D&D 4E 4E Skill Challenges - An Exercise in Dice Rolling?

[ExploderWizard]

I believe the level in the equation it´s exactly to get the XP award of the skill challenge.

Something I have thinking about is to put combat and skill challenge in the same encounter. For example: The players needs to convince the baron to send troops to combat the invasion from the neighboor kingdom, but one of the advisors of the baron is a traitor and gets in the way. The players need to win in a SC but each round the advisor can make a skill check to takes away one of the party successes. Thats will add tension to the scene, as the players will have a greater chance to failure.

What do you guys think about that?

I don't think I understand your concept. If the PC's are involved in a SC that has the traitor as an antagonist working against them to make life difficult where is the combat part?

I can see it if an actual fight breaks out with the advisor trying to convince the baron that its the PC's who are the traitors as dialogue during the fight. If the PC's win the baron helps them, if they fail, he has them arrested for killing the advisor.

That could be really great.

 

[James McMurray]

Perhaps he meant "combat" as "competition"? Or maybe he's played a game with social combat (which is kinda how this sounds).

 

[James McMurray]

I believe the level in the equation it´s exactly to get the XP award of the skill challenge.

That would make perfect sense.

 

[the Jester]

Since we started our 4e campaign, I've run quite a few skill challenges- averaging probably over 1 per session. I love the idea, but am still fine-tuning my execution.

I've used, or set up, skill challenges for tons of different things, to wit:

1. Evading enemy armies while traveling overland.
2. Finding your way through an Underdark city without trouble.
3. Getting up and out of a buried tower.
4. Bargaining with dwarven merchants to get a better price.
5. Investigating a frame-up of an important general.
6. Escaping from or falling into an illusory gnomish trap.

...and a bunch more.

My most fun, most successful skill challenge so far was the "investigating a frame-up" challenge. As the pcs investigated the framing of the general, they made tons of skill checks, etc. along the way. I ruled that certain ones were 'key' and counted towards success or failure of the challenge. It took most of three sessions to play out; of course, the pcs were doing other stuff at the same time, so the skill challenge- though the central element of those three sessions, didn't dominate them.

I've also learned that it's not always best to tell the pcs they're in a skill challenge immediately. Sometimes it's best not to divulge the skills they need until they experiment a little. (The gnome trap was a great example of this- if they succeed at the challenge, they never even know that the gnomes were assaulting them! If they fail, they end up falling into a gnome trap.)

I'll agree 100% with Mearls on one thing- we're all still feeling out how to play and run skill challenges. But I repeat- they are AWESOME, and one of the very best things about 4e (which, while having a few areas in which I am not satisfied, has a few areas where it blows me away with how far it exceeds any prior dnd, and this is one of them)!

 

[marune]

Getting to the tomb of Zuxor should be the goal, examining the baron's tapestry for clues should be a way to do it linked to the skill that is rolled.

Using skill challenges to "make something the PCs have to do feel hard to achieve" is a step back to 3E philosophy "rules are the gameworld's physics".

In other words, just think "what" instead of "how".

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

The core of 4E: every time a character does something that has a chance of failure they make a check. Succeed or fail, the result has consequences that drive the story.

A string of thematically linked checks constitutes a skill challenge.

Success or failure of a challenge has major consequences: the end of a quest or a significant roadblock to its completion.


Consider awarding XP after each successful skill check in the challenge. This makes challenges a bit more like combat and makes progress more tangible to players. I recommend the XP award be equal to a minion of the challenges level. For example, a successful check during a level 5 challenge would reward 50 XP. For a Complexity 1 challenge you will end up awarding XP equal to a standard monster of that level.


BTW: The skill challenge system combined with XP rewards after successful rolls is very similar to Tunnels & Trolls SR system. You might be able to find parallels and advice in writings about that game. Hot tech!

 

[James McMurray]

That sounds like it would make risk averse players even moreso. In our epic game the party waited 3 levels, rebuilt characters, and bought lots of specialized gear just so they wouldn't risk failing one particular skill challenge. If all of them were worth less XP per failure I'd be worried they'd never do any of them that weren't forced on them. That's the oposite of adventurous.

 

[FireLance]

That sounds like it would make risk averse players even moreso. In our epic game the party waited 3 levels, rebuilt characters, and bought lots of specialized gear just so they wouldn't risk failing one particular skill challenge. If all of them were worth less XP per failure I'd be worried they'd never do any of them that weren't forced on them. That's the oposite of adventurous.

I don't see why this would be the case. If they end up succeeding at the skill challenge, they aren't any worse off, but if they end up failing it, they still get some XP out of it for every successful check. Getting XP for a successful check doesn't mean that the PCs lose XP for a failed check. It would be like the PCs getting XP for each monster they killed in a fight, even if they end up running away before they defeat the rest (hence resulting in a failed combat encounter).

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

That sounds like it would make risk averse players even moreso.

Actually, it does the opposite. The regular way, if you fail the challenge you get nothing. This way, if you fail you at least get rewarded for what success you did have. Players learn that they'll get at least some reward regardless of if the challenge fails.

If all of them were worth less XP per failure I'd be worried they'd never do any of them that weren't forced on them.

Handing out XP at each roll's success never results in less XP total for a challenge success.

Consider a level 5, complexity 2 challege (6 successes before 3 failures), which is worth 400 XP at a successful conclusion. We'll ignore any other benefits or losses that result from success or failure.

Going by the book, if you fail the challenge you get nothing. If you succeed you get 400 XP.

Going by my suggestion you get these results

Successes    Failures    XP
1            3           50
2            3           100
3            3           150
4            3           200
5            3           250
6            2           400

If you have a heartbreaker of 5 successes but 3 failures you at least get 250 XP for your efforts. And that last success has a nice little bonus award of any extra balance of XP.

In the group I DM this has started encouraging players to seek out these kind of situations thinking and parleying much more before pulling out swords.

In fact, I have started handing out a minion's worth of XP anytime a player has a successful check after having their character do something interesting. It really encourages the roll playing and action hero kind of antics that make 4E really awesome.

 

[James McMurray]

Actually, it does the opposite. The regular way, if you fail the challenge you get nothing. This way, if you fail you at least get rewarded for what success you did have. Players learn that they'll get at least some reward regardless of if the challenge fails.



Handing out XP at each roll's success never results in less XP total for a challenge success.

Cool, I must have misread the version of the post you had prior to the edit. I could swear it said they'd lose XP for failing a roll.