How do you feel about Skill Challenges?

[Ariosto]

Even in 4E combat, dice rolls tend to be used to resolve particular questions -- with probabilities and consequences to some degree related to the nature of the matter at hand. It's not a case of, "Well, three arrows have missed Foe A, therefore everyone else fighting it (and Foes C through F) can do nothing."

"Unfortunately, the players don't always come up with the best solutions." Indeed, and that is what makes it a game. A 4E skill challenge is in my view more a dull number-crunching exercise pressing players into service as dice-rolling robots.

I have no reason to go to the effort to "design a skill challenge" and then force events into that mold, when I can instead simply respond to players' choices and let the action flow without interruption. It's like putting on a heavy coat before going for a swim; sure, one could adjust it to be slightly less cumbersome -- but leaving it off in the first place is much more sensible.

 

[FireLance]

A 4E skill challenge is in my view more a dull number-crunching exercise pressing players into service as dice-rolling robots.

I know it has been mentioned before, but the same criticism could be levied at combat. Since most combats (presumably) do not play out that way, it implies that there is something about combat that prevents it from being dull, and generates more input from players than simply rolling dice. I think it may be worthwhile to identify what those aspects are, and find some way to apply them to skill challenges.

 

[LostSoul]

A 4E skill challenge is in my view more a dull number-crunching exercise pressing players into service as dice-rolling robots.

Check out this thread for an example of a fun skill challenge I ran.

 

[Ariosto]

Since most combats (presumably) do not play out that way, it implies that there is something about combat that prevents it from being dull, and generates more input from players than simply rolling dice. I think it may be worthwhile to identify what those aspects are, and find some way to apply them to skill challenges.

Is it so hard to see? Fights are still played out as: "I'm going to try to do this." "Okay, that [works / doesn't work / requires roll X]."

It's the actual consequences of the action that affect other actions: "Khiheru leaps back, narrowly evading Gaiseric's knife, but trips over Djehuti's corpse and falls sprawling."

If Gaiseric is able to press his advantage, it may be all over for Khiheru (or maybe not, as he is cunning); but that worthy has allies ...

In other words, combat still resolves discrete but dynamically interacting "actions", while skill challenges change the premise to "scene resolution." In the former case, we start with circumstances and then model them with numbers, proceeding action by action to the outcome. In the latter, we start with numbers and dice-rolls and the result, and then tell a story about how that result came to pass. What is cause and what is effect get turned upside down.

 

[FireLance]

Is it so hard to see? Fights are still played out as: "I'm going to try to do this." "Okay, that [works / doesn't work / requires roll X]."

It's the actual consequences of the action that affect other actions...

In other words, combat still resolves discrete but dynamically interacting "actions", while skill challenges change the premise to "scene resolution." In the former case, we start with circumstances and then model them with numbers, proceeding action by action to the outcome.

I guess part of the reason for the disconnect is: this is how I try to run skill challenges, too.

Suppose the PCs have just defeated a band of kobolds when a bear that the kobolds have earlier captured escapes from its cage and advances on the party, growling menacingly.

The ranger might try speak soothingly to the bear in an attempt to calm it down. The DM decides that this requires a moderate Nature check.

The fighter might decide to shout at it to make it back down. The DM decides that this requires a Hard Intimidate check. Even though the DM normally prefers to separate skill checks to make progress from skill checks to avoid setbacks, he might decide that in this case, a failed skill check angers the bear further and counts as one failure.

The paladin might ask if he can discover why the bear is angry. The DM calls for an Easy Perception check and a Moderate Insight check. If the paladin succeeds on the Insight check, he realizes that the bear is hungry. If he offers food to the bear, the DM decides that the party earns an automatic success.

If the rogue succeeds on his Perception check, the DM also tells the party that the bear is wounded. If the cleric decides to tend to the bear's wounds, the DM may decide that an Easy Heal check will earn another success. If the cleric decides to use a healing word on the bear, the DM may decide that a roll is not even necessary.

The DM may also decide to adopt a different model to determine when the skill challenge as a whole is overcome. The X successes before Y failures model works fairly well when the success factors and the failure factors are more or less independent (e.g. whether the party can navigate and row a leaky boat to shore before it sinks). In the above-mentioned skill challenge, where the successes and failures affect pretty much one single factor (the attitude of the bear), the DM may decide to change the overall success condition to when the number of successes exceeds the number of failures by a certain amount, and similarly, the overall failure condition to when the number of failures exceeds the number of successes by a certain amount.

Essentially, I see no reason why skill challenges cannot be just as exciting, just as open to a variety of inputs from the players, and just as subject to discrete and dynamic resolution as combat.

 

[LostSoul]

Is it so hard to see?

Again, I will point out my example of a skill challenge. It resolved dynamically through discrete interacting actions. We started with circumstances and modelled them with numbers, proceeding action-by-action to the outcome.

 

[Ariosto]

By "skill challenge" I mean (and presume the OP meant) the formalism described in the 4E rules. That involves a lot of baggage that I find counter-productive. One might wonder why combat has not been made to work the same way, if it's so groovy. I still wonder why some people consider it some sort of improvement -- and expect that the answer is something I just can't "get." I have had no complaints from players when I ditch it!

 

[FireLance]

By "skill challenge" I mean (and presume the OP meant) the formalism described in the 4E rules. That involves a lot of baggage that I find counter-productive.

Eh, you may have a point. My own preferred methods of running a skill challenge differ somewhat from the method outlined in the 4e DMG.

Nonetheless, they are sufficiently similar that I consider my own ideas refinements or additions to the basic system instead of something completely different. I still use the concepts of Easy, Moderate or Hard skill checks, successes and failures, skill checks that open up the use of other skills, skill checks that grant bonuses to other skills, etc. WotC has also built on the basic framework in subsequent material by including, among other things, a cap to the number of successes obtainable from specific skills (so that the PCs can't just keep using the same skill over and over again).

Apart from the binary nature of skill checks (which I have already mentioned I'm not too happy with), I'm not sure what counter-productive baggage there is in the skill challenge rules, though.

Is the concern that players will only try things suggested by their list of trained skills? I submit that this might be a crutch for players who prefer a more structured game, but truly creative players will not be constrained by their character sheet.

Is the concern that the DM will not allow any solution to succeed apart from the skills mentioned in the skill challenge? I submit that any DM who limits possible solutions in this manner would do so regardless of whether or not he is running the encounter as a skill challenge.

 

[jasin]

Suppose the PCs have just defeated a band of kobolds when a bear that the kobolds have earlier captured escapes from its cage and advances on the party, growling menacingly.

The ranger might try speak soothingly to the bear in an attempt to calm it down. The DM decides that this requires a moderate Nature check.

The fighter might decide to shout at it to make it back down. The DM decides that this requires a Hard Intimidate check. Even though the DM normally prefers to separate skill checks to make progress from skill checks to avoid setbacks, he might decide that in this case, a failed skill check angers the bear further and counts as one failure.

The paladin might ask if he can discover why the bear is angry. The DM calls for an Easy Perception check and a Moderate Insight check. If the paladin succeeds on the Insight check, he realizes that the bear is hungry. If he offers food to the bear, the DM decides that the party earns an automatic success.

If the rogue succeeds on his Perception check, the DM also tells the party that the bear is wounded. If the cleric decides to tend to the bear's wounds, the DM may decide that an Easy Heal check will earn another success. If the cleric decides to use a healing word on the bear, the DM may decide that a roll is not even necessary.

While this sounds like a fun scene, it seems to me that a combat analogue would be the DM having to decide on the monster's AC, Will, hp, Acrobatics bonus on the spot, as the players attack it with a sword, a charm spell, deal damage, try to maintain a grapple...

With a good DM, this way of handling combat isn't unworkable either.

But my impression about the skill challenges as advertised was that they were to be a tool that would allow an inexperienced, momentarily uninspired, or simply mediocre DM construct a non-combat challenge that would approach combat in opportunities for mechanically meaningful, enjoyably complex fun.

My impression about the skill challenges as experienced and described by other is either 1) a weird, always different, sometimes fun but often frustrating dance of guessing and retconning; or 2) DM fiat.

Nothing wrong with DM fiat, of course. But telling the DM "ask your players what they want to do, make up some DCs, make up outcomes, enjoy self!" is hardly the new rules concept skill challenges were touted to be.

 

[Starfox]

I find I'm going back to basics on skill challenges. It took a long time for the rules to settle, but these days I can do a skill challenge pretty seamlessly and using almost exactly the rules from the PH. At first I thought they were complex and rule-intense, but in the end I find it is just a tallying of successes.

I tried various systems, homebrew and from here (Thank you, Stalker0), but in the end, I find the original system works well. The changes I do use are more like anti-rules, breaking out of the mold that is the skill challenge.

• I don't use rounds or initiative (except if a fight is happening simultaneously)
• I don't enforce a round-robin. I juggle the players, making one of them act and then looking for another player's initiatives, but if some (or even most) of the players want to stay out of it, I don't force the matter.
• I allow almost any skill to be used as long as it comes with a reasonable and creative stunt.

With these fudges, I feel the skill challenge system works reasonably well. It introduces an element of possible failure where players could normally roll themselves bored waiting for a success (say research), and it allows for a little bit of failure even in situations that would otherwise be very unforgiving (say sneaking).