D&D 4E Am I crazy? I've just gotten a hankering to play 4e again...

[Garthanos]

Sure, you can split one roll into both.

But with d20 systdms, either magnitude dorsn't correlate strongly with skill, or non trivial magnitude implies auto success.

In turn, this makes contributions of wide skill ranges not work. The old +30 vs +5 modifier problem; on a d20 they are not playing the same game. If +30 can fail, +5 shouldn't bother rolling.

With success-and-magnitude, +10 vs +5 with a larger magnitude on +10 can emulate a similar skill difference. But now, the same DC can have bith with a reasonable failure chance.

This is the D&D attack model.

I suppose you could with skill use split up that way then leverage having tools or situations that improve only magnitude or only reliability or something similar (just as bigger weapons often improve only magnitude)

 

[Garthanos]

Skills (and Rituals / Skillful Practices and Skill Powers) plus plus are improvements I would have liked to have seen in a 4e plus plus.

 

[pemerton]

As stated, the example SCs are bad. Like, really bad. They go all-in for a dull systematic approach that deadens rather than enriches the experience. So really don't listen to those examples. Later, when I'm less tired, I can try to assemble a better example. But that's boring, let's get to the interesting stuff.

One of the fundamental problems with the way Skill Challenges are presented is that, unlike 4e's combat system, nothing changes (until they complete) when you run them RAW. Oh, there might be some incredibly minor changes like "you can't use skill X twice" or "trying this again after failing increases the DC by Y," but by and large the situations are static until you hit a magic number of successes or failures.

I agree that the presentation and commentary is weak. But the example in the Rules Compendium has a situation that changes - the PCs move to new places and meet new people.

The DMG2 is probably the strongest on this aspect of skill challenge resolution.

Adventurer abilities all scaling in ways appropriate to adventuring in a broad way is something 4e fixed.

I basically read the 4e DMG2 information on skill challenges before playing (got into the game just after it was out). But to me the above is definitely directly presented...

edit:In fact 4e characters all having similar resources they can all apply as skill challenge currency is one of the benefits of 4e wrt skill challenges.

Absolutely. The DMG mentions the possibility of using powers, and the DMG2 elaborates on it. The symmetry of resource builds is what makes this easy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not at all. If you are having fun you are gaming the right way,.

It's complicated! Sometimes, you have fun doing something you truly dislike because you do it with friends. Sometimes you "like" something because it's all you've ever known. For both, you could have much MORE fun.

Both applied to my experience with pre-4e D&D. I "had fun" playing 3.5e multiple times. Yet I also kept trying to change it, thinking some small tweak or fix would make it truly sing. When I eventually got to 4e, I suddenly understood not only why, but THAT I had been frustrated with 3rd edition's fundamental design, in ways that couldn't be fixed with small changes. Frex, class balance (e.g. Bard/Paladin/Sorcerer kinda sucking compared to alternatives), or actually welcoming teamwork instead of being "ruthlessly optimize yourself because that's always best." Moving to 4e finally made me realize how much fun I WASN'T having, but couldn't see because I knew of no alternative.

Fun IS important. If you're truly happy doing X, awesome, do it. Just don't forget that "I had fun because I hung out with friends" or "I had fun because I had no idea there was another way" are possibilities.

Thank you. Lots of good reading.

That got me thinking; how would you present Skill Challenges in a way that conveys their dynamic nature, without confusing your average DM? As you say, examples can only show so much of the improv needed. But maybe that is the only way. Just having (much) better examples than what 4e gave us.

My pleasure! Always glad to help others make the best of 4th edition.

My intent, for when I actually get to making the example I offered, was not to present a "canned" example so much as propose a concept, and then work through it one step at a time, asking IRL friends for ideas and suggestions to help keep things fresh and forcing me to adapt to their ideas. IOW, try to give a "live dissection" of my improv process, if that makes sense. I don't think I'll have something ready tonight, but in the next few days I should have something. (Depends on how much I can get done despite running a session tomorrow and then Christmas Eve the next day...)

OTOH you could run a whole infiltration mission as one SC, probably a higher complexity one (3 at least, unless again this all just build up). So here there might be 4 or 5 elements within the overall theme of getting in, doing whatever you came to do, and getting out. I'm thinking the "doing" part is probably element 4 here. You could even drop a combat into element 4, it is quite permissible to do this (just as 4e talks about having an SC in a combat, you can have a combat in an SC too).

Have in fact seen both of these as a player. It was good stuff. We were infiltrating a hive of hive-minded psychic insects to get crystals to rebuild an important ship. The fight forced us to evacuate, but we got the crystals we needed and the wrap-up was the escape, with the last one being a check to make sure the big heavy--my paladin--could make it across a gap.

Adventurer abilities all scaling in ways appropriate to adventuring in a broad way is something 4e fixed.

I basically read the 4e DMG2 information on skill challenges before playing (got into the game just after it was out). But to me the above is definitely directly presented...

edit:In fact 4e characters all having similar resources they can all apply as skill challenge currency is one of the benefits of 4e wrt skill challenges.

I forgot to check the DMG2 when I was writing that up, so it's possible that it's more clearly spelled out there than I remember. Regardless, I am still of the opinion that the presentation in general made this...not as enthusiastically embraced as it should be. Still, such things weren't at all emphasized in the DMG1, and for a lot of people that was their only exposure to those rules (if they had any at all). I'm very much of the opinion that that sort of thing should be front-and-center, a core part of the Skill Challenge experience.

And, I mean, I did say "you're not so much breaking the RAW as going beyond it."

 

[Garthanos]

I forgot to check the DMG2 when I was writing that up, so it's possible that it's more clearly spelled out there than I remember. Regardless, I am still of the opinion that the presentation in general made this...not as enthusiastically embraced as it should be. Still, such things weren't at all emphasized in the DMG1, and for a lot of people that was their only exposure to those rules (if they had any at all). I'm very much of the opinion that that sort of thing should be front-and-center, a core part of the Skill Challenge experience.

And, I mean, I did say "you're not so much breaking the RAW as going beyond it."

People do talk about the rushed release for a reason... some elements of the game came out very very soon with noteworthy improvements

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What I mean is, attacks have a success and magnitude.

As you gain power, your success chance (modifier) goes up, and the magnitude (damage, effect caused) also goes up.

Skills, on the other hand, only have success scaling.

This happens in both skill challenges in 4e, and in almost every version of 5e.

4e has skill powers; and some games with less anemic skill systems have stuff like "skill tricks" or the like. Things you can do at a higher skill level.

In 5e, spell DCs go up with the spellcaster's level and skill. The effect of the spell goes up as well. So we have a success and magnitude thing there. Same with attacks; hit chance goes up, and effect on hit also scales.

Doing something similar for skills, without having an entire book of skill tricks, is a bit harder.

But you could imagine reframing skills.

Stealth: You make a skill check to find out how well you sneak. You then roll dice to see how far and how fast you can sneak with that check.

Acrobatics: You make a skill check to roll with a fall, shift, or move on a precarious surface. You then roll dice to determine how much damage you reduce, how far you shift, or how far you move on the precarious surface.

Athletics:
Grappling success applies "hold"; enemy has to defeat hold to break free.
Lifting success lets you move it; magnitude check is how far and how long.
Jumping success gets you bonus distance (higher DC for less strait lead-up, distractions, etc); magnitude check is how much extra.
Running success similar.

Arcana:
Arcana success gives you information; magnitude determines how much you resist the madness/drain of that knowledge.

Various Knowledge:
Success means you know where the information is; Magnitude determines how hard it is to get.

Tracking
Success means you follow tracks; magnitude is how fast. (a high magnitude might mean you can find a shortcut!)

Not every skill would fit this; you might have to change which skills exist. And have a magnitude system.

Then, instead of piles of stuff boosting your chance of success, they can alias over to boosting the magnitude. And instead of "autosuccess vs autofailure" skill check problems, it becomes more like damage; every little bit helps.

Well, trend in game design is the other way, to build the 'magnitude' into a single check, so you have multiple outcomes with a single roll of the dice. This also simplifies all the other subsystems in your game, since you don't need multiple types of modifier, etc. In HoML you have this on two levels. First of all checks have graded levels of result, fail, success, total success. You can also have critical failure if you want (few things have that TBH). Additionally the accumulation of successes produces an overall gradation both in terms of how the fiction plays out and in terms of the number of failures accrued before success was achieved, which you can use to modify the quantity of the overall result.

I mean, what you're talking about is OK, but I haven't found that it feels needed particularly. Not when you have narrative variables of action and intent, plus degree of success.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I try to keep an SC pretty focused and thematic, but it does need to have (as I said before) plot etc.

One I recall running was a 'gauntlet' The PCs needed to get down the river, and do so before the bad guys did. The river consisted of a series of obstacles, as well as whatever actions the bad guys took, which could vary somewhat depending on the situation, but they were just basically another type of obstacle.

So, this SC took place in 3 acts, and had, IIRC a complexity of 3 as well. The first part involved a skirmish with the bad guys, which was basically the setup (bad guys jump in a boat and take off, the PCs naturally follow in another boat). This involves Perception or Athletics, to either find the boat quickly, or else haul it into the water rapidly. Failure means falling behind more. Secondary skills included Stealth and Nature (sneaking up on the bad guys so they don't take off as quickly, or else knowing the lay of the land so you can move quicker).

The second part was getting through the rapids. I believe it was either Survival or again Athletics, though you could also use Nature and Perception to again find calmer water or avoid a trap set by the bad guys (I think it was a rope that would snag your boat at a bad spot).

The third part involved either surviving going OVER the waterfall, or taking the harder/slower portage around it. I think these were Survival and again Athletics, with again Nature and Perception as secondary options to assist.

Depending on the number of failures would A) subject PCs to Survival checks to avoid HS loss, and mean the bad guys would be closer on your tail (total failure and they are ahead of you).

This is a pretty simple SC, and actually you don't need any enhanced rules for it, though I believe if you go by RC you'd have an 'obstacle' and I think also the PCs would get to deploy an advantage somewhere along the way.
Note that I also have some rules for how to use powers, particularly rituals, that can help you out, but obviously invoke a cost.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Loving this convo re: skill challenges. Will def refer back if/when I run 4e again.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think a big part of making successful SCs is to work out the proper framing of the SC, that is what is its scope and what are the actual goals. Much like with a check, if you cannot answer questions like, "is failure interesting?" and the related, "is something at stake here?" then you probably don't have a good scope/frame for a challenge.

You have four options, you can go ahead in free RP (possibly using a few ad hoc checks, but I don't favor that technique myself), or you can shrink the scope and create a smaller and more immediate SC, or you can expand the scope and create a larger and more encompassing SC. Finally you can 'think out of the box'.

Looking at the shrinking option you need to be careful that there is still some dynamism in the challenge. An SC that involves "opening a door" is probably silly. So if the current scope is already pretty low level, then you're probably not going to want to break things down further. Normally the complexity level will help you with this. If you have a complexity one challenge sort of situation (IE immediate goals, few elements, less factors involved) then it is hard to decompose more, right?

Expanding may be possible, again you can look at complexity. A fairly abstract, strategic complexity five challenge is going to be hard to generalize further, although you might manage it in some cases. The danger here is that the challenge will simply cease to be a single coherent story. If you cannot describe the flow of your proposed challenge in some narrative terms, as a 3 or 5 act drama for example, then its probably not going to work.

'Out of the Box' is a hard thing to categorize, but I'm trying to capture the idea that maybe you're looking at things from the wrong perspective if building an SC isn't working. Think about what the actual goals of the PCs are, and how to bring new elements into the mix, or recast the situation in different terms. This can be done at any level, but obviously larger and more complicated SCs offer more ways to pull the levers.

One tried and true technique is to add a prelude. Another post talked about 'prologue' or 'preparation', well, make that a part of your SC! You can, if you're of a mindset that will allow for it, even do that in a retro fashion. For example as the party marches into the Dry Waste and begins to fail some Endurance checks, maybe one of the PCs whips out the extra water rations she wisely included in the supplies the previous day at the town. This kind of thing can allow you to portray a character with vastly more survival experience and savvy than the player might have, and make a more interesting story.

 

[Garthanos]

I do prefer the guidelines in the DMG2 but this has some interesting examples and presentation

SCHandbook.pdf

docs.google.com