Advice regarding 'Skill Challenge'

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, you are confused. Whether or not the action is initiated by the player isn't the test. The test is how reliant the player is on an obstacle being present in the setting that the DM has made relevant to the skill and the DM's level of detail and support in resolving the proposition. Checking for traps is a very much classic case of a passive use of skill. Whether it is of any use at all depends on whether or not there are traps in the environment. Ancient Greek may be a very useful skill, but only if all the clues are written in Ancient Greek. Checking for traps grants you no reliable narrative force.* Being able to place a trap in the environment on the other hand would.

*(In fact, the opposite is often the case. If the DM is prone to improvisation, you are more likely to lose narrative force than gain it by checking for traps.)



Because it has no mechanical force, it remains a passive skill. If the rules elaborated, "In any wilderness setting, a player can make a Nature roll during every short rest to find level x 100 g.p. worth of useful reagents. These reagents can used to pay the cost of a ritual.", then the skill would have an active component that doesn't depend (very greatly) on encounter design or DM fiat. The very vagueness of what 4e skills do that you praise is what makes them so passive by default. Sure, a DM can empower them via consistent rulings, but since the rules themselves don't describe how to do this in detail and that's highly dependent on improvisation (which is never reliable IMO), they are likely to remain passive. Compare the treatment given to class abilities and the very definite mechanical benefits that derive there from, and a hypothetical treatment where Fighters had no class abilities but a combat 'knack' or 'skill' described in the rules only as, "Knowledgeable regarding combat techniques, fighting styles, and the use of arms." In theory, such a skill could completely substitute for all the class powers and maneuvers of a fighter and then some in the hands of a capable and flexible DM, but in practice it probably wouldn't. Likewise, in practice if it did, these 'rulings' would have a tendency to morph in to reliable and established house rules.

Sub-categories of Athletics doesn't increase its active nature in and of itself. But you'd have to bundle all possible benefits of various skills into Athletics to make it equivalently active. Compare 4e Athletics with my approach. For example, I have a 'Paladin' PC in the current group that has a 40' move purely because he's skilled at running, with no recourse to class features at all.

But if you think about it, basically every ability a character has is reliant on some sort of challenge being present. You can't fight if there isn't an orc to kill any more than you can't track if there isn't an orc to track. You may be able to define a rough scale that says "this ability is more often employable in a range of situations than this other one is" so OK, 'Streetwise' is more niche than 'Melee Basic Attack' in some sense. The thing is, the game is always give and take where the GM presents some material and the players react to it, and back and forth. The players may present some desire they have which is unprovoked, "I want to build a castle" but there is a heavy element of it being just a reordering of the normal presentation, because the GM will still immediately be tasked with indicating how, where, when, and if said castle can be built and any checks required to build it might come into play.

The only way to make the character's abilities truly 'active' is to give them authorial power so that the player of the barbarian can say "Grom is going to kill the huge ogre that just came through the door" and have the huge ogre appear in the narrative. There are games that do this, but D&D just isn't one of them. Players actions are always FUNDAMENTALLY reactive in a GM-centered game. I'm not really sure why 'active abilities' in a D&D-style game would be possible or desirable personally. I'm great with player initiative, and I run games that allow player narrative contribution sometimes, but I've actually found my D&D players don't LIKE it that much.

 

[Manbearcat]

Paging [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]. If you're so inclined and have the time, you might be neatly positioned to assist Celebrim here. You both have your own 3.x/d20 hack that you guys run (which may sure some relatable overlap), and you've been deftly running themed, 4e noncombat conflict resolution for over a year now.

I'll try to post a follow-up to the post requesting input on thematically challenging specific PC resources tomorrow. I have some ideas.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Paging [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]. If you're so inclined and have the time, you might be neatly positioned to assist Celebrim here. You both have your own 3.x/d20 hack that you guys run (which may sure some relatable overlap), and you've been deftly running themed, 4e noncombat conflict resolution for over a year now.

I'll try to post a follow-up to the post requesting input on thematically challenging specific PC resources tomorrow. I have some ideas.

I've been lightly following the thread, but I'll admit to being a skimmer, not a deep reader so far. It sounded like we need ideas for how to keep the group engaged during the storm? I'm not 100% (and I'm on my phone now while waiting on someone to finally come out to my car...), though.

Anyway, this is something I usually wing. I never, ever, ever run preset skill challenges. I wing everything, and I see what clicks with the group the most. Where do they seem the most engaged? I'll press there. What makes them worry? What makes them filled with anticipation? What specifically makes this next check with rolling for in this skill challenge? That's where I push.

And that often means pushing areas where the stakes are highest, even if the PCs are skilled in the area. If they can only fail on a 5 or less, but there's dire consequences if they fail, you'd better bet the players will be staring at that d20 pretty damn intently as it bounces and rolls and finally comes to rest on that 7 (or 4).

That means picking on things that matter to them. Reputations (incompetence, savior, etc.), beloved PCS (man overboard), and the like. While the trained NPCs can do most of the heavy lifting (steering the ship), the PCs can be invested in what matters to them. To some, that's a meaningful contribution to success (assist checks to aid NPCs, Leadership checks to control fear and emotions as panic sets in against the impossible storm, etc.). To others, though, saving an NPC that goes on to hug them for not letting his children starve is worth far more.

One of my players' most memorable sessions was helping a city after a red dragon devastated it. Their high base attack, walls of fire, and rage abilities didn't do anything. But some cross class ranks in Heal helped treat the wounded, while some cross class ranks in Know(religion) helped console people with tales of the gods kindness, etc.

Well, she's here. Gotta go. Just improvise and push the players interests. That'll be more than enough to be fun, even if it's repetitive.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, here's an idea, what if there's something really valuable about the ship itself, or something on it that cannot be replaced if it goes down? Like a big heavy chest full of treasure maybe? I'm not sure if that can be worked into the story, but.... Maybe the PCs already provided such a thing, they'd hate to see their hard-earned cash go down with the ship!