D&D 4E Showing the Math: Proving that 4e’s Skill Challenge system is broken (math heavy)

[diamabel75]

But that's not just increasing "complexity", that's also decreasing difficulty. Which is one of the problems of the RAW to begin with.

It only decreases difficulty at the 4 success and 6 success level. With a 10 or 12 success, it increases difficulty. Right now, the level 5 complexity, worth more xp than the level 1, is actually easier to attain than the level 1.

 

[silentounce]

It only decreases difficulty at the 4 success and 6 success level. With a 10 or 12 success, it increases difficulty. Right now, the level 5 complexity, worth more xp than the level 1, is actually easier to attain than the level 1.

D'oh, I didn't think it all the way out. Anyway, that "solution" doesn't solve all the problems with the system. Personally, I'm going to use stalker0's system. It's awesome, you should check it out if you have not already. It's just sad that something that was given so much hype is such a let down.

 

[diamabel75]

D'oh, I didn't think it all the way out. Anyway, that "solution" doesn't solve all the problems with the system. Personally, I'm going to use stalker0's system. It's awesome, you should check it out if you have not already. It's just sad that something that was given so much hype is such a let down.

Yeah, I definitely see errata coming out on this soon. I like the concept, but not the game play. What is stalker0's system?

 

[Spatula]

This thread is rather depressing...

People keep going around saying essentially "our quick five-minute analysis is perfect, so obviously WotC's several months of detailed design and playtesting was a total joke". Meanwhile, attempts to show that the core assumptions of the five-minute analysis might be flawed (the +5 rule) are shot down without detailed examination.

...wut?

WotC has already published a skill challenge using the skill DCs from the table, with the +5 (the web extra for KotS).

If you are supposed to add +5 to everything on the chart, then why wasn't the +5 already added into the chart in the first place?

The pg 42 chart is a general purpose DC chart. Look up "skill DCs" (something like that) in the DMG index and it'll point you to a different chart on page 60-something. That is labelled as being specifically skill DCs. And that uses the exact same numbers as the pg 42 chart. Only with +5 added to everything.

Unless you can resolve that contradiction, then the OP's core assumptions are demonstrably false, meaning his conclusion is false.

What contradiction? The core assumptions are what's written in the DMG so I don't see how you can demonstrate them as being false, unless you assume the DMG is incorrect.

 

[silentounce]

Yeah, I definitely see errata coming out on this soon. I like the concept, but not the game play. What is stalker0's system?

There's a link to it in the very first post in this topic. You did read that one, didn't you?

 

[DSRilk]

"our quick five-minute analysis is perfect, so obviously WotC's several months of detailed design and playtesting was a total joke"

Math. It does a body good.

Yes, I'll go on record as saying our 5 minute analysis is vastly superior to the design and playtesting that went into this system. Either that or we're GROSSLY misinterpreting things like what defines a successful check, what 6 successes before 3 failures mean, and why they literally write "add 5 to the DC of skill checks" at the bottom of the DC chart referenced by the skill challenge section (which, by the way, still doesn't address all the issues with this sub system). I'm not saying that all armchair analysis on the boards is accurate -- quite the contrary from my experience. However, there are some spots that are so obviously... whacky... that you simply have to assume something didn't go as planned in the design process. Yes, I have great respect for the designers, there are many great and cool things that are in 4e. However, someone either didn't do the math in a few areas or did it and didn't care. There are powers that are literally flat out better than powers several levels above them in the SAME class. Not a matter of one power gives you shift 2 and the other gives you an extra 6[W] damage where one could argue the value of shift 2 versus 6[W], but ones where there is NOTHING the higher level power does better and one or more things it's worse at. And there are things like the skill challenge system. Personally, I suspect there's a reason they kept it totally under wraps until the game was released.

It could be that certain areas of the game took longer to develop than was planned. It could be that they ended up in too many corporate meetings explaining why they wanted to change things. It could be play testers didn't hit certain areas often enough. It could be that certain rules changed so many times that some stuff got lost over time. It could be that requests came in for more higher level powers and it was judged that it was better to have a couple extra un-tested powers than to have too few. Decisions like this are made every day in product development of all kinds. It's not a lack of developer skill or care, it's just the practical facts of business life. But whatever the cause, to pretend it's perfect is absurd.

First, you're assuming several months of design went into this. That's a large assumption. Second, you're assuming that lots of play testing went into this part of the system; again, a large assumption. Third, you're assuming that enough information came back from play test and early enough that the designers had time to implement it all. Fourth, math doesn't lie. It's really as simple as that.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Has anyone tried/succeeded in getting attention from someone at WotC on this issue? Not like I expect them to read through all of the mathematical analyses, but just to point out that even a broad approximation shows these are too hard?

 

[Uthred]

Im afraid that I'm still awaiting my DMG in the post. But from what I've gathered higher complexity tasks represent more dangerous tasks with higher chances of reward. If thats correct then why are people assuming that its an error not a design goal that more complex tasks are easier? The main goal of 4e appears to be "Fun" and its certainly not fun if your players cock up a complex skill test and get executed because they spat in the queens eye or some such.

Im hardly the first to raise this point in the thread but it keeps on getting glossed over, is that because a) it has an obvious counter argument (entirely possible) b) because theres no way to say either way or c) because it means the system actually works as intended ?

Though I would like to see errata on whether the contentious +5 should be applied or not. If one removes the +5 and the only result is that it makes more complex tasks slightly easier then less complex ones I'll be running with that.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Just a point:

having played through 3 skill challenges and succeeded at one of them, I've made the following observations:

1. Skill challenges are harder to succeed at than an equal level (I think) fight. Obviously the maths backs this up.
2. This didn't seem like a bad thing - sure we might only succeed at a skill challenge 20% of the time, but the penalty is usually low, while the reward is significantly higher than the penalty. Perhaps a better comparison would be something like (spoilers from KoTS I think)

Spoiler

taking out the kobold slingers before they use all their special sling ammunition

- you get a good reward, the action is actually very challenging and the penalty for failure is simply not getting the reward, rather than "everyone dies".
3. While the optimal method for a skill challenge might be to avoid influencing the win/loss ratio by not making rolls that contribute, nobody actually wants to do that.
4. I think that skill challenges are a place that the DM should liberally apply the dm's friend. That gives a mechanical advantage to exploring skill choices and choosing skills where you have a good idea and a sub-prime score (ie - you're still trained, but it's not your best). We found that our group did this anyway.

 

[Nail]

But from what I've gathered higher complexity tasks represent more dangerous tasks with higher chances of reward. If thats correct then why are people assuming that its an error not a design goal that more complex tasks are easier?

You might want to read your statement over again. Carefully.

Why should higher complexity tasks, which offer more XP, have a greater chance of success?

DM: "You PCs can either try this low complexity task (which you are more likely to fail) or this high complexity task (which you are more likely to succeed). Which do you chose?"

PC #1: "Wha......???? Well, the one that is more likely to fail gives out more XP, right?"

DM: "Oh no, definitely not. The one that is more likely to fail also gives out the least XP."

PC #2: "Ah. Right. So.....We'll take the more complex task that we're more likely to succeed at and that also gives more XP. That's just made of Win. Thanks for asking!"