IG's Scales of War [OOC]

[industrygothica]

I'll agree with Shayuri on the well and truly butchered part...

I didn't require everyone to roll initiative because not everyone HAS to act in a skill challenge. I can see now how that was a bad idea.

So let's do it this way:

Roll initiative.

High initiative makes skill check in OOC thread.
Subsequent initiatives can either aid a previous PC's check, or try for one of their own... or pass if they have nothing to add that round.

We'll resolve it round by round in the OOC thread, and I'll update each round individually in the IC thread.

Example:

Stonegod uses insight and fails by 3.
Shayuri aids Stonegad and passes, making his check only short by 1.
The Digger hammers the point home with another aid another check and passes, adding another +2 to Stonegod's check, this gaining a success by 1 point.

I think there is a maximum of 2 aid another attempts, so if the Digger's or Shayuri's aid attempt had failed, Stonegod would have earned a failure for the check.

Someone please tell me that makes sense. If we do it in initiative order AND go ahead and make the checks, each subsequent participant will know what they need to do to gain a success. I think...

 

[Erekose13]

Sounds like a plan. Reading over the group skill checks section of the DMG it looks like up to 4 people can contribute to the success of a lead character's attempts.

 

[Shayuri]

...I don't think I see the logic of using initiative.

Suppose I go first, but I don't want to use a skill. I might want to aid another, but since I'm going first I don't know what anyone else is doing. Where does that leave me? I just wait for the next turn?

I was thinking we should all, OOC, confer and decide who's doing what...be it rolling a skill or aiding or using another skill...or what. We do that for each 'pass,' or round or however time in skill challenges is accounted for. We all decide what we're all going to do, then when we're in agreement, the rolls are made.

But whatever. If people like initiative, fine. As long as we're consistant.

 

[industrygothica]

...I don't think I see the logic of using initiative.

Suppose I go first, but I don't want to use a skill. I might want to aid another, but since I'm going first I don't know what anyone else is doing. Where does that leave me? I just wait for the next turn?

I was thinking we should all, OOC, confer and decide who's doing what...be it rolling a skill or aiding or using another skill...or what. We do that for each 'pass,' or round or however time in skill challenges is accounted for. We all decide what we're all going to do, then when we're in agreement, the rolls are made.

But whatever. If people like initiative, fine. As long as we're consistant.

I figure that initiative will give us somewhere to start, at least. If you're on top in initiative and don't want to make the check, I suppose you can delay and let someone else do the talking, and then aid them if they need it.

Let's try it this way and see how it goes, otherwise we're not going to get anywhere. On that note, here's the initiative order:

23 Peregrine
20 Brega
18 Elias
10 Aliyas
4 Jormund

 

[Erekose13]

with no appreciable social skills, Brega can try an untrained aid another insight at +3 or cha-based skill at +0. Given that I think its a bit silly for a bunch of us to try insight, I'll go with a cha-based skill this round. So the first person who uses a bluff, diplomacy or intimidate gets a +2 (aid another, cha-based (1d20=11))

 

[stonegod]

So, we have one insight and one diplomacy success? What did Insight give us? Diplomacy gave us the possible history bonus.

 

[industrygothica]

So, we have one insight and one diplomacy success? What did Insight give us? Diplomacy gave us the possible history bonus.

Nobody's succeeded on an insight check yet. The example I used above was just that: an example to hopefully demonstrate what I was talking about.

 

[The Digger]

I suggest we do need the DC of the challenge to speed things up so for this example I'll suggest DC 15. Then something like the following:

Pre-challenge: IG gives relevant skill tests e.g. Diplomacy, Streetwise, Religion, Arcana and Insight.

23 Peregrine: Opts for Diplomacy;
20 Brega: Opts to roll Aid another on Wisdom-or Cha-based skill
18 Elias Opts to Aid another on Int-based skills
10 Aliyas Opts for Arcana
4 Jormund Opts for Insight

Peregrine rolls and succeeds
Brega waits
Elias waits
Aliyas rolls 14 for Arcana - fail: Elias rolls to Aid, rolls 12; adds 2 to Aliyas' roll - success.
Jormund rolls 10 for Insight - fail; Brega's Aid won't help so one failure

etc etc

 

[Shayuri]

Leaving aside the question of mechanics, which I think has been haggled out nicely, I am curious to see what people think of the following dichotomy:

Skill Challenge vs Roleplaying.

Is it a false one? I know I've often pointed out that a combat encounter doesn't preclude roleplaying, and the same could be said of a Skill Challenge.

I know that in this latest, aborted, Skill Challenge though, I felt a perhaps irrational aversion to posting anything. Lacking any of the crucial skills, I felt as though I couldn't contribute...even though this introduction would be a logical point to at least identify myself and offer a generic platitude of support.

I like the idea of adding a game mechanic to areas of the game that had traditionally been totally freeform, if only because that allows rewards to be fairly granted according to a framework of rules. But I'm not sure I like the implementation of that idea. The mechanic seems very weighted towards failure, which discourages people from involving themselves in any but the most trivial of ways unless they're specialists in the skills in question.

What do you guys think?

 

[Erekose13]

With the restructured skill challenge DCs 5=easy/10=moderate/15=hard, I don't think Skill challenges are weighted to fail at all. In fact with these changes I think they are almost too easy. I've yet to see one fail in pbp (granted I think I've only read about 5). The one I ran in my face to face group with the old numbers (7/14/21) failed but the PCs didnt work together at all and all tried untrained checks. When constructing a skill challenge a DM should be encouraged to allow an avenue for all characters to participate. So a social challenge should have at least one success be available for every character. Whether that character makes the roll in the end is different.

I am a big supporter of them, but do see the problems inherent in pulling people out of the roleplaying they are used to in these situations and forcing them to play it in order making skill checks all along. I think that difficulty is all the more evident in social skill challenges where before a character would be inclined to speak his mind and directly add to the conversation, those without the skills sit in the background and offer aid another points. I think the solution is somewhere between IG's ooc mechanic and people posting what they want to say with every skill check (including aid another). That way it might be possible for a DM to be more apparent when reward the success of all skill rolls including the small ones.