How do you feel about Skill Challenges?

[Ariosto]

How do I feel? I LOATHE skill challenges. They put the cart before the horse, make a good plan about the same as a bad one, and distract from the action with a lot of rote rolling of dice.

I would MUCH prefer to handle things the way every other RPG in my experience has: find out what the players are attempting, and how, and then determine what (if any) rolls are appropriate.

 

[Pbartender]

I would MUCH prefer to handle things the way every other RPG in my experience has: find out what the players are attempting, and how, and then determine what (if any) rolls are appropriate.

Okay, now repeat that same thing until your players reach either a set number of successes or a set number of failures, and give them either an extra benefit for succeeding or an extra penalty for failing. If you can do that, you can stop loathing skill challenges, because that's just what you've done.

 

[darjr]

Okay, now repeat that same thing until your players reach either a set number of successes or a set number of failures, and give them either an extra benefit for succeeding or an extra penalty for failing. If you can do that, you can stop loathing skill challenges, because that's just what you've done.

This is how I run em. For me the formalized structure and xp rewards are the benefits. Oh.. and a bit of a clue by four about failure.

 

[Ariosto]

No, I can't go for that. I find it utterly absurd artificially to reduce every possible approach to a problem to approximately the same arbitrary chance of success, and to treat a "failure" on a dice-roll as boding failure for the whole enterprise regardless of context.

Often enough, the best solutions call for NO rolls at all.

 

[Pbartender]

No, I can't go for that. I find it utterly absurd artificially to reduce every possible approach to a problem to approximately the same arbitrary chance of success, and to treat a "failure" on a dice-roll as boding failure for the whole enterprise regardless of context.

Often enough, the best solutions call for NO rolls at all.

But you already do that with combat... and the skill checks that you already use.

Besides, who said anything about being arbitrary? Absolutely, you should be using appropriate DCs for skill challenges... just as you would for any skill check.

Okay, let me try this another way...

I've discovered three things that, for me at least, make all the difference in running a skill challenge.

#1. Don't let the players know that they are in the middle of a skill challenge. Once you do that, the roleplaying goes out the window. Like you already suggest, for each stage let the players figure out what they want to do, let them role play it out a bit, figure out an appropriate check to roll based on that role playing, determine consequences for success or failure, roleplay out the results and then move on to the next stage, letting the players choose the next stage of the challenge, if possible.

#2. Be flexible and creative with the successes and failures of the individual skill checks. The skill checks don't have to mean just +1 success or +1 failure. Perhaps a certain check can grant a bonus to later checks in the challenge. Perhaps failing a certain check could inflict a condition or cause the character to lose a healing surge. Maybe a success or failure illicits a particular response from the opposition. Or maybe it triggers an unexpected combat encounter. There's a lot of options.

#3. Don't hinge the success of the adventure on the skill challenge. The way I see it, if the players are looking in the right direction, they should eventually find what they are looking for, regardless of the skill checks. Instead use the skill checks and challenges as a way to spice up non-combat action in the same way you might use a random encounter. Total success or failure at a skill challenge should provide either an extra useful benefit or an unexpected complication.

To use a vague example...

The PCs are a trying to track down a BBEG who's laying low in a large city. With each successful skill check, they not only earn a success, but hear a randomly chosen rumor about the BBEG from a pre-generated list. Success at the challenge means the PCs learn the location of BBEG's hide-out without drawing attention to themselves, and have the advantage of surprise. Failure means they learn of the BBEG's hide-out, but words gets the BBEG about their search and he's ready for them.

 

[Jhaelen]

I would MUCH prefer to handle things the way every other RPG in my experience has: find out what the players are attempting, and how, and then determine what (if any) rolls are appropriate.

But that's _exactly_ how skill challenges work!
At least in my game, that is...

 

[Ariosto]

The answer to the question, "Why should I bother with all that claptrap?" is likely to be unfathomable to me. "But you already do that with combat" is another artifact of 4E with which I am none too pleased -- but I can take it in stride because it is rather to the point of choosing to play it in the first place (and others happen to enjoy the game more than I do, which is enough to warrant spending some time at it). Skill challenges, though, seem (among players of my acquaintance) pretty widely regarded as processes through which to suffer, taking consolation from the knowledge that they must eventually end.

 

[Pbartender]

"But you already do that with combat" is another artifact of 4E with which I am none too pleased

Oh, you completely misunderstand me, here... EVERY edition of D&D has a combat system that tends to "artificially to reduce every possible approach" to "approximately the same arbitrary chance of success", and treats "a 'failure' on a dice-roll as boding failure for the whole enterprise regardless of context".

My point being, if we have always been okay with letting the dice determine the outcome of combat, then why are people so reticent about doing the same with non-combat encounters? And why does allowing a random dice roll to help determine the outcome of an action automatically preclude roleplaying?

 

[FireLance]

treat a "failure" on a dice-roll as boding failure for the whole enterprise regardless of context.

I'm with you on this. As mentioned, I think that it would be better to separate skill checks to make progress from skill checks to avoid setbacks.

I find it utterly absurd artificially to reduce every possible approach to a problem to approximately the same arbitrary chance of success.

While this is true, you don't have to do this in a skill challenge. As a DM, you may decide to award the player an automatic success for a really good idea, or an automatic failure for a really bad one. In addition, skill checks may be easy, moderate or hard, depending on how appropriate the skill is to what the player is trying to achieve. You may also change the results of a successful skill check so that it only gives a bonus to another roll, or allow the player to gain a success and receive some other benefit (e.g. some additional relevant information, or the chance to remove a failure or gain another success with another skill check).

Often enough, the best solutions call for NO rolls at all.

Unfortunately, the players don't always come up with the best solutions. When a player comes up with an idea that is decent, but not brilliant, I don't feel comfortable either allowing it to succeed or fail automatically, That's where a skill check, ability check, or some other random roll (at varying degrees of difficulty) comes in.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I'm not sure what there is to be excited about when it comes to skill challenges; it was a failed attempt to codify various processes that people have been using in their games for a long time. Having said that I think including a systemization of the process was a good idea and would certainly have been a good guide for new DMs, if not for old hands as well, had the implementation been on the mark.