WampusCat43
Explorer
Well put. This is an excellent thread. I've had mixed success with these things so far, and it's good to see other people's slant on it.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How do you present your Skill Challenges
- Thread starter RavenSinger
- Start date
Actually, this sounds to me like a fascinating idea for a low-level skill challenge.
The player needs to meet a certain threshold to convince the merchant to lower the price on a purchase by a meaningful amount. At any time the player can back out of the challenge and buy the item(s) at full normal price. If he reaches the 3 failures (or whatever) before reaching enough successes, the merchant is fed up and stops bargaining with you. Get to the end and you earn a (partial?) treasure parcel (a GP discount on the item(s) in question) and some XP.
Definitely not the sort of thing I'd do all the time, but as an occasional roleplay diversion or in a one-on-one session it might work okay.
I really dislike the skill challenge mechanic in general, but one thing that I've noticed even more than usual disappointment with is high complexity diplomatic challenges. 12 successes required, we get to like 6, and we're starting to rehash a bunch of stuff we've already said. At some point, the players and judge are exasperated and the judge will just cut to the chase with something like, "Look, you need 6 more successes, just roll a bunch of diplomacy checks already." Help?
Recommendation to the DM: don't use high complexity challenges unless you have a lot to back them up with.
For example, a challenge that requires you to negotiate with three different counselors before you're even allowed to see the king, (whom you then must convince in the alloted time).
This way, even if the characters do end up repeating themselves, they're at least interacting with different NPCs (who may each have their own particular concerns that need to be placated).
DMZ2112
Chaotic Looseleaf
Railroading has many faces, and quite a few of them are not this overt.
This is an example of what I consider to be railroading. If the dungeon master was not following a script and he continued to require diplomacy checks for no apparent reason long after the player-characters considered the negotiation successful, the players would cry foul and claim he was trying to force a result. I don't understand why the simple addition of a bad script makes this activity acceptable. Call it something other than railroading if you like -- it is still bad dungeon mastery built into the RAW.
You put forth a lot of good strategies for adapting Wizards' RAW and making Skill Challenges work. But this point, and many of the others you make, are direct contradictions to the RAW. The RAW is clear that Skill Challenges are not meant to be failed. The RAW actually use climbing a wall as an explicit example of the Skill Challenge mechanic. Etcetera. I am 100% in agreement with you on your points, but what you are positing is just about as radical a departure from the RAW as I recommended in my post.
This is excellent advice.
Mathew_Freeman
First Post
Emphasis mine.
I don't have my DMG on me at the moment - but I'd like to see an actual quote from it where it states that "skill challenges aren't meant to be failed", as that seems like a very strange idea.
Skill challenges are exactly that - challenges. A challenge can be passed or failed, with consequences for each. IIRC, the DMG mentions that failing a skill challenge shouldn't mean the PC's are stuck - it means that they face an additional penalty before achieving their goal.
Example:
Lost in the wilderness skill challenge. Success = you find your way to where you want to go. Failure = you find your way, but arrive tired, thirsty and take longer to get there.
RavenSinger
First Post
Skill Challenges vs. Combat Encounters
Agreed. In a skill challenge, there must be a way for the story to continue even if the party "fails". This point was lost on me for the first couple of times I designed challenges, because in the core books so much emphasis is put on skill challenges carrying the same weight as combat, and running like combat. And the result was some extremely mediocre gameplay. This misconeption is understandable because (I think) the authors of the core books wanted to give tools to DMs who run roleplay-heavy campaigns, and to play up the idea that encounters that involve a series of skill checks can be just as fun as a battle vs. the beastie of the week. And I, for one, appreciate this effort.
But this effort has lead to a misconception that skill challenge = combat encounter. Certainly now in 4E there are more similarities between combat and skill challenge. But what I have found, is that there are some essential differences between designing good skill challenges, and designing good combat encounters.
I think a skill challenge is much more of a story telling device than a combat encounter. It reminds me of the (very) few times I played in a White Wolf setting, where each character describes what they are going to do, and then the GM would "translate" that into a game mechanic which led to a rolling of dice to determine a result (be that success or failure or something in between). Because the format of the encounter is less formal, I think that it is better if the potential results of such an encounter are also less formal. So, in my games, I don't think you will ever come across a skill challenge that would result in any character death, though injury (loss of healing surges, mild to moderate poisoning, etc.) is possible. Further, I don't think I would design a skill challenge that is at a "bottle neck" in the story line (i.e. you must succeed at the challenge otherwise there is no way for the story to continue), or have them be a climax of an adventure. Skill challenges should be a chance for players to "open up their bag of tricks" to find possible solutions. This is not to say there would not be serious consequences for a skill challenge failure, but the consequences are in what the next combat encounter will be, and/or the amount of key information a party has when they enter the next combat encounter.
By contrast, I think combat encounters are much more formal, and are naturally much more of the board-game aspect to D&D (as opposed to the cooperative storytelling outlined above). Combat has *many* more rules governing and defining specific actions and results (one of which is PC death). Those rules are available to all, and should be understood by all. Therefore, because there is more knowledge (and preparation) on the part of the players for the combat encounter situation, I feel much more at liberty to use all those rules to the best advantage of the party's enemies. And if the result is PC death, then that is part of the game.
So, IMHO, the consequences for failure at a skill challenge should not be as catostrophic as the consequences to failure at a combat encounter. For me, the excitement of a skill challenge comes from being able to use your skills in new and exciting ways. The excitement from a combat comes from the mortal peril your PC is in, and the potential to lose everything.
My 1d4 cents,
RS
Agreed. In a skill challenge, there must be a way for the story to continue even if the party "fails". This point was lost on me for the first couple of times I designed challenges, because in the core books so much emphasis is put on skill challenges carrying the same weight as combat, and running like combat. And the result was some extremely mediocre gameplay. This misconeption is understandable because (I think) the authors of the core books wanted to give tools to DMs who run roleplay-heavy campaigns, and to play up the idea that encounters that involve a series of skill checks can be just as fun as a battle vs. the beastie of the week. And I, for one, appreciate this effort.
But this effort has lead to a misconception that skill challenge = combat encounter. Certainly now in 4E there are more similarities between combat and skill challenge. But what I have found, is that there are some essential differences between designing good skill challenges, and designing good combat encounters.
I think a skill challenge is much more of a story telling device than a combat encounter. It reminds me of the (very) few times I played in a White Wolf setting, where each character describes what they are going to do, and then the GM would "translate" that into a game mechanic which led to a rolling of dice to determine a result (be that success or failure or something in between). Because the format of the encounter is less formal, I think that it is better if the potential results of such an encounter are also less formal. So, in my games, I don't think you will ever come across a skill challenge that would result in any character death, though injury (loss of healing surges, mild to moderate poisoning, etc.) is possible. Further, I don't think I would design a skill challenge that is at a "bottle neck" in the story line (i.e. you must succeed at the challenge otherwise there is no way for the story to continue), or have them be a climax of an adventure. Skill challenges should be a chance for players to "open up their bag of tricks" to find possible solutions. This is not to say there would not be serious consequences for a skill challenge failure, but the consequences are in what the next combat encounter will be, and/or the amount of key information a party has when they enter the next combat encounter.
By contrast, I think combat encounters are much more formal, and are naturally much more of the board-game aspect to D&D (as opposed to the cooperative storytelling outlined above). Combat has *many* more rules governing and defining specific actions and results (one of which is PC death). Those rules are available to all, and should be understood by all. Therefore, because there is more knowledge (and preparation) on the part of the players for the combat encounter situation, I feel much more at liberty to use all those rules to the best advantage of the party's enemies. And if the result is PC death, then that is part of the game.
So, IMHO, the consequences for failure at a skill challenge should not be as catostrophic as the consequences to failure at a combat encounter. For me, the excitement of a skill challenge comes from being able to use your skills in new and exciting ways. The excitement from a combat comes from the mortal peril your PC is in, and the potential to lose everything.
My 1d4 cents,
RS
I started introducing skill challenges by stopping the game and describing everything about them and then saying go. The better roleplayers asked for it to be more natural. I think as DM you have to make sure your players know how to conduct a skill challenge, we take for granted that players know how to conduct a combat encounter. So for me, this obvious and explicit approach was a great start.
I won't bring up skill challenge DCs or all the other skill challenge argumentes, but I think the best thing about the updated skill challenge is the 3 failures. This way the party doesn't need to know complexities or levels, just that 3 failures will always be a challenge failure.
I will bring up one house rule, we play that a failed assist or aid results in a -2 just as a success results in a +2. This makes all the roles count, adding tension to every players turn.
I focused on the word natural, and it has worked out great! The party knows there will be skill challenges in my campaign, so after a clear theivery check success I say, "You have managed to loosen the cogs of the trap, but it will require some more work to disable it entirely." Then the rogue knows what's going on.
I suggest using skills that open other skills, like in the DMG examples. Making the first obvious check lets the party know they can try something maybe not so obvious. And even if you say "magic" 20 times describing the trap, after a round or two you can just tell the wizard an arcana check would also help.
We use initiative cards, and I use them in skill challenges too. It helps each player get their fair turn and we play they can delay and ready, which is more of a initiative mechanic than anything else.
My players say I describe success and failures pretty clearly. But they never have the same success/failure amounts that I have, so on a success, I "ding" like when the airport PA comes on and on a failure I shake my head side to side until everyone sees.
You'll do great if you just play the skill challenge the same way you do everything else. If you start a combat encounter with lots of flavor information, start your challenges that way. If you start an encounter with detailed mechanic information, you can start your challenge that way. I like to start an encounter with, "The elf ranger spots fey panthers approaching the party from two sides, Elf ranger it's your turn what would you like to do?" And then the players ask the questions they want to ask and I volunteer information I think they will need and we go turn by turn, round by round.
Skill challenges are really fun, you have 30 levels to find the style you and your players enjoy.
I won't bring up skill challenge DCs or all the other skill challenge argumentes, but I think the best thing about the updated skill challenge is the 3 failures. This way the party doesn't need to know complexities or levels, just that 3 failures will always be a challenge failure.
I will bring up one house rule, we play that a failed assist or aid results in a -2 just as a success results in a +2. This makes all the roles count, adding tension to every players turn.
I focused on the word natural, and it has worked out great! The party knows there will be skill challenges in my campaign, so after a clear theivery check success I say, "You have managed to loosen the cogs of the trap, but it will require some more work to disable it entirely." Then the rogue knows what's going on.
I suggest using skills that open other skills, like in the DMG examples. Making the first obvious check lets the party know they can try something maybe not so obvious. And even if you say "magic" 20 times describing the trap, after a round or two you can just tell the wizard an arcana check would also help.
We use initiative cards, and I use them in skill challenges too. It helps each player get their fair turn and we play they can delay and ready, which is more of a initiative mechanic than anything else.
My players say I describe success and failures pretty clearly. But they never have the same success/failure amounts that I have, so on a success, I "ding" like when the airport PA comes on and on a failure I shake my head side to side until everyone sees.
You'll do great if you just play the skill challenge the same way you do everything else. If you start a combat encounter with lots of flavor information, start your challenges that way. If you start an encounter with detailed mechanic information, you can start your challenge that way. I like to start an encounter with, "The elf ranger spots fey panthers approaching the party from two sides, Elf ranger it's your turn what would you like to do?" And then the players ask the questions they want to ask and I volunteer information I think they will need and we go turn by turn, round by round.
Skill challenges are really fun, you have 30 levels to find the style you and your players enjoy.
Hadrian the Builder
First Post
Wow, I'm surprised that no one has brought up Stalker0's two skill challenge systems. One fixes the WoTC system, and the other (Obsidian) is his own.
I've been running his obsidian system in my weekly game while trying to "find my feet" with the skill challenge system.
Like several others here, I've decided that I do not like to announce skill challenges explicitly. Instead (and this is really easy with Obsidian), when they get to the challenge, I just make sure I ask each player what they are doing, let them roll a skill check, and I quickly jot down a "hack" for a success. Then I deal with a little bit of narrative for that player and move around the table. Once it come around to me, I describe what has happened overall and what resulted, and then I move to round 2...etc...
To my players, it appears that I am asking each player what he's doing, giving equal chance at participation, and after I have been around the table once, I describe the altered circumstances, and I go around again. Failure, partial victory, and success are not announced; instead, I move the story along whatever branch they ended up on.
I've been running his obsidian system in my weekly game while trying to "find my feet" with the skill challenge system.
Like several others here, I've decided that I do not like to announce skill challenges explicitly. Instead (and this is really easy with Obsidian), when they get to the challenge, I just make sure I ask each player what they are doing, let them roll a skill check, and I quickly jot down a "hack" for a success. Then I deal with a little bit of narrative for that player and move around the table. Once it come around to me, I describe what has happened overall and what resulted, and then I move to round 2...etc...
To my players, it appears that I am asking each player what he's doing, giving equal chance at participation, and after I have been around the table once, I describe the altered circumstances, and I go around again. Failure, partial victory, and success are not announced; instead, I move the story along whatever branch they ended up on.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
First off, those two example skill challenges were awesome. Sometimes examples of skill challenges that I read about make me unenthused about them but those examples make me love the skill challenge concept.
As for failures for the investigation skill challenge, maybe they could provide the group with red herrings. If the group follows those red herrings that could lead them to another investigative skill challenge to debunk the red herrings (if the challenge succeeds) or confirm their suspicions (if the challenge fails).
Similar Threads
