D&D 5E (2014) Out of Combat Woes

[iserith]

I'm not sure about this. In general, I avoid making rolls for my players. I feel like they sit down around the table to roll some dice, and the less dice they roll for themselves, the less D&D we're playing, and the more freeform RP we're doing. There's situations where rolling for a PC might benefit the scene, such as with Stealth checks or even Insight checks, where you don't want the PC's to know how high or low they rolled, but for the vast majority of gameplay, I think it's more fun for players to roll their own skills. At least, I think it would be for me.

I guess there's a few camps on that. Some players can have a total blast with a session that involves not even a single die roll, and is entirely RP. Other players only really get engaged when the dice come out, and would quickly grow bored of a game where they never roll a d20 and add their bonus. This is probably something that needs to be hashed out at the table before the game starts. So far, from my observations and from the comments of some of the posters in this thread about my players, I'm betting my table is more in the dice rolling side of things, and would probably start to resent me if I always rolled all their skills out of combat. They might feel like I'm taking away some of their agency.

Yeah... I'd go with your gut on that whole rolling-for-the-players thing. In my view, there's not a single good reason to do that. Mostly it's done to curb "metagaming," but often that's because of how the DM adjudicates die rolls in the first place.

I recommend just being fair: If it sounds like the approach to a goal is a sure thing, say it succeeds, no roll. If it's a totally bad idea, say it fails, no roll (but make sure it's not because the player misunderstands the problem or lacks the skill or information their character might otherwise have). If it's uncertain, ask for a roll. A player who just likes to make rolls can choose to engage in uncertain approaches to things if they want. It's fully in their control to do that and you won't have to worry about making sure any particular ability check is seeing an appropriate amount of use. (It's not particularly smart play to do that, but it might be fun!)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm not sure about this. In general, I avoid making rolls for my players. I feel like they sit down around the table to roll some dice, and the less dice they roll for themselves, the less D&D we're playing, and the more freeform RP we're doing. There's situations where rolling for a PC might benefit the scene, such as with Stealth checks or even Insight checks, where you don't want the PC's to know how high or low they rolled, but for the vast majority of gameplay, I think it's more fun for players to roll their own skills. At least, I think it would be for me.

I guess there's a few camps on that. Some players can have a total blast with a session that involves not even a single die roll, and is entirely RP. Other players only really get engaged when the dice come out, and would quickly grow bored of a game where they never roll a d20 and add their bonus. This is probably something that needs to be hashed out at the table before the game starts. So far, from my observations and from the comments of some of the posters in this thread about my players, I'm betting my table is more in the dice rolling side of things, and would probably start to resent me if I always rolled all their skills out of combat. They might feel like I'm taking away some of their agency.

While I like my many-hued polyhedrons, for me the enjoyment of rolling the dice can be exceeded by the sense of immersion of not knowing how well my character succeeds on things he wouldn't know about. But the element that I think is necessary to tip it that way is for me to know that the DM actually is taking into account my skills.

If I have these nice modifiers on my sheet, then the same as you, I want to know they are being applied. If I trust that the DM is actually applying them and not just handwaving the whole thing, then I'd usually rather have the in-character uncertainty about how well I'm actually sneaking, or if I'm actually reading the NPCs body language correctly, etc. So it is something that involves a measure of trust. If I were afraid that "rolling in secret" actually meant "ignoring the stats and making up the results I want", then I'd be rather unhappy with that approach.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

While I like my many-hued polyhedrons, for me the enjoyment of rolling the dice can be exceeded by the sense of immersion of not knowing how well my character succeeds on things he wouldn't know about. But the element that I think is necessary to tip it that way is for me to know that the DM actually is taking into account my skills.

If I have these nice modifiers on my sheet, then the same as you, I want to know they are being applied. If I trust that the DM is actually applying them and not just handwaving the whole thing, then I'd usually rather have the in-character uncertainty about how well I'm actually sneaking, or if I'm actually reading the NPCs body language correctly, etc. So it is something that involves a measure of trust. If I were afraid that "rolling in secret" actually meant "ignoring the stats and making up the results I want", then I'd be rather unhappy with that approach.

Okay, I can definitely see where you're coming from. It requires a high degree of trust in your DM, but it could pay off quite well if you've got a group that likes deep immersion in the story, and finds too many dice rolls can pull them out of character too easily.

Maybe one of these nights I'll give this style a try, just to see how they like it.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

I think the key thing missing from what you described is how specific the complications are and that you need to be all up in their grills with it. State the specific problem clearly in fictional terms, point to someone, and ask how they deal with that thing. Play out what scenes need playing out in response to that approach and boil it down to success, failure, or a check. Repeat until done. I don't know your players, but this advice has never gone wrong in all the many years I've been giving advice on skill challenges (google "iserith" and "skill challenges," heh).

Okay, you've sold me. Definitely going to try this Monday night. So I figure out the predominant complications, then frame them in interesting ways, and let the PC's decide how to overcome them. My players might prefer the more focused nature of actually having a problem right there in front of them.

I wonder how I'd frame a chase scene that wouldn't end up being solved in a single complication. Like Outpace the Pursuers could be one tactic, but so could Kill the Pursuers. If my goal is not to turn it into a straight up combat I wonder how I do that? Or maybe that's my issue. If turning something into a combat is what the PC's want to do, I shouldn't stop them. Say there's five thugs chasing the woman, and the PC's decide to just "take them out". First they have to catch them, which requires maybe Athletics to put on some speed, maybe a spell like Dimension Door to get ahead of them, or what not. Then they need to somehow stop all five. If they only manage to stop say 3 of them, then 2 will still be chasing Wendy. That means maybe I'd put the combat on pause until the other PC's either catch Wendy and protect her, or find a way to stop or take out the other thugs. Could turn into two fights happening in different parts of the city. Might actually be a lot more memorable that way.

Thanks of the advice, iserith.

 

[Raith5]

RE: Skill Challenges.

One of my former 4E DM's ran his sessions without ever using the words "skill challenge" during the game. He just asked for skill rolls after we declared what our characters were attempting to do. At the end of the session, he awarded experience, and informed us what each encounter was worth, then he'd add something like, "Oh, and you completed three skill challenges." And he'd award XP for those, too.

And we'd all ask "What skill challenges?" because the way he ran them was completely seamless. He just incorporated them into the narrative without ever saying a word, and the game went right on without a hitch. IMHO, that's how skill challenges should be executed, if they're used at all.

This is the way we roleplayed skill challenges in 4e. They were a structure for the DM and scene resolution, not a minigame for the players. We knew rough target numbers for skills but the consequence of a lot of poor rolls or poor teamwork were in game consequences - getting lost (or losing healing surges) in exploration skill challenges, losing allies or being attacked in social skill challenges. They were not a replacement for roleplaying but rather loose framework for attaching consequences to social and exploration interactions that the DM can use or ignore.

 

[BoldItalic]

We have the problem of "how do we make skill challenges more fun?". Now, there's a problem-solving technique much used by mathematicians, which involves transforming a problem you don't know how to solve into an equivalent problem that you do know how to solve, solving that, and transforming the solution back again. Let's try that.

A skill challenge is functionally equivalent to a dungeon. It may not look like a dungeon, or sound or smell or feel like a dungeon but at an abstract level, they are the same thing. The difference is, that we all know how to make dungeons fun, don't we? So let's transform a skill challenge into the equivalent dungeon, add some fun, and then transform the fun dungeon back into a fun skill challenge. Make sense?

A skill challenge can be mapped out on paper with a bubble for each check and arrows connecting them representing successes and failures. Maybe you actually do that on paper, or maybe you just do it intuitively in your head. Try drawing one on paper and stare at it for a moment. It's the map of a dungeon. Each bubble is a room and each arrow is a door or passage connecting the rooms. There aren't any monsters in this dungeon, but instead there is an obstacle in each room that requires the use of skills to overcome. One room might have a chasm that requires Athletics to cross, another might have a talking statue that you have to Persuade to tell you a magic password to open a secret door in another room. And so on. Suppose that there are eight rooms and in each room, instead of treasure, there is one piece of a treasure map, that you can collect if you get past the obstacle in that room. The players' goal in this dungeon is to reach the exit, having collected all eight pieces of the treasure map. Seven pieces is partial success, you can still use the map but you might have to make a long detour round the missing bit.

Now, we have a dungeon that is equivalent to a skill challenge but it's just a set of room with obstacles. How do we make that dungeon fun? How do we make any dungeon fun? We add things that make the players nervous, or puzzled, or amused. Do that. Maybe a door slams in the distance. Does it mean anything? Do we have to hurry? Maybe the talking statue tells really bad jokes and won't help you unless you laugh. Maybe in one room, there are buttons on the wall that activate haunting music. Is it a clue? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe in another room, there's a ladder propped up against a wall, with a bucket of water next to it. Are they important? Are the PCs supposed to use them somehow? That's for the players to decide. They might think of a way to use the ladder to help cross the chasm. Or they might succeed without it. These are just examples, off the top of my head. The point is, it's easy to decorate dungeons to make them interesting and fun.

Now translate the fun elements back into the skill challenge. The NPC who cracks terrible jokes. The NPC who is in a farmhouse on the wrong side a a raging torrent, and the bridge has been swept away in a flood. You see five crows flying eastwards. Is it an omen? The hurdy-gurdy player in the village square who suddenly stops and plays a different tune when you pass by. Is it important? And so on.

In short, decorate your skill challenge as you would a dungeon.

 

[Uchawi]

We have the problem of "how do we make skill challenges more fun?". Now, there's a problem-solving technique much used by mathematicians, which involves transforming a problem you don't know how to solve into an equivalent problem that you do know how to solve, solving that, and transforming the solution back again. Let's try that.

A skill challenge is functionally equivalent to a dungeon. It may not look like a dungeon, or sound or smell or feel like a dungeon but at an abstract level, they are the same thing. The difference is, that we all know how to make dungeons fun, don't we? So let's transform a skill challenge into the equivalent dungeon, add some fun, and then transform the fun dungeon back into a fun skill challenge. Make sense?

A skill challenge can be mapped out on paper with a bubble for each check and arrows connecting them representing successes and failures. Maybe you actually do that on paper, or maybe you just do it intuitively in your head. Try drawing one on paper and stare at it for a moment. It's the map of a dungeon. Each bubble is a room and each arrow is a door or passage connecting the rooms. There aren't any monsters in this dungeon, but instead there is an obstacle in each room that requires the use of skills to overcome. One room might have a chasm that requires Athletics to cross, another might have a talking statue that you have to Persuade to tell you a magic password to open a secret door in another room. And so on. Suppose that there are eight rooms and in each room, instead of treasure, there is one piece of a treasure map, that you can collect if you get past the obstacle in that room. The players' goal in this dungeon is to reach the exit, having collected all eight pieces of the treasure map. Seven pieces is partial success, you can still use the map but you might have to make a long detour round the missing bit.

Now, we have a dungeon that is equivalent to a skill challenge but it's just a set of room with obstacles. How do we make that dungeon fun? How do we make any dungeon fun? We add things that make the players nervous, or puzzled, or amused. Do that. Maybe a door slams in the distance. Does it mean anything? Do we have to hurry? Maybe the talking statue tells really bad jokes and won't help you unless you laugh. Maybe in one room, there are buttons on the wall that activate haunting music. Is it a clue? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe in another room, there's a ladder propped up against a wall, with a bucket of water next to it. Are they important? Are the PCs supposed to use them somehow? That's for the players to decide. They might think of a way to use the ladder to help cross the chasm. Or they might succeed without it. These are just examples, off the top of my head. The point is, it's easy to decorate dungeons to make them interesting and fun.

Now translate the fun elements back into the skill challenge. The NPC who cracks terrible jokes. The NPC who is in a farmhouse on the wrong side a a raging torrent, and the bridge has been swept away in a flood. You see five crows flying eastwards. Is it an omen? The hurdy-gurdy player in the village square who suddenly stops and plays a different tune when you pass by. Is it important? And so on.

In short, decorate your skill challenge as you would a dungeon.

That is how I approach it, in regards to having the traditional dungeon preparation, and then layer the skill challenge over it. So whether the party fights through, spells through, or skills through, there are anticipated outcomes and the dungeon reacts or changes. Just make you skill challenges simple and small in scope to begin with, and then as you gain more experience, make them more interesting or challenging.

 

[Nebulous]

Now behind the screen can you have a system like 4e skill challenges where you know they need 5 successful checks to corner the guy before he gets away? Sure you can, but the second you tell them that it becomes a mini game and not a narrative experience.

Paraxis has a good point - you as the DM need to know it's a challenge with distinct parameters, but the players don't really need to know that. Coaxing description of their actions rather than mathematical simulation seems like the way to go.

 

[iserith]

Okay, you've sold me. Definitely going to try this Monday night. So I figure out the predominant complications, then frame them in interesting ways, and let the PC's decide how to overcome them. My players might prefer the more focused nature of actually having a problem right there in front of them.

I wonder how I'd frame a chase scene that wouldn't end up being solved in a single complication. Like Outpace the Pursuers could be one tactic, but so could Kill the Pursuers. If my goal is not to turn it into a straight up combat I wonder how I do that? Or maybe that's my issue. If turning something into a combat is what the PC's want to do, I shouldn't stop them. Say there's five thugs chasing the woman, and the PC's decide to just "take them out". First they have to catch them, which requires maybe Athletics to put on some speed, maybe a spell like Dimension Door to get ahead of them, or what not. Then they need to somehow stop all five. If they only manage to stop say 3 of them, then 2 will still be chasing Wendy. That means maybe I'd put the combat on pause until the other PC's either catch Wendy and protect her, or find a way to stop or take out the other thugs. Could turn into two fights happening in different parts of the city. Might actually be a lot more memorable that way.

Thanks of the advice, iserith.

No problem. There are rules you can bring into play for chases in the DMG, pages 252-255. I haven't used them and I think it's a lot of words spend on the thing, but maybe they'll be of use to you. The complications chart may be the most useful part from the perspective of how I run skill challenge scenes. The rest, not so much.

A chase is just a means to achieve the goal of catching someone (or avoiding someone). So if the PCs want a straight-up combat, you can just make that the victory condition of the skill challenge. Failure could mean there's still a straight-up combat, but the PCs begin the fight at a disadvantage (tired or whatever), the people they were chasing meet up with additional allies spoiling for a fight, or they enemies get to favorable terrain for them. Complications might be Lost in the Crowd, Maze-like Alleyways, Feral Dogs, Fence after Fence, Looming Exhaustion, and so on. I recommend 1 or 2 Complications per PC with three failures triggering a fast-forward to the failure condition. The more Complications you have, the higher the chances the characters will fail.

Please let us know how it goes on Monday!

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

We have the problem of "how do we make skill challenges more fun?". Now, there's a problem-solving technique much used by mathematicians, which involves transforming a problem you don't know how to solve into an equivalent problem that you do know how to solve, solving that, and transforming the solution back again. Let's try that.

Thank you for this, BoldItalic. That's a really neat way of looking at skill challenges. I actually got out my notebook and pencil and started making bubbles as I was reading along, haha. I'll definitely give this a shot as well, combining the advice from you and iserith. Well, now I'm looking forward to running some skill challenges. I just have to get my players excited for them as well.

When's the last time you ran a skill challenge like this, and how did it go?