Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome

[Saishu_Heiki]

Additionally, until the failure threshold is reached, there are no consequences. The Perception and History checks are successful. The corpse is sewn up, and this is an uncommon but known trap. Four failures to go, so use your weapon to cut the body down, and someone else uses Athletics to pick the body up and throw it/carry it off. Since cutting the body down has no applicable skill, it would be a routine attack against the rope. If it succeeds, you now have four chances to toss the body away with no consequence for failure. You can literally kick the body around the clearing until you get four failures total. And if four other characters succeed in their skill rolls, you will end the encounter with the six successes no matter how roughly they disposed of the body. Even if cutting down the corpse was a skill roll of some kind, you would need to fail four rolls to set the trap off.

I don't buy it. It is a trap, designed to go off when certain conditions are met (namely, in this case, when the body is moved violently). The purpose of the skill challenge is to *not* set off the trap. Thus, you make History checks to remember similar traps, Nature checks to find out why it is there, etc.

If the PCs want to cut the body down violently, then they are voluntarily failing the challenge and the trap goes off. Just because it is a skill challenge does not mean that all other rules are suspended.

 

[AZRogue]

I haven't needed to do any ret-conning when using Skill Challenges.

And I think that the actions performed during a Skill Challenge have to be explained, through description or roleplaying, in the context of the event. If a Skill Challenge was initiated revolving around surviving a stampede of buffalo, a character couldn't use Athletics to do Jumping Jacks and succeed. The skill is supposed to be explained and it's supposed to be used creatively in a given-and-take with the DM.

 

[Lacyon]

Exactly. There is an indeterminate cloud of possible steps. Any six of which will solve the challenge, in any order. There isn't a specified order of steps that must be taken to solve the encounter. Hence, the actions are irrelevant.

This is only true when you let it be. Nothing stops you from making a skill challenge where the actions are relevant, and only skill X can be used at step 1, or skill Y at step 2.

So, you are suggesting that the DM arbitrarily negate a success roll?

No, I am suggesting that the PCs may choose to negate a prior success. Just as you may choose to ignore good advice your friend gives you in real life. I do not recommend this (in game, or in real life).

Additionally, how are the players to 'build' on their successes? They can only continue to roll skill checks. The initial Athletics check has no relevance to the subsequent history check.

Sure it does, though indirectly. The players build on their successes of discovering that it is a trap by taking actions that bring them closer to disarming the trap.

In other words, you are advising adjustment of the success and failure tallies in the middle of an encounter.

Where? No, I am advising that if the task requires 6 successes to overcome, it requires 6 successes to overcome. It can only be accomplished in 3 rolls if those rolls somehow count as multiple successes. This means that if disarming the trap takes 6 successes, you can't disarm it with one Thievery skill check. You might be able to with 6 thievery skill checks.

In fact, no. The more complex a task becomes, the more critical the need to perform steps in a certain order.

This is only true when it is true. If the task actually requires that steps be done in a certain order, have the players do them in that order. Nothing in the system prevents that.

Further, you are suggesting that the DM enforce a certain chain of events, which is exactly what this skill challenge system is designed to avoid.

Incorrect. This is how hong and others will use the system, because it is what they find fun. What the system is designed to do is provide a concrete framework for resolving noncombat challenges in such a way that adventure designers and DMs can reasonably gauge the likelihood of PC parties of a given level to succeed at them without having to know what's on each character's sheet.

It's also designed to let all characters participate in the system, because the system itself does not specify which skill checks are required. If step 1 is "Ford the river so that you can continue chasing down the bad guys" athletics is the obvious skill to swim it. But the rules don't prevent you from allowing a Perception check to notice that there's a safe spot to cross twenty feet down the way, and they don't stop you from using some kind of Acrobatic stunt to leap across. Either way though, there's nothing stopping you from laying down a "You must cross the river" step 1, and disallowing any skill that doesn't fit that.

The only thing that determines which rolls progress someone to the solution is the meta-game success or failure.

No roll should be allowed in which success cannot be construed as progressing toward overall success and failure cannot be construed as progressing toward overall failure.

Precisely. Every roll affects the outcome, not every action. The action is only relevant to the sequence once the outcome is determined. Any given roll in the sequence is irrelevant until the final success or failure is rolled. The action of kicking the corpse around the clearing is only relevant when the final success or failure is rolled.

Baloney. The action of kicking the corpse around the field sets off the trap, because the player has clearly given up on the skill challenge.

Only because of the outcome. The description was not possible until the outcome was determined. No single action has a causal connection to any other action until the skill challenge is passed or failed.

Baloney. Read the post again. The descriptions of every individual action and their consequences were given BEFORE knowing the skill challenge was passed or failed.

If they don't lead to each other in a causal fashion, then they have no connection whatsoever. Until the outcome is determined. Hence, there is no actual teamwork, which is what this system is designed to promote. If the goal is simply six successes regardless of the skill involved, then each player is free to do their own thing to garner those successes. The only aspect of teamwork present is that everyone is rolling a skill check. That is no greater progress towards teamwork than combat, where each player is doing their own thing.

Except that this what actually happened in the challenge you're referencing is that the characters worked together as a team and built on each others successes to overcome the challenge. So yeah, if the players don't want to, they don't have to. But they did, somehow.

 

[kennew142]

Why not use a skill challenge here? Or:

I didn't say you couldn't. I believe that making every little thing a skill challenge is bad thing, but as always YMMV.

Skill challenges, each and every one of them!

I was treating these examples as the elements of a single skill challenge. Are you honestly saying that every single goal must be a separate skill challenge? I think that would bog down the game - a lot.

By making it a skill challenge instead of RP, we're going to mechanics other than DM fiat. We're also spending more real-world time on it, making it important. And XP is handed out, so there's a risk of failure involved.

I like RP. It's why I role-play. And in my game games we spend a lot of real time on RP, probably more than a skill challenge would entail.

You're talking to me as if I need to be sold on the idea of skill challenges. That's not true. I've been pretty positive on 4e so far, but the assertion by some of the people on this forum that every little thing, and every separate skill check simply must be turned into a skill challenge would be disconcerting if I weren't convinced that it is just an example of enthusiastic folks putting their own spin on things. If 4e replaced role-playing with skill checks in every situation, then it would definitely not be the game for me.

I don't hand out XP for each encounter, so your last point in this section is meaningless to me. IMC characters level whenever "it's time." For our group this comes to once every 3-4 scenarios. XP is very freeform in our group.

If "Getting in to see the King" isn't something you want to focus on, it might be a simple Diplomacy check with whoever plans his schedule. Or you might not even have a roll.

Hmm. Every time I suggested using a simple skill check or good, old fashioned role-playing, you said I needed to make it a skill challenge.

I think what the DM really needs to be careful about is if the in-game situation calls for a skill challenge. Is the situation important to the players? Is there some sort of conflict between the PCs and NPCs or environment? Do the PCs risk something if they fail?

I think that, if the answer is "yes" to all those questions, a skill challenge is the way to go.

This seems to be more or less what I was saying. Why the need to deconstruct my post and argue against every element of it, if you were going to agree with me in the end.

That depends on the setting.

I would find any setting where bullying the king and giving out ultimatums to be extremely silly (YMMV). You will also note that I said it would usually be frowned on, implying that it depends on the setting (thus the usually).

 

[VannATLC]

IMC characters level whenever "it's time." For our group this comes to once every 3-4 scenarios. XP is very freeform in our group.

An aside, but how do you deal with item creation?

 

[DandD]

They probably don't bother with it, and just handwave it with intuition. I know that I did so the last time I moderated a D&D-game. Whatever feels right and whatever the whole gaming group actually likes.

 

[Celebrim]

Because the skill checks themselves don't produce a tangible result, other than a tick in the win/loss column.

In the given example, the first Athletics check could have been the only success. In which case, the only thing they would have known is that the corpse was sewn up. The next four checks could have been failures, in which case, the encounter was failed. Finding out a detail about the trap did nothing to further disarming the trap. Unless the trap was successfully disarmed. In which case, the detail was important. If the trap was set off or not disarmed, the detail is meaningless. Each step of the 'process' is entirely dependent on the outcome.

If the players decide after the first check that the whole situation is dodgy and find some other way to disarm it, then you have a system that isn't necessary, as adequate clues and other tools will only require one or two skill checks. Perhaps Perception and Thievery. With the encounter system, no one check actually affects the encounter until the oiutcome is determined. Climbing the tree didn't make the observation more or less difficult, and in fact was unnecessary for the rolls that came after it. Perception could have just as well been the first roll, with Athletics the second or subsequent roll. The order of the rolls is inconsequential to the outcome, as long as the meta-game tally is recorded.

Since the order of the rolls doesn't affect the outcome, no individual roll affects the outcome. The description of the scene, therefore, is tied solely to the outcome. Climbing the tree has no particular effect on the sequence, as it could have been a History check, the Athletics check, or a Thievery check. None of these lead to the next in any causal fashion.

Excellent. I wish I'd said that.

 

[LostSoul]

I didn't say you couldn't. I believe that making every little thing a skill challenge is bad thing, but as always YMMV.

Yeah, but why not? That's what I was trying to get at, I guess. I wasn't trying to sell you the system or argue with you.

Hmm. Every time I suggested using a simple skill check or good, old fashioned role-playing, you said I needed to make it a skill challenge.

What I was trying to say was that you could make all of those things skill challenges. Then, later on, I explained when I would go to a skill challenge. I wanted to find out why you didn't think the negotiation with the King would be a good skill challenge.

Maybe I should have just asked.

I would find any setting where bullying the king and giving out ultimatums to be extremely silly (YMMV). You will also note that I said it would usually be frowned on, implying that it depends on the setting (thus the usually).

Well, I'll note that now. I missed that before.

 

[Primal]

Why are you creating problems for yourself?

Because I don't know how to "handwave" away anything inconsistent or illogical. You do, and it seems to work for you and your group -- try running a game for my players and they'll smack you every time you fail to produce a plausible explanation/decsription for their actions.

 

[hong]

Because I don't know how to "handwave" away anything inconsistent or illogical.

It's very easy. The first step is to stop thinking too hard about fantasy. The second step is to not actually say anything inconsistent or illogical.

You do, and it seems to work for you and your group -- try running a game for my players and they'll smack you every time you fail to produce a plausible explanation/decsription for their actions.

No, you will smack yourself every time you fail to produce a plausible explanation. This is not the same as saying other people will smack you.