Alternatives to map-and-key

[FrogReaver]

Here are some examples; they frame the situation as one of overcoming an obstacle or resolving an obstacle:


The 4e DMG (p 72) uses different terminology ("goal" and "obstacles"):

What’s the goal of the challenge? Where does the challenge take place? Who is involved in this challenge? Is it a stand-alone skill challenge or a skill challenge as part of a combat encounter?

Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. The goal has everything to do with the overall story of the adventure. . . .

It’s not a skill challenge every time you call for a skill check. When an obstacle takes only one roll to resolve, it’s not a challenge. One Diplomacy check to haggle with the merchant, one Athletics check to climb out of the pit trap, one Religion check to figure out whose sacred tome contains the parable - none of these constitutes a skill challenge.​

I don't want to put too much weight on mere terminology. But I do think it is significant that the DMG sees skill challenges in terms of overcoming obstacles - introduced by the GM, via their narration of framing and of consequences - to realise a goal. If the skill challenge succeeds, no more obstacles are to be presented by the GM; if they are still there in the fiction, the PCs overcome them.

Maybe if you directly addressed the criticism, because I don’t follow the significance of whatever point you are trying to make here.

The criticism is that the default pre-skill challenge method of resolution is more responsive to the fiction than skill challenges. This is because the number of ‘steps’ to overcome an obstacle or achieve a goal isn’t predetermined regardless of not yet established fiction, doesnt treat each ‘step’ as the same weight (the fiction could make some successes be worth more than others), and doesn’t limit the impact of a given success on future ‘steps’ to a mere +2.

I don’t know how any of these basic facts are even in dispute, but it seems they are.

*Using steps loosely because the default pre-skill challenge method doesn’t use steps per se, but one could always review play after the fact and determine the number of steps.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I mean you can keep denying it all you want. Skill challenges force the fiction to conform to the rules instead of other way around. This lessens the impact of character actions and fictional positioning. I have several times explained how this occurs, and no one has refuted the actual logic.

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?

Yes, obviously characters. Information can be conveyed by a method called "talking." Furthermore, during the play, the players express their characters, making us all know them better.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

See, I don't understand this supposed 'flattening'. Lets say the SC you are suggesting is one that we ran for some characters. I would call it a CL1 SC, probably, as it is just some fairly small part of a bigger operation, so I don't want to focus on it too much, it will take 4-6 checks to pass. Now, in a non-SC kind of a scenario, what would this kind of thing entail? It would presumably require climbing, probably stealth, and perhaps perception. I could see Dungeoneering as well, considering it more of a general knowledge of construction and such. So, either way, the PCs approach the outer defenses, looking out for guards (Perception), then sneak up to the wall (Stealth), and then climb it (Athletics in 4e). That's 3 checks right there, with 3 different skills. Maybe at this point Dungeoneering gets invoked to determine the fastest way down, like do we go left or right to find a stairway/ladder/whatever? We're at 4 checks now, so if the PCs have succeeded in all of them, the GM basically says "hey, you did it, you climb down uneventfully and find yourselves in the shadows." Alternatively guard dogs are sniffing around and the PCs picked the wrong way to go to find the stairs, so they have to clout a soldier before he raises an alarm, and manage his dog (Nature).

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.

The players could observe the keep from afar, they might want to roll history to see whether they might know something that would reveal best direction of approach, they could roll perception to see the guards, and perhaps insight to asses their morale, dungeoneering to asses the structure of the keep. All these actions make sense in the context, but if they fail at three of them, they have somehow failed the skill challenge before they have even approached the keep! Similarly if they succeed in all of these, or succeed in three of them and at stealthing towards the keep, they have somehow succeeded at the skill challenge without making it in the keep! And yeah, the GM can (and must) prevent these outcomes by disallowing some rolls, or have them not count towards progress or something, but I am not at all sure that handling this as a skill challenge instead of just dealing with these obstacles separately is helpful. The fiction is that the characters need to somehow cross the distance to the keep unnoticed, and somehow make it inside the walls. To me it makes far more sense to deal with these specific challenges, and have things that logically would overcome the overcome them, regardless of how many rolls that would take.

 

[AnotherGuy]

People keep saying that skill challenges are about fiction, but to me it seems obvious that this is not true. If the actions taken regarding fictional positioning are such that they would overcome the obstacle with few rolls this does not matter, as if the predetermined number of successes has not yet been reached, the GM will just frame more obstacles so that the players get to roll more. It is clear to me that here the fiction is in service of the rules here rather than the other way around. And if you like this, that's fine, but let's not try to obfuscate what's actually happening.

I'm not an expert on Skill Challenges and we generally run things our way.
I use the framework provided in 4e to run my Skill Challenges, but sometimes I deviate quite a bit from that structure.

In yesterday's session the PCs were involved in a social Skill Challenge with some giants, where they needed 6 successes before 3 failures.

In order for them to gain a roll to counter in a debate, they needed to come up with a logical counter argument.
If I was unsure on any argument's validity, I would offer it to the table to decide but it never came to that - every argument presented by the table was decent and reasonably-to-well thought out.
The fiction was necessary for the roll. Without the fiction there was no roll and it would be an automatic failure.

The artificer at several points utilised his Flash of Genius and I allowed it if he could creatively come up with a way within the conversation whereby his input in the conversation made sense to add those pluses to the speaker's roll.
Again fiction-first before mechanics.

So yes, the SC framework was adopted, but the fiction allowed the mechanics to breathe.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say is that there are many ways one can run a SC. I do not believe there is only 1 way.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The criticism is that the default pre-skill challenge method of resolution is more responsive to the fiction than skill challenges. This is because the number of ‘steps’ to overcome an obstacle or achieve a goal isn’t predetermined regardless of not yet established fiction, doesnt treat each ‘step’ as the same weight (the fiction could make some successes be worth more than others), and doesn’t limit the impact of a given success on future ‘steps’ to a mere +2.

I reject this premise that says SC must be run abc.
We certainly do not have that in combat, I do not see why there is this insistence that SC are only run like that.

As we have seen on these very threads there are all sorts of ways initiative can be determined in combat.
Sometimes a DM doen't need to use combat rolls, they can use mob tactics with auto hits every x number of attacks based on the victims AC.
We can roll damage, use the average, use degrees of success to multiply damage etc

In the same way, I do not have to weigh each step the same if a player rolls extremely high in one check, or comes up with a great idea (perhaps no roll is required).
Or perhaps, if it works in the fiction, I allow a retry for a check but with a higher DC, therefore a greater chance of failure should the PCs want to risk it.
I feel SC are malleable in the same way combats can be.

 

[FrogReaver]

I reject this premise that says SC must be run abc.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

In the same way, I do not have to weigh each step the same if a player rolls extremely high in one check, or comes up with a great idea (perhaps not roll is required).
Or perhaps, if it works in the fiction, I allow a retry for a check but with a higher DC, therefore a greater chance of failure should the PCs want to risk it.
I feel SC is malleable in the same way combat can be.

My understanding is that the 4e skill challenges rules do not allow this. I would be more open to a skill challenges system that did, though it would have to also be able to be adjusted for the fiction (the position and effect to borrow BitD lingo) and not just the roll. But if I’m doing that, is it even a skill challenge anymore? Do the normal merits of a 4e skill challenge even still apply. I’m not so sure. And so perhaps this morphs into a different criticism entirely with your proposed changes here.

 

[AnotherGuy]

My understanding is that the 4e skill challenges rules do not allow this. I would be more open to a skill challenges system that did, though it would have to also be able to be adjusted for the fiction (the position and effect to borrow BitD lingo) and not just the roll. But if I’m doing that, is it even a skill challenge anymore? Do the normal merits of a 4e skill challenge even still apply. I’m not so sure. And so perhaps this morphs into a different criticism entirely with your proposed changes here.

We allow tinkering in every other part of the system without having an issue if it morphed into something else.

What would you call the below if not a Skill Challenge?

Pillar: Social Pillar solely
Goal: 6 Successes before 3 Failures or before all arguments are voiced (There were 8 arguments in total planned, 7 were used)
Primary Skill: Persuasion
Secondary Skill: Insight - this may be used to gain tidbits here and there during the debate with the giants.

Giants put forward an argument to convince King Hekaton to abandon his current quest and meet with the newly risen Hartkiller.
PC makes a valid counter argument to be allowed to roll a Persuasion check.

01-09 Failure
10-14 No Result
15-24 Success
25+ Success x 2

After a Failure or No Result another PC can make a different counter argument to make another roll for the same argument (if they want), but all the DCs increase by 5. If they leave it, the next argument is raised.
Players may also decline to argue altogether but then it counts as Failure.
If a player interrupts the giants, the DC increase by 1
If the player fails to acknowledge the giant's title in their counter argument, they gain disadvantage

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not an expert on Skill Challenges and we generally run things our way.
I use the framework provided in 4e to run my Skill Challenges, but sometimes I deviate quite a bit from that structure.

In yesterday's session the PCs were involved in a social Skill Challenge with some giants, where they needed 6 successes before 3 failures.

In order for them to gain a roll to counter in a debate, they needed to come up with a logical counter argument.
If I was unsure on any argument's validity, I would offer it to the table to decide but it never came to that - every argument presented by the table was decent and reasonably-to-well thought out.
The fiction was necessary for the roll. Without the fiction there was no roll and it would be an automatic failure.

The artificer at several points utilised his Flash of Genius and I allowed it if he could creatively come up with a way within the conversation whereby his input in the conversation made sense to add those pluses to the speaker's roll.
Again fiction-first before mechanics.

So yes, the SC framework was adopted, but the fiction allowed the mechanics to breathe.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say is that there are many ways one can run a SC. I do not believe there is only 1 way.

I think social skill challenges in certain social situations can make sense. Primarily ones where the NPC motivations and reasoning aren’t very established in the shared fiction or notes so the DM has little to extrapolate from. Much lower myth than how I’d typically run an important faction of NPCs in d&d but still a possibility.

It also keeps in alignment that social situations rarely have immediate catastrophic failure as long as the PCs aren’t overly antagonistic.

One thing I’d note is that not just logical but emotional arguments should probably have also been considered, but that is easy enough to adjust.

That said if the Giants had clear concrete predetermined motivations and the player argument logically or emotionally answered those concerns then in non-skill challenges play I wouldn’t have called for a check at all. Auto success. If they had touched on some and not others then I’d have given a check, dc probably dependent on how many concerns were left unaddressed or minimally addressed.

 

[FrogReaver]

We allow tinkering in every other part of the system without having an issue if it morphed into something else.

What would you call the below if not a Skill Challenge?

Pillar: Social Pillar solely
Goal: 6 Successes before 3 Failures or before all arguments are voiced (There were 8 arguments in total planned, 7 were used)
Primary Skill: Persuasion
Secondary Skill: Insight - this may be used to gain tidbits here and there during the debate with the giants.

Giants put forward an argument to convince King Hekaton to abandon his current quest and meet with the newly risen Hartkiller.
PC makes a valid counter argument to be allowed to roll.

01-09 Failure
10-14 No Result
15-24 Success
25+ Success x 2

After a Failure or No Result another PC can make a different counter argument to make another roll, but all the DCs increase by 5.
Players may also decline to argue altogether but then it counts as Failure.
If a player interrupts the giant, the very next DC increases by 1
If the player fails to acknowledge the giant's title in their counter argument, they gain disadvantage

the more broadly you want to define skill challenge the more case based the criticisms of it are going to be. 4e skill challenges were specifically brought up and so that’s what I’ve been discussing. If you want to discuss some other variation of them, expect the pros, cons and criticisms of that precise concrete implementation to change. That’s all I’m saying.

I don’t really care what any of it’s called as long as we are talking apples and apples or 4e skill challenges and 4e skill challenges or etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

We allow tinkering in every other part of the system without having an issue if it morphed into something else.

What would you call the below if not a Skill Challenge?

Pillar: Social Pillar solely
Goal: 6 Successes before 3 Failures or before all arguments are voiced (There were 8 arguments in total planned, 7 were used)
Primary Skill: Persuasion
Secondary Skill: Insight - this may be used to gain tidbits here and there during the debate with the giants.

Giants put forward an argument to convince King Hekaton to abandon his current quest and meet with the newly risen Hartkiller.
PC makes a valid counter argument to be allowed to roll a Persuasion check.

01-09 Failure
10-14 No Result
15-24 Success
25+ Success x 2

After a Failure or No Result another PC can make a different counter argument to make another roll for the same argument (if they want), but all the DCs increase by 5. If they leave it, the next argument is raised.
Players may also decline to argue altogether but then it counts as Failure.
If a player interrupts the giants, the DC increase by 1
If the player fails to acknowledge the giant's title in their counter argument, they gain disadvantage

For what it’s worth, the specific implementation here seems far superior to how I understand 4e skill challenges.

Here’s a question. What if the players had combined 2 or 3 or 4 or all of the counter arguments into their first counter argument? How would that have been handled?