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

[darkbard]

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.

I think you're conflating GM decides inputs into a scene with GM decides a scene's outcome. By judging the challenge of a scene to the PC's current fictional position, the GM, in setting the parameters of a Skill Challenge (or similar mechanic, like Clocks etc.), decides in the abstract the weight of a scene in the same way they do in setting the opponents in a combat challenge (do the PCs face a pair of dragons here or a kobold or three?). That's it. As each check along the way to deciding the final outcome of the SC requires changing the fictional position in some meaningful way, the GM does not decide in advance how (inevitably tied to when, since the success/failure tally, not any particular obstacle within the overall Challenge, is final arbiter) the overall Challenge's outcome gets decided; the players do, through the actions they declare and the success or failure of their rolls. There is a gulf of difference between "The PCs can navigate the haunted woods to find the witch's cottage by making 6 successful checks before 3 failures" and allowing the obstacles and action declarations chosen to shape the ensuing fiction and "The PCs can navigate the haunted woods to find the witch's cottage when I, GM, feel they have done enough to warrant it"! In the former, everyone at the table understands the criteria for meeting the Challenge; in the latter, the outcome is essentially whenever the GM whims it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'll repeat the same scenario as I would run it:

1. Arcana check about the runes is logical enough. The failure you outline is a version of "success at a cost" IMO.

It is.

2. DEX check to draw the circle. Again, that would be the next step, applying any proficiency that is appropriate to a steady hand, including cartography and even Sleight of Hand, in addition to those you outlined. Failure is again "success at a cost". Perhaps that failure means the marid is not confined to the circle and might choose to attack if the later actions make it angry?

Decided against Sleight of Hand in this instance as Calligraphy and Forgery were just so much more applicable.

3. I would also have an Arcana check before-hand to see what (if anything) the PCs know about marids.

I offered this as a freebie as the warlock has an elemental familiar.

4. DEX (Arcana) or a spellcasting ability check to perform the summons. Failure might take the PCs to the marid, instead.

I’ve been meaning to switch to a more explicit Ab + Prof model but don’t want to do it mid-adventure.

5. Once the marid is summoned, then Insight to gauge its reaction to being summoned. This could easily help the PCs determine if flattery, intimidation, or whatever might be the best approach. Failure would mean they will probably try the wrong approach.

Ultimately, this wouldn't be counting successes or failures, but how each approach/result changes the encounter's dynamics. Also, some of the "checks" wouldn't even be required if the players handle it themselves (such as judging the marid's reaction according to how I portray it).

So, to follow from my example, how would you adopt gradients of success from the outcome? The advantage of tracking successes is that you can assign different levels of success depending on outcome. In this case, I had three levels for terrible, expected and critical success.

FWIW, I do the same structure for exploration challenges (scouting, searching an area, etc.). Every one is doing something, even if not directly involved with the task at hand. And, as I said, sometimes what is going on in the background or elsewhere can move the story along just as much.

I definitely recognize that not everyone needs this level of structure. I feel it has improved my games, in part since even before, I like to challenge my players by throwing them into situations that are outside their specialty.

Mostly, I find that this structure would be really useful to teach new DMs, since I feel the DMG does a terrible job of helping them set up non-combat encounters.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I appreciate the explanations and such, but frankly I am done with this thread. The topic is not interesting to me, especially after having the general structure explained. Again, I can see some merit for people who like this structure, but I don't think I'd enjoy playing in a game which uses it and I know I never would go to such a structure myself.

Anyway, best of luck to you all and happy gaming!

 

[pemerton]

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.

What does the "it" in this last sentence denote?

In 4e D&D, the GM decides the complexity of the skill challenge - from 1 to 5, which means from 4 to 12 successes required before 3 failures. This is in part a decision about difficulty, but not entirely, because there are all sorts of ways that players can spend resources to manipulate their check results, and the more complex the skill challenge the more resources the players can afford to throw at it, given that in 4e D&D many resources renew on a per-encounter basis. The 4e Rules Compendium sets out even more techniques for handling the difficulty of more complex skill challenges.

The real effect of the GM decision about complexity, therefore, is that it establishes the significance of the encounter/scene at the table. It gives it a duration and hence a "weight" in play. This is an important part of a GM's role in 4e (in combat encounters, the analogue is deciding on the number of opponents, whether to stat them as minions, standards, elites or soldiers, etc).

But none of this establishes the outcome of play nor what happens next.

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

As I've mentioned a few times now, you seem to be assuming that the GM is the storyteller. That is not the case in closed scene resolution.

Upthread I posted an actual play example. I don't know if you read it. Here are a couple of fragments:

one particular point of pressure was the dwarf fighter/cleric - in two senses. In story terms, he was the natural focus of the Baron's attention, because the PCs had been presenting him as their leader upon entering the town, and subsequently. And the Baron was treating him as, in effect, a noble peer, "Lord Derrik of the Dwarfholm to the East". And in mechanical terms, he has no training in social skills and a CHA of 10, so putting the pressure on him forced the players to work out how they would save the situation, and stop the Baron inadvertently, or Paldemar deliberately, leading Derrik into saying or denying something that would give away secrets. (Up until the climax of the challenge, the only skill check that Derriks' player made in contribution to the challenge was an Athletics check - at one point the Baron described himself as a man of action rather than ideas, and Derrik agreed - I let his player make an Athletics check - a very easy check for him with a +15 bonus - to make the fact of agreement contribute mechanically to the party's success in dealing with the situation.)

Besides the standard skill checks, other strategies were used to defuse the tension at various points. About half way through, the sorcerer - feigning drunkenness with his +20 Bluff bonus - announced "Derrik, it's time to take a piss" - and then led Derrik off to the privy, and then up onto the balcony with the minstrel, so that Paldemar couldn't keep goading and trying to ensnare him.

The player of Derrik is the one who is establishing the rapport with the Baron as a fellow "man of action rather than ideas". That's not the GM's doing.

The player of the sorcerer is the one who is managing both pacing and threat by leading Derrik away from the table and up to the balcony. Again, that's not the GM's doing.

While fresh jellies were prepared, Derrik left the table to give a demonstration of how one might fight oozes using a halberd and fancy footwork. But he then had to return to the table for desert.

Around this time, the challenge had evolved to a point where one final roll was needed, and 2 failures had been accrued. Paldemar, once again, was badgering Derrik to try to learn the secrets of the minotaur ruins that he was sure the PCs knew. And the player of Derrik was becoming more and more frustrated with the whole situation, declaring (not speaking in character, but speaking from the perspective of his PC) "I'm sick of putting up with this. I want Paldemar to come clean."

The Baron said to Derrik, "The whole evening, Lord Derrik, it has seemed to me that you are burdened by something. Will you not speak to me?" Derrik got out of his seat and went over to the Baron, knelt beside him, and whispered to him, telling him that out of decorum he would not name anyone, but there was someone close to the Baron who was not what he seemed, and was in fact a villainous leader of the hobgoblin raiders. The Baron asked how he knew this, and Derrik replied that he had seen him flying out of goblin strongholds on his flying carpet. The Baron asked him if he would swear this in Moradin's name. Derrik replied "I swear". At which point the Baron rose from the table and went upstairs to brood on the balcony, near the minstrel.

With one check still needed to resolve the situation, I had Paldemar turn to Derrik once again, saying "You must have said something very serious, to so upset the Baron." Derrik's player was talking to the other players, and trying to decide what to do. He clearly wanted to fight. I asked him whether he really wanted to provoke Paldemar into attacking him. He said that he did. So he had Derrik reply to Paldemar, 'Yes, I did, Golthar". And made an Intimidate check. Which failed by one. So the skill challenge was over, but a failure - I described Paldemar/Golthar standing up, pickup up his staff from where it leaned against the wall behind him, and walking towards the door.

Now we use a houserule (perhaps, in light of DMG2, not so much a houserule as a precisification of a suggestion in that book) that a PC can spend an action point to make a secondary check to give another PC a +2 bonus, or a reroll, to a failed check. The player of the wizard PC spent an action point, and called out "Golthar, have you fixed the tear yet in your robe?" - this was a reference to the fact that the PCs had, on a much earlier occasion, found a bit of the hem of Paldemar's robe that had torn off in the ruins when he had had to flee the gelatinous cubes. I can't remember now whether I asked for an Intimidate check, or decided that this was an automatic +2 bonus for Derrik - but in any event, it turned the failure into a success. We ended the session by noting down everyone's location on the map of the Baron's great hall, and making initiative rolls. Next session will begin with the fight against Paldemar

The player of Derrik is the one who traded on the rapport established with the Baron to reveal the secret about Paldemar. And then to provoke Paldemar into attacking. The player of the wizard helped out.

This was the resolution of the challenge, and so binding on everyone. The players, not the GM, were the ones who established - via their play - that Paldemar had revealed himself as Golthar, and that what would come next was him attacking the PCs.

The players have control only over what they do next, which again the DM uses to further the narrative.

Again, this is not true in RPGing in general, and not true in closed scene resolution frameworks. If the player declares their PC's action, and the check succeeds, then their intent is achieved. This can be seen in the examples I've just posted and said a bit about.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

This may be one of the reasons skill challenges resonate with me. My baseline is everyone in the party contributes. You can’t create an uber-combat monster secure in the knowledge that every time a non-combat check comes up, someone else will deal with it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would like to discuss one improvement that I have found in later iterations of skill challenges.

In the DMG version (I don’t remember for the DMG2), a skill challenge was presented in terms of X successes before Y failures. This gave rise to complaints that the best thing an individual character could do is not engage with the challenge, because they felt the specialists were improving odds of success whereas they were dragging the party down.

I tend to have skill challenges run for a set “duration” (be it rounds of 1 minute, 10 minutes or even hours), during which each character can describe their action. This isn’t always an external “ticking clock”, sometimes, minds are set at a certain point.

The advantage of this approach is that having non-specialist characters participate is no longer framed as “I’m bringing the party down”, but instead “by trying SOMETHING, at least there is a chance I help the party”.

Well, that was effectively the @Stalker0 'Obsidian Skill Challenge' approach. While I tried it, I didn't find that it was overall as robust as the core approach. The thing with the core SC system is you can't just make really one-dimensional challenges, or they really are likely to devolve down to 1 or 2 PCs that fit that situation really well taking all the checks. If you have such situations, just make them complexity 1 or maybe 2 SCs. They will be resolved pretty quickly, and its fine that they aren't super challenging in and of themselves. Provide opportunities for them the affect the overall fiction, deplete some resources, etc. and they will serve their purpose. The other consideration being 'framing'. By that I mean what exactly is the scope of the challenges (what is in and out of frame). If you find that challenges tend to be tiny tactical encounter sorts of things that involve a single scene all the time, consider widening the frame. So, maybe preparing the supplies for the journey and then trekking out into the desert are not 2 separate things, they are all one survival challenge. Now you can even incorporate flashbacks and such (did I bring extra water?).

The place where Obsidian or similar 'tallying' systems can work best is in terms of things like chases.

 

[clearstream]

The thing with the core SC system is you can't just make really one-dimensional challenges, or they really are likely to devolve down to 1 or 2 PCs that fit that situation really well taking all the checks. If you have such situations, just make them complexity 1 or maybe 2 SCs. They will be resolved pretty quickly, and its fine that they aren't super challenging in and of themselves. Provide opportunities for them the affect the overall fiction, deplete some resources, etc. and they will serve their purpose. The other consideration being 'framing'. By that I mean what exactly is the scope of the challenges (what is in and out of frame). If you find that challenges tend to be tiny tactical encounter sorts of things that involve a single scene all the time, consider widening the frame. So, maybe preparing the supplies for the journey and then trekking out into the desert are not 2 separate things, they are all one survival challenge. Now you can even incorporate flashbacks and such (did I bring extra water?).

For sure. As was perhaps implied above, if the chain-of-resolution is encapsulated in a scene, then it's more likely that only a subset of abilities will apply (not guaranteed, just more likely). If it is a broader situation, then there's more scope for variety (again, not guaranteed).

In another thread we chewed over informal chains of resolution that converge on resolving intention. This is all very much in that design space.

 

[FallenRX]

"That strength is that skill challenges centre the fiction in the process of action declaration and resolution."

If you're designing your challenges around what your players might do, you're just setting yourself up for wasted prep, or railroads.

This is such awful design, its always easier to design your challenges around describing the environment and let your players figure out how to solve it, there is no need to force them into doing stuff a X amount of times, or designing around the player's actions themselves, they can solve the issue in 100 ways, just use the mechanics to describe the problems.

 

[clearstream]

If you're designing your challenges around what your players might do, you're just setting yourself up for wasted prep, or railroads.

I don't believe that's the OP's intent. Almost the exact opposite!

This is such awful design, its always easier to design your challenges around describing the environment and let your players figure out how to solve it, there is no need to force them into doing stuff a X amount of times, or designing around the player's actions themselves, they can solve the issue in 100 ways, just use the mechanics to describe the problems.

OTOH I agree with this, to an extent. Some groups have concerns about the exercise of fiat by game arbiter or guide over resolution of player intents. They prefer that to be governed by either players or system. In that case, it is helpful to have a mechanism that determines when the sum of player actions produce a final resolution. Even in traditional modes of play, in many TTRPGs the actions in a combat scene converge on a resolution in a way that is governed by the system.

 

[FallenRX]

I don't believe that's the OP's intent. Almost the exact opposite!


OTOH I agree with this, to an extent. Some groups have concerns about the exercise of fiat by game arbiter or guide over resolution of player intents. They prefer that to be governed by either players or system. In that case, it is helpful to have a mechanism that determines when the sum of player actions produce a final resolution. Even in traditional modes of play, in many TTRPGs the actions in a combat scene converge on a resolution in a way that is governed by the system.

That is a problem solved for a long time, which is just using mechanics to describe the problems at hand, its what statblocks have been used for, and are still used for. Using mechanics to detail problems seperate from the actions/resolution of it, leads to having a toolbox to manage problems themselves, letting solutions be open ended. If you design around the idea that the players must do X to do something, or have to do X things, you will always either end up doing way too much, or railing them into a handful of solutions, this is not good.

Also i know thats not the OP's intent, but when your playing around with mechanics that are designed with this play in mind, its always the end result you get, my point is, skill challenges are simply not good. Its why whenever I see most people using them, It always works better in theory then in practice, and requires a lot of on boarding, because it is something designed with a specific engagement of the players in mind.