Is that funny in the oh casters are superior to everyone sort of way? or just in the feat taxes 5e style way?
Bit of both, really.
I, for one, would love to read your thoughts on Skill Challenges.
Alright!
So, to start off: 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. That's boring! The situation not only can but should be dynamic. This means that establishing a turn order (whether by Initiative or some other means) is important; it means that there's
value to being the person who goes last vs. first, that the situation on hand requires active attention and you might WANT to be the person who goes after your friend.
This is, of course, difficult to plan ahead for, which means that committing too much to a list of specific skills (as the RAW text suggests) isn't really a viable strategy. Instead, you want to prepare for a more dynamic situation, one that evolves as the players make choices. Perhaps History makes sense as an early roll in a chase-scene SC, because it reflects the character's knowledge of the buildings and layout of the city, but it doesn't make sense toward the end when the party has
almost cornered them but they've
almost reached their destination.
And that last bit gives a nice segue into opening up the SC to far more interesting possibilities:
ranges of success. Under the standard rules, you must get X successes before Y failures, and it's a black-and-white result. Either you do, and succeed, or you don't, and fail. That's also boring, and turns each individual success into just another token in the pile. Having a range of success options from "you absolutely trounced them, great job" to "you blew it completely" makes for a much more interesting and
tense experience--each roll matters, rather than only the last roll or two.
So, for example, in a diplomacy-focused SC such as "convince the queen to help the war effort," a flying-colors success doesn't just get you her aid, you've got her entire court cheering for you, and multiple nobles on board to bring their personal levies in addition to the royal ones. With a bare-minimum success, you have only the queen's agreement to invest resources and scouts, with her needing hard proof of the danger before she'll commit her forces. With a narrow failure, she's still open to helping, but is reluctant or needs help/assurance/justification before she can take any real action. Only an abject failure costs the party the ability to get what they need entirely. As with the previous stuff, this IS harder to implement and requires keen improvisational skills on the DM's part, but it makes for a MUCH more exciting experience.
Finally, you absolutely MUST know how to
just say "yes" or "no," and you REALLY need to be keen on creative costs/payments on the players' parts. It is really satisfying for a player who has a great idea that you just tell them, "That works. No roll--you got that one." Knowing that it is possible to just succeed IF they can find a genuinely amazing idea does wonders for keeping players creative and engaged. Likewise, being able to just tell the party either "your character would know that doesn't/wouldn't work" or "I'm sorry, it's a neat idea but it won't accomplish what you're looking for, let's think about something else you could do" is important if it really, genuinely isn't just unlikely but truly implausible/impossible. Knowing how to give straight-up "yes" and "no" answers helps players have the confidence to
try creative ideas, and the knowledge that creativity is
necessary because not just any crazy idea will work.
But I left out the creative cost/payment thing. Really engage with the options a character has available. Healing Surges and Action Points are a possible thing for every player to consider paying as part of an effort/retry/mitigation, but let them creatively re-apply items or powers. Especially if they're Daily or consumable effects, this can really encourage players to treat their character sheet as a toolbox to employ rather than a dead-end for creative thought. Simple examples include stuff like using an at-will fire power (like the Sorcerer at-will
burning spray) to light something on fire, using a Barbarian rage power that increases speed to get a bonus on an Athletics check to jump a gap, or expending a daily Diplomacy-related utility power to re-roll a check to persuade someone on a noble cause. (Two of these have actually been used in games I've played!) Doing so will give the players a greater feeling of control and participation; they actually have resources they can expend, rather than just making a couple skill rolls apiece and calling it done.
I hope that the above demonstrates how very little here actually
breaks any of the RAW for Skill Challenges. Because that's really the heart of it; the Skill Challenge
as presented is a dry, dull, mechanistic affair that lacks most of the subtlety and need for situational awareness that you find in normal 4e play. By expanding in these ways, you can make them much more exciting and involving--they become a framework for
evolving situations, rather than static random-chance puzzles. Should people be interested, I'll provide some worked examples, with the caveat that since "my" version of the SC depends heavily on improv, no example can ever quite capture the adaptations the DM must make as the situation unfolds.
