Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What skills you use isn't important to the skill challenge because the skill challenge isn't about using skills. You cannot simultaneously use a 'skill' to describe what the character is capable of and implement a 'skill challenge' system where the skill you use doesn't matter, as long as you use one. As a wise post states elsewhere, the skill challenge isn't about what your character does, it's simply about how much of it they are doing. It's like busywork; you don't actually have to accomplish anything, you just have to perform tasks until the boss isn't looking anymore.

Further, and this is rather critical, what you note is correct. The skill use by the characters is in any order you want. However, the skill challenge rolls must be done sequentially. You have to determine when the failures occur, because the players aren't avoiding four failures. They are avoiding four failures before six successes. You can't just have five players throw two dice each and sort it out. They have to roll individually, and sequentially. At which point, the logical progression of skill use is wholly subsumed by the meta-game progression of the skill challenge.

Which, of course, means it isn't really a skill challenge at all. Just a marginal mini-game that is totally divorced from not only what the characters are capable of, but also the supposed 'authorial stance' this is supposed to grant the players.

The plan you are making will probably require you to perform activities in sequence. Each activity is assigned a skill check, and thus you still have the sequence.

Thinking about this further:
This, off course assumes that any plan ever survives enemy contact.
The non skill-challenge approach would be to make each skill a single task, and if you fail, you'd have to reconsider your plan, or you try the task again, until it's no longer possible.

The skill-challenge approach might change the dynamic - a skill check doesn't mean you did outright fail at a specific point. You probably still succeeded in what you tried, but there is a complication, and if enough complication arise, the plan (and the challenge) will fail. In a "heist" adventure, a failed Stealth check might represent you alerting the guards to be more careful, or that you just lost more time then planned. If failures happen often enough, the guards might trigger an alarm or spot you, or you just don't arrive at a designated goal in the time you planned. Skill challenges can remove retries (nice) and reevaluation of plans (might be good or bad, depending on preference)

 

[med stud]

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.

Not at all. I hope you can see the difference between the one "right" answer and vetoing Intimidate for disarming a mechanical trap. Also, just because a DM can veto any skill doesn't mean that he will veto all skills but one.

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

Which might be appropriate for the situation.

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.

"Authourial stance" to the players, as you put it, isn't a binary thing. You can give the players lots of leeway if you want. You can also restrict options. The alternative to full freedom for the players is not railroading, though. By that logic, every use of a skill in 3e was railroading. As is combat, by the way. "I shoot the flying wizard with my sword!" "You can't do that, the sword is melee only." "OMFG! Railroading!"
Really, your argument doesn't hold.

 

[LostSoul]

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?

I would say, "I don't really see how that is going to help..." and wait for some kind of revision. If the revision doesn't work for me, I will say, "I really don't see it. What other skills do you have?"

 

[hong]

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.

There is a middle ground, oh mathematically challenged one. DM veto power to stop one outlandish use of a skill is not the same as vetoing every use of every skill except the one allowed solution.

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.

The aim is to encourage hidebound DMs to be more open to original ideas, yes. But only a truly hidebound DM could call this "forced to accept anything a player says". Such a DM is indeed better off doing pixel bitching the original way, because everything is going to wind up like that anyway in their game. That doesn't mean a more reasonable DM, who knows the difference between "crazy but just might work" and outright crazy, can't see significant improvements in player engagement and creativity while also maintaining control of proceedings.

 

[Storminator]

I would say, "I don't really see how that is going to help..." and wait for some kind of revision. If the revision doesn't work for me, I will say, "I really don't see it. What other skills do you have?"

This is how I would do it as well. It fits with your criteria of making every roll important.

I can see other inputs besides skills as well. Perhaps someone uses a spell or a power to gain a success.

PS

 

[WhatGravitas]

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.

Also:

• Try to make skill challenges broad, giving the players more room for being creative. E.g. if it's about negotiating with the king, then the skill challenge should include getting an audience, finding some convincing arguments and so on.
• Prepare a little list of "default options" - because sometimes players have a creative low - but that list is only to be consulted, if the players don't have any ideas.
• Give multiple successes and/or failures for exceptional ideas combined with good rolls (vice versa for failures).
• Give the group vetting power - if all other players agree that something is plausible or very implausible.
• Try to find uses for skill challenges mid-combat - if you're under time pressure and not every character can be at the right place, skill choices and niches become much more important.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

More players have the opportunity to contribute, for one.

How is this hindered by the rules now?

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 .

Except, if they want to actually use a skill to perform a relevant action, the dice come out. Not if they start yelling out whatever skill strikes them and some weak excuse to use it. Otherwise, the players will have to rely on their planning and wits, not their dice. In other words, congrats on climbing the tree, but that won't put you any closer to a solution unless you capitalize on it. Climbing the tree doesn't put you any closer to a solution, in and of itself.

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.

I have been corrected on that, and probably heard someone more familiar with Forge theory describe the early system as 'setting the stakes' around the time of DDXP.

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

Then I hope the final rules have a much better skill challenge system than the previews have presented.

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

Exactly.

 

[Mallus]

You cannot simultaneously use a 'skill' to describe what the character is capable of and implement a 'skill challenge' system where the skill you use doesn't matter, as long as you use one.

Of course you can. Skills still describe what they are capable of. Skill challenges are negotiations over how those capabilities might apply to solving the larger problem at hand.

A PC that's good at climbing a rope is still good at climbing a rope under the skill challenge system.

 

[hong]

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.

First, the issue is not just "how many outcomes are there" but "how interesting the process is of reaching that outcome". 3 checks is indeed more interesting than 1 check, all other things being equal, by any measure of interestingness I can imagine. Postcount even.

Second, just because there is no rigorous, formally defined algorithm linking process to outcome (ideally in 2-column 9-point serif text) does not mean there is no relationship between the two. It would take some kind of anti-DM to say that, because you succeeded at 3 checks but failed 2, both times by a margin of 1, that means the king cuts off your heads. I find it far more likely that any sane DM would say that if you only failed the challenge marginally, then your outcome in the game world should be less severe than if you failed the rolls disastrously.

 

[hong]

How is this hindered by the rules now?

Psst. Wrong question.