Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome

[Storminator]

Good point.

• I will engage the skill challenge mechanics only when there is an in-game conflict of interest that I want to focus on, one that carries a good deal of risk. I will make sure that the skill challenge resolves the conflict of interest.
• I will consider each skill roll important in colouring the ongoing challenge as well as the final outcome. Which skill you used, if it succeeded or failed, how that changes the current situation, and how it will effect what success and failure mean in the end.
• I will consider the level of success or failure when describing the outcome instead of a binary pass/fail result.

If someone uses an inappropriate skill, will you tell them it's inappropriate and let them chose again, or will you let them roll and have it be meaningless to the final outcome?

PS

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Except that you can veto the use of a skill if you feel that it's not applicable. You can also add modifications to a skill if you feel that it's very fitting or if it's a cornercase.

If the DM vetos the use of a skill, then they can veto the use of any skill. We are back to 'pixel-hunting' for the 'correct' answer, as determined by the DM. Which is what this system is designed specifically to address.

Modifying a skill is really no different. "You want to use Diplomacy? Ok, roll your Diplomacy, -10."

For the system to work as intended to give 'authourial stance' to the players, the DM is almost forced to accept just about anything a player says. Otherwise, it is just a pretense of giving the players some control over the story to disguise railroading.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

We've had better information. The DM sets the difficulty, based on the description of the action.

I stand corrected, thank you.

I am still seeing players just taking actions that are Easy to pass the challenge. If that means they simplify their actions until the DM calls it 'easy', it doesn't seem much different than having the player declare an Easy check.

 

[VannATLC]

I can't speak for any other DM..

But I can ensure that no player will recieve any message from me regarding the difficulty of the task they are undertaking. I've yet to decide what I'll do regarding inappropriate checks.. but I'll be waiting for the rules in any case.

 

[AllisterH]

What would you use Storm-Bringer?

 

[Lacyon]

How is this not the exact same as deciding based on one roll?

More players have the opportunity to contribute, for one.

Perhaps there is another way... I know, the players can come up with a plan of action, and the DM can determine the results! Perhaps a roll or two where pertinent, but (this is the cool part) for the most part, the DM and players can - I know this is radical - talk to each other. It might, if the stars are aligned, even lead to some role playing! <gasp>?

Congratulations on completing a rudimentary skill challenge. I don't like your system though because the skills don't even have to have names. They could just be Skill A, Skill B, or not even be on your character sheet, since you're just going to talk to the DM and roleplay your way through everything .

Unless someone has better information, the players set the difficulty as part of the 'set the stakes' section of the skill challenge. So, essentially, the DM just 'announces' the challenge. That may be a direct announcement, or it may be the DM describing a scene and fondling the dice.

Unless you have better information 'Setting the stakes' is a phrase used by forgites who are seeing an opportunity to bend D&D towards a particular style of play they enjoy. To my knowledge it is not something that came from a 4E designer, and not part of the system itself.

Of course, this 'forced teamwork' is designed to get the whole party in on the plans, no matter how it is accomplished. Somehow, I am not seeing that player in the corner with his nose buried in a manga to suddenly leap across the room in full pseudo-Shakespearean dialect and start interacting with the game-world environment.

I'll settle for just interacting with the game-world environment. People who leap across the room and speak in Shakespearean dialect scare me.

If the DM vetos the use of a skill, then they can veto the use of any skill. We are back to 'pixel-hunting' for the 'correct' answer, as determined by the DM. Which is what this system is designed specifically to address.

Nothing about the system denies the ability of a GM to create a pixel-hunt if he is dead set on it.

 

[hong]

Do you really think

Intimidate: failure x3
Diplomacy: success x6

is the same as one successful Diplomacy check?

Clearly the number of skill checks is also directly proportional to post count.

 

[Mallus]

If the DM vetos the use of a skill, then they can veto the use of any skill. We are back to 'pixel-hunting' for the 'correct' answer, as determined by the DM. Which is what this system is designed specifically to address.

The system won't magically make unreasonable DM's reasonable, no. Then again, what system would? Pointing out that 4e will still require DM's with a modicum of good judgment and the ability to negotiate isn't really surprising.

Modifying a skill is really no different. "You want to use Diplomacy? Ok, roll your Diplomacy, -10."

The system won't magically make unreasonable DM's reasonable, no.

For the system to work as intended to give 'authorial stance' to the players, the DM is almost forced to accept just about anything a player says.

It also helps to have players with a modicum of good judgment and the ability to negotiate.

No system is idiot-proof. Personally, I like the skill challenge guidelines (I hesitate to call then rules, as there more like a new way to look at/frame/contextualize the old rules) because they proceed from three simple ideas: "let's get more players involved", "make sure task success adds up to conflict success", and "be open to player-initiated solutions".

The first two are just all-around good DM'ing advice and the last makes my job as a DM who writes all his own adventurers easier.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Do you really think

Intimidate: failure x3
Diplomacy: success x6

is the same as one successful Diplomacy check?

In light of:

If you succeed at the skill challenge, you win. There is one outcome.

If you fail at the skill challenge, I see no reason why the DM can't say that how you fail depends on what rolls you made. There can be plenty of an infinite number of outcomes limited only by how evil the DM wants to be.

Yes, it is exactly the same. Rolling once, rolling six times, or rolling six hundred times makes no real difference. No single roll in a skill challenge is causally related to any other roll. It is identical to six separate Diplomacy checks, because that is all it is.

Games where one successful Diplomacy check is treated like some kind of mind-control have more issues than lack of teamwork or sense of contribution.

 

[Storminator]

I stand corrected, thank you.

I am still seeing players just taking actions that are Easy to pass the challenge. If that means they simplify their actions until the DM calls it 'easy', it doesn't seem much different than having the player declare an Easy check.

Why is it that being completely wrong about something doesn't change your conclusions?

And can you add anything positive to any part of the conversation?

PS