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

[Dave Turner]

Double-posting: all the cool kids are doing it.

 

[silentounce]

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.

"Set the complexity based on how significant you want the challenge to be. If you expect it to carry the same weight as a combat encounter, a complexity of 5 makes sense." That's what the DMG has to say about what higher complexity represents. Also, higher complexity makes the challenges worth more XP. If you want to make something that is worth more XP easier than something worth less... well, there goes the that buzzword "balance" they've been bandying about.

 

[Dave Turner]

I appreciate a lot of the compliments I have received for starting this post, but let me say that I wasn't the first person to reveal this problem, there were threads on it before I even knew there was a problem.

However, if you would like to give me praise, please follow the link in my first post. This is a solution to the skill challenge problem. It sets the win rate at a good number, it lowers the variability between complexities, it reduces the variation with changing skill DCs, it fixes the problem that higher complexities can give easier results, and its more interactive and dynamic then the original system. I have spent hours and hours going over calculations and simulations to make it work, and I'm very proud of it.

Further, its only getting better! I'm already working on a new simple and elegant rule to reduce the variance even more. With luck, the new system will be absolutely rock solid. So please take a look.

People are asking the question, can you simply use the numbers in the table, don't add the +5, and will the system work?

The answer is...kind of. The win rate becomes much more reasonable, but you still have the complexity inversion problem, and the system is HORRIBLY intolerant of variation. The difference in win rate between complexity 1 and 5 is huge. The difference for a party with a 65% chance of beating each skill and a 60% is large. Its just not a good system either way.

QUOTED FOR EMPHASIS!

Stalker0 has posted a mathematically rigorous, alternate skill challenge system in the 4e House Rules forum. THERE IS A LINK TO STALKER'S MODIFIED SKILL CHALLENGE SYSTEM IN THE OP! As examination of the other thread will show, I've been onboard with Stalker for a day or two.

It's nice that you're getting a bit notice over this, Stalker0!

 

[LostSoul]

Read page 42. The reason becomes evident if you read the section. Try that before posting to avoid embarrassment.

The DCs presented in the chart are for attacks. That's why the +5 for skill checks are not added.

Funny, it seems to me that the chart is for "Actions the Rules Don't Cover". Since skill checks and Skill Challenges are both covered by the rules, the +5 doesn't seem to apply.

Since adding that +5 throws the math off, and it looks right without the +5, I really don't see what the big problem is.

True, it seems odd that higher complexity challenges offer more XP and are slightly easier. Then you consider that complexity means that it's a more significant encounter - a climax, if you will. That says to me you should get more XP for them.

 

[Spatula]

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?"

But the players don't get to choose how complex the encounter is.

I think ideally all the complexities would have roughly equal chances of success, with the choice of which to use coming down to how involved you want the skill encounter to be (I realize that most likely isn't possible because of the probabilities involved, without making the skill DCs a function of the complexity). The higher complexities are worth more XP, but they also take up more game time & player energy than a short one. And if you incorporate the challenge into a fight, the more complex it is the longer it ties up the PCs that are trying to deal with it.

Anyway, it's easy enough to increase the chance of failure by reducing the number of failed rolls needed to flub the challenge.

 

[gribble]

I've also played in two skill challenges, straight out of the DMG (convince a noble and speak with dead).
We failed both pretty miserably. Not only that, but it wasn't really "fun" either. One PC was the only character with a reasonable chance of success (and then only using one skill), so he made all the rolls. The other characters were too afraid to do anything but "aid another" - all they managed if they tried anything else was to rack up failures.

The mathematical proof certainly backs my empirical evidence of the system to date.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I've also played in two skill challenges, straight out of the DMG (convince a noble and speak with dead).
We failed both pretty miserably. Not only that, but it wasn't really "fun" either. One PC was the only character with a reasonable chance of success (and then only using one skill), so he made all the rolls. The other characters were too afraid to do anything but "aid another" - all they managed if they tried anything else was to rack up failures.

The mathematical proof certainly backs my empirical evidence of the system to date.

I played in one skill challenge, convincing some cultist guy in KotS to spill info. The Ranger had no skills that could possibly help. The Fighter had Intimidate but failed every time. I had Bluff, Diplomacy (which was ruled wasn't going to work because he was fanatic and belligerent, so I didn't roll it), and Insight.

The GM allowed us to have my Cleric roll both Bluff and Insight each initiative count, which is the only reason we barely succeeded. I succeeded in every check. The Fighter failed in every check. If he had had higher initiative, we would have lost the challenge, and if I had failed even one, we would have lost as well.

The by-the-book skill challenges do seem pretty darn difficult (even though I had +10 Insight at the time), and it was rather dull compared both to other aspects of 4e and to RP-based challenges in other systems. Maybe Stalker0's rules would help.

 

[Uthred]

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?

Yes it makes little sense if you leave out the end of the sentence "but also carry subsequently more dire results from failure"

 

[Saeviomagy]

I've also played in two skill challenges, straight out of the DMG (convince a noble and speak with dead).
We failed both pretty miserably. Not only that, but it wasn't really "fun" either. One PC was the only character with a reasonable chance of success (and then only using one skill), so he made all the rolls. The other characters were too afraid to do anything but "aid another" - all they managed if they tried anything else was to rack up failures.

I played in one skill challenge, convincing some cultist guy in KotS to spill info. The Ranger had no skills that could possibly help. The Fighter had Intimidate but failed every time. I had Bluff, Diplomacy (which we ruled wasn't going to work, so I didn't roll it), and Insight.

Both of your groups seem to have taken the tack that if the skill isn't listed as a primary skill, it flat-out doesn't work - is that the case? Our group interrogated a prisoner using intimidate, diplomacy, insight, perception, nature, heal... I forget what else. Generally "pick a skill you're pretty good at, think up a way in which it applies, DM determines result". Some of those end up being +/- 2s, some of them directly contribute. Particularly appropriate descriptions net a bonus to the roll, and totally inappropriate ones net a penalty.

I find it hard to believe that no party members had skills that could be used aside from one or two characters with good scores in prime abilities. I think it's more likely that your players are falling into the trap of treating a skill challenge like a 3e style "make a roll on this skill and only this skill. Anything else will fail. Only the highest score need apply" skill contests.

 

[silentounce]

Funny, it seems to me that the chart is for "Actions the Rules Don't Cover". Since skill checks and Skill Challenges are both covered by the rules, the +5 doesn't seem to apply.

Since adding that +5 throws the math off, and it looks right without the +5, I really don't see what the big problem is.

Okay then, you do realize that the only other chart in the DMG with difficulty classes is the one specifically for skill checks, and it's got the +5 built in, right?

The only two tables for DC in the DMG give the same values for skill checks, and these are the values which cause one of the problems in the Skill Challenge system. And it doesn't look right without the +5 anyway.