How Do You Narrate/Present Skill Challenges

[Mallus]

If monsters are going to act like people, might as well just use people. If you want a monster, there should be a reason why it's a monster.

Nitpick: isn't part of the reason people create fantasy stories so they can make monsters stand in for people? It's done to exaggerate characteristics and to literalize/concretize metaphors.

As for Skill Challenges... we 1) declare them openly (because this is still our 'playtest' campaign), 2) use them primarily to resolve player-created plans (and I use the term 'plan' loosely), and 3) try to make them more interactive (ie, each success or failure changes what's going on in the scene, and thus suggests which skill(s) should be used next. We're trying to avoid just rolling checks in any order.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Nitpick: isn't part of the reason people create fantasy stories so they can make monsters stand in for people? It's done to exaggerate characteristics and to literalize/concretize metaphors.

I agree. Orcs are just violent, angry, impatient, strong, tribal people, but still think like humans who all have those traits. The thing about monsters is that you can generalize an entire race without being racist(well, technically, you ARE being racist, but it doesn't offend anyone because you are being racist towards an imaginary race).

My dragons think and act the same way I imagine a human who was arrogant, greedy, overconfident, extremely powerful, and immortal would act like.

In fact, a lot of the reasons that monsters are so human like is so that we can see our bad traits reflected in them. It teaches us a lesson about ourselves.

 

[CharlesRyan]

"OK, this is a skill challenge. The primary skills are blah, blah, and blah. Figure out who's best at those skills and have them roll a bunch of skill checks. Everyone else, sit back and watch. If you get really bored, you can tell me that you want to use another skill, and I'll decide if it's kosher."

Something like that. Because for all the anticipation of the skill challenge system, that's what it seems to have boiled down to. There's little complexity and pretty much nothing dynamic.

Wow. Guess you get what you pay for.

I look at skill challenges as a way for the players to help shape how things unfold. I announce that a skill challenge has started, and, if the goal isn't obvious, we have a brief discussion of what the goal is and what the consequences of failure are. Then I invite the players to start suggesting solutions.

I might have a few key skills in mind, and even have a few specifics noted. ("If they do X (use skill Y or Z), they get two successes and a bonus on D.") But otherwise it's freeform. I don't create a list of specific skills/tasks, because I find that turns it into too much of a guessing game for the players, as they try to suss out the "right" solutions. I don't force each player to act in turn, though I do ensure that each player contributes. I do allow (and expect) as much roleplaying as is appropriate between each skill check.

What I love about skill challenges is:

• The players come up with solutions I never would have thought of
• The challenge often creates unforeseen secondary consequences that keep the game interesting
• Challenges allow for noncombat scenes to have the sort of weight and drama that you traditionally only see in combat scenes

So my experience is pretty much the opposite: What I get is complexity and a dynamic game. But I can see how you got to your position based on the RAW and the presentation of skill challenges in published adventures.

 

[op1983]

I tried a game where we announced with skill challenge, but either I didn't pull it off right as the GM or the players weren't interested in the format. In either case, it wasn't very enjoyable that way for my group.

In another game a skill challenge came up where I never announced the challenge. It seemed to work better this way for my group. Other than saying these are the main skills this other skills can do this they just started doing things and I did my GM stuff behind the screen.

I suppose mostly it depends on the group. The "Skill Challenge" is something that's been around and been used for quite a while. Now it has been given a name and something of a formal format. I don't believe it really needed to have a format the way it is, but I do appreciate the effort made to try to get more GMs to incorperate skills into games. To me the skills are as much a part of the character as anything else. So when GMs don't bother using any skills in a game it bugs me.

 

[Jack7]

I agree. Orcs are just violent, angry, impatient, strong, tribal people, but still think like humans who all have those traits. The thing about monsters is that you can generalize an entire race without being racist(well, technically, you ARE being racist, but it doesn't offend anyone because you are being racist towards an imaginary race).

My dragons think and act the same way I imagine a human who was arrogant, greedy, overconfident, extremely powerful, and immortal would act like.

In fact, a lot of the reasons that monsters are so human like is so that we can see our bad traits reflected in them. It teaches us a lesson about ourselves.

I think here you have to define your terms by what is meant by human.

For instance normal human behavior typically excludes the types of behavior that was typically evidenced by the worst, or maybe even the average, among the Gestapo and the SS.

Serial killers and those who violently rape and torture and murder are often referred to both figuratively and literally as "inhuman." Because those types of behavioral traits fall so far outside the norm of typical human behavior that it is often impossible for most people to really imagine motivations that make people enjoy slaughtering and dissecting and experimenting upon another person.

Those kinds of traits are indeed evidenced by some people, but their "normality" is considered so bizarre and abnormal as to be "monstrous." Indeed that is one of the very definitions of "monstrous," a human who acts as if he is not.

So I agree that monsters should be a sort of reflection of the worst in men, then again the worst in men can sometimes be so bad that it is completely alien to the rest of us. And that is as it should be I think.
And that is exactly what I mean by monsters being monsters, instead of just human-like.
Well, that's one thing I mean.

The second thing is that I just can't imagine a dragon, possessed of a dragon body, and a dragon mind and mind-set, and dragon senses, perceiving and interpreting the world in the same way people do, and therefore he would likely not behave like a person at all.

It would be as if a Polar Bear possessed human intelligence, or equivalent human intelligence I should say, and yet still possessed of a normal polar bear body, and senses, and view of the world.

Yes, there would perhaps be areas of behavior in which such a bear closely mimicked some human actions. But can one really imagine the bear going to the opera, hanging out at the mall, reading a book, or watching Lost. Would that be what really interested the bear (well, indeed, he might like watching Lost, he is intelligent after all), or despite his intelligence would he still be far more interested in being a bear than a man just because he is as intelligent as a man?

I suspect that even the bear with the mind of a man, so to speak, would still be a bear and not a man.
And would act that way. Within bear reason of course.

And the real dragon, especially the evil one, would not make much of a man either, though he might learn to think more like one if he thought it gave him a killing advantage over them.

 

[grickherder]

In fact, a lot of the reasons that monsters are so human like is so that we can see our bad traits reflected in them. It teaches us a lesson about ourselves.

I don't play D&D for this. Nor do I run it for this. D&D isn't about exploring the themes of what it means to be human. Sure, stuff like that can be tacked on, but it'll be tacked on with about the same amount of depth/seriousness as tacking it on to an action movie or a kung fu movie.

In the games I run, monsters are monstrous. I'm not looking to find myself in the orc chietan character.

 

[bert1000]

I think you can run skill challenges effectively with both a more explicit and less explicit method (I prefer less explicit, except in goal setting).

However, I think the big innovation that can be brought about by skill challenges is to explicitly give players and GMs a different level of game play.

Most of the D&D games I used to play in the 80s/90s used 2 methods to run non-combat encounters:

1) player description (micro and macro) with DM fiat to determine results
2) micro-level description and dice rolling, DM fiat to determine ultimate success/end of effort for mutiple linked actions

Although not invented by the 4e skill challenge, it highlights another level of game play maybe as not widely used by the D&D crowd:

3) the abstracted scene with character abilities determining a portion of success/failure and a pre-determined success mechanic

If players realize that #3 is available to them, then you get another viable option for action resolution, which is always a good thing for me.

Some examples:

The players are trying to get out of a cave after a cave-in in order to pursue a villain that escaped.

Method #2 might involve very specific "1 round" type actions spelled out by the player (e.g., I try to move some of the rubble in the NW corner") and some dice rolling to determine if that specific action succeeds or not. All of these specific actions would determine success and the DM has a lot of control on when to stop asking for actions.

Method #3 allows the players to state "We going to try and get out of this cave as quickly as possible so we can catch the villain". Now, this creates a more abstract scene of linked actions (although with a clear goal). Each action can represent rounds, minutes, days, etc. as fitting the scene.

If players really get the advantages and disadvantages of method #3, then they can help initiate the most fun vehicle to resolve the action. For instance, say a party is riding with a caravan of farmers and a group of brigands blocks the way. Instead of starting off with a micro action, the players could say "We’re going to try and talk the brigands into leaving us alone (goal). First, as I approach the leader, I make sure to brush my cloak aside and reveal my scabbard with the Duke's coat of arms (intimidate check)..."

Players begin to think about linked actions toward a common goal, and beyond 1-round micro actions to the concept of a "scene".