Musings on Skill Challenges (or: Three Questions You Should Ask Before You Run One)

[FireLance]

A side discussion on non-combat actions in the most recent 4E: Love It or Hate It? thread got me thinking about skill challenges. I've been meaning to put down some thoughts on how to handle skill challenges for a while, and this is as good a time as any. As with my previous blog post/thread on Choice, this looks like it's shaping up to be a DM advice article, so feel free to criticize it from that angle.

First of all, here's a quote from a post I made about seven months ago, around the middle of April, and which kind of sets the tone for the rest of this post:

To me, skill challenges strike a middle ground between a very free-form problem-solving approach which is almost entirely dependent on player skill/DM adjudication (e.g. solve this mystery) and a very mechanical, rules-defined approach to tackling common (but specific) problems (e.g. opening locks, noticing secret doors, finding and removing traps, following tracks).

Properly used, the skill challenge framework can give you the best of both approaches. An inventive player can come up with creative solutions to the skill challenge, or novel ways to use the skills he is good at, and the DM can allow the use of those skills to score successes, or even award successes without the need to make a skill check. On the other hand, a player who is more comfortable working within a fairly well-defined framework can simply run through his character's list of trained skills and pick one that seems appropriate to the challenge.​

So, before you run a skill challenge, the first question you should ask is:

1. Should you use a skill challenge in the first place?

Just because you expect the PCs to make skill checks at a certain point in the adventure, it doesn't mean that you need to run it as a skill challenge. In my view, before you decide to make a series of skill checks into a skill challenge, you need to consider the Consequences and the Constraints.

That succeeding or failing at a skill challenge should have significant Consequences either way might seem so basic as to be obvious, but DMs sometimes fail to make the players care about whether or not they succeed. Sometimes, it is because the difference between success and failure is small. At other times, it is because the players think that the difference between success and failure is small. DMs should ensure that the Consequences of succeeding or failing a skill challenge are worth the time and complexity of running one, and find some way to plausibly communicate them (or at least hint at them) in play.

Skill challenges should also have some Constraints in order to be interesting. If the character with the highest modifier in the most relevant skill can just keep making skill checks until the skill challenge is passed or failed, then that portion of the game should not be run as a skill challenge even though it is technically possible to do so. Ideally, a skill challenge should have Constraints such as a time limit to encourage as many PCs to participate as possible (but more on this later), or should require the use of three or more different skills to overcome so that more PCs have to get involved.​

The next question relates to the old post that I quoted:

2. Do you really need to ask for a skill check?

Your answer to this question is likely to be closely related to your views on whether the player of a low-Intelligence PC should be allowed to solve a puzzle in the game, or whether the PC needs to make an Intelligence check first.

Nonetheless, if you are inclined to allow player skill and creativity to solve problems in your games, the presence of the skill challenge mechanic should not prevent you from doing so. Feel free to allow players who come up with good ideas to overcome skill challenges without rolling for skill checks - just as if the skill challenge mechanic did not exist.

If you want to give clever and creative players an advantage, but are not prepared to let them solve the problem without rolling dice, then the granular nature of skill challenges (in that a certain number of "successes" are required before the skill challenge is overcome) allows you to reward good ideas with more successes if the PC makes the skill check, or even automatic successes (less than the total number of successes required, if you do want the PCs to make some skill checks).

Of course, none of the above is very useful if you are faced with a bunch of players who just go through their PCs' skill lists and roll dice. Under such circumstances, a DM who wants to encourage more imagination and out of the box thinking from the players should start hinting that such approaches would be more advantageous, and then actually reward the players' attempts, perhaps erring on the side of generosity, at least at first, to encourage more of such creativity in the future.​

Finally, the third question:

3. Is the standard "three failures" model the best failure condition for this skill challenge?

While the standard "three failures" model makes sense occasionally (annoy the king too often and he'll have you escorted out of his throne room), it can make players hesitant to participate in a skill challenge if their PCs have low skill modifiers in the relevant skills as they are more likely to hurt than help the party's chances of overcoming the challenge.

There are ways to mitigate this effect: some skill checks may not count as failures for the purpose of the skill challenge if they are failed, the skill challenge may require a variety of skills so all the players may have to get involved eventually, etc. However, I think the simplest way to avoid the problem may be to have a different failure condition in the first place.

I must confess that recently, I've been quite taken with the idea of timed skill challenges (i.e. X successes within Y rounds or the skill challenge is failed) or the related idea of something bad happening to the PCs each round until they overcome the skill challenge (this is pretty much the approach taken by traps). In addition to the obvious advantage that every PC has the incentive to participate even if his chance of success is low, it also adds a (slightly) more tactical element to the skill challenge: if the PCs have not obtained the necessary number of successes by the final round of the skill challenge, some of them may think about spending action points to increase the chances of overcoming the challenge.​

What are some of the more interesting and successful skill challenges you have run? What do you think were the key elements that made those skill challenges interesting and successful?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Just got around to reading this, it been a busy week, I must say I like the idea of the timed challange. I must think on it some more.

 

[Chrono22]

What is the meaning of the term "skill challenge" in the context of play? If it's just a series of skill checks made toward a common goal, through which the players can role play... my players do it anyway. The inclusion of a skill challenge would be redundant, like painting a house twice.

 

[Dausuul]

What is the meaning of the term "skill challenge" in the context of play? If it's just a series of skill checks made toward a common goal, through which the players can role play... my players do it anyway. The inclusion of a skill challenge would be redundant, like painting a house twice.

A skill challenge is essentially a planned and structured version of that. At least that's how I think of it. It may or may not follow the model laid out in the DMG - often my skill challenges are more along the "timed challenge" line, with the PCs taking cumulative hits of some sort until they beat the challenge.

Cross-posted from the thread on cold-weather monsters, here's a typical skill challenge in my game, for PCs trying to survive a journey across an arctic wasteland:

Skill challenge: Trek across the frozen wastes. At the end of each day, each character must make an Endurance check or lose a healing surge. Any character who is out of surges loses hit points equal to his or her surge value instead. Anyone reduced to zero hit points by this effect freezes to death in the night. Surges and hit points lost in this way are not recovered until the PCs are able to take an extended rest someplace warm.

In addition, each PC can attempt one additional skill check per day:

• Perception: Find a sheltered place to camp (+2 to everyone's Endurance checks for that day).
• Nature: Help the party make better time (add one-third to the distance covered that day).
• Athletics: Break trail for the rest of the party (+2 to everyone else's Endurance and Nature checks for that day).
• Healing: Help a weakened companion survive the cold (+6 to one other PC's Endurance check for that day).

No matter how many skill checks are made, each of the above benefits can be gained only once a day for the entire party. (However, Healing can be used on more than one character.)

At various points in the journey, there would be combat encounters, breaking up the monotony of endless skill checks and adding a little bite to those lost healing surges.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

For my own games, the problem was never deciding if a challenge should be used. What I liked most about the concept is that it provided a framework for me to provide in game challenges that could involve the entire party without requiring combat. The real problem has been deciding on the consequences of success and failure. In my most recent game, I ran some challenges that I think worked out quite well.

Rewards: Success on any challenge can gain the players one or more of the following benefits.
- If the players can complete the challenge successfully, I count it as a Milestone for purposes of gaining action points.
- Regain a healing surge
- Treasure
- Surprise round for next combat encounter (if it fits narratively)
- Flat bonus to Attack, Skill check, Ability Checks, and Saves good for as long as I see fit (next encounter, rest of game on that day in real time, until next full rest).

Penalties: Failing a skill challenge can cause one of the following.
- Loss of Healing Surges
- Flat penalty to Attack, Ability Checks, Skill Checks, and Saves for as long as I like.
- Loss of Action point
- Get ambushed
- Loss of Daily power
- Denial of short or long rests.

The presence of adequate incentives on success and on failure gets my players attention. The tricker problem is in deciding on reasonable ways to avoid having something along the lines of a 7th level PC with +13 to Atheltics checks spamming that check every chance he gets against DC 16 checks. I think that the most reasonable way to do that is to impose some limit on the number of successes from a particular skill (or from a particular player using a single skill).

As for Failure conditions, I say use whatever you want. The 3 Strikes failure puts a high cost on failing even a single check, which may or may not be appropriate for the encounter. I did a challenge that allowed a total of 12 checks, with 4 checks made by each player. Every 3 failures would put a -1 challenge on the entire party, no matter who got them. A PC could burn a healing surge to negate 1 point of the penalty for them selves. But if they could get at least 9 successes, there would be no penalties. Perfect completion would have gotten them a bonus.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[FireLance]

What is the meaning of the term "skill challenge" in the context of play? If it's just a series of skill checks made toward a common goal, through which the players can role play... my players do it anyway. The inclusion of a skill challenge would be redundant, like painting a house twice.

Like Dausuul, I tend to think of skill challenges as a more structured framework for resolving non-combat challenges. Of course, depending on your preferences and abilities as a DM, you may decide not follow a formal framework at all. As you mentioned, you can set the players a goal (or the players may set one up themselves) and then, depending on what the players propose to do, you can ask for relevant skill checks or ability checks, or simply adjudicate the success of the players' actions without rolling dice.

However, some DMs prefer to work within a more structured framework. Even with impromptu non-combat challenges which the DM did not prepare for because they arose in the course of play, the DM could take a few moments to decide on and note down:

1. The complexity (difficulty) of the challenge, which would determine how many successes are needed and how much XP should be awarded for overcoming it.

2. The rewards of success and the consequences of failure.

3. The failure conditions - whether it is a timed challenge or uses the "three failures" model, including a logical and satisfying way to narrate each failure and why three failures lead to the above-mentioned consequences, if the latter approach is adopted.

4. Constraints, special ways to use particular skills, and other factors that would make the skill challenge more interesting and not just a series of repeated skill checks.​

 

[Roger]

My three questions:

1. What happens if the party succeeds?

2. What happens if the party fails?

3. Are both those outcomes, and the skill challenge itself, fun enough to make it all worthwhile?

The glaring problem I continue to see with Skill Challenges is the "Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing" problem -- succeed or fail, the party ends up in the same place.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Derren]

There is never a reason to use skill challenges.
Apart from the bad mechanics, its like Chrono22 said. Painting the House twice.

When the PCs have (want) to solve a problem with skill checks they will do it. There is no need to force them into a skill challenge which restricts what they can do in the game, effectively railroading them.

A skill challenge does not take powers into account, restrict the ways (skills) a players can approach the problem and artifically lengthen or shorten the problem solving by requiring X number of rolls.

DMs can of course say "If the PCs do something really clever they automatically succeed", but then you aren't running a skill challenge at all.

And most importantly, it doesn't really matter what the PCs actually do. All that counts is that their skill check beats the set DC to move a step closer to success. But what this skill check did actually accomplish is rather unimportant.

So, after all the Hype for skill challenges (which is still ongoing), they are nothing more than a cheap railroad device without a real justified application in a role playing game. Even their result doesn't matter much if you folow the rules for them. Not to mention that the mechanics don't work if you use WotC rules.

 

[FireLance]

There is never a reason to use skill challenges.

I think it's more accurate to say that you don't have to use skill challenges if you don't want to. However, there are players and DMs who prefer the more structured approach provided by a skill challenge to the more free-form approach to tackling non-combat challenges used in previous editions. And when you think about it, skill challenges are actually more flexible than the standard prescriptive approach to tasks such as opening locks, noticing secret doors, finding and removing traps, and following tracks. Skill challenges simply strike a middle ground between the two. All this is mentioned in my OP, by the way.

When the PCs have (want) to solve a problem with skill checks they will do it. There is no need to force them into a skill challenge which restricts what they can do in the game, effectively railroading them.

A skill challenge is no more a railroad than needing to make a Thievery (or Open Locks) check to get past a locked door is a railroad. A poor DM could turn it into a railroad if there is no other way past the door (can't chop it down, can't use the knock ritual or spell, etc.) but that is a problem with the DM, not the skill challenge mechanic (or the Open Locks skill).

A skill challenge does not take powers into account, restrict the ways (skills) a players can approach the problem and artifically lengthen or shorten the problem solving by requiring X number of rolls.

Not necessarily. You can write up a skill challenge that awards successes (even automatic successes) for the use of powers and, as mentioned, the DM can always approve creative ideas and/or award enough successes to end a skill challenge quickly if he chooses to. If he doesn't, well, he should probably read my OP, right?

DMs can of course say "If the PCs do something really clever they automatically succeed", but then you aren't running a skill challenge at all.

Right. And that's the beauty of skill challenges. They are an extra tool. You don't need to use them if you don't want to, but they are there for when you have a use for them. Frankly, I generally find complaining about additional approaches or extra options to be ... bizzare.

And most importantly, it doesn't really matter what the PCs actually do. All that counts is that their skill check beats the set DC to move a step closer to success. But what this skill check did actually accomplish is rather unimportant.

In the same vein, you could argue that combat is just making an attack roll that beats AC, or finding a trap is just making a Perception (or Search) check that beats the set DC, and disarming it is just another Thievery (or Disable Device) check. Rolling dice plus modifiers vs. target numbers is just the mechanics. The effort you put into describing it and the complications that the DM puts into the challenge are what distinguishes it from a simple dice-rolling exercise. This is true regardless of whether you are talking about combat, traps or skill challenges in general.

So, after all the Hype for skill challenges (which is still ongoing), they are nothing more than a cheap railroad device without a real justified application in a role playing game. Even their result doesn't matter much if you folow the rules for them. Not to mention that the mechanics don't work if you use WotC rules.

Seriously, if you feel that your skill challenges are railroads, or you don't know how to use skill challenges in an RPG, or you would like alternative approaches to WotC's "three failures" model, you should read my OP.

 

[vagabundo]

I agree, skill challenges and combat mechanics are -essentially - equivalent. Arguing against one is like arguing against the other.

SKs are just a abstraction framework; another tool for the DM to use in building a fun game.