Alternatives to map-and-key

[The Firebird]

But don't you do this in regular play all the time? You try to persuade the sweet old lady even though intimidate is your higher score? You try to intimidate the orc warlord even though the paladin nearby has a better intimidate check?

Sometimes. In the sweet old lady case I would anticipate better outcomes on persuade than intimidate. In the warlord case I would probably let the paladin do it.

How hard was that? Does that appear forced in any way? Where are the perverse incentives you find so damning? At what point would a player have an opportunity to spam whatever, Arcana, or Insight, etc.? (any of the other unmentioned skills, the list is almost identical to 5e). At each juncture the players understood what the stakes were, both in fictional and mechanical terms, and acted in a logical fashion. 99.9% of SCs are like this.

Well, yes...it appears forced precisely because it wasn't so hard to adjudicate. Running single checks works well and gives the DM more flexibility to respond. What does imposing the structure of a skill challenge add here?

 

[soviet]

Sometimes. In the sweet old lady case I would anticipate better outcomes on persuade than intimidate. In the warlord case I would probably let the paladin do it.

So you're approaching non-SC skill checks the same way as you approach SC skill checks then?

Well, yes...it appears forced precisely because it wasn't so hard to adjudicate. Running single checks works well and gives the DM more flexibility to respond. What does imposing the structure of a skill challenge add here?

What it adds in principle is a transparent structure to the chain of actions, clarifying at what point overall success (or overall failure) is achieved. The advantage of this over having the GM simply adjudicate 'OK, that's enough, it's resolved' is that a) the transparency of the clock (three successes before three failures or whatever) creates additional tension for all sides, and b) overall success or failure being determined by a rules structure rather than GM discretion means that both players and GM can be surprised by the outcome - you are 'playing to find out'.

(This isn't a 'tyranny of the GM' thing. Some GMs welcome the structure and not having to arbitrarily decide 'what's enough' to conclude the negotiations or whatever.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sometimes. In the sweet old lady case I would anticipate better outcomes on persuade than intimidate. In the warlord case I would probably let the paladin do it.


Well, yes...it appears forced precisely because it wasn't so hard to adjudicate. Running single checks works well and gives the DM more flexibility to respond. What does imposing the structure of a skill challenge add here?

It adds a determinate structure. I don't know, as a player, that the GM is going to be satisfied with 3 checks, or if he might decide to require 20, or what they will be on, their DCs, nothing. At least as a player, in the process of dealing with this challenge, I can reason about each part. "Oh, we don't have any failures so far, and we have 2 successes already? OK, maybe the hard DC Religion check by the cleric to convince the guard we're Baal worshipers is not so dire a thing." At 2 fails, maybe we start to think about backing out! This is a game, it has game considerations, but also saying "yeah, we got our 4th success, GM we are through!" is actually a big deal.

 

[soviet]

It adds a determinate structure. I don't know, as a player, that the GM is going to be satisfied with 3 checks, or if he might decide to require 20, or what they will be on, their DCs, nothing. At least as a player, in the process of dealing with this challenge, I can reason about each part. "Oh, we don't have any failures so far, and we have 2 successes already? OK, maybe the hard DC Religion check by the cleric to convince the guard we're Baal worshipers is not so dire a thing." At 2 fails, maybe we start to think about backing out! This is a game, it has game considerations, but also saying "yeah, we got our 4th success, GM we are through!" is actually a big deal.

'Determinate structure', look at Mr Fancy Pants over here

I like that term, I imagine I will use it.

 

[The Firebird]

So you're approaching non-SC skill checks the same way as you approach SC skill checks then?

Well, no. At any point in either, decisions can be made for mechanical or fictional reasons. Usually it will be some combination of the two. Moving to a determinate structure like a SC heightens the importance of mechanical reasons, for me, in a way that I find unsatisfying.

What it adds in principle is a transparent structure to the chain of actions, clarifying at what point overall success (or overall failure) is achieved. The advantage of this over having the GM simply adjudicate 'OK, that's enough, it's resolved' is that a) the transparency of the clock (three successes before three failures or whatever) creates additional tension for all sides, and b) overall success or failure being determined by a rules structure rather than GM discretion means that both players and GM can be surprised by the outcome - you are 'playing to find out'.

I get the idea. But it doesn't quite work for me. Look at the outer defenses example, adjudicated normally. Check 1 (perception) they confirm there are no guards. Check 2 (stealth) they reach the wall. Check 3 (athletics) they climb the wall. There is no superstructure here--the GM isn't every adjudicating the entire scenario on the basis of 'that's enough checks', as you describe. Each check is taken for a specific fictional reason and achieves a specific fictional state.

I don't see where 'play to find out' comes in either. Say the players fail check 3, and don't climb the wall. Is that not playing to find out? Is the players failing the skill challenge surprising in a way that them failing to climb the wall is not?

Nor the 'GM discretion' idea. If the DCs for the tasks are 12, 12, and 10, is that exercising discretion differently from the GM saying it is a skill challenge with 3 checks? How?

It adds a determinate structure. I don't know, as a player, that the GM is going to be satisfied with 3 checks, or if he might decide to require 20, or what they will be on, their DCs, nothing. At least as a player, in the process of dealing with this challenge, I can reason about each part. "Oh, we don't have any failures so far, and we have 2 successes already? OK, maybe the hard DC Religion check by the cleric to convince the guard we're Baal worshipers is not so dire a thing." At 2 fails, maybe we start to think about backing out! This is a game, it has game considerations, but also saying "yeah, we got our 4th success, GM we are through!" is actually a big deal.

Right--and this is specifically what I'm objecting to. I don't like this determinate structure because it pulls me out of the fiction. It is ok if you feel differently.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, the fiction and the rules work together. They inform each other.

That there’s a structure in place doesn’t interfere with the fiction. Most fiction has a structure of some sort.

It constrains the GM in ways… but constraints often promote creativity. They also help to serve as a structure for play, which I think is important.



Who? The players or characters?

I assume you mean characters. If so, how do you know them at the start of play?

Is it something you do during session zero? Do you do group character creation?



I don’t know what this means.

Are you saying that without a SC structure in place, players are more rational? Less likely to try absurd actions to address a challenge?



Why not both? Why is it either/or?



It has been mine. Also, there’s ample evidence of such offered here on this site and on the internet at large.

I ran Curse of Strahd. Was it different than other groups who played it? Sure. Was it radically different? No, not really. They had a Tarokka reading, went to the different locations, and eventually faced Strahd. There was an important ally, an important location, and an important item… all that.

Were there some surprising moments? Sure. Was it mostly surprising? No. I think describing it as such is a huge stretch.



No one said it was.

Nothing else to differentiate your description, though?

It's different enough for me. Turns out I'm under no obligation to engage in discussion at your direction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, this is a whole other point. Nothing has been lost, if you were already assuming limitless GM power to say this or that, then they are surely able to just change the rules of the SC and end it. I'm not sure I see the point of pretending to use SCs at that point, but it is certainly something I can imagine.

Because SCs were introduced in 4e, a game that pointedly did not say the GM no longer has the sort of authority they did in previous versions of what was ostensibly the same game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sometimes. In the sweet old lady case I would anticipate better outcomes on persuade than intimidate. In the warlord case I would probably let the paladin do it.


Well, yes...it appears forced precisely because it wasn't so hard to adjudicate. Running single checks works well and gives the DM more flexibility to respond. What does imposing the structure of a skill challenge add here?

I'm not sure what the benefits of using SC structure even are, frankly. They must benefit something I don't do when I run games.

 

[soviet]

Well, no. At any point in either, decisions can be made for mechanical or fictional reasons. Usually it will be some combination of the two. Moving to a determinate structure like a SC heightens the importance of mechanical reasons, for me, in a way that I find unsatisfying.

If you're saying that this is a completely subjective taste thing on your part, then fine. But you seem to be making a broader point?

I get the idea. But it doesn't quite work for me. Look at the outer defenses example, adjudicated normally. Check 1 (perception) they confirm there are no guards. Check 2 (stealth) they reach the wall. Check 3 (athletics) they climb the wall. There is no superstructure here--the GM isn't every adjudicating the entire scenario on the basis of 'that's enough checks', as you describe. Each check is taken for a specific fictional reason and achieves a specific fictional state.

I don't see where 'play to find out' comes in either. Say the players fail check 3, and don't climb the wall. Is that not playing to find out? Is the players failing the skill challenge surprising in a way that them failing to climb the wall is not?

It's about whether 'failing to climb the wall', 'failing to spot the guards', or 'failing to be stealthy' turns into 'and therefore failing the whole infiltration'.

And similarly it's about whether 'successfully climbing the wall', 'successfully spotting the guards', or 'successfully being stealthy' turns into 'and therefore succeeding at the whole infiltration'.

In a SC these stakes are known. In a non SC they are at the GM's discretion.

Nor the 'GM discretion' idea. If the DCs for the tasks are 12, 12, and 10, is that exercising discretion differently from the GM saying it is a skill challenge with 3 checks? How?

No, they are the same kind of discretion. The GM decides in advance what the mechanical threshold that needs to be crossed is. The discretion I was talking about was 'uhhh that's enough successes, you win' when no such threshold had been set in advance (either as an SC or in some other

 

[soviet]

I'm not sure what the benefits of using SC structure even are, frankly. They must benefit something I don't do when I run games.

Pacing and transparency of stakes.