Excerpt: skill challenges

[Henry]

The entire point of rolling the history skill is to check if the character knows a particular bit of historical information. Such a setup defeats the purpose of the skill.

Why? Because thats what the history skill is for? Its needless railroading which takes away this particular possibility which is bad enough.

I can see what Cadfan's saying, though.

Imagine the Duke's conversation:

"Why should I lend aid right now?"

vs.

"Why should I lend aid right now? When my father was Duke of these lands, and he was attacked by the Troll Scourge, King Alfric did not step up to lend aid. 'Too hard pressed on his borders', was the answer. His Majesty, the grandson of Alfric, seems now to find himself in need of similar aid, and I find myself hard pressed in resources, much as King Alfric was then..."

In the first one, there's no lead-in. You don't know that the Duke is holding a historical grudge. In the second one, the fact that the Visier of Alfric DID indeed cast some important Oracle Spells, and sent them along as warnings that helped him in a timely fashion, so the King DID send aid as promised, even if it wasn't a military force, then the History check makes that factoid click in the PC's heads.

On the other hand, let's say the Duke is the type who doesn't give a Kobold's Damn about old history or what his dad did, because he sees his dad as incompetent, or similar. Bringing up the whole business will probaby elicit an "Ancient History doesn't impress me. I need more tangible reasons: What can you, or the King, do for me to risk my border when he may be wiped from the earth by this threat?"

There's the difference, in more exhaustive detail.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Extrapolating...

Complexity 1: 4/2
Complexity 2: 6/3
Complexity 3: 8/4
Complexity 4: 10/5

Formula: ½x = y = c+1

 

[Derren]

You don't know that the Duke is holding a historical grudge.

Why are you not allowed to make a history check to know something like that? And how does this information allow you to make an additional history check?

Also what happens when the wording of the first diplomacy check did not allow for this answer, what then? Can the PCs still make a history check or not?

 

[davethegame]

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.

Sure, makes sense, but is that better than Easy/Medium/Hard complexity (or however many gradations are needed?)

 

[TerraDave]

Why are ppl getting so hung up over Intimidate?

It's just an example. It's showing the parameters for designing a skill challenge, and one of these parameters is that the DM can rule out any skills they consider to be not useful for the situation. In this particular case, such a skill is Intimidate.

The key point is that you, the DM, are empowered by the rules to say that skill X is inapplicable for challenge Y, for whatever values of X and Y you deem appropriate. Quite possibly, you might never say that a skill is inapplicable. It isn't that this specific skill, Intimidate, can't be used to bully barons around or whatever.

hong - the voice of reason.

Shocking. Because its true.

 

[Wolfwood2]

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).

I think you're misunderstanding what's happening with the History check here. Remember that "important to the Duke's life" is a subjective judgement, and the one doing the judging is the Duke himself. The way the the Diplomacy check "unlocks" History is that it makes the Duke talk enough that he lets slip that he considers a particular event important. I envision it going something like this:

"...so you see, your Grace, if you don't help us stop the orcs now then they will be a much greater threat later on."

DM: The Duke bites his lip. He's obviously swayed by your argument, but is not yet convinced. He says, "Yes, but that would leave my western flank weakened to the sea raiders. I recall Duke Swintel made a similiar decision during the reign of the Twin Kings, and it cost him dearly."

Todd: Dude, Rhilato the Great has history as a trained skill! Can I roll to do something with that reference.

DM: Sharp ear. Yeah, you get a one-time use of History to try and piggy-back off that reference to sway him.

Todd: (rolls a 25) Sweet. Okay, I explain to him that in the greater context Swintel made the right call. Sure he ended up with some coastal villages burn, but that' better than losing half his Dutchy.

The reason it required the Diplomacy skill to open things up is that if the Duke had never heard about Swintel's decision then referencing something he's never heard of wouldn't help sway him.

 

[Naszir]

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.

Could Complexity just look like this:

Complexity 1 = 4/2
Complexity 2 = 6/3
Complexity 3 = 8/4
Completity 4 = 10/5

 

[Frostmarrow]

Sure, makes sense, but is that better than Easy/Medium/Hard complexity (or however many gradations are needed?)

E/M/H is already used for DCs. Besides I think complexity is shorthand for "how long will it take to play this through".

 

[Andur]

Complexity level 3 (8/4)

My guess:

Level 1 (4/2)
Level 2 (6/3)
Level 3 (8/4)
etc.

As far as Derren's point, I think it should actually be more of a circumstancial bonus type thing. One would make a history check in order to gain a bonus on a diplomacy check. "Your Grace, we are attempting to thwart what could be the next Fjordian Inflitration of the Crown before it has gained enough influence to warrant another purge." Versus "Let us help you" (successful Diplo roll) "Like the Dwarven Thane Ungthar, aided your great grandfather" (Successful History roll opened by Diplo roll success)

Just two ways to cut the cookie I suppose. Once again, it is mre of a guide/template than a hard and fast "rule". I would expect to see such templates/encounters in 4e official modules, and I'm sure DM's will do with them as they do with all other encounters/info/NPC's in 1e, 2e, 3.xe modules and modify them for their own tastes.

 

[Lizard]

Extrapolating...

Complexity 1: 4/2
Complexity 2: 6/3
Complexity 3: 8/4
Complexity 4: 10/5

Formula: ½x = y = c+1

Alternatively, Complexity could make the number of failures smaller, so that you have more tension. Imagine, say, needing 10 successes and blowing it with 2 failures.