to disclose or keep hidden that they are part of a skill challenge.

A game where the players do not know the rules is not a game in any meaningful sense of the term.

Have you ever made a character in a game where you hadn't read the rule book, and the GM wouldn't tell you what anything meant, so you were forced to guess? The situation you describe is a lot like that. If the DM doesn't tell you which resolution mechanic they are using, then any choice you make is meaningless, because you lack the necessary information to make a meaningful decision. Any DM who would engage in such chicanery is inherently untrustworthy. The whole reason for playing a game with codified rules in the first place, is so that everyone can be on the same page about how the world works, so the players can make meaningful decisions.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro, apologies for the long absence - life just became a little hectic earlier this year and I disappeared from Enworld for a while.

No worries, Real life catches up with all of us at times.

and

I see. My answer to your above queries and observations is that a SC mechanic need not be used for every non-combat encounter encountered.
One can then ask what is the value of such a mechanic - which I think is at the heart of this conversation.

I agree but furthermore I would also say that in order for someone to want to adopt the SC over another method (even just letting it play out) that value has to add to or surpass the value of the method they currently use.

I suppose for me, the value of such a mechanic is that for certain types of encounters (specifically extended travelling, a difficult negotiation, prolonged breaking-and-entering scenarios, or attempting to diffuse a complex portal like spell in the middle of combat...etc) I as DM, am able to provide a greater degree of narration into the story using the mechanics.
For example a simple roll of the die for a week's journey just doesn't seem adequate enough to decide and describe the events of that transpired while we use 100's of die to describe and decide the outcome of a less than 2 minute combat.

Ok but can I pose this question... why does it have to be either or? Why is it either a single roll or a skill challenge.

For your example above I would play it out in an abstracted day by day form, with the PC's determining what they do each day and I resolving their actions as well as what the environment entails. Some player actions might include (but are not limited to)... navigating the wilderness, scouting ahead, foraging for necessities, looking for adequate shelter, avoiding monsters, fighting monsters, setting up faster travel times (through forced marches), etc.

While some DM actions may be determining weather, determining if there are random monsters/encounters, determining any hazards, determining how much of the distance is traveled, etc.

When do the PC's successfully reach their destination... when they've covered the necessary distance/traveled the necessary time.
When do the PC's fail (at least in the sense of failing a SC)... when they are delayed, when they have expended more resources than they planned, when they are killed, and so on.

Now let me be clear... I'm not saying my way of resolving this is better or worse than yours (I said earlier if SC's work for someone and their group more power to them) but because I choose to resolve it this way SC's hold little appeal to me in resolving a situation like this one. I also don't think the stuff I just posted above is so mind blowing that another GM couldn't do it or that an essay needs to be written about it. It's a process for travel that, when I want to drill down into that type of action, I use... pretty simple stuff and it's focus is customized for what my players enjoy about travel.

Whether you use the SC mechanic in its entirety or utilise the guidelines more loosely, for myself, it can provide (assisted with mechanics) the level of input I would wish to generate with a specific non-combat encounter. Again, just for the sake of clarity, SC are not necessary for all non-combat scenarios. That would be subject to the DM.

Cool I get that but can you also understand why some of us don't find it necessary or even all that great a mechanic?


This might be a difference in playstyles, I could easily see myself as DM saying "Invigorated by the potion you just drank, you engage with the beast once more, but this time anticipating its attack as you deftly parry its claw with your longsword and find the gap to step close enough to bury your dagger in its throat...."

I'm not saying I do this all the time, but it is not uncommon at my table.

Yeah my players don't like for the GM to narrate the fiction around what their characters do... if they are swinging the weapon, casting the spell, using the skill, etc. they want to narrate the fiction around that (and of course make their character look bad ass in the process)... and honestly I agree with them, I'd feel the same way.

 

[Sadras]

I don't use SCs. Instead, I set objectives in the game that can be met with skills, spells, or just creative role playing and I let the PCs go at it however they choose.

As an example, a bandit robbed a merchant near the PCs and they decided to chase him down. In 4E, this would have been an excellent option for a skill challenge. However, PCs might just cast hold person, teleport ahead of the NPC, persuade him to stop with a good threat, etc... Or they might engage in a lengthy chase involving several skill checks.

All that makes sense and I use those examples too.
As I said I'm not locked into the SC, I see it as another tool in the box.

SCs were part of a system that generally played best 'above board,' and they share that quality.

I'm not necessarily 100% convinced of this as I think it depends on the challenge (and the Rules Compendium allows for both options), but to be honest I know I do not have the experience you have had with the mechanic.

A game where the players do not know the rules is not a game in any meaningful sense of the term.

Sure, but who says they do not know the rules?
I narrate something, the players decide how to overcome it using one of their skills. If there are options available on that specific skill check, I let them know before hand. Yes, I might be hiding the fact that they are in a SC but that is it.

Have you ever made a character in a game where you hadn't read the rule book, and the GM wouldn't tell you what anything meant, so you were forced to guess? The situation you describe is a lot like that. If the DM doesn't tell you which resolution mechanic they are using, then any choice you make is meaningless, because you lack the necessary information to make a meaningful decision. Any DM who would engage in such chicanery is inherently untrustworthy. The whole reason for playing a game with codified rules in the first place, is so that everyone can be on the same page about how the world works, so the players can make meaningful decisions.

I do not believe this fits the scenario's I'm proposing. @Saelorn imagine you and the rest of the party are investigating a murder scene. I as DM have secretly set up a SC. Should you succeed in the SC you catch the perpetrator before he murders someone else, should you fail the SC you are too late in stopping him perform the 2nd murder.

I do not see how the PCs' actions in the murder investigation change whether they know they are part of a SC or not. How has their ability to make meaningful decisions been tampered with?

I agree but furthermore I would also say that in order for someone to want to adopt the SC over another method (even just letting it play out) that value has to add to or surpass the value of the method they currently use.

Good point!

Ok but can I pose this question... why does it have to be either or? Why is it either a single roll or a skill challenge.

For your example above I would play it out in an abstracted day by day form, with the PC's determining what they do each day and I resolving their actions as well as what the environment entails. Some player actions might include (but are not limited to)... navigating the wilderness, scouting ahead, foraging for necessities, looking for adequate shelter, avoiding monsters, fighting monsters, setting up faster travel times (through forced marches), etc.

Of course this comes down to preference, as it always does.

I can perhaps explain why I'm not a fan (anymore) of what you described above. On a daily basis, I would imagine the PCs would navigate the wilderness, scout ahead, look for adequate shelter and avoid monsters...etc. I do not wish to have these rolls made daily (not that you are saying that), but for consistency's sake why do I insist a roll be made on day 1 and day 5 but not on the days in between or after 5?

If you are saying yes, that the PCs should make 5-10 rolls daily I guess that is where our difference in role-playstyle lies in that I would prefer to make x checks over specific decision making points as arisen out of the narration and conclude the success or failure of the week's journey from that than make inconsistent rolls at odd days or 50-100 rolls over the course of the week.

I guess I prefer the guideline/structure the SC mechanic provides, should I wish to use it.

Now let me be clear... I'm not saying my way of resolving this is better or worse than yours (I said earlier if SC's work for someone and their group more power to them) but because I choose to resolve it this way SC's hold little appeal to me in resolving a situation like this one. I also don't think the stuff I just posted above is so mind blowing that another GM couldn't do it or that an essay needs to be written about it. It's a process for travel that, when I want to drill down into that type of action, I use... pretty simple stuff and it's focus is customized for what my players enjoy about travel.

Yeah my players don't like for the GM to narrate the fiction around what their characters do... if they are swinging the weapon, casting the spell, using the skill, etc. they want to narrate the fiction around that (and of course make their character look bad ass in the process)... and honestly I agree with them, I'd feel the same way.

Fair enough.

 

[Imaculata]

I use skill challenges a lot. But it depends entirely on the description of the action by the player. I rarely ask for a skill check, unless an action has been declared by the player.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not necessarily 100% convinced of this as I think it depends on the challenge (and the Rules Compendium allows for both options), but to be honest I know I do not have the experience you have had with the mechanic.

Nod. The rules didn't require SC's be 100% open & above board, unlike some other parts of the rules (like, say, auras or reading powers, more generally), but overall the system worked best with everything above board - it didn't fall apart or anything if you took some of it behind the screen, it just didn't fall apart if you didn't keep much of it hidden.

Sure, but who says they do not know the rules?
I narrate something, the players decide how to overcome it using one of their skills. If there are options available on that specific skill check, I let them know before hand. Yes, I might be hiding the fact that they are in a SC but that is it.

'Hiding' a skill challenge is like 'hiding' a combat by keeping initiative secret, getting everyone's actions for the round and resolving and narrating the results using the secret initiative order: it'll be kind of an open secret, but it might give a more 'immersive' experience, insulating the players from some of the artifacts of the mechanics. It also makes a lot of work for the DM, removes some opportunities for 'player agency,' and might lead to some players not participating, at all, so it loses some of the benefits of the SC structure, as well. But, even then, not all the benefits, it's still giving you a tool to gauge challenge and exp awards, for instance.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I do not believe this fits the scenario's I'm proposing. @Saelorn imagine you and the rest of the party are investigating a murder scene. I as DM have secretly set up a SC. Should you succeed in the SC you catch the perpetrator before he murders someone else, should you fail the SC you are too late in stopping him perform the 2nd murder.

I do not see how the PCs' actions in the murder investigation change whether they know they are part of a SC or not. How has their ability to make meaningful decisions been tampered with?

You're messing with causality. You are creating a causal link between a failure to investigate and the next murder taking place, when there's no in-game reason for them to be related; and - relevant to the topic at hand - there's no reason for any player to assume they're related.

If I assume we're using normal game rules, then there's very little risk associated with taking most actions. If my character is not very good at investigating, then I may well decide to give it a shot anyway, because it might turn up useful information and the worst-case scenario is that I don't find anything. More likely, the other characters will end up solving things, because they are the ones with the more-relevant skill sets.

If the Skill Challenge rules are in effect, then there's always a significant consequence for failure, which means my primary goal as a non-specialist is to not make anything worse. Instead of following up an unlikely lead and probably finding nothing, I'm going to go make tea for everyone, because I'm more likely to succeed at that. Even if making tea doesn't actually help anything, at least I'm not contributing to failure.

 

[Imaro]

Of course this comes down to preference, as it always does.

I honestly believe 95% of the things we discuss on this board are a matter of preference vs. some objectively quantifiable value of good or bad... irregardless of how much we try to present it that way.

I can perhaps explain why I'm not a fan (anymore) of what you described above. On a daily basis, I would imagine the PCs would navigate the wilderness, scout ahead, look for adequate shelter and avoid monsters...etc. I do not wish to have these rolls made daily (not that you are saying that), but for consistency's sake why do I insist a roll be made on day 1 and day 5 but not on the days in between or after 5?

Well I don't think you should "insist" on anything when it comes to the characters actions, I think you should leave it up to them what they do in the span of a day of travel. As to why some of these may not be necessary on specific days vs. others... well because they're not travelling across identical terrain for seven days straight.

As an example maybe for the first two days the PC's follow a road or river so rolling to make sure they don't get lost is unnecessary. Perhaps on the fourth day they come upon a roadside inn... so no need to search for food or shelter... In other words the fiction around them should inform what they are rolling for.

If you are saying yes, that the PCs should make 5-10 rolls daily I guess that is where our difference in role-playstyle lies in that I would prefer to make x checks over specific decision making points as arisen out of the narration and conclude the success or failure of the week's journey from that than make inconsistent rolls at odd days or 50-100 rolls over the course of the week.

Again I'm not saying they "should" make 5-10 rolls daily... but I'm also not saying they shouldn't. I'm advocating for the narrative & fiction as well as DM and player choices to inform how many rolls they will make as well as the difficulty of said rolls. Don't get me wrong I understand the appeal that a static N checks at difficulties of X, Y & Z could hold for others but for me SC's aren't better than the tools I have for most challenges like this...