Excerpt: skill challenges

[Tuft]

(does the survival DC for traveling through jungle really depend on PC levels?).

Does the CR of the monster depend on the PCs fighting it?

I mean, in a way, yes. But also no in another way. Its like the chicken and the egg. Which came first?

I guess this will drown in the big "what is Intimidate really" debate, but anyway:

It is my theory that the automatic increase in skills by 1/2 levels is connected to skill target numbers increasing by pretty much the same amount. Go up ten levels, become five steps better at climbing, and you will face walls that all have five steps harder target number. The way target numbers are formulated for the skill challenge strengthens that theory a bit...

 

[The Shadow]

An interesting question might be if Rituals or Spells can be used as a way to solve a part of a challenge (there was a blog post to that effect, but I still wonder how this works).

I wonder too. We don't yet know if rituals can fail, even. But for ordinary powers, it would make sense that if they "hit", they count as a success, maybe?

On a larger scale, can even individual encounters be used to "solve" a part of the skill challenge - when gaining the favor of the duke, it might be helpful to arrest some criminals that bothered him, or something like that. But we might be leaving the realms of the skill challenge at this point...

Very situation dependent. I can see a bunch of scenarios.

1) You had a whole adventure capturing criminals to even get the audience with the Duke in the first place. "Baron Evillo argued I shouldn't meet with riff-raff like yourselves, but I appreciate the fact that you've rid my town of these scum."

2) The Duke says, "Well, I don't know. You seem like decent sorts, but Baron Evillo isn't so sure. Perhaps you could catch the noted thief, the Prince of Shadows, for me to prove your good will?" The next adventure is devoted to catching the Prince of Shadows... depending on how it goes, it might be worth anywhere from, say, 1 failure to 3 successes.

3) The Duke says, "I'm too busy dealing with rioting in the slums to deal with this right now." The PC's go out and end the riot, bringing in the ringleaders. This could be an encounter, or it could even be a single skill check!

4) Or it could be as simple as a character saying, "Do recall, your Grace, how we worked with your Guard a year ago to capture the Prince of Shadows. Surely that shows you we respect the rule of law?" Diplomacy check, based on previous adventures. Or a Bluff check, if you've bribed Captain Dastardly to lie about it when the Duke asks him to refresh his memory.

One take might be to make the success of a skill challenge determine the encounter setup of random encounters. If you fare well, you will face less opposition and can surprise it. If you fail, you might run into more monsters, and they might ambush you.

I like it! In fact, I'll likely use it.

I think it might matter how important the "CSI"-stuff is to the plot at hand.

That's a given. I was assuming it was integral to the whole adventure, at the very least.

If the whole adventure is based on it, a single challenge might be a bit to little. But who knows, if you have to gather 16 successes and avoid the 8th failure, this can take some time, if each roll is accompanied with a skill check. Basically, you use the challenge to structure an entire adventure. But if it's only a small part, determining the real perpetrator could be handled with a regular skill challenge. The next step might be finding and catching him.

The idea of structuring the whole adventure around a *big* challenge is an interesting one. I'll mull it over some more.

 

[Torchlyte]

You've never seen players try something boneheaded, something completely at odds to their stated goals? I certainly have. (Sometimes I've done it myself!) Whether it's in the name of roleplaying or just plain stupidity, it happens. Pointing out in the template which maneuvers are just not going to be productive might not be needed by every DM, but it's not useless either.

If the characters are capable of intimidating a duke with an army into putting his army at their disposal, then more power to 'em. That plan clearly would not call for a Negotiation skill challenge, now would it?

So far so good.

A single Intimidate roll should be good enough.

I disagree, you could do all sorts of stuff to alter circumstances so that the NPC can be properly coerced.

Of course, most characters just plain won't be able to do that. And then this skill challenge becomes relevant. *If* the party in that position decides *on their own* to solicit the Duke's aid, then the GM could choose to use this template. Maybe they don't decide to ask the Duke for help; maybe they decide on a totally different approach to the problem.

My reply to this somehow disappeared in the multi-quoting. If they're taking a different approach then there's little need for the intimidate skill to be ruled over.

This is railroading?

What specifically, are you referring to with this question? I think it's railroading to say that the PCs have to get the Duke to agree to something when it's plausible for them to force him to do something... and if the players are creative, it's most likely plausible.

You seem to think it's somehow wrong for the GM to design an actual adventure - to say there are two forks in the road instead of three.

It's more like having the PCs sink into quicksand when they try to take the third road.

I mean, I don't have to let someone roll the dice on a skill when it's plainly ludicrous. If you're in chains, naked, and in an antimagic field, I just don't care, as a GM, how high your Intimidate skill is. You're not going to browbeat the Evil King into abdicating and giving you his crown. It will not happen. I mean, if you insist, I can set a DC of 1500, but it's just easier to say, "You can't do it."

It depends what the players do. If they find a plausible way to do it, sure. If not, I might mentally raise the DC to "I think not." If they try to threaten a Cleric with a sword to go against his religion, it probably won't work. If they come up with something devious, why shouldn't it? A flat ban is weak.

That's quite obvious, yes. And in the sort of situation in which the Negotiation template is going to be a useful tool for the GM, not wanting to earn the NPC's trust is a bad idea. If it isn't a bad idea, and the party decides to go for Intimdation, the GM would probably use a different template, or make up a custom one.

It's the players' idea.

I read once about how a group of PCs were threatened with an army, and the DM thought they'd run. Instead, they decided to train the commoners into an army as well. It wasn't what the DM intended and it probably wasn't the smartest move given the DM's setup, but it turned out to be a really cool adventure. It's posted on the Order of the Stick forums, SilverClawShift's group. Pretty cool read.

Anyways, the point is that just because it's not the smartest choice doesn't mean you have to put your foot down as a DM.

Perhaps this is the nub of the problem? You appear to be assuming that the GM is committed to using the Negotiation template, come hell or high water, regardless of the PC's position and circumstances? But why should he be? Maybe the party won't even decide to talk to the Duke at all!

Like I said though, if they talk to the DM and decide to use some intimidation, why give them DM fiat in return?

But *if they do*, knowing that they (as, say, 4th level heroes) have no real chance of intimidating the Duke into ordering his army around,

I'd say that's not necessarily true.

he figures that a Negotiation is what will be called for, and preps that template, perhaps tweaking it. Not because he's a meanie-head who arbitrarily decides it, but because it makes sense in the adventure - sort of like not being able to intimidate the Evil King into abdicating while totally helpless.

Did I once say that they should be able to intimidate the Evil King while helpless? No, that was a straw man.

If the party is 30 level demigods with a penchant of threatening measly mortals with fates far worse than death, probably the GM will decide to use something other than Negotiation, yes? They'd use that template only with a greater god or something. Against a mere Duke, they'd say, "Borrowing your army. Might bring it back later." Not even worth a skill challenge.

This is highly subjective.

No, it isn't railroading to say, "This particular sort of plan just won't work." That's adventure design. Now, I grant you, in a given case it might be *bad* adventure design. But it needn't be.

I think it's okay to say, this particular plan won't work (because it's implausible). You know, this form of intimidation or whatever. This sort of plan, on the other hand...

Railroading is where there is only One Right Plan.

Like, "Get the Duke to trust you?"

 

[Torchlyte]

I'm skipping most of your post because I think the issues in it are sufficiently debated above, and that I am clearly right.

Oh, clearly.

So from my perspective, there's no difference between declaring that the DC of an Intimidate check is 50 when I know darn well the players can't achieve that, and just saying "Intimidate doesn't work here." Except that the first way required making up an arbitrarily big number and lying to myself about where I got it.

Actually, you don't really have to make DCs at all. The point here is that you should be looking at how the players have designed their characters and what they want to do with them.

You're making an invalid set of assumptions here. A challenge like this doesn't grow in a vacuum. The DM doesn't demand the PCs seek an audience with the Duke to gain his trust. The PCs, through the scenarios leading up to that moment in game, are at a point where they have chosen to seek an audience with the Duke, in order to convince him to lend them aid/money/troops/resources. The only way they can do that is to gain his trust.

I've already addressed the context question. The example we have doesn't give that context.

You can't intimidate the duke into giving you gold, soldiers, and equipment.

Sure you can. Say you have an accomplice who's got something nasty up his sleeve.

Fire Emblem Spoiler:

Spoiler

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn involves a major plot twist when it turns out the King is being intimidated into sending his armies to do things he doesn't like. It's the PCs' adventure, guys.

If you tried really well, and successfully scared the pants off him, you might leave his chamber with a promise of aid. But you'd be dead or arrested before you hit the castle gate. And that would make the challenge a failure.

Yes, that would mean you failed to properly intimidate him.

There are no absolutes

That's not even subject to debate. There /are/ absolutes in the example.

The PCs have a variety of ways to accrue the successes needed to convince the duke.

Like, "trust us," "trust us," and "history says trust us."

It is not railroading if their choices lead to failure.

PC: I attack the Drow guy.
DM (about his little DMPC): He looks really strong.
PC: I still choose to attack the Drizzt clone.
DM: He does 30d6 subdual damage to you in a surprise round. You fail.

 

[Simon Marks]

Like, "trust us," "trust us," and "history says trust us."

The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to earn the NPC’s favor.

Yeah, that's right.

It's a template, not to be used in it's naked form but to be modified by what's going on in your game.

I mean, it even says

Use the following skill challenge templates as the basis for skill challenges you design for your adventures. The level and complexity values are suggestions only; adjust as necessary to meet the needs of your adventure.

Don't like it? Change it. The Rules as Written say "Adjust as necessary"

It's a template.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

*putting finger in ears* Nanananananana.. I can't hear you talking about this Intimidation thingy anymore... Nanananananana

Please, guys, you're running in circles on a boring topic! Focus on something constructive and interesting!

We don't yet know if rituals can fail, even. But for ordinary powers, it would make sense that if they "hit", they count as a success, maybe?

What's with powers that don't have a too-hit? Auto-success? Or make a Arcana check?
I also wonder if rituals can fail - or are they are subtype of skill challenge?

Or, take it a step further and make each success of the Skill Challenge "Solve the Crime" require a success on a skill challenge of "Find a Clue". Then, if you solve 8 "Find a Clue" Skill Challenges before you fail 4 of them then you solve the crime.

Ok, maybe that one would be rather boring or at least a bad idea. Still, now you are beginning to think how this can be used on a larger scale.

A kind of "meta"-challenge. Doesn't sound like such a bad idea. In the end, it's just a way to structure or organize your adventure.

 

[Torchlyte]

It's a template.

The funny thing is, my opinion isn't even all that extreme. I like the idea of using skill challenges, I just didn't like this example. That's what my position has been from the beginning.

*putting finger in ears* Nanananananana.. I can't hear you talking about this Intimidation thingy anymore... Nanananananana

Please, guys, you're running in circles on a boring topic! Focus on something constructive and interesting!

15+ pages of the thread are devoted to this debate. If you don't want to read it, don't. I'm not interested in the alternate path of discussion that some person randomly decided to force on me.

 

[Simon Marks]

I also wonder if rituals can fail - or are they are subtype of skill challenge?

This is all kinds of awesome, but what are the consequences of failing and is doing a ritual identical each time.

Hmmm....

Template: Ritual under pressure.
"Quick, set up those candles"
"The rain keeps putting them out!"
"Then MAKE them stay alight, if we don't finish the rite successfully all hope will be lost"

This skill challenge covers attempts to perform a ritual under heavy environmental duress. Sometimes this is a hostile area (like a storm) and sometimes it means you have to get it perfectly right the first time.

Setup: For the ritual to work, the party have to deal difficulties. Normally rituals are performed in calm and ideal situations, but in this case compromise must be made and difficulties overcome.

Level: Equal to the level of the entire Party +2.

Complexity: 3 (8 Success before 4 Failures)

Primary Skills: Arcana, Nature, Endurance.

Arcana (moderate DCs): You try and perform the ritual, or aid the person performing the ritual. Each failure using this skill counts as two failures. At least one successful Arcana check must be made by the person performing the ritual during the challenge.

Nature (moderate DCs): You try in some way to shelter the ritual and ritualist from the elements. A successful use of this skill allows you to reduce the difficulty of the Endurance checks to a moderate DC.

Endurance (Hard DCs): You try to ignore your own tiredness and struggle on through the hard times. A successful use of this skill allows the use of a Intimidate check to help the Ritualists concentrate.

Religion (moderate to hard DC): You set up the ritual in a familiar and comforting way, by mimicing the religious practices of the participants. Can only be done once.

Intimidate (Hard DC): You brow beat everyone into working harder and faster, NPCs will work ignoring their own discomfort - PC's may chose to expend Healing Surges to add to this.
This can only be done once. If PCs are involved in the ritual, they may (as a whole) expend 4 healing surges each and gain 2 successes instead of 1.

Success: The ritual is a success.

Failure: The ritual is a failure, and all resources used are wasted. The players may well have to find another way to deal with the problem.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The funny thing is, my opinion isn't even all that extreme. I like the idea of using skill challenges, I just didn't like this example. That's what my position has been from the beginning.



15+ pages of the thread are devoted to this debate. If you don't want to read it, don't. I'm not interested in the alternate path of discussion that some person randomly decided to force on me.

Sorry, I would agree with you if I thought that part of the discussion would get some new insights. But it does not. Every participant is rehashing the same arguments, just adding a slighly different perspective, but no new substance. Having been in some similar lenghty debates without any progress (per encounter resources many months ago was such a topic), I just strongly recommend going away from it. You're wasting your own energy and time, and ignore the possibility of much more fruitful topics.

 

[hong]

15+ pages of the thread are devoted to this debate. If you don't want to read it, don't. I'm not interested in the alternate path of discussion that some person randomly decided to force on me.

I agree. Can we get back to discussing dragonborn breasts now?