How do you feel about Skill Challenges?

[FireLance]

To me, skill challenges strike a middle ground between a very free-form problem-solving approach which is almost entirely dependent on player skill/DM adjudication (e.g. solve this mystery) and a very mechanical, rules-defined approach to tackling common (but specific) problems (e.g. opening locks, noticing secret doors, finding and removing traps, following tracks).

Properly used, the skill challenge framework can give you the best of both approaches. An inventive player can come up with creative solutions to the skill challenge, or novel ways to use the skills he is good at, and the DM can allow the use of those skills to score successes, or even award successes without the need to make a skill check. On the other hand, a player who is more comfortable working within a fairly well-defined framework can simply run through his character's list of trained skills and pick one that seems appropriate to the challenge.

My only real dissatisfaction with the current skill challenge framework is that the result of a skill check is too binary. Either a character gains a success, or he accumulates a failure. This discourages general participation because the fear of accumulating failures (especially for PCs with low modifiers in the more obviously useful skills) creates the incentive for the PCs to use Aid Another to help the character with the highest modifier for the most relevant skill. I personally believe that skill checks to make progress (gain successes) should be separate from skill checks to avoid setbacks (accumulate failures). This way, each PC can try something helpful (even if there is a low chance of success) without worrying too much that he will make things worse for his party as a whole.

 

[thatdarnedbob]

So to use the "navigate a swamp" example from above, the city born cleric who was never farther away from the city than a days travel would not be allowed to "just shut up and let the pros do it" and instead has to try to navigate a swamp and most likely endanger himself and the rest of the party?

Well, when my party wanted to navigate a swamp their city boy-type used Hand of Fate to great effect. But without that, yeah, the inexperienced and incompetent fellow traveler would have proved to be somewhat of a burden to the rest of the group, most likely resulting in inconvenience or injury. Could you explain to me why this is a problem? Because I think that's realistic and interesting, and suits the effect I'm trying to create with my house rules.

 

[op1983]

I've always used skill challenges. I've never called them that.

I think there was too focus toward trying to trying to put a formal set of rules on it.

A game won't be better or worse for using them or not using them. It's just another way for the GM to incorporate the other half a page on the character sheets into the game.

Skill challenges to me are like minions they can be good or bad if not used properly.

 

[Mallus]

So far my group has had a lot of fun using Skill Challenges, both the errata'd version and Stalker0's Obsidian system. But we use them primarily to resolve the PC's so-called clever plans.

 

[jbear]

I enjoy skill challenges. I run them how I see fit;

Sometimes I announce it as a challenge, usually during a combat so players are aware that time is of the essence;

when I see a skill challenge coming up that encompasses a wider expanse of time that I want to move quickly I will prepare a challenge based on the Obsidian system;

when the players force a situation I wasn't prepared for, I revert back to the 3 failures before x successes sistem because I find it simpler to improvise with. In these situations I don't often announce the challenge is occuring. I don't usually set the complexity. I begin marking what i consider meaningful successes and failures, and describe the consecuences of their actions. When people use less key skills, I use their successes to give bonuses to following rolls, to give hints etc. Failures may or may not result in increasing following DC's or perhaps something painful (falling for example) that doesn't put the Skill Challenge in danger. When I consider the have either failed or succeeded the challenge stops and I add up their relevant successes to gauge the complexity of the challenge and the xp I should reward them;

Sometimes when everyone has to do the same thing (Endurance or climbing for example), I allow someone to take the role of leader. Failure of the leader counts as 2 failures (towards the team role, not the challenge). If they are successful they give the team +2 to their roll. A leader is also allowed to step in at critical moments and help someone who has failed (at the expense of HSurge of either the leader or the person who failed), which allows a reroll. Everyone rolls. if 7/7 players succeed I give the 2 successes. if 5 or 6/7 succeed, its 1 success toward the challenge. If 3 or more fail, they rack up a failure.

I love the idea that heroic actions outside of combat are rewarded. You don't have to kill everything that moves to increase in skill and power. That in my book is awesome. I prefer to vary the format and the rules to be appropriate to the situation. I only allow the aid rule as a reward for good roleplaying. I try and keep it flexible and alive. The players enjoy it, and are completly oblivious to the mechanics behind them (which is understandable because it always varies).

 

[Ktulu]

One thing I've been doing to get around the "guy with highest X rolls for that skill" is make it more of an interactive situation. When the Barbarian with the unfailable endurance check goes, maybe he can't do endurance because he has to jump out of the way (athletics), or he's lost his companions in the situation and must make a perception check...

Maybe during a social situation, as he's preparing to make his diplomatic case, someone calls out his torrid past and he has to throw down a bluff, denying the allegations.


I don't do this for every turn, but it has truly helped the players get away from "roll X to win".

Also, I've implemented these variants:

• Extended conditions (things like fatigured, exhausted, angry, etc...) that continue during and after skill challenges without a short or extended rest (Depending on the issue)
• Time limit victory condition - Amass more victories than failures in X rounds. This works great for situations like flooding rooms, collapsing buildings, etc.. The players know they're on a time limit and must move quickly.
• Power benefit successes - example: A rogue used a daily power to slow an enemy in a chase combat, lowering DC's to easy for the remainder of the challenge.
• mutiple victory conditions - Depending on the number of victories VS the number of failures, the heroes reach different situations. example:
  
  In a chase, total victory means the heroes were able to route the enemy and setup an ambush. one failure means they meet on even footing. Two failures means he got away, but you know where he went (into the rogues' hideout, etc..), Total failure and you were ambushed by him and a number of allies..

I do my best to mix up each skill challenge so they don't feel like a rehash of something done before (just like with combat encounters; fight the same enemies over and over adn the players get bored).

 

[kenmarable]

I'm still getting comfortable with skill challenges, but I really like them. However, I also see them falling into 2 entirely different versions.

#1) Skill Encounter - This is the classic and obvious skill challenge. The chase scene, negotiating with the king, etc. It's pretty much where we flip into skill challenge mode and resolve it in a single encounter.

#2) Ongoing Skill Challenge - I think these are far more interesting and work much better. Basically this isn't any single encounter, but a series of encounters - like researching some artifact, or the "navigating the city undetected this week" example Mearls had in his column. It might be several encounters each talked out and resolved with a single roll or two, or even just a roll or two between encounters (like the navigating the city undetected whenever they go from place A to B).

My main issue is that, to continue the example we're discussing... the player of said "city boy" is going to, at least in my experience, get flack for trying something that he knows he's out of his league in. If you know chances are you are gonna fail the roll, then why bother to roll and hurt everybody else?

For my campaigns, I'm VERY open to allowing most any skill to be used in an encounter with a good enough explanation. If it is something rather odd, it'll most likely be at the Hard DC. Plus, even more importantly, I have most skill checks offer a bonus or penalty to the primaries, so they don't get counted among the success or failures.

Just to use the city-boy cleric navigating the swamp - for one thing, I think it makes a lot of sense that the cleric might slow them down, so checks are warranted (and I'd play up the humor of any failed rolls to keep the cleric's player having fun with it), but I'd also allow odd things like - maybe there's signs of past indigenous people or moderately-intelligent monsters, so a Religion check can interpret the symbols they left behind to know which directions are more dangerous or have good food sources, etc. It's far enough out there that I wouldn't count it as a success or failure, but I'd definitely allow that check to influence someone else's roll.

Between grasping the concept of ongoing skill challenges, as well as encouraging players to get creative with the skill ideas, I've found skill challenges have become far more interesting. Running a "this is a skill encounter, everyone take turns rolling skill checks from this list of skills" is rarely as interesting as the other options.

 

[kenmarable]

It also just occurred to me that it would be interesting for a 3rd party publisher to come up with skill powers. Even further than utility powers, every PC would get a certain number of powers that directly affect what you can do with skills - and being at-will, encounter, and daily in use (or maybe defined as At-Will, and per Skill Challenge)

Your "power list" would be determined by what skills you are trained in rather than your class.

So (this is entirely off of my head after thinking of this 2 minutes ago, so it's just for illustration purposes), something like:

Slip of the Tongue Skill 10
Skill Challenge - Social
Target: One creature you are talking with.
Check: Diplomacy vs. Will
Success: You coax the target to tell you secret information.
Effect: The target is suspicious towards you. (With "suspicious" being a keyword with a specific effect.)

Focused Guard Skill 3
At-Will - Physical
Trigger: You are on watch for 1 hour or more.
Check: Endurance vs. Moderate DC
Success: You gain a +2 to your Perception checks while on watch.

Who's Your God Skill 25
Skill Challenge - Social
Target: One creature you see
Check: Religion vs Hard DC
Success: You know the true religion of the creature if they have one, even attempting to Bluff or disguise themselves.


I don't know, maybe it's a silly idea. But what the heck, I figure I'd throw it out there and see what people think. However, maybe making some Skill Powers can spice things up enough to make skill checks more interesting. *shrug*

 

[Cadfan]

There was a Dungeon article posted this morning about skill challenges. It addresses issues like "everyone aid another" or "don't participate." No one has thoughts?

 

[Pbartender]

Just remember that skill challenges as they are presented in the 4E DMG are the most basic way of handling them.

I'd recommend taking a look through some of the splat-books (Open Grave and Draconomicon immediately come to mind), if you have them, and also through some of the Dungeon magazine adventures available through DDI, if you have a subscription... Some of the authors have done some rather interesting and innovative things with skills challenges -- things that could address many of the concerns expressed here.