Skill Challenge feedback

[LostSoul]

Here's my attempt at it. I think this makes the PC goals and progress clear to them (by defining them in terms of tasks rather than "successes") and makes it very easy for the DM to run or expand upon as he wishes.

I like this one much better.

I don't think this situation requires a skill challenge. I think there are two in-game situations where skill challenges work well:

1. Abstract situations: where the situation is necessarily abstract - chasing someone through the twisting city streets of a massive megalopolis where mapping each street and what's in each building is impossible. Most social skill challenges are in this category. Successes needed represent the "stamina" or staying power of the opposition, and each success you get whittles that away.

2. Linear: a clearly-defined step 1 must be completed before you can proceed to a clearly-defined step 2, and the number of steps is the number of successes you need. Successes are clearly that - completing each step successfully.

This doesn't seem to fall into either category. This seems like a perfect place to use "parallel" skill checks.

[sblock=Parallel Skill Checks]This is how I do skill checks.

If each side is taking an active action, they have to make a check. The DC for this roll is determined by the opposing side's action; generally it's 10 + the opposing side's modifier.

When comparing the check to the DC, you get four results:

Disaster: check <= DC - 5
Failure: check < DC
Success: check => DC
Stunning success: check => DC + 5

Both sides make checks, so you end up with a matrix of 16 results. Some results seem like they'd cancel each other out. If you resolve the action taken with the check, they don't.

The PCs scan the crowd; the NPCs try to sneak their way in:
PC Success + NPC Success: The NPCs sneak in but the PCs have spotted them.
PC Stunning Success + NPC Stunning Success: The NPCs sneak in and are able to disperse, but the PCs have spotted them and know where they are heading.
PC Failure + NPC Failure: The PCs don't spot the NPCs, but the NPCs are unable to get into the city. The most boring one, but if the players don't know that they failed it could lead to interesting results.
PC Disaster + NPC Disaster: The PCs spot someone but it's a red herring; however, the NPCs are spotted by another guard and kept out of the city.

You can see how the situation will change dramatically based on the actions each side takes. There are many possible ways it could play out.[/sblock]

 

[Morrus]

I'll tell you what. I'll playtest both versions and ask my players which worked better for them. I'm willing to bet that the task-based system works better.

I'l go one better on this - I won't run it myself. I'll ask one of my players (who also DMs quite a bit in another campaign) to run both versions blind for my players who will also approach both versions blind. A Pepsi Challenge, if you will. They won't know what's going on, other than that they're playing the same encounter twice, and we'll get objective feedback from the DM and player side of the screen.

I won't participate at all to avoid contaminating the process.

 

[RangerWickett]

Okay, taking people's suggestions into consideration, several hours later I have this scene.

 

[Morrus]

I think that's a massive improvement!

Some suggestions:

1) There's a hall of a lot of "Hey, DM, invent some boxed text on the fly to impart this info" here. Some DMs can handle that just fine, but we need to accomodate those who prefer to have it done for them. Boxed fluff text sprinkled throughout. Some introducing each goal (so the PCs are clear what the goal is, and some of their options, and have whatever starting info you need them to have). Also this helps let the players know about elements they can use (for example, the rascals - if the intro text to that goal mentions some rascals flitting through the crowd, players may then think to recruit them).

2) I'm still not keen on the phrase structure which tells the PCs what they are doing ("A PC feigns camaraderie with the different people of interest in an effort to draw out an admission"); I realise that's just semantics, but every little thing helps. I'd rather something along the lines of "Deception (Bluff) - A PC could do X, Y, or maybe Z".

3) I'd include Insight in Goal 4 (the PCs can realise the men are glancing at a fourth man).

4) I'd always include an "Other Options" section in each goal. This seems like common sense to us, but it's better to spell out explicitly that the PCs and DM are free to explore options we didn't think of. This would include skills, powers, clever ideas, etc. Something along the lines of "Other Options. The PCs may think of other tactics - for example, one might decide to climb onto a nearby roof to get a better view, or another might seek to talk to a community leader. Allow the PCs to attempt any action they choose, and have that action either grant a +2 bonus to further checks in this goal or grant a success, depending on the action).

Most of the above really is just presentation and semantics. I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of a new DM, just bought a copy of D&D and running his first game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nice. Much more robust, and gives me a real good sense of the flow of the encounter, giving me room to improvise without making me conjure plot points from nothing.

There's some formatting/presentation whatevers, but that's something that can be solved in editing later. The particular goals and DC's and skill checks needed should stand out from the rest of the text so that I can tell when running the adventure how to follow the timeline and determine victory or failure without having to scan a lot of text.

The bolded options are particularly useful, though, like Morrus says, having a broad "other options" guideline is a boffo idea. I can see a group who readily leaps to the challenge as either fitting into the options or getting another option, and I can see a group who is muddled and wondering "what do I do?" as having a DM who can say "Well, the adventure suggests that you might X, Y, or Z, does anyone want to try any of those?" as keeping the action happening and spurring the people on.

I also love that you broadened the skill base! Though I do notice that any character who hasn't invested in Int Wis or Cha is going to be a little floundering, that's still half the ability scores, so that likely hits at least a few characters in any party (though I pity the party Slayer -- they're going to have to be inventive to contribute!).

You might want to type the bonuses here. A party with a Docker, a Yerasol Veteran, and a Skyseer, and who grabs a lot of +2 bonuses, might have a cakewalk time of it compared to a party with a different theme selection.

 

[RangerWickett]

Fine advice. I'll get to that if I have time. I'm amazed how damned long it took me to write that thing.

 

[Zinovia]

The most recent version is a huge improvement over the first. It provides a much better sense of the scene and the objectives of each check being made. it's a skills challenge that provides enough options and details to actually run, while still giving some choice of options for the players. I don't have an issue with suggesting the type of action the character is taking for a check. I tend to see those as an example of how that skill might apply rather than the only way that it does. Without at least one example per skill, it can be difficult to guess how a given skill can be used in the challenge.

For a GM running a challenge it's hard to come up with tidbits on the fly that don't yield the complete answer on a single check. Too many skill challenge writeups just say "Perception: DC 18, max of 2 successes.". How am I supposed to run that? Being poorly written, and hence poorly run is why skills challenges fail much of the time.

Bravo on the work you put into it. I would feel quite confident as a GM running that.