Excerpt: skill challenges

[UngeheuerLich]

All ready dealt with this in my post. You can be a font of information knowing everything there is to know. However the real truth lies in a simple yet obscure thing we in this culture are too stupid to grasp. Knowing the answer is only half the equation. What is the question young padawan.

42 means nothing with out the question.

good catch!

Also: this discussion reminds me to discussions with "Zeugen Jehowas" who misinterpret stories and examples in the bible with hard facts/rules...

 

[davethegame]

Apparently I have a different problem than everyone else.

This doesn't make sense to me:

Complexity: 3 (requires 8 successes before 4 failures).

How does 3 = 8s/4f?

I'm hoping there's some easy formula that's escaping me at the moment, and not some weird chart I have to look up.

And what does a Complexity rating mean by itself anyway? It sure sounds like Level is used for determining XP award, so it wouldn't be that.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I mean, if you have a skill challenge where characters have to cross a 50' chasm with some rope, a grappling hook, and a fallen tree, I think you are perfectly within your rights to say "a jump check automatically fails".

Why would it automatically fail if one of the PCs is capable of making a DC51 Jump check?

Its not that you can intimidate the duke, its that intimidating him wont get you to your goal.

Also known as "Failing the Intimidate check."

If "Getting Your Way, Regardless of What the Victim Would Prefer" is not part of a successful Intimidate check, I don't know what purpose the skill serves.

I'm REALLY, REALLY interested in the reasoning that makes "Intimidate" something that would make you trustworthy....I'm honestly blanking here, help me out here guys.

Player: "I swear by my life, no man may besmirch my honor and live. I don't care if you are surrounded by your guards, nor even that I may lose my life in the bargain, but if you dare question my trustworthiness again, I will cut you down where you stand."

DM: "The Duke is taken aback, but clearly impressed by your manner. After a moment he laughs. Standing up, he claps you on the back. 'By the Gods, man, I wish I had a captain among my guard with such balls!'"

 

[Derren]

All ready dealt with this in my post. You can be a font of information knowing everything there is to know. However the real truth lies in a simple yet obscure thing we in this culture are too stupid to grasp. Knowing the answer is only half the equation. What is the question young padawan.

42 means nothing with out the question.

And what would the question be in this case?
When you try to gain support of a lord and you are well versed in history you are of course trying to find out about the past exploits of the lord and either you know them (successful roll/history challenge) or you don't (failed roll/challenge).
Saying thats impossible to know defeats the purpose of the skill. Its like only allowing the rogue to try to pick a lock after he found the slightly bend or broken key, not before.

And why would a successful diplomacy check allow you to roll on your history skill? Maybe the discussion went into a direction which doesn't allow this information to be revealed?
Such a static script like shown in the excerpt is too unflexible to handle real roleplaying.

 

[keterys]

You can know all the history you want, but spouting it isn't as useful until you've got the Duke actually listening to you. That's a cool wrinkle to the problem. It looks like they're showing that skill challenges are very customizable (easier or harder DCs for certain skills, some skills can't help, other skills work better, there are potential synergies, etc).

Sounds good. It'll be nice for the rules to not just be 'Roll Diplomacy.' 'Okay, he's your slave.' or 'Okay, you fail'. People who ignored rules for interactions in favor of just roleplaying can, of course, continue to do so, but the skill challenge mechanism seems more suited to support roleplaying than the old make one roll method, too. You can set a tone, ebb and flow, figure out what skills work best, etc.

 

[Lizard]

I am really curious as to how you get that from the skill challenge system.

Imagine if we saw a preview of the combat system, and it consisted of "Roll your BAB against a DC. If you roll over it 6 times before rolling under it three times, you win."

Would you think combat had a lot interactivity?

I'm curious as to an example of Actual Play(tm) showing how this works with real player/DM interaction. This example looks like a great framework for resolving player choices, but I'm not seeing how to actually run it as anything but a sterile dice game.

 

[Celebrim]

Q. Why do I have to hear the Duke's comment before I can use my history skill?
A. You could conceivably use your history skill at any time. But you won't know the particular bit of historical information until your DM tells it to you, so you won't be able to use it in the conversation.

Well sure, but can't you just ask, 'I want to use my history knowledge to see if I can remember anything important about the Duke's life."?

Note, according to the provided framework you can't. Yes, you could just ignore the framework according to your judgement, but then its a 'flexible frame' (ei not a frame).

Q. Why can't I use skills that aren't listed? Like, umm, athletics!
A. You can. But you have to come up with an explanation for why it would help, and the DM might not agree.

That's entirely reasonable but nothing in the excerpt suggests that that is actually the rules. The excerpt suggests that a skill challenge has primary skills (those that the PCs are expected to attempt), and secondary skills (those which can be opened up by succeeding at a primary skill). Nothing in the description suggests that the challenge is expected to be resolved by anything other than 7-8 successes in diplomacy, bluff, and insight and possibly one optional success in history. Likewise, nothing in the excerpt suggests that in this case players aren't encouraged to sit back (possibly provide an 'aid other' action) and let the main charismatic character handle the majority of the encounter.

Q. But isn't changing what counts as a success in order to force the use of a particular "deal closing" at the end of a skill challenge a sort of straight jacket?
A. No. Not if the way things changed is based on player actions. Suppose your skill challenge is convincing a street tough to roll over on his higher-ups. You've spent 7 successes worth of time moralizing to him, reminding him of the hard times he went through as a kid, and trying to convince him that he should reform his life and help prevent those things to happening to more innocents. You've just finished reminding him of his loving grandma, whom he hasn't seen in years. Then suddenly you try to get your 8th success by holding his face underwater until he begs for mercy. Your DM rules that your actions are counter productive, and undermine all the successes you've previously earned. Its not railroading to make such a ruling, since its a logical consequence of your own decisions. That's the opposite of railroading.

While that's entirely reasonable, again nothing suggests that that is actually the rules as written. Nothing suggests that any skill check is ever responcible for multiple successes or failures or that it can invalidate previous successes or failures. If this is up to DM judgement, then we haven't really changed from where we've been in the past.

Q. But won't players just figure out the best skill they have available, then use it repeatedly?
A. Not necessarily. Again, as the situation changes, what helps you achieve your goals changes. If you're trying to evacuate a burning town, and you start by giving a speech to the fleeing townsfolk to convince them to start a bucket line from the river to the town, a second identical speech won't do any good after they've already been convinced. You'll have to find something else to do.

Again, that's entirely reasonable and may be true of some skill challenges, in the example skill challenge nothing suggests that you aren't supposed to use a primary skill 8 times in a row.

Q. But if you strip all of this down to its bare roots, its just a series of d20 rolls. There's no game here.
A. By that logic most RPGs aren't games at all. In this case, the roleplaying provides the game. You are correct in your belief that roleplaying a diplomatic encounter with a Duke is no fun if you skip the roleplaying, just name a skill, and roll a d20. That's why you're not supposed to do that.

I half agree with you here. My problem is, why insist on 8 successes? However interesting the roleplay may be, I just don't see how 8-12 die rolls add anything to it in particular.

 

[Derren]

You can know all the history you want, but spouting it isn't as useful until you've got the Duke actually listening to you.

You arenot "spounting random historical knowledge", but "You make an insightful remark about the significant event from the NPC’s past.". That doesn't require the duke to listen very well to you, after all he already listens at least a bit as otherwise the skill challenge wouldn't even be possible.

 

[Dausuul]

My only complaint is that, right now, it seems to be almost non-interactive; the DM asks the PCs to roll dice, they do so, he checks off 'success' or 'failure' and they roll again until the end. Where does the role-playing fit into this model? What could be an entire session of intensive roleplaying seems to be reduced to just a few formulaic die rolls. How do you mix actual play into this framework?

DM: The duke sits at the head of his banquet table. Gesturing with a wine glass, he bids you to sit. "I’m told you have news from the borderlands."

Rogue: "Yes, your Grace. The borderlands prosper under your wise rule."

DM calls for a Diplomacy check. The rogue fails.

DM (as Duke): "Don't waste my time on flattery. You came to tell me something, spit it out."

Rogue: "I apologize, your Grace. To the point, then. The swamps near the famous Keep have always been a home to lizard folk, but lately their numbers have been multiplying. They are beginning to pose a threat to the nearby villages."

DM calls for another Diplomacy check. The rogue makes this one.

DM: "I see. Well, that is information I am glad to have. I'll send a few men to beef up the garrison at Coldtower."

Rogue: "An excellent decision, your Grace, but if I might suggest... we found evidence that they may be planning to use the Keep on the Borderlands as a staging area for an attack." (This is a total lie, the PCs have no such evidence.) "We would like to investigate further, but our resources are limited."

DM calls for a Bluff check. The rogue succeeds.

DM: "Hmm. An attack, you say? That certainly does warrant some reconnaissance... but you say you want to do this yourselves? I should think my own rangers are more than adequate to the task."

Cleric: Can I make an Intuition check to see what might encourage him to help us?

DM: Sure. Roll.

Cleric makes the Intuition check.

DM: You get the sense he's very proud of his rangers. If you praise them, he'll be more inclined to listen to you. (If the cleric had failed, the DM might have told him the Duke appreciates independence and would be impressed if the PCs acted superior to the rangers.) Also, you're pretty sure trying to intimidate this guy would backfire badly.

Cleric: "Your rangers are famous for their skills, your Grace. We would like to show you that we are worthy to serve alongside them."

DM: "Well, you've got spirit, I'll give you that. So what exactly was it you wanted?"

(Et cetera.)

 

[Frostmarrow]

Apparently I have a different problem than everyone else.

This doesn't make sense to me:



How does 3 = 8s/4f?

I'm hoping there's some easy formula that's escaping me at the moment, and not some weird chart I have to look up.

And what does a Complexity rating mean by itself anyway? It sure sounds like Level is used for determining XP award, so it wouldn't be that.

I guess they have identified a few x/y combinations that makes for an interesting game. I'm betting there is a weird chart to look-up. Complexity 3 just means that the challenge will be fairly long compared to Complexity 1.

If you just make x/y up you might ruin an encounter. Let's say for arguments sake you decide x/y will be 222/2. We can all see this is not a good rate but that is just because I exaggerate to a make the point. Perhaps 2/2 is suboptimal, too.

Now we at least know 8/4 is an okay complexity should we decide to make some encounters.