Simple Skill Challenge Fix - The 1:1 System

[gonesailing]

I agree with your premise about the target win rate for most Skill Challenges should be lower than Stalker0's 80%. I think I may use your system it is simple and easy to understand, but I do like some of the Bells and Whistles that Stalker0 uses. I guess there no rule against mix-and-match skill systems.

 

[David Sid]

Complexity 1 - 1 success before 1 failure (aka a Skill Check)
Complexity 2 - 2 successes before 2 failures (or best of 3 Skill Checks)
Complexity 3 - 3 successes before 3 failures (or best of 5 Skill Checks)
Complexity 4 - 4 successes before 4 failures (or best of 7 Skill Checks)
and so on...

This seems rather elegant to me. What do others think?

I'd rather keep XP correlated with Complexity, but require twice as many successes and failures—2N successes before 2N failures for a Complexity N skill challenge. That way, XP still relates to how much effort is required to complete the challenge, just as it does for minor and major quests.

I like the idea overall, though, with or without that modification. It means that when I (as a DM) use medium skill challenges, I know the party has about a 50% chance of success—ideal for most skill challenges. With easy skill challenges, I know their chance of success is close to 100%—useful for skill challenges where failure has severe or deadly consequences. And with hard skill challenges, I know their chance of success is close to 0%—great for when my players do something ridiculous that I don't want to reject outright. Of course, they can still burn expendable resources (e.g. utility powers) to improve their chances.

 

[77IM]

So I'm no math wiz, so please correct me if this is wrong:

If each individual check has less than a 50% chance of success, then increasing complexity does increase the overall chance of failing the challenge, even in the 1:1 system, correct?

I'm in the camp that a balanced skill challenge should be roughly a 50% success rate, for two reasons. 1) The consequences for failure are usually much less than the typical combat encounter. I wouldn't want to get a total party wipe 50% of the time, but pissing off the duke or whatever should be a real possibility. 2) I think that if 50% is the mathematical base for "just usin' yer stats," then a clever party will be able to do slightly better through teamwork, creativity, and circumstance bonus. (OTOH if "just usin' yer stats" is yielding a 7.3% win rate, then yeah, I don't hold out much hope for creativity bumping that up over 50%.)

-- 77IM

 

[The Hitcher]

I'd rather keep XP correlated with Complexity, but require twice as many successes and failures—2N successes before 2N failures for a Complexity N skill challenge. That way, XP still relates to how much effort is required to complete the challenge, just as it does for minor and major quests.

Yeah, what constitutes a suitable XP reward is debatable. I'd tend to base XP rewards on how the PCs go about approaching the encounter, rather than giving a set amount based on complexity or DC. But then, I'll probably do the same for combat encounters.

If you're converting challenges from already published rules, I'd probably tend to convert this way:

DMG Complexity 1 > New Complexity 3 (ie. 3 successes before 3 failures)
DMG Complexity 2 > New Complexity 5
DMG Complexity 3 > New Complexity 6
DMG Complexity 4 > New Complexity 8
DMG Complexity 5 > New Complexity 9

You can obviously call the various ratings whatever you like. I like my numbering system because it's the simplest: it is explicitly based on the target successes/failures, and so doesn't require memory of a table or any special cases.

 

[77IM]

Oh, and here's another idea I had just now, regarding complexity. This makes it so that higher complexity challenges are more challenging (and hence worth more xp -- remember that complexity is equivalent to # of monsters when calculating xp rewards).

Complexity 1: n successes before n failures
Complexity 2: n successes before n-1 failures
Complexity 3: n successes before n * 3/4 failures
Complexity 4: n successes before n * 2/3 failures
Complexity 5: n successes before n/2 failures
Complexity 6: n successes before n/3 failures
Complexity 7: n successes before n/4 failures
Complexity 8: n successes before 2 failures

Round all fractions down. If a challenge qualifies for multiple complexities due to rounding, use the highest. For example, 3 successes before 2 failures could be considered complexity 2, complexity 3, complexity 4, or complexity 8, so consider it complexity 8. This is because allowing too few failures can cause the party to lose the challenge suddenly, which is unfun.

-- 77IM

 

[The Hitcher]

So I'm no math wiz, so please correct me if this is wrong:

If each individual check has less than a 50% chance of success, then increasing complexity does increase the overall chance of failing the challenge, even in the 1:1 system, correct?

This is true of any system that makes use of multiple rolls - a sequence of 'below average' checks will push the odds exponentially lower, just as a sequence of 'above average' checks will push them exponentially higher. Hopefully, a mix of skill levels and some DC adjustments will prevent the numbers going too wildly in either direction, assuming the Challenge is designed at an appropriate level for the party.

Oh, and here's another idea I had just now, regarding complexity. This makes it so that higher complexity challenges are more challenging (and hence worth more xp -- remember that complexity is equivalent to # of monsters when calculating xp rewards).

I wouldn't go with this for the same reasons I don't like the original system - it makes most challenges too hard and more importantly, multiple contributing variables make difficulty nearly impossible to judge on the fly. Only one variable should set the difficulty, and we have that in DC. If you think XP rewards should be relative to difficulty (rather than complexity), then basing them on DC is a better way to go IMHO.

 

[Xeviat]

What if it worked like this:

Complexity 1: 3 successes before 3 failures
Complexity 2: 5 successes before 4 failures
Complexity 3: 7 successes before 5 failures
Complexity 4: 9 successes before 6 failures
Complexity 5: 11 successes before 7 failures

I know next to nothing about statistics, but how does this affect the win percentages?

 

[Starfox]

While I still prefer a time-limit-system, this is a simple and easy fix. I would, however, add one to the number of allowed failures. That way, lower complexity challenges are actually easier than high-complexity ones, and you give the players slightly more than 50% chance to succeed.

What this does not address is the fact that the best way to progress is not to make wild and crazy stunts, but to carefully and deliberately use Aid Other on the party member with the best chance each round. Or, if that is not allowed, taking a bathroom break if you lack the right skills. That's why I prefer the timed system; with no way to cause your team a setback, everyone can try - there is no penalty for failure. This gets everyone involved.

 

[beepeearr]

Not to be rude, but by looking at some of these ideas about the complexity issue, it might be important to remember what the complexity is supposed to represent as far encounters go.

Complexity is currently numbered 1-5 because this is the Avg party size, and is used to determine how many creatures of an appropriate level the challenge represents.

So a 5th level party of 5 facing 3 5th level enemies and a level 5 challenge with a complexity of 2 is facing the equivalent of 5 5th level enemies.

 

[Starfox]

That way, higher complexity challenges get easier,.

Ops, I meant LOWER complexity challenges get easier! Corrected in the original post.