Conflex: an alternative skill challenge system [v0.2]

[dkyle]

Conflex is a skill challenge system I've been working on, and have been using in a game I'm DMing. I think I've gotten it to a point where it could be useful to others, and I would be interested in hearing thoughts and opinions from others.

The system is build around the notion of conflicts. Basically, a conflict is some force in the world that would cause the characters problems if it's not dealt with -- something that stands in the way of their goals. The players can roll skill checks to handle those conflicts, but the conflicts periodically get a chance to respond.

Some major design characteristics:

• Each skill check goes against multiple DCs. The higher the DC met, the more progress made
• Every skill check has a decent chance of helping at least a little. Someone with the worst skill modifier possible has about a 25% chance of hitting the lowest DC
• An individual skill check cannot cause failure of the skill challenge -- it can only fail to help address a conflict as much as it could
• There is, at least supposed to be, a significant amount of decision making involved with winning or losing. I've often felt, in other skill challenge systems, that a loss was primarily due to poor die rolls, not bad decision making.

Fair warning: the system is significantly more complicated than other skill challenge systems I've used. It uses a worksheet (page 2 of the PDF) which really must be printed out. However, I've been able to run Conflex successfully without explaining much of the mechanics to my players -- I just explain their situation, and some of their options, in in-game terms, and things worked out pretty well.

Thanks to Stalker0 and his Obsidian skill challenge system. I've found it useful in my DMing, and continue to use it for things Conflex is not designed to handle. My design goals were heavily influenced by his work.

Scribd page: Conflex Skill Challenge System

 

[dkyle]

reserved for design justification

 

[Stalker0]

First of all, I'm honored someone's work has been inspired by my own

Let me start of by saying: I'm extremely impressed at first glance.

I have been thinking about various tweaks to Obsidian to incorporate some of the things your system has done naturally. The highlights:

1) DM vs Player skill challenges: The fact that you let the players "fight" the DM by escalating the DC is a simple but powerful way to go.

2) Adjustments for secondary skills: Your -1 SP idea is a great way to handle secondary skills.

3) Adjustments to higher skill checks. I really like how you account for higher skill checks with more successes. In a way it rewards better skill...but it also contains that power with a large gradient of successes.

4) Variable challenge: I like how your failure system can make different parts of the system come back to bite the players. Like the tribal one, the party is doing all sorts of religious negotiation and suddenly a slip in the basic lingo sets you all the way back.

5) Variable complications: They set to really differentiate the challenges nicely.

6) Complexity in the right places. Your system is definitely more complex than mine, but I think you put it mostly on the dms shoulders, and allow the players to interact without a whole lot of mechanical knowledge.

Now my critiques:

1) Insight system seems like a needless addition: Currently I feel the insight area is a way to tell the players things most DMs would just tell them anyway, and it feels like rolling for rolling sake. With the amount of complexity you are going for, I think you can clean up your system a bit by taking this aspect out.

2) No partial successes: Probably the biggest praise I've gotten from my system is the addition of partial successes. I see no reason your system can't incorporate them and I highly encourage it.

3) Need gameplay examples: I'll post my notes below, but right now for me some of the language is pretty confusing. Even one example that details all of the rolls and decisions of a skill challenge goes a long way to clarifying the bits that language sometimes leaves unclear.


My confusions:

1) Conflicts handled together or all at once? I believe the answer is every conflict is handled in each segment, but its confusing because you start out talking about how each conflict is handled in order.

2) How many checks does each character roll? I gathered that its 3 checks per conflict per segment....regardless of the number of players? So if I have 4 conflicts that's 12 checks...so if I have 5 players....an average of 2 checks a piece with 2 players making 3. Is that correct?

3) The -5 rule. So if a character makes 2 checks in the same challenge, he gets a -5 to the second. If he uses the same skill, is that a -10? If two characters both use the same skill in a conflict, is the second one at a -5? If a character uses the same skill in two different conflicts, is he at a -5 to the second conflict?

4) Spend a surge to stop failure. What does "one last check to stop the failure" mean? Does that mean I'm trying to boost the failure DC high enough to stop the failure? Or perhaps that I'm opposing the role?

5) Should failure checks be rolled in order? Since I can only get one failure per segment, should I roll failure on conflict 1 then conflict 2, etc...or can I pick the order?

6) Complication - So any time a failure is received someone must immediately spend 2 surges or the challenge is over right? Does it have to be someone participating in that conflict? Also as a note, not a big fan of always using surges, I could see times when surges might not make sense.

7) Individual - Does every player roll a check on an individual challenge every segment or can only 3 do so since its normally 3 checks. Also for failure rolls, so I roll once but apply the failure to every players DC who is low enough correct?



The math: Ultimately I love the form of your system, but its got to past the ultimate test....how does the math pan out. However, I'm so interested in your mechanics that if you'll correct my confusions I would like to do so math modeling and see how it looks.

 

[dkyle]

1) Insight system seems like a needless addition: Currently I feel the insight area is a way to tell the players things most DMs would just tell them anyway, and it feels like rolling for rolling sake. With the amount of complexity you are going for, I think you can clean up your system a bit by taking this aspect out.

I can see what you mean. I added it because I often felt that insight was not a particularly useful skill. In practice, I've been satisfied with the results, but I could see running the system without it.

2) No partial successes: Probably the biggest praise I've gotten from my system is the addition of partial successes. I see no reason your system can't incorporate them and I highly encourage it.

I'm not very explicit about it, but my version of a partial success is where a third failure on one conflict doesn't cause the skill challenge to fail entirely, but reduces the benefits of success. The labyrinth example uses this on the fourth conflict. Do you think I should have something more?

3) Need gameplay examples: I'll post my notes below, but right now for me some of the language is pretty confusing. Even one example that details all of the rolls and decisions of a skill challenge goes a long way to clarifying the bits that language sometimes leaves unclear.

I will add an example in the next version.

My confusions:

I'll update the document soon, but for now I'll clarify below.

1) Conflicts handled together or all at once? I believe the answer is every conflict is handled in each segment, but its confusing because you start out talking about how each conflict is handled in order.

Simultaneously. The players must choose which conflict to roll against, and which skill to use. I simply meant that because of the way failure checks work, it's usually wise to handle them roughly in order. That probably doesn't belong in that section.

2) How many checks does each character roll? I gathered that its 3 checks per conflict per segment....regardless of the number of players? So if I have 4 conflicts that's 12 checks...so if I have 5 players....an average of 2 checks a piece with 2 players making 3. Is that correct?

The players collectively can roll 3 checks per segment against a conflict of their choice -- each segment ends with a failure check. In theory, the skill challenge could go on forever, segment after segment, if they continually roll poorly, and the failure checks never cause any failures, but the chance of that is very slim.

3) The -5 rule. So if a character makes 2 checks in the same challenge, he gets a -5 to the second.

Yes; only if they're both among the 3 checks within a single segment.

If he uses the same skill, is that a -10?

Just -5; will clarify in PDF.

If two characters both use the same skill in a conflict, is the second one at a -5?

No; the penalty is there to discourage the player with the highest skill from being the only one to ever tackle a particular conflict.

If a character uses the same skill in two different conflicts, is he at a -5 to the second conflict?

Yes

4) Spend a surge to stop failure. What does "one last check to stop the failure" mean? Does that mean I'm trying to boost the failure DC high enough to stop the failure? Or perhaps that I'm opposing the role?

The former -- treat it as a normal check, and adjust the conflict defense (i.e., the failure DC) accordingly. If this beats the DMs initial roll, the failure is annulled.

5) Should failure checks be rolled in order? Since I can only get one failure per segment, should I roll failure on conflict 1 then conflict 2, etc...or can I pick the order?

In order -- and stop once one failure occurs.

6) Complication - So any time a failure is received someone must immediately spend 2 surges or the challenge is over right?

If it's the Confrontational complication.

Does it have to be someone participating in that conflict?

No; could be any party member (assuming that they are all present)

Also as a note, not a big fan of always using surges, I could see times when surges might not make sense.

There could be another complication that requires expenditure of a daily attack power, I suppose. But, I like surges because they are a daily resource which the players have reason to ration, but loss of one or two in a skill challenge isn't too major. If a skill challenge is supposed to have the same weight as a combat, it should have similar resource management requirements.

Furthermore, a surge could represent many things, such as physical strain, mental strain or pure luck.

7) Individual - Does every player roll a check on an individual challenge every segment or can only 3 do so since its normally 3 checks.

There is one "global" instance of the conflict, plus one "personal" instance for each player. One player, as one of the three checks in a segment, rolls against the global instance as normal, but also applying the check result to his/her personal instance (find highest DC beat, award SPs). Each other player gets a free check against his/her personal instance only. These checks do not count against the three per segment.

Victory relies only upon the "global" instance being handled.

Also for failure rolls, so I roll once but apply the failure to every players DC who is low enough correct?

Yes.

The math: Ultimately I love the form of your system, but its got to past the ultimate test....how does the math pan out. However, I'm so interested in your mechanics that if you'll correct my confusions I would like to do so math modeling and see how it looks.

Indeed -- I'm not sure how the math works out. So far, I've run the four example challenges, and my players won each of them, but with a few close calls. But that's also true of the combats I've run -- I think it's a question of whether the system is compelling enough that running it, even though the players will probably win, is satisfying.

 

[dkyle]

New version in OP. No major gameplay changes, but the rules should be clearer, and I added a gameplay example.

 

[Neubert]

Hey dkyle!

I really like the idea behind this system, but some of the rules were a little hard to grasp, as Stalker0 said. I suppose that may help with trying out the system. Keep in mind I haven't had a chance to look over version 0.2 (except for the gameplay example), so this might be clarified in the new version.
One thing that bugs me however, is that not everyone needs to participate if they don't have any skills suited towards any of the challenges. It is not as bad as the original Skill Challenge system which move the group towards failure on a failed roll, but when you only have three checks per round, it is best to let the player with the best check modifier roll.
Of course, the GM can make sure that each conflict benefits a different player, but it: a) may not always be possible to do this
and b) just means that some players will "shine" in the beginning of the challenge and others later in it.

It might be nice to see some "complications" that was to the benefit of the party.

I would actually like to work a little on the system, perhaps trying to change it so each player makes a skill check per segment. Would that be alright?

 

[BobTheNob]

I have been looking for a good skill challenge system for a while. I have been trying to find something that is as engaging as combat for non combat scenarios, I really want the players enjoying non-combat and investing into non-combat abilities (want more flavour in the game).

That said, I print out your skill challenge system and read through pretty thoroughly.
* Love the success point bit.
* Love the fact that you break a skill challence down into sub part with various skills required.

...and then. Complicated. I tried putting together some scenarios and playing through with my parties characters, and pretty quickly hit the "Wha? wall".

Im still going through it, but my problem was that if I hit the wall, I can guarantee my players will just not lock on to this (1 in the group is a powergamer, the others are more casual), and that is an important facet. One of the things that is that makes combat fun is transparent to the player with dynamics and interplay, and my fear is that to make this transparent would end up in alot of head scratching.

I think you are on the right track, but as far as my group is concerned, I would focus on
1) Simplify
2) Build in controllable dynamics
That said, this did inspire me. I am coming up with my own skill challenge system and some things I am putting in :
a) Treat the challenge like a solo monster. It is there to be defeated. It has powers (yes, I put encounter powers with triggers in....) and weakness that can be exploited. Let the players know that they are up against a "foe", even if that is an abstract foe. Gives em a kick when they beat it.
b) Your design had the keywords with consequences built in. I would be more tempted to tie consequences to the aspect of the challnce that is actually being tested. Leaves the GM more room to get creative

But again I do stress, this is about the group you are in, and it is hourses for courses. Well done on some good ideas and well done also for applying yourself to this important, but all too often secondary, part of the game.

 

[dkyle]

I really like the idea behind this system, but some of the rules were a little hard to grasp, as Stalker0 said. I suppose that may help with trying out the system. Keep in mind I haven't had a chance to look over version 0.2 (except for the gameplay example), so this might be clarified in the new version.

I did change things quite a bit, so hopefully it'll be clearer now

One thing that bugs me however, is that not everyone needs to participate if they don't have any skills suited towards any of the challenges. It is not as bad as the original Skill Challenge system which move the group towards failure on a failed roll, but when you only have three checks per round, it is best to let the player with the best check modifier roll.

Of course, the GM can make sure that each conflict benefits a different player, but it: a) may not always be possible to do this
and b) just means that some players will "shine" in the beginning of the challenge and others later in it.

I don't think it's really as essential to have all players directly involved in a skill challenge as it is in a combat, mostly because SCs take so little time. Your b) seems like a perfectly fine situation.

In practice though, I've never had a player not roll at all. Usually there's at least a logical secondary skill for everyone.

It might be nice to see some "complications" that was to the benefit of the party.

Good point... any ideas?

I would actually like to work a little on the system, perhaps trying to change it so each player makes a skill check per segment. Would that be alright?

Originally, I had four checks per segment. After running it like that, I felt like there was too much lag between the players' actions, and the world's reaction. Three seems like the sweet spot in my experience, so I'd be reticent to change that. But if you'd like to try it out, I'd like to hear how it turns out.

...and then. Complicated. I tried putting together some scenarios and playing through with my parties characters, and pretty quickly hit the "Wha? wall".

Difficulty understanding the rules, or difficulty telling a coherent story that follows the rules?

Im still going through it, but my problem was that if I hit the wall, I can guarantee my players will just not lock on to this (1 in the group is a powergamer, the others are more casual), and that is an important facet. One of the things that is that makes combat fun is transparent to the player with dynamics and interplay, and my fear is that to make this transparent would end up in alot of head scratching.

I'd suggest trying it with the worksheet in the open. The system is certainly a lot less complicated than the rules for 4E combat.

I think you are on the right track, but as far as my group is concerned, I would focus on
1) Simplify

I could trim the Insight part, perhaps move it to an "advanced options" section, but I'm not sure what else. Any suggestions?

2) Build in controllable dynamics

Do you mean incorporating run-time DM decisions, like running monsters in combat?

b) Your design had the keywords with consequences built in. I would be more tempted to tie consequences to the aspect of the challnce that is actually being tested. Leaves the GM more room to get creative

Are you referring to Complications? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Neubert]

It might be possible to reverse some of the complications (for instance, if we inverse the "2 Healing Surges required on a failure", it would be "no healing surges"). I don't have any new or unique ideas right now, but that is mostly due to an exam looming over my head. So I may give some more suggestions in a couple of days.

In regards to 4 checks per segment:
You could possibly split it up so a player makes a check, then a single conflict checks for failure, etc. Though it would need a fair way of doing this, as players would attempt to make checks towards the conflict that would be checked next. Either take them in order, GM's choice or just check the conflict with the highest chance of failure.

 

[Stalker0]

The gameplay example is useful but I think it may contradict some of the core rules.

From what I understood, the party is suppose to roll for each of the 4 conflicts...and then you do the failure rolls. In your example, the do the first one and then get a failure roll on both the first and second conflict, before they have even made checks on the second one.

Also, I think the action phase needs a little more clarification as far as how many skill checks to roll. I think your intention is that every challenge needs 3 checks, that can be made by any of the players (with the appropriate penalties for rolling the same skill and the like) but that is not coming across to me in the description.

Also, when they spend a healing surge to try and negate a failure...do they get to keep the successes they made from that checks...or is that simply made just to negate the failure?