How do you feel about Skill Challenges?

[LostSoul]

Lost Soul, your rope enchantment is a fine example.

Thanks!

First of all, it's just the sort of situation in which what's really going on is easily obscured (as opposed, say, to "How many 4E players does it take to change a light bulb?"). All the referents are to things you're pulling out of your hat. There's no basis for players to consider different approaches.

Right. I'm the DM, I create the world.

The basis for players to consider different approaches is what they know about the world. Their decision to sacrifice animals to it is one element of this.

The only apparent choice is whether to keep rolling dice. Your descriptions of the consequences naturally and post hoc either do or do not entail more rolls, in accordance with your abstract mathematical "game". You decide what "success" and "failure" mean.

Of course I do. I'm the DM, it's my job to determine what success and failure mean. Success and failure roll naturally out of what the PC was trying to do.

As far as whether or not to roll more dice...

For what it is, it's not too bad. Again, there's no choice of strategy involved and no remotely objective reason it should not involve a certain number of steps -- or even the uncertain number dictated by the skill challenge abstraction. There is in the case no standard at all but your whim and whimsy.

Since the skill challenge requires a set number of successes, isn't that the same as saying that it involves a certain number of steps to create?


Let's say they want to create a different magic item using the same sort of skill challenge. Will they make the choice to sacrifice animals to it? Use Infernal powers to make it obey? Or will they take a path that lowers their chance of success but probably won't have them end up with a rope that lives to choke the life out of things?

Is there no strategy there?

 

[jasin]

Let's say they want to create a different magic item using the same sort of skill challenge. Will they make the choice to sacrifice animals to it? Use Infernal powers to make it obey? Or will they take a path that lowers their chance of success but probably won't have them end up with a rope that lives to choke the life out of things?

Is there no strategy there?

There is strategy, but to me it doesn't seem it has a lot to do with 4E's rules for skill challenges.

Rules which reduce to "the DM makes up everything" are fine rules with a good DM, but they're not really something I'm interested in buying from WotC.

 

[LostSoul]

There is strategy, but to me it doesn't seem it has a lot to do with 4E's rules for skill challenges.

Only if you don't pay any attention to colour/fluff. I think it's important.

Rules which reduce to "the DM makes up everything" are fine rules with a good DM, but they're not really something I'm interested in buying from WotC.

I really don't understand this.

In what way did I "make up everything"?

 

[Ariosto]

Lost Soul, your description of the process clearly suggests that it was all ad hoc. Perhaps you could clarify what you did not make up on the spot?

It would make but little difference if you had defined it in advance: On what basis could one say that the enchantment should not work that way? It's your imaginary world, your magic. Moreover, you defined just one pretty particular activity, not a broad problem.

On the other hand, I would object to defining "crossing the chasm" as a Level Ten Skill Challenge. Making a magical rope is but one of many possible approaches that ought to be judged on their own merits.

The whole business of predefining such a broad situation in terms of x "successful" versus y "failed" skill rolls and so on is the baggage I can do without.

 

[LostSoul]

Lost Soul, your description of the process clearly suggests that it was all ad hoc. Perhaps you could clarify what you did not make up on the spot?

The level of the item they wanted to create and the DCs to make it, the fact that sacrifice helps you get what you want, and the nature of the Warlock's power. (The sacrifice stuff had previously been established as a facet of our campaign.)

It would make but little difference if you had defined it in advance: On what basis could one say that the enchantment should not work that way? It's your imaginary world, your magic. Moreover, you defined just one pretty particular activity, not a broad problem.

I'm having trouble parsing this. Can you explain again in other words?

On the other hand, I would object to defining "crossing the chasm" as a Level Ten Skill Challenge. Making a magical rope is but one of many possible approaches that ought to be judged on their own merits.

This is where I screwed up; I was under the impression that the skill challenge was going to be about creating the magic item, so I was dealing with that, but some of the players were working with the idea that getting into the keep was what we were trying to resolve. There was a communication issue, though I don't think that has too much to do with skill challenges and instead just what was going on at the table at that moment.

The whole business of predefining such a broad situation in terms of x "successful" versus y "failed" skill rolls and so on is the baggage I can do without.

I can see that. It's a structure that's not to everyone's taste.

 

[Ariosto]

Can you explain again in other words?

Most players probably know how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Some steps are optional (Toast the bread? Slice it?), and some can be done in different order (Spread peanut butter or jelly first?). One can recognize that some techniques might be more or less efficient. (Setting aside use of utterly inappropriate ones, it might make a difference if one were preparing multiple sandwiches at once.) It's common to have from first-hand experience a sense of how difficult the task should be.

What's not clear is why x "failures" at any arbitrary portion(s) of the operation should render it impossible. Dropping bread on the floor has obvious consequences, perhaps mission critical if the supply of bread is not ample. Such situations, though, are unusual in this enterprise.

Not that I suppose anyone is likely to run "making a PBJ" as a Skill Challenge! My point is to contrast the relevance of experience and common sense to that case with its irrelevance to your magical undertaking.

That raises another problem with the 4E paradigm. If (per DMG p.42) swinging from a chandelier is an "easy" task, then what is the DC? Why, that depends on the level of the character attempting it -- so that experience never makes it any easier!

The Skill Challenge rules are devoted to producing the same result. The suggested applicability of a wide range of skills not only "involves all the players" but -- given the array of numbers in a typical assortment of characters -- ensures that one skill challenge is much like another. Only the skill names associated with the numbers change.

There is no basis for any rational assessment of a situation apart from "meta-gaming" in the role-playing sense. By design, 4E depicts a world that mutably conforms to the nature of the player characters.

HOWEVER, one at least has some basis for another gauge when it comes to combat encounters. One can look up (e.g.) a pit fiend in the Monster Manual and see in the entry its characteristics and XP value. "Level appropriate" encounters are the assumed norm, and monsters can be modified -- but there is at least a suggestion that a pit fiend is not the same as a goblin.

 

[Jhaelen]

There is no basis for any rational assessment of a situation apart from "meta-gaming" in the role-playing sense. By design, 4E depicts a world that mutably conforms to the nature of the player characters.

But isn't that also a problem with an individual skill check?

And how is that different from deciding how high the defenses for a monster should be?

 

[Pbartender]

That raises another problem with the 4E paradigm. If (per DMG p.42) swinging from a chandelier is an "easy" task, then what is the DC? Why, that depends on the level of the character attempting it -- so that experience never makes it any easier!

Interesting take, there... I usually look at that chart from a very different perspective.

I might say to myself, this particular chandelier has lots of handholds but has lots of intricate protrusions, and its a modest distance away from the balcony... I'm going to make it a DC 15 Athletics or Acrobatics to swing on it.

Then, I look at the chart and compare, thinking to myself, "This check will be hard for anyone under 4th level, moderate for someone between 8th and 11th levels, and pretty easy for anyone over 20th level."

I very rarely say to myself, "I need this chandelier to be a difficult check for 7th characters, so the chart says it should be DC 19." But if I do, I follow up with, "Why is it so much more difficult than normal?"

 

[FireLance]

Interesting take, there... I usually look at that chart from a very different perspective.

It's a very common take, though. I would go so far as to say that the rules as written have focused too much on ensuring a reasonably appropriate level of challenge, and not enough on explaining how to achieve in-game consistency while doing so.

The monster manual does it better. If the DM wants to run an encounter with devils, he can pick imps at low levels and pit fiends at high levels. However, the DMG doesn't really go into why a low-level negotiation challenge has low DCs while a high-level negotiation challenge has high DCs. It basically leaves it up to the DM to come up with the explanation: perhaps at higher levels, the PCs need a bigger favor, the party they are negotiating with is more stubborn or less favorably disposed towards them, etc.

What's not clear is why x "failures" at any arbitrary portion(s) of the operation should render it impossible. Dropping bread on the floor has obvious consequences, perhaps mission critical if the supply of bread is not ample. Such situations, though, are unusual in this enterprise.

Again, this is an area that could do with more explanation in the DMG. The DM really ought to come up with a plausible reason why the PCs no longer have a realistic chance of succeeding (at least, through the use of non-violent means) when a skill challenge is failed, e.g. the bear is so infuriated that it attacks, the boat sinks, the Duke is angered and orders the PCs out of his presence, the PCs run into a patrol and are discovered, etc. If the PCs can just keep trying until they succeed, then the DM probably shouldn't be using the skill challenge mechanic in the first place!

The Skill Challenge rules are devoted to producing the same result. The suggested applicability of a wide range of skills not only "involves all the players" but -- given the array of numbers in a typical assortment of characters -- ensures that one skill challenge is much like another. Only the skill names associated with the numbers change.

I think this point is a trifle over-stated, though. Even in the sample negotiation skill challenge in the DMG, attempts to persuade the Duke through the use of Bluff, Diplomacy and Initmidate have varying results. A DM who wants to differentiate the skills further may also do so. Perhaps the Duke is particularly canny and Bluff checks have Hard DCs. Perhaps the Duke has a strong religious streak and a successful Religion check either earns the PCs a success or grants a bonus to subsequent Bluff and Diplomacy checks.

 

[LostSoul]

Most players probably know how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Some steps are optional (Toast the bread? Slice it?), and some can be done in different order (Spread peanut butter or jelly first?). One can recognize that some techniques might be more or less efficient. (Setting aside use of utterly inappropriate ones, it might make a difference if one were preparing multiple sandwiches at once.) It's common to have from first-hand experience a sense of how difficult the task should be.

Okay.

Most players probably don't know how to make a rope of climbing. (Yes, I mean players.)

Some steps are optional (infuse the rope with an animal spirit?) and some can be done in a different order (place the rope in a magic circle before binding it to its animating spirit).

One can recognize that some techniques might be more or less efficient (speaking baby-talk to the rope probably isn't going to do any good).

How difficult is the task? Well, a rope of climbing is a level 10 item; the skill challenge to make it is probably around the same level.

What's not clear is why x "failures" at any arbitrary portion(s) of the operation should render it impossible. Dropping bread on the floor has obvious consequences, perhaps mission critical if the supply of bread is not ample. Such situations, though, are unusual in this enterprise.

For my take on skill challenges - and this may or may not be WotC approved, but it fits with how they work - you need a conflict. That means two characters opposed to each other. (Yes, the rope was a character.)

The "x" successes before "y" failures mechanic determines the resilience of the opposing force.

Not that I suppose anyone is likely to run "making a PBJ" as a Skill Challenge! My point is to contrast the relevance of experience and common sense to that case with its irrelevance to your magical undertaking.

Now that the players have attempted such a task, they know it's possible in the future. The can weigh that option - including using Infernal powers to control it or sacrifices to awaken it - to undertake similar tasks in the future.

If that isn't players learning about the game world through experience, gaining knowledge to overcome challenges, I don't know what is.

That raises another problem with the 4E paradigm. If (per DMG p.42) swinging from a chandelier is an "easy" task, then what is the DC? Why, that depends on the level of the character attempting it -- so that experience never makes it any easier!

I agree with you there. That's why I use the NPC's defenses as the target DC.

The Skill Challenge rules are devoted to producing the same result. The suggested applicability of a wide range of skills not only "involves all the players" but -- given the array of numbers in a typical assortment of characters -- ensures that one skill challenge is much like another. Only the skill names associated with the numbers change.

And, of course, what actually happens in the game.

I don't have a problem with different tasks being assigned different difficulty levels, ie. different Levels.

There is no basis for any rational assessment of a situation apart from "meta-gaming" in the role-playing sense. By design, 4E depicts a world that mutably conforms to the nature of the player characters.

Situation: A blizzard has struck while you are trying to pass through a mountain range.

Do you think Diplomacy is going to work in this situation? If not, how is that not a rational assessment of the situation at hand?