My group and I don't want a "Sub-System" for dealing with out of combat scenarios.

[Aberzanzorax]

As far as the OP...

Don't use em. I won't be. But I don't begrudge them being there.

There are things I really want (Vancian Casting e.g.) that others don't. I hope that they don't post "I don't want Vancian Casting in Next". I hope they post what they DO WANT. "I want a viable alternative to Vancian Casting in Next."


Things'd be a lot more fruitful and a lot more friendly if we started talking about what we DO want rather than what we DON'T want. (Desire versus BadWrongFun).

 

[nomotog]

This is what worries me a bit. I've got nothing against basic skill checks, and use them in my 4e game all the time, but they aren't conflict resolution. They're devices for quickly resolving minor questions within the fiction so we can get to the good stuff. For example, "There's a weird statue - it looks like blah blah blah." "Cool, my guys got +20 History and Arcana, do I recognise it" *roll*, *beats DC* 'Sure, its Omech the blah blah blah" - and then the real action of play is the players (and their PCs) thinking about who this Omech character might be and what Omech's importance is in the context of the evolving situation.

I think to make the three pillars contribute meaningfully to the balance of PC building and of play more generally, more than this is needed (assuming we're talking about balance at the mechanical level).

Well if you have a simple problem, your going to have just a simple skill check. If you want something more complex, you have to have a more complex encounter.

I thought of one last night. You would have a old rotting bridge. It's X feet long and you have to make a dex check DC x to move 5 feet down the bridge. Failing the check causes your foot to crash through the floor and raises the dex DC for everyone. You could also jump and move based on your str check, but pass or fail you still damage the bridge. If you have a to foot pole, you can make an int check to try and reenforce the bridge to lower the dex DC. Also the players can still think of other things and the DM can rule.

 

[Umbran]

I always saw skill challenges not as a "mini game", but as a way for the GM to think about all that stuff that he'd be doing anyway. For a GM who hasn't been at it for years, it gives a framework for thinking about how much work a party should have to put in to achieve a goal, a goodly step in making non-combat challenges as complex as combat ones.

Does an experienced GM *need* that system? No - we can just take a series of actions, dice rolls, and consequences, and link them together. But, when played back, it is functionally not that different from a skill-challenge.

 

[BASHMAN]

I'm not seeing the problem. If you don't like Skill Challenges, don't use them. There are probably only a half dozen or so abilities in the entirety of 4e (AFAIK) that interact with them, so they're really easy to rule out.

Even if they are kept for 5e, they're certain to be only one of several options, as 5e is meant to cater to many styles.

They died in a fire. I poured gasoline on their smoldering ashes to make double sure, then immersed the ashes in holy water.

I really hope that the words "Skill Challenge" never appear in 5e, and that people that loved them so much will simply decide to add them if they want to as a house rule. Because once it is in print for 5e, my GM might use it, and I cannot have that.

Maybe I should shoot that bottle of holy water into space, towards the sun, just to be on the safe side.

Now if they come up with a different way to do the same thing that works FAR FAR FAR better than Skill Challenges did in 4e, then I might be open to it.

 

[Agamon]

They died in a fire. I poured gasoline on their smoldering ashes to make double sure, then immersed the ashes in holy water.

I really hope that the words "Skill Challenge" never appear in 5e, and that people that loved them so much will simply decide to add them if they want to as a house rule. Because once it is in print for 5e, my GM might use it, and I cannot have that.

Maybe I should shoot that bottle of holy water into space, towards the sun, just to be on the safe side.

Now if they come up with a different way to do the same thing that works FAR FAR FAR better than Skill Challenges did in 4e, then I might be open to it.

If you hate them that much (and I don't blame you, honestly), do the other players in the group like them? And if they don't, why would the GM use them, other than the fact that he's likely a really bad GM (listening to players is a good GM skill).

Options should be allowed. And they shouldn't assume you've been playing for X amount of years to figure it out yourself. That said, this specific option needs an overhaul, for sure.

 

[pemerton]

One important boon that skill challenges provide is a format to help newer DMs create non-combat scenarios with actual cause-and-effect, action-and-results.

I always saw skill challenges not as a "mini game", but as a way for the GM to think about all that stuff that he'd be doing anyway. For a GM who hasn't been at it for years, it gives a framework for thinking about how much work a party should have to put in to achieve a goal, a goodly step in making non-combat challenges as complex as combat ones.

Does an experienced GM *need* that system? No

I'm someone who thinks that skill challenges are useful for experienced GMs wanting the discipline of a resolution structure to help them manage complications and pacing in scene resolution. So I haven't really though of, or about, skill challenges as a teaching tool.

But if they can do that job too, so much the better!

 

[Neonchameleon]

They died in a fire. I poured gasoline on their smoldering ashes to make double sure, then immersed the ashes in holy water.

I really hope that the words "Skill Challenge" never appear in 5e, and that people that loved them so much will simply decide to add them if they want to as a house rule. Because once it is in print for 5e, my GM might use it, and I cannot have that.

Maybe I should shoot that bottle of holy water into space, towards the sun, just to be on the safe side.

Just so I can be clear: Is the above a Poe or are you genuinely serious?

 

[Shadeydm]

My group uses them so I can see both sides of the issue. Playing the fighter I am often left feeling that the party would be better off if my charcter were allowed to bow out of the challenge due to the limited viable skill choices the fighter has. If they help some DMs tell the stories they want to tell more power to them I hope there will be a module just for them but my preference would for them not to be the default assumption of DDN. My observation is they usually result in people shoehorning skills into situations that make little or no sense. Then again skillwise I don't think the fighters were any better off in 4E than the previous editions.

 

[BobTheNob]

You don't like skill challenges because you feel they don't help you.

Guess what. I don't like leeks and don't think that they ever make food taste better. This doesn't mean that I want leeks to be removed from the supermarket shelves. Instead I refuse to buy them and I don't cook with them or order food with them.

Why can't you do the same? The skill challenge rules will take up maybe a page. Just ignore that page. Or does other people getting what they want out of the game as well as you actively lower your enjoyment?

...snip

There is a danger with this. In 4e (and correct me if Im wrong...Im going from memory here) there was a rogue talent/feature which allowed him to have 2 successes contributed to a skill challenge when he rolled a natural 20 (or something like that).

This does point out something that when something is core, then it is possible for such things as class features, items, racial abilities et.c. to be written to leverage these. Once this starts happening, then only way it becomes "optional" is if these related elements are removed from the game. That would be ok sometimes, but not others (how does one just remove a class feature for instance).

I for one do NOT want an skill challenges in core. Used them in 4e, gave em the most crackin go that I could, but ultimately I found them to be counter-productive to achieving a satisfying result (MY experience, not yours). I especially dont want a situation where game elements are building on skill challenges.

I dont disagree that some form of structure may be interesting and if there is an alternate approach to add structure as a core idea for RP handling, I would be more than willing to listen. But skill challenges as they were in 4e? Not for me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My group uses them so I can see both sides of the issue. Playing the fighter I am often left feeling that the party would be better off if my charcter were allowed to bow out of the challenge due to the limited viable skill choices the fighter has. If they help some DMs tell the stories they want to tell more power to them I hope there will be a module just for them but my preference would for them not to be the default assumption of DDN. My observation is they usually result in people shoehorning skills into situations that make little or no sense. Then again skillwise I don't think the fighters were any better off in 4E than the previous editions.

Endurance and Streetwise were to my welcome additions. (Endurance to the entire game, of course). For any travel-related skill challenge, Endurance is great, and I think for Social/Urban challenges, Streetwise is.