I think one of the (many) pitfalls of the skill challenge system is that puts skills in a very limited box. It says, "PCs can use Diplomacy to convince the duke that this is a bad idea for one success." They can't turn the entire scene into a diplomatic scene because... um, because the skill challenge isn't written that way.
<snip>
Once, I was playing in a campaign with an otherwise very good DM. I was playing a Genasi Swordmage with a very strong lightning and storms theme. We encountered a trap that was basically massive static charges flinging from one rock to the next. We had to figure out how to disarm it so we could safely rest in the area.
I asked the DM if, being an elemental being of lightning, I could use Endurance to try to simply absorb the shock. "No," he told me.
"Okay," I said, "can I use Arcana to try and nullify the energy?"
"No," he told me.
And then the halfling monk said, "I use Thievery," and he rolled a 16, and the DM said, "You succeed."
I don't see this as an objection to skill challenges. I see it as evidence that, at least in this domain, the GM in question was not very good.
The rulebooks are fairly clear. From the PHB p 259:
Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…
From the DMG pp 73-75:
Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results...
When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…
In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth…
However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing …
The GM, in adjudicating the skill challenge as you describe, was not following these guidelines, which make it clear that the GM's (or module author's) description of the skill challenge is merely a type of preliminary guide to how the challenge might unfold - your GM was himself not thinking about the challenge in depth, nor thinking about how the skill checks are grounded in actions that make sense given the situation.
This system does have the advantage of narrative coherence, although it directs the player's skill into narrating actions consistent with the dice. I like this sort of approach for when there is no in-game detail for the players to analyze.
<snip>
In contrast, when the PCs are trying to persuade a fully developed NPC, that character's motivations, loyalties are quirks are things that the players actually have information about. Reducing interaction with that character to a die roll seems like it loses a great opportunity. Instead, I want the players to think about what sorts of arguments that NPC would find persuasive, and I want to provide major adjustments (or auto-successes) to reflect that player consideration of the game world.
To me, what you're describing here is one sort of difference between when a single skill check is appropriate to resolve a situation, and when a skill challenge is appropriate. (A bit like the difference in HeroQuest between simple and extended contests.) In the latter case, just rolling and then narrating to fit the roll isn't enough - as the guidelines in the PHB and DMG indicate, the player has to describe in advance of the roll what it is that his/her PC is attempting. Without this the GM can't adjudicate consequences, which then leads to the sort of silliness that Kinneus is complaining about.
There is nothing prohibited in roll first with setting the scene, being clever, etc. The players are free to eke out as much advantage as they can, using whatever information they have, up to the limits of what the table will tolerate.
<snip>
Then they roll. Then they narrate the result.
<snip>
The method depends on the DM having a clear understanding of the differences between roleplaying that happens leading up to a mechanical decision point, versus the narration that may follow that decision point. And of course, in smooth play, the narration seems to bleed into the roleplaying for the next decision point.
Which is why "roll first, roleplay after" is correct, but probably a bit of a sloppy way of putting it.
This makes sense, although I think the general tenor of the rulebooks is that it is the GM rather than the player who has principal responsbility for narrating the result (but obviously having due regard to the player's prior roleplaying).
even when roleplay for advantage (or mere color or otherwise) is tightly mixed in with roleplay via narration, they are still separate activities in my mind.
I agree - which I think is reflected in the implicit distribution of responsibility in the 4e rules (players have primary responsibility for the former, GMs for the latter).
One weakness in the published examples of skill challenges (which is not present in the skill challenge rules themselves) is that they don't sufficiently distinguish these two things - so that in suggesting to the GM how s/he might narrate a result
given a certain prior player roleplaying decision, they are taken by some as also licensing the GM to dictate those prior roleplaying decisions. Dismabiguating this in the examples would, I believe, have saved WotC a lot of grief with respect to skill challenges.
I don't have set decision points in mind.
<snip>
Rather, I'm reacting to the scene as it is being roleplayed, recognizing that a decision point is being reached, setting the DC appropriately (much as Abdul discussed), calling for a roll (or rolls), and then allowing the players to narrate the result appropriately.
<snip>
It is true that I might strongly suspect, or even know from player comments, that they intend to ask the duke for backing. I might already be mulling DCs. But that is still different from a preset check. If in the midst of the preliminary roleplaying, another decision point is reached first, we'll be rolling and narrating from that result. This may even rule out the diplomacy check.
This also makes sense to me, and is how I believe skill challenges are best conceived of given the published guidelines - and again, the decisions points canvassed in the published examples on ly make sense if treet as preliminary mullings of the sort you describe.
The one point where I would depart from what you describe is in who gets to narrate the result. You say that it is the player. But at least sometimes this, in effect, puts the player in charge of setting up the next decision point - which is to say, makes the player responsible for setting up the adveristy for his/her PC - and for reasons given in
this blog to which LostSoul has linked in the past, I don't think that works very well.
That's not to say the GM should be a dick about it. And if the GM, in narrating results, presents the PC (as opposed to the broader situation) in a light to which the player objects, then I think there has to be scope for negotiation and player input. (Eg, and referring back to AbdulAlhazrad's example, it is one thing for the GM to decide that the duke's advisor recognises the lie because more familiar with the details than the PC anticipated, but another thing for the GM to decide that the lie fails because the PC is so nervous that s/he spills wine all over the duke's shoes - a GM who wants to go with the second option should have the player on board implicitly if not explicitly, I think.)