Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome

[Storm-Bringer]

Why do you have to retcon anything. And why don't successful checks don't further a skill challenge?

Cheers, LT.

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.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Every actual example of play I've seen so far.

And these show how events were determined on the fly, and not after recovery dice were rolled, or skill challenges completed?

 

[Lacyon]

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..

It was one of many possible steps towards solving the challenge. Yes, if you fail to solve the challenge, it is unsolved. So what?

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.

If the players decide to ignore the results of a success instead of building on them, you do indeed have a problem, but it is easily resolved: don't count that success in the tally.

The players can't resolve it in one or two "skill checks" unless you let them - nothing stops you from turning those one or two skills into extended contests requiring multiple successes, nor does anything prevent you from describing the interim results of those successes or failures.

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.

Many complex tasks in both the real world and in the game have separate sub-tasks which may be performed in any order.

Conversely, when performing a skill challenge, nothing prevents you from only allowing certain skills at step 1, and certain other skills at step 2, and so on, if the situation demands it.

If a check doesn't progress you toward a solution to the challenge, it should be disallowed.

Since the order of the rolls doesn't affect the outcome, no individual roll affects the outcome.

By what logic? Every roll affects the outcome, because every roll counts as either a success or failure.

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.

This doesn't follow from your premises at all. The description of the scene in the example you quoted followed precisely from the rolls chosen and their successes/failures.

None of the checks need to lead to each other in causal fashion. They merely need to lead the party towards overall success or overall failure.

And these show how events were determined on the fly, and not after recovery dice were rolled, or skill challenges completed?

Exactly.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

The Devils Trident hits your arm, hurling you to the ground. As your head connects with the ground, you drop unconscious. Your comrades see you're bleeding from the arm and the head, but nobody really has the time to check you.

The Axe hits you directly in the chest, but the armor is absorbing the worst, but the impact is strong enough to press all air out of your lungs, and you drop to the ground.

The Dagger pierces your skin, and you feel a sudden wave of intensive pain, until everything blackens.

The Fireball explodes directly in front of you. While you are still trying to evade, hot air fills your lungs, and you feel the flames covering your eyes, before you go down.

...

As you open you eyes, you see the Warlord standing above you. "No fainting in face of the enemy! Stand up, you fool! You can sleep when you're dead!"
or
You feel hands touching you, and a terrible headache, and hear the wizard mumbling. "Just a superficial wound, my friend. The bandage might not sit perfect, but it'll do! Quick, get up, I am afraid another wave of Kobolds is en route!"

In other words, your character's fate is indeterminate until the outcome of the recovery roll.

In this example:

"The Axe hits you directly in the chest, but the armor is absorbing the worst, but the impact is strong enough to press all air out of your lungs, and you drop to the ground."

If the character isn't healed in time, or the recovery roll is failed, then the armour clearly didn't absorb 'the worst' of it.

More evident in this example:

"The Devils Trident hits your arm, hurling you to the ground. As your head connects with the ground, you drop unconscious. Your comrades see you're bleeding from the arm and the head, but nobody really has the time to check you."

Even if the trident gets a critical and the ground impact does further damage, when you make your recovery roll, it actually didn't do as much damage as you described.

In other words, the nature of Healing Surges and warlord/leader healing abilities doesn't work better with wholly abstract hit points, it requires them. It requires that you retcon nearly every instance of healing, or leave descriptions vague to the point of being meaningless, or unusable.

DM: The soldier swings... Ooooh. A 20, that is max damage... 30 points. You caught that axe right in the chest and are bleeding all over the place.
Player: Crap, that puts me down to -10.
<remainder of the round>
DM: Ok, recovery roll.
Player: A 20! Excellent! I am back up to 25 hit points! I guess that axe didn't hit me at all!

Or something else that makes running descriptions useless or impossible. Either your group is continually re-writing events or the details will be added later. In both cases, it requires reconning the event. The other choice is to simply announce damage, wait for the outcome of a recovery roll or healing surge, and then describe the entire chain of events.

The encounter sequence is exactly the same. You may or may not actually perceive anything with your perception roll. That history check may or may not actually reveal anything pertinent. No check is relevant to the sequence of events until the outcome is determined, at which time, the entire sequence must be described from scratch, or the events in the sequence are retconned. Each skill roll is an individual fragment that must be fitted to the others once the outcome is determined.

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.

Naturally, the DM can adjust the totals if the players are doing something ridiculous. Again, however, this makes the system closer to a single pass/fail skill check. If the characters in the above example were to have their totals altered because they were being careless, it then becomes far harder to succeed than to fail, which falls into the 'anti-fun' category. The failure totals would by necessity be a minimum of 2. A single failure in an encounter would be (to use the vernacular) 'too swingy'. Additionally, that brings us back to a single skill check being the only significant one.

In both cases (combat and skill challenges), the outcome must be determined before the sequence of events that lead to that outcome can be described. Either the running descriptions will be so vague as to be un-needed, or the whole session will be a matter of re-writing prior events.

 

[WhatGravitas]

If the trap was set off or not disarmed, the detail is meaningless.

It is meaningful, because it is the base for the narrative and hence the base on which the players select their next skill checks - which, in turn, determines whether they fail or not. And this will form the story in a coherent way - where's the retcon?

In other words, your character's fate is indeterminate until the outcome of the recovery roll.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Or unrealistic. Example: You get hit by a car. Will you die or will you live? Until the docs arrive, it is hard to know - but reality is still not retconning itself, right?

And in your post above, ret-cons were your problem. But I don't see ret-cons here. If your problem is that skills don't immediately solve a problem, then you probably have and had a lot more problems with D&D - in all editions.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

It was one of many possible steps towards solving the challenge. Yes, if you fail to solve the challenge, it is unsolved. So what?

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.

If the players decide to ignore the results of a success instead of building on them, you do indeed have a problem, but it is easily resolved: don't count that success in the tally.

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

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.

The players can't resolve it in one or two "skill checks" unless you let them - nothing stops you from turning those one or two skills into extended contests requiring multiple successes, nor does anything prevent you from describing the interim results of those successes or failures.

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

Many complex tasks in both the real world and in the game have separate sub-tasks which may be performed in any order.

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

Conversely, when performing a skill challenge, nothing prevents you from only allowing certain skills at step 1, and certain other skills at step 2, and so on, if the situation demands it.

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.

If a check doesn't progress you toward a solution to the challenge, it should be disallowed.

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

By what logic? Every roll affects the outcome, because every roll counts as either a success or 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.

This doesn't follow from your premises at all. The description of the scene in the example you quoted followed precisely from the rolls chosen and their successes/failures.

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.

None of the checks need to lead to each other in causal fashion. They merely need to lead the party towards overall success or overall failure.

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[WhatGravitas]

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

You seem to assume that you can just use any skill. But from what I gather, it's a NCE, meaning the player describes how he uses the skills to what end. And that has to make sense.

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.

Again, you assume that you can arbitrarily select any skill without making sense.

Cheers, LT.

 

[JohnSnow]

In other words, your character's fate is indeterminate until the outcome of the recovery roll.

In this example:

"The Axe hits you directly in the chest, but the armor is absorbing the worst, but the impact is strong enough to press all air out of your lungs, and you drop to the ground."

If the character isn't healed in time, or the recovery roll is failed, then the armour clearly didn't absorb 'the worst' of it.

This just requires a VERY simple fix - always focus on what the PC (or PCs) can feel, see, hear, touch and smell. Make your descriptions as immersive as possible. For that reason, I dislike the above quote. Try this instead:

"The ax hits you directly in the chest, and the force of the blow feels like you've been hit with a tree. Stars flicker before your eyes and you feel your balance failing as a black curtain desends. (addressing other players) You watch as Kelwyn slumps to the ground, the force of the mighty blow dropping him like a sack of potatoes."

See? Now, there's no problem. If he dies, the blow could have given him a punctured lung, a perforated heart, or any of other numerous lethal conditions.

The following is no worse:

More evident in this example:

"The Devils Trident hits your arm, hurling you to the ground. As your head connects with the ground, you drop unconscious. Your comrades see you're bleeding from the arm and the head, but nobody really has the time to check you."

Even if the trident gets a critical and the ground impact does further damage, when you make your recovery roll, it actually didn't do as much damage as you described.

In other words, the nature of Healing Surges and warlord/leader healing abilities doesn't work better with wholly abstract hit points, it requires them. It requires that you retcon nearly every instance of healing, or leave descriptions vague to the point of being meaningless, or unusable.

DM: The soldier swings... Ooooh. A 20, that is max damage... 30 points. You caught that axe right in the chest and are bleeding all over the place.
Player: Crap, that puts me down to -10.
<remainder of the round>
DM: Ok, recovery roll.
Player: A 20! Excellent! I am back up to 25 hit points! I guess that axe didn't hit me at all!

Or something else that makes running descriptions useless or impossible. Either your group is continually re-writing events or the details will be added later. In both cases, it requires reconning the event. The other choice is to simply announce damage, wait for the outcome of a recovery roll or healing surge, and then describe the entire chain of events.

It's been said before but it bears repeating. This is just bad DMing. Here are the exact same events as your example with a different spin:

DM: "The soldier swings... Ooooh. A 20, that is max damage... 30 points."
Player: "Crap, that puts me down to -10."
DM: "The axe smashes through Corwyn's defenses, spraying blood on those nearby. A cloud of blackness descends over his vision and he tastes blood. The rest of you see him slump to the ground, blood covering his face. The soldier grins...
<remainder of the round>
DM: "Ok, give me a recovery roll."
Player: "A 20! Excellent! I stabilize and spend a healing surge to get back up to 25 hit points!" (the natural 20 auto-heal thing is gone).
DM (or Player): "Corwyn comes to, wiping the blood from his face. He tastes the blood on his lips as he catches his breath. He spits blood onto the ground, tightening his grip on his weapons. Clearly, his luck was with him today. Any other day, a blow like that could have killed him."
Player: <insert snappy action hero one-liner here>
<play proceeds>

The only problem you're identifying here is the DM who decides to jump ahead to the final outcome rather than focusing on providing interesting moment-to-moment detail during the process. Just as the player never gets to say "I sever the goblin's head" or "I shoot the dragon in the eye" unless it's backed up by the mechanics, nobody gets to decide what happens before it does.

Intent is one thing. Perception is one thing. Focus your descriptions on what the characters themselves can actually sense. This approach also makes for better descriptions than all the gory crit tables you can invent.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I like to think that the actions are relevant, because the player is making a choice of what skill to use and that colours the scene.

edit: And the actions I take can open up or close out other choices of skills to use. Escape from Sembia: I'm nowhere near a church. I make an Athletics check, telling the DM I'm sprinting for the church of Pelor. Success! The DM tells me that I'm there; now I can use Diplomacy to ask for sanctuary (or Religion, if there's some law I can invoke).

Failing that Athletics check could mean that I don't make it to the church, and can't use Diplomacy or Religion (my best skills).

I also think that success won't be binary; I think there will be levels of success or failure. This means, to me, that which skill check you succeeded or failed on will matter when the DM describes what happens once the skill challenge is resolved.

To me, using Intimidate instead of Diplomacy means something.

 

[hong]

How many rounds is it acceptable to wait until you retcon the results of dropping to -19hit points?

Who said anything about retconning?