Yes. Just as a combat can be between one PC and one or more NPCs/monsters.
If skill challenges can be engaged with one character, then they seem similar to extended rolls from white wolf, which I like in concept. That's a good sign, in my opinion.
Yes. But just as, in a combat, if one PC hangs back it may often be bad for that PC and/or the other PCs, so likewise I would tend to design a skill challenge so that all the players have a reason to get their PCs involved.
Yes, but in D&D, all classes are designed for combat. Not all classes are designed to engage things from a social standpoint. So, when the Party Face says "fall behind me, follow my lead, and shut up" because he knows the party has no social tact or knowledge of tradition, it's a very different thing than saying the same thing in a combat scenario.
As for designing a skill challenge that targets all of the PCs, I dislike that as well, for the reasons I've stated already. Maybe I can clarify below.
Again, this is really an issue of encounter design. The game is built around the assumption that overcoming a significant conflict (like turning an enemy into a friend) won't be done with a single skill check, anymore than winning a signficant fight will happen with a single to hit roll.
I agree, I was questioning whether or not one party member could engage in a social challenge alone, without mandatory aid of his allies.
But persuading a reluctant peasant to give directions might be a single check, just as cutting down that reluctant peasant for being rude would be a single attack roll (vs a minion).
That makes sense to me.
I don't understand how linearity comes into it. If Orcus is threatening to eat the lackeys loitering in the rear, there are any number of ways those other PCs could respond - from making their own attempt to be charming, to trying in some form or other to persuade Orcus that they're not lackeys (perhaps the party sorcerer kills a nearby Vrock with a single spell, thus demonstrating his/her prowess and contributing a success to the skill challenge).
Again, with someone like Orcus, I can see him wanting to engage the entire party. If it's a member of royalty, they might very well engage the entire party, or they might simply ignore those who aren't supposed to be talking (based on status).
If the system dictates that all situations must be played out in a way that forces all of the PCs to contribute to every skill challenge, that is where linear design and function comes into play. And that's what I would have a problem with, if that's the case.
More generally - I don't see the connection between desigining and running an encounter so that it engages the whole party, and forcing a single path of successful resolution onto the players.
I honestly don't know what you're getting at with this.
Upthread I may have linked to another thread where I gave an actual play example of "negotiating" with a dire bear. In that particular encounter, the party decided to tame the bear rather than fight it. Two PCs intimidated it - the sorcerer (wreathing himself in lighting) and the paladin (shaking his sword at it). Two other PCs befriended it - the wizard (patting it with mage hand) and the ranger (reaching out to it and scratching it under the chin).
The fighter - who had no nature or social skills - tried to grapple the bear to establish his physical superiority to it, but repeatedly failed.
Yeah, I read that, and boy did it sound ridiculous to me. Two members try to scare it while two other members simultaneously try to soothe it, while one other member simultaneously runs up and grabs it. And it ends up liking two members while dismissing two, and disliking the last member.
That's utterly and completely immersion shattering to me. If I ran that past my players, they'd think so, too. It may not be to you, and that's honestly fine with me, but it just wouldn't make sense for my group.
The upshot of the encounter, once 6 successes had been obtained, was that the bear shied away from the sorcerer and paladin, and wanted to eat the fighter, but was persuaded not to do so by the wizard and ranger.
Had the player of the fighter not participated at all in the challenge, then the upshot for that PC would have been the same, or perhaps worse - because the bear hadn't seen that the fighter was a companion of the ranger and wizard, it may have been less inclined to listen when they tried to stop it from eating him.
Yeah, I understand what happened. I just couldn't feel immersed by it.
Anyway, this is what I mean when I say that encouraging full party participation is a matter of design and adjudicating resolution, rather than simply of mechanics.
To me, it sounds like the mechanics decided the bear wouldn't attack (by achieving the six successes). While that's not inherently bad in and of itself, the fact that the party reacted with such wildly different attempts simultaneously should've ended the challenge right then and there, in my mind. But, as the mechanics showed that the players succeeded, it is then reasoned out why that is, and what it thinks of each party member. I just can't put mechanics first like that and feel immersed.
I don't follow this.
To elaborate - I understand that you don't like scaled/tailored challenges. But why is this a reason not to let the PCs befriend an (ex-)enemy? Presumably, the PCs are allowed to do other things to change both their social/political situation in the gameworld, and to change the resources available to them to meet the challenges they face.
The problem lies in the long term disposition or attitude change of NPCs. That is what causes the majority of skill abuse or odd situations to pop up. I have no problem with PCs using a skill to convince somebody to try to act in a certain way. I do have a problem with "you made your skill checks, and he'll treat you this way from now on" as those skill DCs are too easily bypassed, and even if they weren't, the fact that it changes their entire attitude towards you so quickly and immediately is rather problematic to how people actually are, in my view.
For example, I assume that in your game the PCs can befriend merchants, hobnob with guard captains, ingratiate themselves to mayors and barons, and the like. Outside the immediate context of a combat or similar (which gives rise to the "dominate monster" balance problem you noted above), isn't turning an enemy into a friend in the same (permissible) category as these other things?
Not mechanically, no. There are no mechanics in my game (which I obviously prefer) that allow long term attitude changes. The PCs can indeed befriend merchants, hobnob with guard captains, ingratiate themselves to mayor and barons, and the like,
but not mechanically. Diplomacy is based off of the GitP skill (though altered), and covers only specific deals. Intimidate has been changed to alter how they see you on the Risk vs. Reward scale when you make a Diplomacy check. Bluff is similar to how it's always been (as Bluff never let you dictate actions to NPCs, nor did it change their attitude or disposition mechanically).
I do not believe that social skills that allow for long term change in NPC attitude are a wise path for a D&D-style game (or maybe games in general, but I'm not experienced enough in other systems to make that claim). But, that's just my opinion, and I know that many people find them convenient and enjoy them. To those people, I say use them. Anything that makes the game more fun.
To my group, they're rather absurd most of the time, when used to affect long term attitudes of NPCs. It kills immersion for many of us, breaks our suspension of disbelief, and lowers our overall enjoyment. So, when designing a game with the fun of myself and my group in mind, out they go, where they are replaced with short term deals and ways to manipulate NPCs.
As always, play what you like
