In Rescue at Rivenroar there's an SC to find the dungeon. Succeed - you find it. Fail - you fight a wandering monster, then you find it. That kind of thing.
As you describe it, that sounds awful.
Was Derrik's player a "slayer" type and was he having fun the whole session? If ao how do you think you accomplished that?
Not really a slayer type, although he likes combat - the whole group does (but the wizard player perhaps the least).
Derrik's player likes the story behind his PC. And he enjoys engaging with that in play. So for both him and the player of the wizard (who is similar) I tend to put in elements that relate to their backstories. For the paladin and drow sorcerer, it's more about their themes/commitments (Raven Queen, chaotic arcane power) than their backstories as such - though with the drow that comes out too.
I think Derrik's player was enjoying himself - although he wasn't doing much
rolling in the skill challenge he was doing enough talking, because of the social situation I described and the fact that I was using him as the "weak point" to focus the pressure.
The player of the paladin probably participated the least in the SC, but he had led the interrogation of the cultist earlier. The player of the sorcerer probably participated the most in the skill challenge - pretending to be drunk, etc (and there was more of that that I left out of my writeup) - at least up until Derrik took the proactive role as it came to its resolution.
My table is also fairly friendly to metagame discussion. So at various points the players were talking about how to keep their secrets from Paldemar, what they should say and so on. And Derrik's player was as involved in that as the other players.
With social skills, I'm assuming you have some roleplaying lead up to the moment where a check is made? Do you give a +/- modifier to the social skill check depending on the roleplaying effort the player makes?
The skill check has to correspond to something happening in the fiction, that the player describes. In some cases this can be closer to the metaphorical (like when I let Derrik's player make an Athletics check to correspond to Derrik agreeing with the Baron about the priority of action over ideas), but mostly it's pretty literal - the player explains what the PC is doing, I specify what the skill is (if it's unclear, I'll ask the player to clarify - "Are you saying that in a nice way (Diplomacy) or a scary way (Intimdate)?").
Generally I don't give bonuses for quality of acting or script from a player, but will give a bonus for the way the player uses the situation, or builds on it - eg from memory, when Derrik's player had Derrik turn to Paldemar and call him "Golthar" (Paldermar's name in Goblinish) I gave a +2 on the Intimidate check, because it seemed like a powerful and natural way to push the scene to the conclusion that he wanted. Whereas, had he just said "Yes, I've told the Baron about who you
really are" I would have allowed the Intimidate check, but not with a +2 bonus.
And with having different goals (propriety, secrecy, investigation, and later instigation), how did you incorporate the possibility that they might succeed at one but fail at another? Was that entirely circumstantial as to the roleplaying or did you have some mechanic?
No mechanic. I let it come out of the resolution of each of the checks. Early on, when it was clear there were plenty more checks to come, I focused on letting the players' successes count in a local sense, yet overall trying to keep up the pressure. Towards the end, I was focused more on bringing things to a climax - this is why I had the Baron ask Derrik about what was burdening him.
And at this point, instigation was emerging as the main goal. The other goals get to stay where they are in terms of the resolution - the Baron allied but brooding, the history partially revealed (mostly by the Baron's sister, which came out in one of the attempts to turn the conversation away from the PCs' exploits in minotaur ruins), the secrets safe in part, revealed in part (eg Paldemar knows the PCs know that he tore his robes in a ruin).
Because the PCs succeeded overall in the skill chalenge, I think I am obliged at least not to roll things back contrary to what they aimed for. So I think I'm precluded, for example, from having the Baron turn on them just for fighting Paldemar. Not to say that complications can't arise out of that, but they have to respect the fact that the players maintained cordiality with the Baron, and that Derrik built success on the challenge in being honest with him, as an honourable peer and priest of Moradin.
Does that make sense?