seusomon
Explorer
Very interesting thread. I don't have my DMG yet, but it sounds to me like the main problem is the expectations set up in the text about the difficulty of a typical skill challenge. The system itself is interesting, and could be fun for players with the right sort of mindset to milk it for roleplaying.
I'd like to suggest that DMs think about skill challenges this way:
If you require more successes than you allow failures (the RAW state twice as many), then what this represents is a very delicate situation, a challenge that must be handled nearly without error - a small number of slips, and you lose. These challenges are much more difficult than a basic skill check, and become more difficult as the complexity increases (barring really superior probability of success on each check).
If you require an equal number of successes as you allow failures, then the challenge is roughly as difficult as a single check would be - the difference is just that there is more detail and back-and-forth involved.
If you require fewer successes than you allow failures, this represents a "forgiving" situation - one in which the PCs can mess up a fair amount, as long as they get something to work before an inordinate amount of interaction has taken place.
As a DM, I will use the system but make adjustments to the failure/success ratio according to the thinking above. There is a role for skill challenges of the sort described in the rules, but that role is a narrower niche than was apparently implied in the text. It's not like an "average encounter" - more like an encounter that can only be survived if all the pieces come together just right.
Modifying the DC of the checks or giving the PCs bonuses is more of a band-aid solution - as more and more checks are made, the math of the probabilities will eventually drive the challenge toward failure unless the bonuses are awfully good.
Finally, a point about the more complex challenges actually being easier once the probability of success exceeds a critical level. This makes sense when failures are rare, because then repetition is on your side, smoothing out the effects of the occasional fluke failure. In game world terms, you could imagine a very skilled diplomat, for example, who actually wants the negotiations to be long and extended, because then he has the opportunity to bring all his skills to bear and to correct any missteps he might have made as the negotiations started off. If you have only modest skill at something, your hope is for luck to help you out, and it's not to your advantage to be repeatedly tested. If you are highly skilled, then luck is more an enemy than an ally - you want to keep at it and rely on your talent.
I'd like to suggest that DMs think about skill challenges this way:
If you require more successes than you allow failures (the RAW state twice as many), then what this represents is a very delicate situation, a challenge that must be handled nearly without error - a small number of slips, and you lose. These challenges are much more difficult than a basic skill check, and become more difficult as the complexity increases (barring really superior probability of success on each check).
If you require an equal number of successes as you allow failures, then the challenge is roughly as difficult as a single check would be - the difference is just that there is more detail and back-and-forth involved.
If you require fewer successes than you allow failures, this represents a "forgiving" situation - one in which the PCs can mess up a fair amount, as long as they get something to work before an inordinate amount of interaction has taken place.
As a DM, I will use the system but make adjustments to the failure/success ratio according to the thinking above. There is a role for skill challenges of the sort described in the rules, but that role is a narrower niche than was apparently implied in the text. It's not like an "average encounter" - more like an encounter that can only be survived if all the pieces come together just right.
Modifying the DC of the checks or giving the PCs bonuses is more of a band-aid solution - as more and more checks are made, the math of the probabilities will eventually drive the challenge toward failure unless the bonuses are awfully good.
Finally, a point about the more complex challenges actually being easier once the probability of success exceeds a critical level. This makes sense when failures are rare, because then repetition is on your side, smoothing out the effects of the occasional fluke failure. In game world terms, you could imagine a very skilled diplomat, for example, who actually wants the negotiations to be long and extended, because then he has the opportunity to bring all his skills to bear and to correct any missteps he might have made as the negotiations started off. If you have only modest skill at something, your hope is for luck to help you out, and it's not to your advantage to be repeatedly tested. If you are highly skilled, then luck is more an enemy than an ally - you want to keep at it and rely on your talent.
Last edited:
Crazy, man. 
