D&D General Skill challenges: action resolution that centres the fiction

[DND_Reborn]

EDIT: To clarify, what you described to me was simply a series of skill checks, not a skill challenge

With what has been presented to me they are pretty much the same thing. The only "differences" are:

1. tracking a number of success and failures until some "goal" resolution is met.
2. asking each PC what they are doing to contribute to achieving that number of successes.

Instead of #1, each success or failure affects the next step in the scenario until the scene is resolved. Since each PC can be contributing at the same time, this is not necessarily "linear" as people might think.

Instead of #2, the resolution is not binary as varying degrees of success is certainly possible.

In either case, you are making a series of skill checks, each of which can affect the scenario in information gained, interactions, etc.

Now, adding a pre-generated "structure" and options (if a PC does this and succeeds, it is one more success towards their final result) I can see (as I commented above) being helpful to novice or struggling DMs, but otherwise I would agree with this:

I am guessing for you, not so much.

Anyway, again thanks to all for outlining the differences. Of course, depending on the scenario, it could be a "solo" skill "challenge" (if indeed, such a thing exists?) or involve multiple party members. But, then again, combat can also be solo (a scout encountering resistance) or involve more PCs (typical combat).

I have found in combat certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more; and in the other pillars certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more. I don't expect a balance between the three pillars and players, PCs, or classes, as everyone plays their PC differently.

 

[dave2008]

With what has been presented to me they are pretty much the same thing. The only "differences" are:

1. tracking a number of success and failures until some "goal" resolution is met.
2. asking each PC what they are doing to contribute to achieving that number of successes.

Instead of #1, each success or failure affects the next step in the scenario until the scene is resolved. Since each PC can be contributing at the same time, this is not necessarily "linear" as people might think.

Instead of #2, the resolution is not binary as varying degrees of success is certainly possible.

In either case, you are making a series of skill checks, each of which can affect the scenario in information gained, interactions, etc.

Now, adding a pre-generated "structure" and options (if a PC does this and succeeds, it is one more success towards their final result) I can see (as I commented above) being helpful to novice or struggling DMs, but otherwise I would agree with this:



Anyway, again thanks to all for outlining the differences. Of course, depending on the scenario, it could be a "solo" skill "challenge" (if indeed, such a thing exists?) or involve multiple party members. But, then again, combat can also be solo (a scout encountering resistance) or involve more PCs (typical combat).

I have found in combat certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more; and in the other pillars certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more. I don't expect a balance between the three pillars and players, PCs, or classes, as everyone plays their PC differently.

I do want to point out that much like skill checks, a skill challenge works best in the hands of a skilled DM. I have had the best results from skill challenges when the PCs don't even know that is what is going on. Also, I have integrated Skill Challenges and combats into one encounter to good effect as well.

 

[Manbearcat]

With what has been presented to me they are pretty much the same thing. The only "differences" are:

1. tracking a number of success and failures until some "goal" resolution is met.
2. asking each PC what they are doing to contribute to achieving that number of successes.

Instead of #1, each success or failure affects the next step in the scenario until the scene is resolved. Since each PC can be contributing at the same time, this is not necessarily "linear" as people might think.

Instead of #2, the resolution is not binary as varying degrees of success is certainly possible.

In either case, you are making a series of skill checks, each of which can affect the scenario in information gained, interactions, etc.

Now, adding a pre-generated "structure" and options (if a PC does this and succeeds, it is one more success towards their final result) I can see (as I commented above) being helpful to novice or struggling DMs, but otherwise I would agree with this:



Anyway, again thanks to all for outlining the differences. Of course, depending on the scenario, it could be a "solo" skill "challenge" (if indeed, such a thing exists?) or involve multiple party members. But, then again, combat can also be solo (a scout encountering resistance) or involve more PCs (typical combat).

I have found in combat certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more; and in the other pillars certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more. I don't expect a balance between the three pillars and players, PCs, or classes, as everyone plays their PC differently.

In one of the two Stonetop games I GM, the PCs are going to undertake a perilous journey through this primally-ensorcelled bog called Ferrier's Fen to locate the lair of and confront The Willow Witches.

I'm going to make up what a possible moment of resolution might look for this perilous journey and 4eify the whole thing. I'm going to use
@hawkeyefan 's PC. He is The Judge of Stonetop which is kind of a Paladin of the Deity of Knowledge/Order/Civilization.

So let us pretend this Stonetop game is 4e and its mid Paragon. The PCs are level 15 lets say.

The players: "We're going to journey through The Ferrier's Fen to locate the lair of The Willow Witches."

Me (GM): "Ok, Level +2 (so level 17), Complexity 2 Skill Challenge (so that means they need 6 Successes before 3 Failures, they have 2 Secondary Skills available at DC 16, 5 Moderate DCs at 23, 1 Hard DC at 31)."

1) I establish the first situation by framing the action, describing a provocative environment/scenario, foregrounding conflict, and telegraphing potential consequences.

2) Players ask any clarifying questions (about environment, about conflict, about potential consequences) and I answer, firming up the situation.

3) They settle upon a course of action, marshal their resources and we resolve their action(s).

4) Rinse/repeat with changing/escalating situations.

Now let us say we're well late in the Skill Challenge. We're at 5 Successes and 1 Failure. I've already used the Hard DC of 31 for the Skill Challenge. They have 1 of their 2 Secondary Skills remaining. This might be what a situation looks like here:

GM: "As you crest the enormous rise, the world drops away and below. An expanse of dead grass pokes through a blanket of snow as far as the eye can see due East. Through the light veil of mist, the frozen bog betrays the odd croaking of the pestilential Fenblight Toads that call this place home...perhaps worse still, it shows signs of eruption from underfoot. The terrible Gliomor calls this place home and it is ever hungry...especially in the dead of winter when prey is light.

To the northeast the ridgeline you're on skirts the bog after a long, exposed trek in the foul, frozen winds of this miserable place. There, a maze of thorny briars and the hungry fire midge swarms that call those elevations home would make for a particularly inhospitable hike.

Regardless of your course, eventually, you'll get to willow trees on the eastern edge of the Fen all the same."

The Judge: "I think we'll chart a course straight across the frozen bog and steer clear of those briars, frozen winds, and fire midges of the ridgeline. This Gliomor must be an abomination or a natural creature. I'm studied in neither Dungeoneer nor Nature but I know of its legend. I'll pull a tome from my pack and let the accumulated knowledge of the all of Aratis' scribes guide our way. Surely we can identify one of its easy prey items, set food for it, and let it lunch while we traverse the frozen bog in peace."

<Player uses Encounter Power Utility 2 Legend Lore to sub History for another knowledge check>

They've got a 17 in History. If they roll a 6 or better (the necessary DC 23), they've hit their 6 Successes and what the player has proposed comes to pass and we're at the Willow Trees in western Ferrier's Fen, the lair of The Willow Witches.

If they get a 5 or less, we're at 5 Successes and 2 Failures and I'm depicting a complication that I telegraphed. Perhaps the stories that the Judge knew where true and they baited the Gliomor perfectly...EXCEPT...the book wasn't aware that the Glimor has successfully multiplied since it was written! There are two that haunt that frozen bog and the mate of the first one erupts out of the ground, everyone takes a Healing Surge worth of damage and we're in a level +4 Combat against a terrible Solo, its broodlings, an array of Difficult Terrain, Challenging Terrain, frozen bog Hazards and a giant hole (that the creature erupted from) with pestilential rot.

Or perhaps they've navigated the Gliomor but the thick fog rolled in and they ventured well of course and onto thin ice and the den of the Fenblight Frogs. All 3 PCs need to make a Saving Throw (at the end of an encounter when you've been exposed to a disease, make a ST to determine if you contract the disease). Maybe one or more of them now have Fenblight. Regardless, I'm now framing a new situation where they're on a thin ice sheet, threatened on all sides horizontally by Fenblight Toads, and threatened underfoot by imminent collapse of the ice sheet.

If they can successfully navigate this final situation, that means 6 successes (the Win Con) so they'll pick their way eastward to the Willow Trees and we'll flash cut to the lair of the Willow Witches.

If they fail, that means the Skill Challenge Loss Condition is met; 3 Failures. In that case, I'm putting another thematically and situationally appropriate complication before them; perhaps a social challenge with a strange denizen from the swamp who fishes them out but demands the debt repaid with some company back at its eerie abode...perhaps a new small topographical challenge related to this not-quite-frozen lake where they have to get to shore before hypothermia...perhaps a Swarm (creature type in 4e which is a ton of a small thing) combat with Fenblight Toads in a very precarious thin ice sheet and freezing water situation.

---

That is what the successfully executed loop of a 4e Skill Challenge looks like (and what pretty much all Closed Scene Conflict resolution looks like from Maelstrom Storytelling to Fate to Dogs in the Vineyard to Cortex+ etc; frame obstacle > decide on course of action > marshal resources > resolve > rinse/repeat until GM's scene budget is exhausted or player's scene budget is exhausted and win/loss con is met).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to outline things in such details.

In one of the two Stonetop games I GM, the PCs are going to undertake a perilous journey through this primally-ensorcelled bog called Ferrier's Fen to locate the lair of and confront The Willow Witches.

I'm going to make up what a possible moment of resolution might look for this perilous journey and 4eify the whole thing. I'm going to use
@hawkeyefan 's PC. He is The Judge of Stonetop which is kind of a Paladin of the Deity of Knowledge/Order/Civilization.

So let us pretend this Stonetop game is 4e and its mid Paragon. The PCs are level 15 lets say.

The players: "We're going to journey through The Ferrier's Fen to locate the lair of The Willow Witches."

Me (GM): "Ok, Level +2 (so level 17), Complexity 2 Skill Challenge (so that means they need 6 Successes before 3 Failures, they have 2 Secondary Skills available at DC 16, 5 Moderate DCs at 23, 1 Hard DC at 31)."

1) I establish the first situation by framing the action, describing a provocative environment/scenario, foregrounding conflict, and telegraphing potential consequences.

2) Players ask any clarifying questions (about environment, about conflict, about potential consequences) and I answer, firming up the situation.

3) They settle upon a course of action, marshal their resources and we resolve their action(s).

4) Rinse/repeat with changing/escalating situations.

Now let us say we're well late in the Skill Challenge. We're at 5 Successes and 1 Failure. I've already used the Hard DC of 31 for the Skill Challenge. They have 1 of their 2 Secondary Skills remaining. This might be what a situation looks like here:

GM: "As you crest the enormous rise, the world drops away and below. An expanse of dead grass pokes through a blanket of snow as far as the eye can see due East. Through the light veil of mist, the frozen bog betrays the odd croaking of the pestilential Fenblight Toads that call this place home...perhaps worse still, it shows signs of eruption from underfoot. The terrible Gliomor calls this place home and it is ever hungry...especially in the dead of winter when prey is light.

To the northeast the ridgeline you're on skirts the bog after a long, exposed trek in the foul, frozen winds of this miserable place. There, a maze of thorny briars and the hungry fire midge swarms that call those elevations home would make for a particularly inhospitable hike.

Regardless of your course, eventually, you'll get to willow trees on the eastern edge of the Fen all the same."

The Judge: "I think we'll chart a course straight across the frozen bog and steer clear of those briars, frozen winds, and fire midges of the ridgeline. This Gliomor must be an abomination or a natural creature. I'm studied in neither Dungeoneer nor Nature but I know of its legend. I'll pull a tome from my pack and let the accumulated knowledge of the all of Aratis' scribes guide our way. Surely we can identify one of its easy prey items, set food for it, and let it lunch while we traverse the frozen bog in peace."

<Player uses Encounter Power Utility 2 Legend Lore to sub History for another knowledge check>

They've got a 17 in History. If they roll a 6 or better (the necessary DC 23), they've hit their 6 Successes and what the player has proposed comes to pass and we're at the Willow Trees in western Ferrier's Fen, the lair of The Willow Witches.

If they get a 5 or less, we're at 5 Successes and 2 Failures and I'm depicting a complication that I telegraphed. Perhaps the stories that the Judge knew where true and they baited the Gliomor perfectly...EXCEPT...the book wasn't aware that the Glimor has successfully multiplied since it was written! There are two that haunt that frozen bog and the mate of the first one erupts out of the ground, everyone takes a Healing Surge worth of damage and we're in a level +4 Combat against a terrible Solo, its broodlings, an array of Difficult Terrain, Challenging Terrain, frozen bog Hazards and a giant hole (that the creature erupted from) with pestilential rot.

Or perhaps they've navigated the Gliomor but the thick fog rolled in and they ventured well of course and onto thin ice and the den of the Fenblight Frogs. All 3 PCs need to make a Saving Throw (at the end of an encounter when you've been exposed to a disease, make a ST to determine if you contract the disease). Maybe one or more of them now have Fenblight. Regardless, I'm now framing a new situation where they're on a thin ice sheet, threatened on all sides horizontally by Fenblight Toads, and threatened underfoot by imminent collapse of the ice sheet.

If they can successfully navigate this final situation, that means 6 successes (the Win Con) so they'll pick their way eastward to the Willow Trees and we'll flash cut to the lair of the Willow Witches.

If they fail, that means the Skill Challenge Loss Condition is met; 3 Failures. In that case, I'm putting another thematically and situationally appropriate complication before them; perhaps a social challenge with a strange denizen from the swamp who fishes them out but demands the debt repaid with some company back at its eerie abode...perhaps a new small topographical challenge related to this not-quite-frozen lake where they have to get to shore before hypothermia...perhaps a Swarm (creature type in 4e which is a ton of a small thing) combat with Fenblight Toads in a very precarious thin ice sheet and freezing water situation.

---

But...

That is what the successfully executed loop of a 4e Skill Challenge looks like (and what pretty much all Closed Scene Conflict resolution looks like from Maelstrom Storytelling to Fate to Dogs in the Vineyard to Cortex+ etc; frame obstacle > decide on course of action > marshal resources > resolve > rinse/repeat until GM's scene budget is exhausted or player's scene budget is exhausted and win/loss con is met).

If this is an example of what I would have found in 4E, I would probably have been thrilled when 5E was released. The more I learn of 4E, the more I understand why some players feel it was needlessly complex.

Anyway, again I do appreciate the replies to my request. Thank you!

 

[pemerton]

A big difference between 5e skill resolution and a skill challenge is that everyone in a 4e skill challenge takes a turn and declares an action for each round of the skill challenge while in 5e it is generally one PC declaring an action and getting a resolution.

This turn-by-turn approach is not essential. It was errata-ed out early on. That's not to say it's irrelevant - but consistent with the emphasis on the fiction in the OP, I prefer a slightly looser action economy in a non-combat high-complexity skill challenge.

 

[pemerton]

Other than "structure" and "counting successes/failures" I don't really see how, narratively, this is very different from running any normal non-combat encounter.

I think your last sentence is a bit like saying "Other than action economy and hit point attrition, I don't really see how D&D combat is different from freeform combat resolution." I mean it's kind-of true, but the other than is carrying an awful lot of weight!

Ultimately, this wouldn't be counting successes or failures, but how each approach/result changes the encounter's dynamics.

Again, you seem to be describing an approach in which the GM decides when the scene is done, and what that consists in.

Skill challenge resolution, like other close scene resolution frameworks, is an alternative to that. The GM doesn't decide when the scene is done. The GM's narration is constrained by the underlying structure. Eg if a check fails, the GM has to narrate a failure; but if that failure doesn't end the challenge, the way the failure is narrated has to leave the fiction sufficiently open that success is still a fictional possibility.

@Manbearcat gave an example of this, in what I believe was one of his earliest posts on these boards:

You are riding full throttle on horseback, with precious relic in tow (freshly stolen from an evil god's temple in order to bring it...wherever), through treacherous terrain where a single misstep by your horse could mean disaster. You are in the middle of the skill challenge when you fail a check that should indicate that you look like an inept fool and fall off your horse (even though you're an accomplished rider). Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...the check could signify a critical failure within the fiction external to your riding. Perhaps you reach a dead end with an enormous jump (difficult DC) over a rushing river canyon facing you. Outside of the obvious jump attempt, there are a number of interesting decision points that could spawn from this failure at your ride check (and corresponding skill use possibilities).

The point of the example is that, whereas there is a tendency to think of failure narration along the lines of the first disjunct (failed your riding check = you've fallen off your horse), skill challenge narration, if it is to work, needs to look more like the second disjunct. Rather than failure being narrated in terms of an action the PC failed to successfully perform, it's normally better handled as a goal the PC failed to successfully achieve - and this can be narrated by introducing new elements into the fiction, like the river canyon in Manbearcat's example.

Another example I've given - narrating failed Diplomacy not as you speak insulting words but the NPC nods, feeling the force of your request, but replies "Unfortunately I already made a promise to so-and-so that I would do such-and-such, so while I sympathise I can't help you at this time". Or, if the Diplomacy check involves a crowd, narrating failure as You start to make your case, calling on your best oratorical skills - but it starts to rain, and the weather drowns out your words.

In each case, the scene isn't done yet: the PC can negotiate, or jump, the canyon; the PC(s) can try and work around the promise or persuade the NPC to break it; the PCs can try and control the weather, or move everyone indoors; etc.

Managing the fiction, and adding to it, in these sorts of ways is a key aspect of skilful GMing of a skill challenge.

EDIT: @Manbearcat and @Campbell makes some very similar points to this post in posts 26 and 27. Whether the players (via their PCs) attain their goal from the scene is not up to the GM. This is what Campbell calls "finality" and what Manbearcat is getting at with his "finite GM budget". Whether the players attain their goal is dependent on their checks. The GM's job is not to decide whether or not they get it, but to provide the narration of success or of failure as the individual checks, and the overall unfolding of successes vs failures, dictates.

 

[pemerton]

This is an addendum to my post just upthread.

With what has been presented to me they are pretty much the same thing. The only "differences" are:

1. tracking a number of success and failures until some "goal" resolution is met.
2. asking each PC what they are doing to contribute to achieving that number of successes.

Instead of #1, each success or failure affects the next step in the scenario until the scene is resolved.

Your "instead" doesn't make sense to me. As per the OP, this is central to skill challenge resolution.

But you seem to suggest that (1) is a trivial difference. It's not. Putting the GM on a "budget" (to borrow @Manbearcat's terminology) has a huge impact on play. No one thinks that budgets (eg hit point tallies) are a trivial feature of D&D combat resolution. In the case of a skill challenge (or similar close scene resolution) they mean that the GM is not dictating the outcomes of play and what happens next.

 

[clearstream]

There is a general requirement in TTRPG for mechanical structures that through a chain of resolution converge on an end result. Cyclical combat systems, skill challenges, and clocks all address that general requirement. The earliest reference I know of to skill challenges is in Mearls' Iron Heroes 2007 as Extended Skill Checks (Iron Heroes also contains "skill challenges", but those are a distinctly different mechanic.) Extended Skill Checks are essentially clocks, and include both monotonic and X before Y sub-mechanics. A faint trace of 4e Skill Challenges survives in 5e Social Encounters.

Regarding two possible key features

1. skill challenges centre the fiction in the process of action declaration and resolution.
2. the GM does not get to decide when the scene is resolved.

In terms of meeting the general requirement I outline above, the general purposes of TTRPG have traditionally included group wargaming* and narration. As perhaps @Jer gets at, any mechanical structure whether locked to a specific set of descriptions or freely applied can be wargamed (whether or not it's semantics are that of warfare.) Even so, it seems right to me to say that a less rigorous mechanical structure that accepts any semantics, is more likely to lean away from wargaming and into narration. So I agree with the first possible feature suggested by the OP.

Regarding the second possible feature, traditional modes of play often uphold a principle that upon entering into a cyclical combat system, GM does not get to decide when the scene is resolved. System decides. That is to point out that we have a host of options here, found in combinations of the following, and I'm not yet sure this thread has made clear why decider matters to centering the fiction (it can certainly matter to other qualities of play that we care about!)

1. Index of Results
The first concern (sometimes going unnoticed) is choosing what the possible results are. They can be chosen by system (game designers decide), a player acting as referee (GM decides), players with skin in the game (players decide), or a mixture, such as when GM chooses negative results and players choose positive. For example, "Skill Challenges" in Iron Heroes let's players add positive results by reducing their likelihood of success. I call the list of possible results their "index". Several posters point out that this list can evolve over the span of resolution.

2. Appointment of Decider
The second concern is who will decide between results. Often its roll, but it can be a negotiation, a rolling consensus, etc. If there will be multiple results converging to an overall result, decider might even move around.

3. Chain of Resolution
The scene is resolved at the end of the chain of resolution. The steps in that chain can include insertions and revisions, and can be singular or multiple, and temporally linear, cyclical, or retroactive. Typically, it becomes increasingly determined what the result is going to be as the chain is followed. It would be tedious to follow a chain with a predetermined outcome, so typically the mechanic will preserve the chance of a negative result even where things are swinging to almost certainly positive (and vice versa).

Regarding @DND_Reborn's comments, I agree that the "general requirement" has often been met informally, as non-combat encounters from simple to elaborate, compact to protracted. (Something I've discussed in other threads.) I feel what is most important to the fiction in many cases is that the resolution has a strong feeling of convergence to the end result, so that the group will agree it feels right for their fiction ("right" can mean a lot of things, including exciting, surprising, baffling... it doesn't have to mean simply obvious.) That may involve agreeing mechanisms for tracking along the chain, an index of outcomes either up front or by appointing from time to time new authors, and how we decide between them (in most TTRPGs, that is the core mechanic.)

At present, I haven't read anything that makes me believe that centering on the fiction depends on the decider of the result. I think it depends on the integrity of the system. That's not a fixed view, and perhaps further exploration of these ideas will change it?


*I use this word to mean tactics and strategy play generally, and not solely the simulation of warfare.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In the case of a skill challenge (or similar close scene resolution) they mean that the GM is not dictating the outcomes of play and what happens next.

They already have when the structure is established. Just like DMs establish the budget for combat encounters when they decide what foes the PCs will face.

When you create the success structure (X is 1 success, Y is 2, etc.) the DM has established it.

The DM always dictates the outcomes/ results of play (either on the fly or "before-hand"). The players have control only over what they do next, which again the DM uses to further the narrative. DMs also determine when the scenario ends, even if it is still "before-hand" due to setting up the structure of the challenge.

If I am still misunderstanding something here, let me know, but that is how it all seems to me.

Now, if this concept gives those narrative power to the players to some extent (a key feature perhaps I am missing?), that's fine, but then that solidifies such a system is even more not for me.

 

[clearstream]

The DM always dictates the outcomes/ results of play (either on the fly or "before-hand").

That's true of many traditional modes of play, but not in all current modes.

The players have control only over what they do next

I probably differ from the OP in feeling that - run with integrity - this can have a decisive consequence in deciding what outcome is converged upon.

Now, if this concept gives those narrative power to the players to some extent (a key feature perhaps I am missing?), that's fine, but then that solidifies such a system is even more not for me.

One of my general arguments was that the two aren't necessarily connected. One can use skill challenges, and one can divide narrative authority in different ways, and those are really separate concerns. Of course, the play that will arise will differ for each permutation.