Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 4520878" data-attributes="member: 78752">Tried to post this the other day and the Internet decided I was not worthy.  Most of what I say has already been said, but it seems a terrible waste to just throw out the post.  Hopefully I hit on something new that is of some use. It seems to me that Skill Challenges ought to be called "Skill Solutions," because they don't actually provide the dungeon master with a challenge to present his players.  The nature of the challenge is still up to the dungeon master to devise, as it has always been.  What Skill Challenges provide is a form of resolution, which is ludicrous, because resolving challenges is and has always been the players' responsibility -- that's why D&D is a game, and not collaborative storytelling. The core problem with Skill Challenges is that they expect the players to guess what skills the author of the challenge has decided will be useful.  Take the encounter with Sir Keegan in Keep on the Shadowfell, for instance.  At one point, he outright asks the character with the highest skill rating in Arcana (how he knows is anybody's guess) if they are magically up to the task of sealing the rift.  The player's answer is immaterial -- the rules tell you to have them make an Arcana check.  An Arcana check?  Why not a Diplomacy check, or a Bluff check?  What does the Arcana skill have to do with an expression of confidence?  Does the character whip out his laptop and generate a quick PowerPoint presentation on the theory and practice of rift closing? This is an excellent example of how NOT to run a Skill Challenge, but it is pretty much how the ROW tells you to do it.   You absolutely cannot tell a player, "You can make a timely reference to a battle the king fought in during the revolution if you make a History check now."  You also can't list what skills would be appropriate to a given situation and have them pick the one they're best at, and then dictate the results.  This is Dungeon Mastery 101 stuff.  The only time it is ever acceptable for a dungeon master to order a skill check is when the need is clear and present, which generally means the player has initiated some kind of difficult action on their own, and has either suggested a skill check or expects you to call for one.  Anything else is leading the players. In my opinion, the only good way to run a Skill Challenge is to not run a Skill Challenge.  Put the party in a challenging situation that will require them to use their skills, and when they suggest making a skill check, take the results into consideration as the encounter develops.  Ignore the numbers given in the DMG and in the errata for required successes and allowable failures (and in many cases, even their suggested DCs).  If you keep demanding skill checks from the players after they feel they've made enough, it starts to look fishy.  You have to play it by ear.  Sometimes, diplomatic encounters are best handled by a single character who is trained in social graces, and frequently the other players are more than happy to just stay out of his way.  If the party is facing a challenge that they must all defeat, asking for multiple checks from each player is going to sound to them like you're angling for them to fail, which you are, when it comes right down to it. In short, Skill Challenges take control of the players' characters out of their hands.  It is a player's right to decide what actions and words their character is going to use, and while it is the dungeon master's job to know which skill checks best exemplify those words and actions in game mechanics, without the benefit of precognition dungeon masters can't plan out a list of skills that are "acceptable" in a given conflict or a number of times those skills must be successful in order for the victory conditions to be met.  If they do, that's called railroading.  That's pretty basic, and it terrifies me that Wizards missed it.</blockquote>

Verification