Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome

[Storm-Bringer]

You don't make a skill challenge out of climbing a rope.
But if you roll your Climb/Athletics check as part of a skill challenge, you do prove your "Climbing Prowess". Your skill counts for something!

It counts for the same success as History, Diplomacy, Thievery, or Dungeoneering.

Skill challenge are appropriate for situations where you, in the standard "task-based skill check" system, you'd have to map out a lot of possibilities. This can, if insufficiently prepared and unable to adapt, lead to the infamous pixel-hunt.

But, the responses in this thread alone lead to pixel hunting. For example, if the DM disallows a certain skill check, or provides a bonus or penalty to a skill check.

The "Escape from Sembia" example is a nice example. Imagine you had to run this scenario, and you wanted to give the players a lot of options. This would have to mean you have to basically have the whole layout of the city prepared, possibly including guard patrol routes and so on - or randomly determine what kind of obstacles or skill checks they have to face.

But, that is the DMs job.

The latter is already very close to a skill challenge, but the skill challenge eliminates the randomness of what you do and replaces it with "narrative control by players". Mechanically, that's just that they get to choose their skills on their own. But in terms of the roleplaying experience, this feels very different - since it's you are who is choosing the skill you use, you get (but also have to) explain how you use it, leading to a more interesting story being told.
Off course, if you're not interested in the storyteling/roleplaying part, you don't have to do that, but you shouldn't complain then that the system feels lacking role-playing wise.

Luckily, I am not complaining that the system is lacking in role-playing opportunities.

What I am pointing out is that the skill challenge system doesn't noticeably increase the role-playing opportunities. As a player, you have had 'authourial stance' the whole time. You describe what you are doing, then roll to see if it succeeds. This system changes nothing.

But that would ruin the joke. There was one poster that felt this topic was very important - he hated spell-less dragons, off course - and never seemed to react to any counter-argument, falling back on things already said. Interestingly, I can only read quotes from him these days, and my enjoyment of the boards have improved since then...

Then add me to your ignore list and have done with it. Otherwise, address the posts with something other than the broken record of 'use your imagination'.

 

[Lacyon]

It counts for the same success as History, Diplomacy, Thievery, or Dungeoneering.

Correct. The skills are balanced.

Luckily, I am not complaining that the system is lacking in role-playing opportunities.

What I am pointing out is that the skill challenge system doesn't noticeably increase the role-playing opportunities. As a player, you have had 'authourial stance' the whole time. You describe what you are doing, then roll to see if it succeeds. This system changes nothing.

If it changes nothing for you, then it is just as good for you as the system that came before and there is no need to have this conversation. Meanwhile, for some of us the guidelines are immensely helpful.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Correct. The skills are balanced.

No, the skills are fungible. No one skill has any particular meaning in a skill challenge, because any skill can be used at any point. They are meaningless.

If it changes nothing for you, then it is just as good for you as the system that came before and there is no need to have this conversation. Meanwhile, for some of us the guidelines are immensely helpful.

No, the only thing that has changed is that no skill has a discernible outcome until the skill challenge is passed or failed.

I will conjecture that any moderately self aware group will notice no real change, aside from each skill not really having a defined in-game effect within skill challenges, and the meta-game tally.

 

[Lacyon]

No, the skills are fungible. No one skill has any particular meaning in a skill challenge, because any skill can be used at any point. They are meaningless.

They're only as fungible as they're allowed to be. Not every skill can be used at any point.

This has been repeated so many times in this thread that it's ridiculous for you to still be clinging to it.

The skills are balanced because whenever one is allowed, its success or failure counts just as much as the other skills.

No, the only thing that has changed is that no skill has a discernible outcome until the skill challenge is passed or failed.

To my knowledge, no one who's actually used the system is having this problem.

I will conjecture that any moderately self aware group will notice no real change, aside from each skill not really having a defined in-game effect within skill challenges, and the meta-game tally.

In my group, the difference will be that skill checks without clearly defined benefits (i.e., most of them) will actually have an impact on the game instead of being handwaved.

 

[Mallus]

They are meaningless.

I don't think 'meaningless' means what you think it means.

 

[LostSoul]

Or, you could just 'wing it', responding to the various propositions the the players make and creating content as needed. This is almost exactly like having a skill challenge, sans the arbitrary tally of abstract successes and failures.

Hmm. We disagree on a lot, so I'm not surprised to see something else.

I don't think the tally of abstract successes and failures is arbitrary.

I do think DM fiat is - and I think that's the big change.

Or, you could use a narrative map instead, in which various decisions moved the party between preplanned scenes and challenges. That you wouldn't have to have the whole city layout prepared (much of which would go unused anyway). And you could combine that with 'winging it' when or if the party went off the map.

Some people would call that railroading.

In other words, its alot like 'winging' it.

Except for the "by players" part.

In that way, you'd be gauranteed to have a role playing experience where you explain what your character is doing in the game world rather than just explaining the rules you are using.

Uh huh. You of course are perched on the RPG high ground looking down at all of us mere hack and slashers.

That's pretty funny.

 

[WalterKovacs]

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.

Just to be clear ...

Either:

(a) Skill challenges are bad because it allows players to just throw together a string of easy and meaningless skill checks without any real connection to beat the skill challenge with minimal risk

or

(b) Skill challenges are bad because it is just the DM railroading his players into performing the plan he wants them to do by determing which skill checks they will need to make

There is no middle ground, so skill challenges should just be abandoned.

That seems to pretty much be your opinion? It is impossible to salvage the idea of skill challenges.

Of course, we are leaving out the PC planning face. It doesn't have to be the DM that talks a player out of using a skill that makes no sense ... the rest of the party might do it if they understand the risks involved, and don't feel that the particular skill is not relevant.

Also, on the subject of "wide" skills, that was partly to address an issue in 3E where narrow skills were almost entirely ignored. Also, since your skills will basically be EITHER: 1/2 Level + stat mod OR 1/2 Level + stat mod + 5 ... skills that use the same stat would be using the same numbers anyway, unless one is trained and the other isn't.

 

[Storminator]

Otherwise, address the posts with something other than the broken record of 'use your imagination'.

Coming from you, this line is pretty funny.

We get it. You hate skill challenges, and nothing will change your mind. So why don't you move on, so that if anyone actually does want to discuss using skill challenges to improve their game can, without you spamming the thread?

You haven't added anything new to your mindless spewing in the last 2 pages. Please stop.

PS

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Uh huh. You of course are perched on the RPG high ground looking down at all of us mere hack and slashers.

I am pretty certain that most of "you" are not hack and slashers. But you seem to critisize the system using the mindset of a hack and slashers and miss that such a person doesn't care for skill challenges anyway, so it doesn't matter if the tool will work for him.

I am pretty sure that I and my group are a lot closer to Hack & Slash what others do here. Because kicking but and taking names is what we enjoy most. We can even live fine with railroaded plots, as long as we get to slay some enemies along the railway. Sometimes, we are content if we're at least get to roll our skills to get to a meaningful result, and that's something that skill challenges promise to me. (That's the not-so-much Hack & Slash, but definitely Gamist part in me.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But, that is the DMs job.

Sorry, that isn't my job. My job is to run a fun game, not write down a map of a city with guard patrol numbers and times.

When I run a game and the PCs enter a city, assuming I'm not running out of a published adventure or campaign setting, it is likely all I know about the city is its name and approximate size. I might also know that somewhere within the city is an NPC the PCs are supposed to talk to and he is hanging out at an inn.

If I anticipate that the PCs are likely to get into a fight in the inn and need to leave town quickly, I may go as far as stating up some guards for them to fight. But more than likely, I'll have decided if they are going to escape or not in advance. If they are going to escape, I just say "You have guards coming after you...what do you do?" and if they give me any answer whatsoever I'll let it succeed.

The difference is that with the Skill Challenge mechanics, it allows me to reconceptualize this entire situation. Instead of saying "Well, non-combat situations only give out XP optionally and I was going to let them get out of the city no matter what they did, so I'm certainly not giving out XP for that...so what's the point is rolling more than a single roll then moving onward?" I am instead saying "Alright, if this is actually going to be a challenge I give XP out for then it needs to have a risk of failing. However, failing doesn't necessarily mean not getting out of the city. So, what is the consequence of failure? How difficult should it be to succeed? What is the benefit of succeeding? What skills are useful in order to accomplish it? And probably some more stuff as well."

I never gave out XP for non-combat situations in 3e. The guidelines for doing so were way too vague and abuseable. Plus, it seemed like there wasn't any real risk involved. If I wanted my plot to continue and you didn't succeed in the diplomacy check to get the vital clue...I was going to tell you any way or change the plot so there was another way for you to continue.

However, I've been opened to the possibility of something as simple as "You are chasing enemies overland. If you succeed in a skill challenge to catch them then they don't have time to prepare their defenses. If you fail the skill challenge then they are prepared for you and have time to recall their scouts making the combat against them harder."