Excerpt: skill challenges

[Torchlyte]

Then they fail the objective, which was to secure the Duke's trust, and the adventure continues. Still not a railroad.

Whose objective? Certainly not the players'.

The DM makes it clear the PCs should try to earn the Duke's trust. The PCs decide to do something different. There's nothing wrong with that!

I wouldn't tell the characters, "Your objective is this;" I think that hurts immersion. If it's implied, then it should still be their decision and you shouldn't penalize them for choosing their own path.

You can apply that contrarian spirit to any proposed skill challenge. That doesn't make the challenge self-defeating.

If their objective actually was to gain trust, they probably wouldn't be going for intimidation in the first place. If they're trying intimidation, their goal is probably different from the stated objective, and there's no reason they should be penalized for that.

Is this system really saying that I don't have to role-play anymore if I don't want to? Can I really say to my wanna-be-thespian DM, nah I don't feel like roleplaying anymore; show me the loot? Here are my last 8 d20 rolls in order. I rolled them while you were reciting the monologue of Anthiphunicles. Do I win the encounter?

No.

...MortQ took my exact answer.

Why are you assuming this is the only skill challenge on the table?

I'm not. I'm saying this particular example, regardless of what other examples may or may not exist, is bad.

1) The PC's might try to ask the Duke for help. Whip up Skill Challenge A for that. I already know they're in a position of weakness with respect to the Duke, so Intimidation is Right Out - they need to win his trust.

This is only true if they're not good at intimidation. Mook with sword = bad at intimidation. Mafia = good at intimidation. If the players are creative, they might be at an advantage you didn't expect. If that's the case, you'll hear it when they describe how they go about intimidating the guy.

 

[Jasperak]

Short answer, no.

3.x Diplomacy was "I get 57, Thor is now my butt-monkey!". If you Look at the example there are 3-4 "pre-established" rolls, and it requires 8 to "beat" it, for the other 5, you have to actually explain to the DM what you are doing, and why it will help.

Thank you for your lack of snark and quick explanation.

Looking at the excerpt from WOTC I don't see anything about 3-4 pre-established rolls or having to explain anything about any other rolls. What I see from the excerpt is this:

DM: The duke has granted an audience with you.
Player 1: I use Diplomacy Attack 1.
DM: You Succeed. He mentions something about the Halls of Moria.
Player 1: I use History Attack 1.
DM: You Fail, your knowledge is not great enough to move the duke.
Player 1: Fine, I'll Use Bluff Attack 1.
DM: You Succeed. He mentions something about a battle in the Halls of Moria.
Player 1: I'll use my Bluff Attack 1 again.
Player 2: I thought Bluff Attack 1 was an Encounter power.
Player 1: No it's At-Will
Player 2: Oh good, it would be terrible if you had to wait 5 minutes after you stop talking to the duke to use it.
DM: You succeed so well he thinks you have actually been to the Halls.
Player 1: Do I get any bonuses or anything for succeeding so far.
DM: No
Player 1: Maybe I will try an use Intimidate Attack 1 next.
Player 2: Why, they're all charisma based? Don't you have all of those maxed out?
Player 1: Well, when I used the Diplomacy Attack 1 power, I unlocked the History Attack 1 Power. maybe I will unlock something else. Maybe he will gain more respect for us. We just have to figure out what combos to use to beat him.
Player 2: Why not, its better than rolling five more Diplomacy Attacks....

Where am I wrong?

 

[ForbidenMaster]

[...]

If their objective actually was to gain trust, they probably wouldn't be going for intimidation in the first place.

[...]

And if they did then it would be an automatic fail right? This entire template is based on a situation in which "for the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way."

If you change the scenario then the template no longer applies.

 

[Jasperak]

No.



You can if you want, but he'll I'd say no.

Really, what from the excerpt says that I have to say anything other than I use my Diplomacy Power?

Do I have to explain how I am attacking to roll against the mooks AC?

If you are my DM at an RPGA event and I say I want to use my Diplomacy Power. Who are you to force me to explain how I use the power? I roll a d20. I don't have to know how to fight IRL to attack a creature, why should I have describe how I talk to the duke if I have the conversation skills of a tree IRL?

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Thank you for your lack of snark and quick explanation.

Looking at the excerpt from WOTC I don't see anything about 3-4 pre-established rolls or having to explain anything about any other rolls. What I see from the excerpt is this:

DM: The duke has granted an audience with you.
Player 1: I use Diplomacy Attack 1.
DM: You Succeed. He mentions something about the Halls of Moria.
Player 1: I use History Attack 1.
DM: You Fail, your knowledge is not great enough to move the duke.
Player 1: Fine, I'll Use Bluff Attack 1.
DM: You Succeed. He mentions something about a battle in the Halls of Moria.
Player 1: I'll use my Bluff Attack 1 again.
Player 2: I thought Bluff Attack 1 was an Encounter power.
Player 1: No it's At-Will
Player 2: Oh good, it would be terrible if you had to wait 5 minutes after you stop talking to the duke to use it.
DM: You succeed so well he thinks you have actually been to the Halls.
Player 1: Do I get any bonuses or anything for succeeding so far.
DM: No
Player 1: Maybe I will try an use Intimidate Attack 1 next.
Player 2: Why, they're all charisma based? Don't you have all of those maxed out?
Player 1: Well, when I used the Diplomacy Attack 1 power, I unlocked the History Attack 1 Power. maybe I will unlock something else. Maybe he will gain more respect for us. We just have to figure out what combos to use to beat him.
Player 2: Why not, its better than rolling five more Diplomacy Attacks....

Where am I wrong?

Where in reality it might go something like:

DM: The duke has granted an audience with you.
Player 1: I use Diplomacy Attack 1.
DM: You loose 10XP, and from now on roleplay or you will loose more.

You can take the roleplaying out of any aspect of D&D, but usually a player who constantly does so is one who you might not want at your table.

 

[Cadfan]

The most important part of the blog post is where Mearls mentions that his players never knew they were in a skill challenge. They just used skills as it seemed appropriate, roleplayed as it seemed appropriate, and the DM used the skill challenge structure to handle the details behind the scenes.

It was kind of obvious that things could work that way, but some people insisted on not seeing it, so... its nice to hear it officially.

 

[Rechan]

Where am I wrong?

Probably because you're going by a glimpse of a Skill Challenge template and the first what, half dozen paragraphs from a chapter dedicated to Skill Challenges?

There must be at least a little bit more nuance to it.

Especially given what we saw at DDXP.

 

[heretic888]

Really, what from the excerpt says that I have to say anything other than I use my Diplomacy Power?

Do I have to explain how I am attacking to roll against the mooks AC?

If you are my DM at an RPGA event and I say I want to use my Diplomacy Power. Who are you to force me to explain how I use the power? I roll a d20. I don't have to know how to fight IRL to attack a creature, why should I have describe how I talk to the duke if I have the conversation skills of a tree IRL?

Hi Jasperak,

First off, you crack me up.

Secondly, the rules can't force you to roleplay. That was true in 3E and its true in 4E. The main difference now is that more than one skill (and skill check) is involved in any given non-combat encounter AND the entire party participates (instead of just The Face or The Skillmonkey doing all the social heavy lifting).

If you really hate skill challenges that much, I'm confident that binary opposed skill checks are still in the game. Honest.

Laterz.

 

[JohnSnow]

Thank you for your lack of snark and quick explanation.

Looking at the excerpt from WOTC I don't see anything about 3-4 pre-established rolls or having to explain anything about any other rolls. What I see from the excerpt is this:

...

Where am I wrong?

You forgot what was on the rest of the pages in the Chapter on skill challenges. Which I'm guessing aren't entirely devoid of text.

I assume that part of telling the DM how to run a skill challenge will be something to the effect of "ways to encourage your players to describe their attempts."

People need to stop assuming that an excerpt less than 1 page long is all the rules have to say on the subject. Especially when the excerpt specifically tells us otherwise.

What follows is the opening section of the Skill Challenges chapter, a few key sidebars, and a skill challenge template right out of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

So...hardly the whole system.

 

[Jasperak]

Where in reality it might go something like:

DM: The duke has granted an audience with you.
Player 1: I use Diplomacy Attack 1.
DM: You loose 10XP, and from now on roleplay or you will loose more.

You can take the roleplaying out of any aspect of D&D, but usually a player who constantly does so is one who you might not want at your table.

Try your punishment at an RPGA event.