Skill challenge design -- still wonky

[Stoat]

I get the feeling the designers are still coming to grips with Skill Challenges. It certainly seems odd to me that a group could fail an SC and find themselves gaining more experience through a combat. A perverse incentive if you will.

I've had good luck with Stalker0's Obsidian rules, and I endorse them. I DM. Last time we played, the PC's were trying to convince a dissolute noble to do them a favor. I asked the first two players what they wanted to say and had them roll appropriate checks (diplomacy and bluff). When the third player said, "this is something that might be a good skill challenge" I was happy to reply, "it is, and you're half through the first round."

A question for folks using the WotC system. How do you deal with skills that "unlock" other skills? If an adventure says that a successful insight check will unlock the use of the streetwise skill, what do you tell your players?

 

[FireLance]

A question for folks using the WotC system. How do you deal with skills that "unlock" other skills? If an adventure says that a successful insight check will unlock the use of the streetwise skill, what do you tell your players?

It's difficult to give an exact answer without knowing what an Insight check and a Streetwise check may represent in the context of the specific skill challenge. However, some possibilities are:

An Insight check might reveal that the person in question is looking for something or someone. A Streetwise check might provide helpful rumors or some other lead.

An Insight check might reveal that the person in question is concerned about whether the PCs' proposal will be well-received. A successful Streetwise check might assure him that people would be generally supportive.

An Insight check might reveal that the person is favorably disposed towards those of a similar background. A successful Streetwise check would convince him that the PC grew up in the same place that he did.

When running a skill challenge, I'd normally say something along the lines of the first sentence when someone makes a successful Insight check. I would then leave it up to the players to ask "Would a Streetwise check help?" or to describe how they are going to follow up in response, and if it is close enough, I'd say, "Okay, give me a Streetwise check."

 

[timbannock]

An example:
KoTS, the players determine they want to take assault the Kobold's Lair.
I indicate the players must find their way there. Their options include:
1) Pay 25gp to hire a guide (Ninaran)
2) Succeed in a skill challenge to "locate" the Kobold's Lair
The party checks skills on their characters, and agree they are up to this challenge. I indicate that failure will send them to a lair, the wrong one (goblin's lair for KoTS). I indicate this will be a complexity 2, level 1 skill challenge.
The party accepts.
They begin to tell the "story" of their departure from town, and highlight their primary skills. I determine the difficulty of each roll, and whether or not someone can "assist". Wherever possible, in advance of the skill check, I offer individual success and failure as a consequence for each check. I can also "force" a skill check in this challenge upon the party, based upon their circumstances, and I often do if they're going through a challenge too easily. The ability to leverage your "best" skills tends to make success come a little easier. I will use the limiting of skills in the challenge as a "consequence" to failure, and open easier skill checks as a "success".

This approach results in clear success/failure consequences along the way. Whenever possible I try to make EVERY roll matter.

I'd just like to say that this description of a Skill Challenge and how to handle it is awesome. Not only does it make a little sense, it gives the players a clear and focused power over the narrative.

My players often either focus WAY TOO MUCH on little niggling things ("No! I will not sell this studded golden chalice that has no plot importance for 25gp. I want to barter with at least 10 merchants and start a bidding war!") or their eyes glaze over during any point where there's travel involved ("You begin blazing a trail through the dark, foreboding Forest of Death, narrowly avoiding wandering monste...hey, why's everyone on their iPhone???").

Giving the opportunity to basically tell ME how those things are handled (what skills, what methods) rather than me narrating it to them relieves me of pressure, and gets them more involved. I like it!

 

[Harr]

The problem with discussing Skill Challenges, as evidenced all throughout this thread, is that everybody has their own personal interpretation and their own pet mechanics that they inject into it without thinking or without even realizing it. Thus everybody says "Skill Challenge" when they're speaking about entirely different things, and everybody is having their own little private conversation without really reaching other people. In this thread alone I can see at -least- four entirely different mechanics being proposed, and just like that being glossed over or dismissed, by being summarily lumped into the term "skill challenge".

That's why some people wax eloquent about how skill challenges are the best that's ever happened to their game at the same time that other people are describing them as wonky, clumsy or unbalanced... because there's no *real* baseline for any of it (even Mike Mearls when he describes a Skill Challenge today in the magazines, describes something that is entirely separate and different from what was published in the DMG), you and I can be here speaking of Skill Challenges all day long and agreeing with each other, then both of us go to our game groups and each of us tries to do a completely different thing over there, while believing that we are doing exactly what we both agreed on over here.

More and more the term "skill challenge" becomes one of those buzz-words that doesn't really mean anything except what I personally want it to mean, which is pretty much anything I feel like doing with the dice outside of combat that either works really well or works really badly depending on whether I want to be pro or against the concept of skill challenges when I post.

 

[ashockney]

I'd just like to say that this description of a Skill Challenge and how to handle it is awesome. Not only does it make a little sense, it gives the players a clear and focused power over the narrative.

Giving the opportunity to basically tell ME how those things are handled (what skills, what methods) rather than me narrating it to them relieves me of pressure, and gets them more involved. I like it!

Thank you!

Your comments are exactly what I've experienced in the past as well. Getting the players MORE involved in the story, and therefore the game, is a good thing in my book. That is what I'm shooting for with skill challenges. It's also fun to see it play out as the "social dynamics" around the table kick in and players are motivated to "succeed" at the challenge but also are motivated to "challenge" their fellow players. Then, they want to"get a laugh from someone else" and eventually start to play on character traits to "inform" the story and "educate" their fellow players on things they'd like from the game. What a great mechanic.

 

[occam]

Here's an interesting way to handle the problem described by the OP; the Mouse seems to have good grasp on skill challenges. This is from "The Temple Between", an adventure in Dungeon #161.

Victory
If the PCs succeed with 0 failures, they reach the warehouse without being detected. Only half their potential enemies are present (run the scene as two separate combat encounters, as described in the tactical encounter), and the PCs gain a surprise round when they arrive.

Partial Victory
If the PCs succeed with 1 failure, they’re detected only at the last minute. Only half their potential enemies are present (run the scene as two separate encounters, as described in the tactical encounter), but the enemies are not surprised.
If the PCs succeed with 2 failures, they’re detected as they near the warehouse. They face the entire complement of enemies (run the scene as a single 12th-level encounter), and the enemy is not surprised.

Defeat
The PCs are detected, and their quarry shakes them as he nears the warehouse. The PCs know the general area to which their target went, but not the specific building. They eventually find the warehouse, but it takes 2d6 hours of wandering, searching, and perhaps various bribes or Diplomacy and Streetwise checks made to the merchants and citizens of the area. The result is that not only must they face the entire complement of enemies (a single 12th-level encounter), but they’ve lost a great deal of time off their deadline. (See “Victory Points,” page 37.)

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Here's an interesting way to handle the problem described by the OP; the Mouse seems to have good grasp on skill challenges. This is from "The Temple Between", an adventure in Dungeon #161.

I like this approach! In short, the skill challenge determines whether the party faces the next two encounters separately or as one massive encounter with no rest in between, as well as whether they gain a surprise round (or potentially waste time towards their deadline). The next combat(s) yield the same XP no matter what, but the success on the skill challenge determines the difficulty (and cost) in obtaining that XP. Nice!

Of course, it again all depends on your design goals. For the combined encounter not to be too deadly, the two individual encounters are level - 1, and you might worry that successful parties would be rewarded with two boring encounters instead of one exciting one. Fortunately, Ari went all out on the terrain for that encounter, so the fights should be interesting regardless?

 

[Lacyon]

More and more the term "skill challenge" becomes one of those buzz-words that doesn't really mean anything except what I personally want it to mean, which is pretty much anything I feel like doing with the dice outside of combat that either works really well or works really badly depending on whether I want to be pro or against the concept of skill challenges when I post.

Skill challenges, to me, simply demarcate the particularly important noncombat situations into what other systems have long-called "complex actions". All the details past that from the DMG are simply guidelines to me; I have enough experience with the generic concept of complex actions that I can adapt the given system to what I want at the time.

The other thing that skill challenges do is remind you to not bother rolling unless there's some meaningful consequence for failure. I was having a discussion with my wife about this last night:

I've basically come to the conclusion that a lot of the things skills are used for (mostly in 3E but often in other systems as well) are poorly thought out. It's not terribly helpful to know that a particular lock is DC 35 or whatever to open, because a character will just keep trying until they beat it (or realize that they can't beat it). So, we don't need a die roll to determine if the character succeeds, but to determine how long it takes for the character to succeed - and possibly, how many wandering monsters will come to eat you while you're working on it!

Enter the skill challenge.

 

[bert1000]

I like this approach! In short, the skill challenge determines whether the party faces the next two encounters separately or as one massive encounter with no rest in between, as well as whether they gain a surprise round (or potentially waste time towards their deadline). The next combat(s) yield the same XP no matter what, but the success on the skill challenge determines the difficulty (and cost) in obtaining that XP. Nice!

Of course, it again all depends on your design goals. For the combined encounter not to be too deadly, the two individual encounters are level - 1, and you might worry that successful parties would be rewarded with two boring encounters instead of one exciting one. Fortunately, Ari went all out on the terrain for that encounter, so the fights should be interesting regardless?

Yes, this is much better design IMO. Especially like the Failure result tying into lower victory points. This is heading in the right direction.

The first two may still be a little too superficial as you point out Psuedo. Not sure what the relative levels of the PC are. But if the 2nd and 3rd outcomes result in a level +3/4 or so encounter (real chance of at least 1 PC dying) then I like it. Success gives you 2 normal level encounters, which are exciting but not likely to yield a player death.