D&D 5E Is there any 5e love for skill challenges??

[Tiles]

I’m a big fan of the 4e mechanic of skill challenges, I use them regularly in my 5e game to move the story and let the players discribe their characters. Anyone else?? I’m a little surprised they faded away!

 

[John Brebeuf]

Matthew Colville agrees. Skill Challenges! Running the Game #21

 

[Charlaquin]

I hated skill challenges in 4e, but that was in large part because I didn’t know how to run them well. In my defense, the books didn’t do a very good job of teaching DMs how to run them well. I’d like them more now, as a rough mechanical framework for non-combat encounters. But the thing is, I don’t think the game is well-served by thinking about encounters in terms of “combat encounters” and “non-combat encounters.” Ironically, now that I have the DMing skills to run skill challenges effectively, I also have less need of the type of framework they provide.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Er...hmmm...kinda sorta but not really?

I get the concept. I understand the desire for the designers of the game to try and impliment some sort of "skill importance" and then try to integrate that into the game mechanics. However, D&D, simply put, doesn't have that kind of "soul".

What I have considered doing, but haven't, is using the Masterbook RPG's "Deck" mechanics. Basically, there's a deck of cards. Each round a new card is flipped over. That card has stuff on it that can be used for 'advantages'. One of the aspects of the card is a sort of "Skill Progression" line. It has a letter on it. A, B, C, or D. The GM chooses a difficulty letter (A is dirt simple; D is REALLY difficult). A Player makes a skill roll and if he succeeds, he 'gets' that letter. Next round, a new card is flipped over. The next letter MUST be in the Skill Progression line. He rolls another skill check to 'get' that letter. Failure means the PC has to use a different skill to continue the task. Other PC's can take over with their skill in whatever makes sense for the situation.

Ex: A task to disable a trap where water is slowly filling a room and the door are locked in the process. The GM figures it's tricky...so sets it at C. In 6 rounds the whole room will be filled with water. Round one. Card flips up and has "A B" on it. The thief says he will use his "Mechanical Traps" to see if he can figure out how to slow the water or stop it from pouring in. He rolls, and succeeds. He has passed the "A" part. Round 2. New card flips up. It has "D" on it. No B, so this round the thief is still trying to figure out how to stop or reverse the trap. Round 3. New card flips up. It's got "A B" on it. The thief tries his Mechanical Traps again and fails. A dwarven fighter comes over and says "Let me try it!". He uses his "Stonework Traps". The GM lets this be used, but increases the difficulty number. The dwarf rolls and succeeds. The group now has A and B. Round 4, flips up a card, it's got "A B C D". Dwarf tries his skill again and fails. Thief pushes in, "I see what you're trying to do. Here, lets try this!" and uses his Engineering-Architecture skill. He rolls and fails. Next round, 5. New card flips up. It has A and C. Lucky! The dwarf tries a hail mary and just decides to use his Brute Strength skill to force the last mechanical lever down. He succeeds! He gets the C. The water stops and a few seconds later the water starts to drain out through holes in the floor.

That's the gist of it. The key things is that any PC can try and 'help' by using his/her own skill to accomplish a task. It can be a single PC or it can be the whole group. Other things can show up in the Skill Progression line, like "Complication"...where the DM can throw in something dramatic to spice things up! Maybe the thieves tools break or he drops them in the swirling water.

Honestly, one of the best things about the Masterbook system is the whole "Drama Deck" as it is called. You can also add in the "Plot Deck" where things that are strictly plot/story oriented can happen. It's a really fun system to play, and if I was to use any sort of "Skill Challenge" thing for 5e, I'd probably use this or something VERY similar. I like the idea, and the randomness of the flipping card and letter progression and that something 'else' can happen during the process...it just makes for a very fun and surprising play!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[rgoodbb]

If I were a DM when playing 4th, I might have found it OK as something to balance the combat, but back then I was a player only and I dreaded the time when the DM stated "OK. We're going to have a skill challenge." This wasn't because I needed more combat. (You got plenty of that) It just didn't feel right to me. So, no. Not really my thing. No love here.

 

[Maggie K]

I use skill challenges in my campaigns pretty regularly, but I make a point of not announcing them. Not announcing the skill challenge lets it flow more naturally - and in my experience also ramps up the tension. Saying "Okay guys, we're having a skill challenge. You need 4 successes before 3 failures to catch the bad guy before it gets away" puts the players attention on the number of successes/failures they has instead on the narrative. If, instead, you say "The bad guy darts off into the crowd and you're in danger of losing him for good. How do you catch him?" They have no idea how many successes they need or how close they are to failing their mission, and they're forced to actually do things in character instead of just, say, rolling acrobatics.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I’m a big fan of the 4e mechanic of skill challenges, I use them regularly in my 5e game to move the story and let the players discribe their characters. Anyone else?? I’m a little surprised they faded away!

I guess it really depends on how you define it. I have nothing against the idea of resolving a significant problem, or even an entire quest, through just skill checks. Based on my limited experience with skill challenges in 4E, though, framing it as a skill challenge causes more trouble than it's worth.

The big issue, at least as far as I saw it, was that there wasn't a very strong link between the check being made and what was happening within the narrative. Like, outside of a skill challenge, you can just try to do a thing, and depending on your check result you will either succeed or fail. Inside of a skill challenge, it depends on what your long-term goal for the skill challenge is supposed to be, and the check result just provides some measure of abstract progress toward that goal, but it doesn't necessarily correspond to anything on its own.

I'm prepared for people to tell me that we were doing it wrong, because it honestly seemed like we were missing out on something, but I have no clue what it might be. I guess my question to you is, what's the benefit to framing a task as a skill challenge with a formal goal, rather than just resolving each component action as it happens?

 

[Raith5]

I use skill challenges in my campaigns pretty regularly, but I make a point of not announcing them. Not announcing the skill challenge lets it flow more naturally - and in my experience also ramps up the tension. Saying "Okay guys, we're having a skill challenge. You need 4 successes before 3 failures to catch the bad guy before it gets away" puts the players attention on the number of successes/failures they has instead on the narrative. If, instead, you say "The bad guy darts off into the crowd and you're in danger of losing him for good. How do you catch him?" They have no idea how many successes they need or how close they are to failing their mission, and they're forced to actually do things in character instead of just, say, rolling acrobatics.

Agree exactly with this. We used SC in a 4e campaign from 1st to 30th level and they were an important way to push the story forward (often in ways not intended by either us or the DM) in both diplomatic and (especially) exploration contexts. While sometimes we meta gamed and cottoned on that a SC was happening, they work best when you organically roleplay. They play a really interesting role in building the pressure up for bad skill checks: where the consequences of failure was damage, healing surges/HD, resources, or of course fighting a combat you want to avoid.

Sure the 4e rules on SC were not especially clear (like other things of the edition), but SC is just a consequence framework which the DM uses to give skills a place to shine. I think they are worth a try in 5e.

 

[Maggie K]

I'm prepared for people to tell me that we were doing it wrong, because it honestly seemed like we were missing out on something, but I have no clue what it might be. I guess my question to you is, what's the benefit to framing a task as a skill challenge with a formal goal, rather than just resolving each component action as it happens?

Honestly, that's entirely up to your narrative and your DM style. For myself, I've always liked skill challenges because they give my players a clear goal to work towards. Now I have to point out again that, like I said above, I've never been one to say "Hey guys we're having a skill challenge now!" so much as I use them to urge the plot along and build tension. And as an added bonus they keep the both the goal and the way to achieve it clear, which makes life much easier for me as DM.

 

[Shiroiken]

The concept of skill challenges is fine, but I have yet to see an implementation of them that doesn't suck. Either 1-2 PCs dominate the challenge, or you force characters to engage in the challenge, even if they have no reason to. The latter option is particularly painful for less social players (called Watchers in 4E), because they are supposed to engage in the narrative, which they are not comfortable with.