Skill Challenge Overkill (mearls stuff)

[LostSoul]

Yeah, I've noticed this too. I'm considering using a slightly different mechanic for skill challenges: We go around the table X number of times, with each person declaring an action and making an appropriate skill check. If in X "rounds," the PCs get a total of Y successes, they beat the skill challenge. Otherwise, they fail.

This way, everyone is encouraged to participate; even if you don't have much in the way of relevant skills, you're not actually dragging the party down. You could still get a lucky roll.

My solution to this problem is to play the NPCs as active participants in the conflict - they don't just sit around waiting for the PCs to do something, they act and force a roll (or the PC takes it, and suffers the results of failure anyway).

 

[vic20]

I'm considering using a slightly different mechanic for skill challenges: We go around the table X number of times, with each person declaring an action and making an appropriate skill check. If in X "rounds," the PCs get a total of Y successes, they beat the skill challenge. Otherwise, they fail.

This way, everyone is encouraged to participate; even if you don't have much in the way of relevant skills, you're not actually dragging the party down. You could still get a lucky roll.

That's... a really good idea.

You guys need to check this out: Obsidian Skill Challenge System

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Yeah, I've noticed this too. I'm considering using a slightly different mechanic for skill challenges: We go around the table X number of times, with each person declaring an action and making an appropriate skill check. If in X "rounds," the PCs get a total of Y successes, they beat the skill challenge. Otherwise, they fail.

This way, everyone is encouraged to participate; even if you don't have much in the way of relevant skills, you're not actually dragging the party down. You could still get a lucky roll.

I agree that characterizing the challenge in terms of rounds instead of failures might encourage players to participate. Psychologically, they will perceive themselves as working against time, instead of fearing failure.

But you should know that your mechanic is mathematically identical to a minor tweak of the standard system. Let N be the number of PCs. Then you are simply requiring Y successes before NX - Y + 1 failures (with mandatory participation in each round).

I do think there could be some theoretical (as well as psychological) value in allowing the number of failures required to vary (by varying X), but you'd have to be careful about the DCs to tune the overall probability of succeeding at the challenge.

 

[pawsplay]

You personally may have used some rules for x successes before y failures using disparate skills to accomplish a task either well or poorly (not succeed or fail at the task, note), but you didn't find them in the 3e or 3.5e core books.

Regards,

Technically true. Incantations appeared in d20 Modern and Unearthed Arcana, neither of which is a 3e core book.

 

[Betote]

In order to make characters with low skill bonuses feel useful, I've always let them use "aid another" as their action during skill challenges (well, during "complex skill checks", as it was/is in 3.x). That way they might not get a success, but they are nevertheless part of the solution instead of a dead weigh.

 

[Kraydak]

What exactly do you mean by ultimatums?

So, under the assumption that veteran DMs can adapt on the fly, let us say you are a newish DM, running a module. Said module includes an advancing orcish horde and a Duke whose domain is being advanced upon who doesn't have the resources to stop them. The PCs can stop them (with help perhaps). So far, so good. The module includes a variant on "The Negotiation" sample skill challenge in the DMG, where the PCs try to get varying levels of aid from the Duke (who will provide some level of aid regardless, but wants to keep the maximum military on home-defense rather than expeditionary duties). So far, I think a reasonable set-up.

Unfortunately, as the players discuss how to handle negotiations, you realize that it won't work: the players will demand a "successful skill challenge" level of support or they walk. They aren't interested in negotiation, and will treat repeated attempts to do so as a refusal. Out-of-game, you know they mean it.

So, the players have no intention of negotiating (i.e. participating in the skill challenge), BUT their offer is reasonable (an advancing, unstoppable without-their-aid orcish horde is a strong incentive). If they asked the impossible, or if they asked for the minimum, it would be easy: they short-cut to failure. Their request here is more problematic. You could say that the delivery was 1 diplomacy check (but the players are delivering their demands will all the diplomatic skill of a supermarket cashier telling you the total). You could say that the statement of "... or else we leave you to face the orcs alone" is a diplomacy or intimidate check (but the PCs aren't being duplicitous, and the Duke has a good Insight check). That gets you to 2 rolls, not enough.

More generally, in a negotiation, one party can always decide to put their foot down, say "final offer" and mean it (and no longer haggle). If their final offer is too high or too low, this poses no difficulties. If the final offer is marginal or reasonable, such ultimatums abort skill challenges without an obvious resolution.

 

[FireLance]

Yeah, I've noticed this too. I'm considering using a slightly different mechanic for skill challenges: We go around the table X number of times, with each person declaring an action and making an appropriate skill check. If in X "rounds," the PCs get a total of Y successes, they beat the skill challenge. Otherwise, they fail.

This way, everyone is encouraged to participate; even if you don't have much in the way of relevant skills, you're not actually dragging the party down. You could still get a lucky roll.

I prefer a slightly different approach: Every "round", each PC gets to try something with no negative consequences if the check is failed (assuming the action is not a bad idea or counter-productive in itself, of course). One or two PCs then need to make additional checks (these usually represent some kind of active force opposing the PCs). These checks count as failures if they are failed.

EDIT: But yeah, to get all the PCs to participate, they should be able to try stuff without worrying too much that they are going to drag the party down.

 

[Dausuul]

Unfortunately, as the players discuss how to handle negotiations, you realize that it won't work: the players will demand a "successful skill challenge" level of support or they walk. They aren't interested in negotiation, and will treat repeated attempts to do so as a refusal. Out-of-game, you know they mean it.

If they walk out in the middle of negotiations, they walk. So be it. They fail the skill challenge and (apparently) abandon their quest. It's akin to the PCs sitting down and refusing to go into the dungeon because they don't like getting their boots muddy. The dungeon's mud does not miraculously evaporate and leave everything sparkly clean.

If I were running the skill challenge, it might go something like this:

Me (as the Duke): "What you say is most disturbing. I can spare two companies of footmen to help you slow down the orcs, while we prepare to meet them here."
PC leader: "We won't do this without at least five companies of footmen and one of cavalry. Anything less than that, and we leave you to the orcs."
Me: Roll Intimidate.
PC leader: 29. <this is one success, out of four required>
Me: The Duke seems a little surprised. "If you feel two companies are insufficient, perhaps we could discuss the matter further. You will understand that I am reluctant--"
PC leader: "Five companies of footmen, and one of cavalry. That's our final offer. Either you say yes right now, or we walk."
Me: Roll Intimidate again.
PC leader: 19. <a failure>
Me: "You do not give me orders in my own castle! I am grateful for your assistance, but you will treat me with respect if you want my support."
PC leader: "We walk out."
Me: Okay. Make one more Intimidate check for me, to see if the Duke is mad enough to have you arrested and thrown in the dungeon to teach you some manners... okay, looks like he's going to just let you go. Well, I guess you don't want any help from the Duke. What do you want to do now?

 

[Kraydak]

If they walk out in the middle of negotiations, they walk. So be it. They fail the skill challenge and (apparently) abandon their quest. It's akin to the PCs sitting down and refusing to go into the dungeon because they don't like getting their boots muddy. The dungeon's mud does not miraculously evaporate and leave everything sparkly clean.

If I were running the skill challenge, it might go something like this:

Me (as the Duke): "What you say is most disturbing. I can spare two companies of footmen to help you slow down the orcs, while we prepare to meet them here."
PC leader: "We won't do this without at least five companies of footmen and one of cavalry. Anything less than that, and we leave you to the orcs."
Me: Roll Intimidate.

Player: no attempt is being made to intimidate the Duke.

PC leader: 29. <this is one success, out of four required>
Me: The Duke seems a little surprised. "If you feel two companies are insufficient, perhaps we could discuss the matter further. You will understand that I am reluctant--"
PC leader: "Five companies of footmen, and one of cavalry. That's our final offer. Either you say yes right now, or we walk."
Me: Roll Intimidate again.

Player: again, no attempt is being made to intimidate the Duke. Nor are we being duplicitous, so any reasonable Insight check on the Duke's part will give him all the info he needs.

PC leader: 19. <a failure>
Me: "You do not give me orders in my own castle! I am grateful for your assistance, but you will treat me with respect if you want my support."
PC leader: "We walk out."
Me: Okay. Make one more Intimidate check for me, to see if the Duke is mad enough to have you arrested and thrown in the dungeon to teach you some manners... okay, looks like he's going to just let you go. Well, I guess you don't want any help from the Duke. What do you want to do now?

Player: we leave. If the Duke is stupid enough to refuse desperately needed aid, he isn't worth the trouble to save.

Duke: DM, *why* did you make me give up my dukedom and probably die an ignoble death in hopeless battle just to preserve your precious "skill challenge"?! The PC's offer was a reasonable one, and my position desperate.

 

[Hussar]

Unfortunately, as the players discuss how to handle negotiations, you realize that it won't work: the players will demand a "successful skill challenge" level of support or they walk. They aren't interested in negotiation, and will treat repeated attempts to do so as a refusal. Out-of-game, you know they mean it

But, how do they know what a "successful skill challenge" level of support is? How do they know beforehand what the reward of success should be. They have no way of really knowing if their ultimatim is viable or not. So, they try the ultimatim route, it's essentially an autofail. The baron will provide the fail level support and that's it.

I see what you're saying, but, I'm not really sure how often this is reasonably going to come up in the game. In order for the PC's to deliver ultimatums, they need to be negotiating from a very strong position. That's not all that terribly likely in a large number of scenarios.