A discussion of Keith Baker's post regarding the Skill Challenge system

[UngeheuerLich]

it eems to me that the rules hve changed since D&D expeience... from a system which worked fine (remember DCs between 12 and 18, and you can decide what challenge you take) to a system thats just bad...

... and i have the feeling it changed because so many people complained about skill challenges beeing able to change the world...

I will definitely use the older system...

 

[gribble]

I'm personally finding the skill chalenges a little easy for my players. Damn them and their lucky rolls!

Had nothing to do with lucky rolls. The baseline RAW DC for the skill checks is DC 20 (moderate skill check). That's probably why the players found it easy, when the DCs you set were 4-10 lower than given by the RAW...

Contrasting this, I ran another skill check in the game tonight. The noble negotiation again, this time with a flat +2 DMs friend bonus (they were trying to convince the lord to do something that was in his best interests), and allowing all the other players to assist every roll. They still failed, but couldn't use their best social skill (Intimidate) and it was only a party of 3 (i.e.: max +4 due to assistance).

These numbers seemed about right (in terms of a DC).

 

[Oldtimer]

it eems to me that the rules hve changed since D&D expeience... from a system which worked fine (remember DCs between 12 and 18, and you can decide what challenge you take)

I looked at my downloaded copy of "Escape from Sembia" and all the DCs for Encounter 2 (the chase) are at 12. There is nothing about choosing easier (?) or harder challenges.

There are also a lot of secondary effects and extra skill checks in there, which makes it rather interesting. As a whole, that skill challenge looks very reasonable. Anyone wants to run the probabilities using the DDXP pre-gens?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I looked at my downloaded copy of "Escape from Sembia" and all the DCs for Encounter 2 (the chase) are at 12. There is nothing about choosing easier (?) or harder challenges.

There are also a lot of secondary effects and extra skill checks in there, which makes it rather interesting. As a whole, that skill challenge looks very reasonable. Anyone wants to run the probabilities using the DDXP pre-gens?

If i am not mistaken, DC 12 is not possible in the new rules... the easiest DC would be 15...

 

[two]

Mike Mearls acknowledges that there are some issues with skill challenges in this post on the official forums

Kinda makes the "4e defenders" look a little bit silly. Yes, 4e got a lot of unwarranted criticism, but that doesn't mean it didn't get warranted criticism as well.

Skill challenges looked strange from the get-go, and a lack of detailed examples indicated (to me at least) that they either knew the math was bad (and didn't want to advertise it), or that this latest version was a patch and not well incorporated into the overall book.

Either way, pretty lame for a much ballyhooed mechanic.

 

[Tervin]

Kinda makes the "4e defenders" look a little bit silly. Yes, 4e got a lot of unwarranted criticism, but that doesn't mean it didn't get warranted criticism as well.

Skill challenges looked strange from the get-go, and a lack of detailed examples indicated (to me at least) that they either knew the math was bad (and didn't want to advertise it), or that this latest version was a patch and not well incorporated into the overall book.

Either way, pretty lame for a much ballyhooed mechanic.

This might seem really weird, and I understand if people don't agree with me. I don't think criticizing how skill challenges are described in the DMG has anything to do with criticizing 4th Edition. What the issue has been is not whether skill challenges are a good idea or not; just whether the rules in the book work the way they are supposed to, and if they have given good examples of how to make them work the best way possible. As far as I can see everybody who has been suggesting changes to skill challenges in these threads, has done it because they like the idea so much that they wish they had a system that is good enough for it.

If I didn't like the new edition, I wouldn't bother looking for ways to patch up little problems in it. The skill challenge concept has the potential of being a really major improvement on the game, which is why it seems to have become some of us "4E defenders" have been so bothered with that it is not really working so well as written.

I really hope people don't think that someone who likes something has to be blind to defects in it. Or that people would think that a great new mechanic that needs patching to live up to its potential is an excuse to bash a game. That would just be lame.

 

[Stalker0]

If I didn't like the new edition, I wouldn't bother looking for ways to patch up little problems in it.

AMEN!!

 

[keterys]

I still plan on just ignoring the '+5 DC' in the DMG, since not only did it not work that way at DDXP, the math is _much_ nicer without it. While greater complexities can increase the chance in certain situations, they'll decrease it in others, and the generic math can't factor in a simple 'You can only use a skill X times' which I suspect will kick in every now and then.

In a few months, maybe folks will have a nifty keen solution that is simple, easy to explain, rigorous math... certainly seems like Stalker is working towards that. I can not sweat it in the meantime

 

[two]

This might seem really weird, and I understand if people don't agree with me. I don't think criticizing how skill challenges are described in the DMG has anything to do with criticizing 4th Edition. What the issue has been is not whether skill challenges are a good idea or not; just whether the rules in the book work the way they are supposed to, and if they have given good examples of how to make them work the best way possible. As far as I can see everybody who has been suggesting changes to skill challenges in these threads, has done it because they like the idea so much that they wish they had a system that is good enough for it.

If I didn't like the new edition, I wouldn't bother looking for ways to patch up little problems in it. The skill challenge concept has the potential of being a really major improvement on the game, which is why it seems to have become some of us "4E defenders" have been so bothered with that it is not really working so well as written.

I really hope people don't think that someone who likes something has to be blind to defects in it. Or that people would think that a great new mechanic that needs patching to live up to its potential is an excuse to bash a game. That would just be lame.

Good points.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This might seem really weird, and I understand if people don't agree with me. I don't think criticizing how skill challenges are described in the DMG has anything to do with criticizing 4th Edition. What the issue has been is not whether skill challenges are a good idea or not; just whether the rules in the book work the way they are supposed to, and if they have given good examples of how to make them work the best way possible. As far as I can see everybody who has been suggesting changes to skill challenges in these threads, has done it because they like the idea so much that they wish they had a system that is good enough for it.

Game designers (even WotC's) are human. Mistakes happen.

I think Skill Challenges are awesome. I've used a much more roleplay intensive, free-form version that I saw kicked around here before 4e was out.

But I never really looked at the underlying math, certainly not with the diligence required of a game designer, and I am somewhat chagrined to say I probably would not have caught it.

It doesn't matter where you set the DCs, what kind of bonuses you hand out, the underlying mechanic is going to cause a Complexity / Difficulty flip-flop.

Stalker0 has done everyone a huge favor by bringing this to light. I think it is obvious that his intention was not to bash 4e but to improve the game experience.

If there is any shadenfreude to be enjoyed here, it is only as a stunning validation of open design.