Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome

[Mallus]

Or, you could just 'wing it', responding to the various propositions the the players make and creating content as needed.

Cel, I agree w/you that from a certain perspective the skill challenge system looks a lot like what good DM's have been doing for a long time. It's less a new system than it is advice on how use/think about using the existing one.

But it's good advice. Especially for those who aren't already heeding it.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

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.

When you exclude the middle ground, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Option A is pretty much how the system has been presented, with the 'say yes' design philosophy. Clearly, that leads to absurd situations. The suggested solution, ie option B, with DMs deciding what skills are appropriate, isn't any different than how things are done now, except for the meta-game tally.

Between those two, we have 'flexibility'. The DM sets up a situation, say a poison bomb in a corpse, and hangs it in a tree. That same DM knows why it is in the tree, and what will set off or defuse it, in general terms. At that point, when the players interact with it, there will be a general course for getting from point A to point B. If the Rogue wants to climb the tree, the Wizard on the ground doesn't get to progress the plot with a Spot check ("You see a corpse in a tree next to the Rogue. Next.") But the player of the Rogue can ask "What do I see?", at which point the DM describes the corpse, possibly making a secret Spot check. With the more pointed question, "Do I see anything unusual about the corpse?", the player may get to roll the Spot check, maybe with a bonus, or the DM uses the result of the prior check. The Rogue shouts down, "It looks like someone cut it open and sewed it back up". Being an unusual detail, the Cleric makes a Knowledge (Religion) check with a bonus and can't recall any society that hangs a corpse in a tree as a standard burial rite, and certainly not one that would cut a body open and sew it back up first. All this messing around catches the attention of the Dryad, at which point the Ranger calls upon his Nature skills to talk to the Dryad. She is unaware of when the corpse was hung there, but it wasn't there yesterday. Further conversation reveals her enmity with a black satyr in the area. "Well," the PCs decide, "hanging the corpse in the tree could be a warning, but cutting it open and sewing it back together serves little purpose." They decide the Rogue should carefully cut it down and lower it from the tree. The Rogue goes about cutting some of the rope, but being extended on the limb a bit, fails a Dex check and tumbles out of the tree, bumping the corpse. It is still held up by most of the rope, but the incision splits a little, and some yellowish gas escapes. The party is certain that any further rough handling will set it off. The Wizard employs Rope Use to instruct the others in supporting the corpse so it doesn't fall when it is removed from the tree. Further checks ensue. Possibly with skills that have been determined to be 'useless' by most people.

So, it progresses logically, and we don't get a nonsensical outcome like

...rolls athletics to catch the corpse gently and makes it (but it wouldn't have burst anyways since the challenge was won), then the rogue describes burying it so that it won't hurt anything else, which I tell him he doesn't need to roll...

While it is one group's interpretation, we see that once the challenge is won, nothing further they do in regards to that situation matters. The can swing the corpse around by the heels and toss it at each other. The original example was solved mostly by talking and looking. In essence, they bored the trap into disarming itself.

So, you tell me which one is more enjoyable. The players figuring it out one step at a time, or the players rolling dice to see if they are allowed to figure it out.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

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.

This part makes no sense to me.

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.

So, you never used the previous system, but are certain this one is better?

 

[D'karr]

So, you never used the previous system, but are certain this one is better?

Well, I did use the previous system. Since 3.x came out.

I played with this "new" system at DDXP. I've run 6 different groups through playtests using the "new" system.

Better is a matter of opinion, but for me and my group, it is better.

 

[D'karr]

While it is one group's interpretation, we see that once the challenge is won, nothing further they do in regards to that situation matters. The can swing the corpse around by the heels and toss it at each other. The original example was solved mostly by talking and looking. In essence, they bored the trap into disarming itself.

So, you tell me which one is more enjoyable. The players figuring it out one step at a time, or the players rolling dice to see if they are allowed to figure it out.

Like you say it is one group's interpretation. The DM didn't have to tell them the challenge was won and continued having them roll. But the point is that the challenge was already won.

Do marathon runners continue to run way past the goal line or do they stop once the race is run?

The outcome of the challenge had already been decided. There is no need to continue to beat the dead horse at that point, as it does not add anything of value to the adventure.

 

[Nine Hands]

I wonder if I can embed a skill challenge within a combat. I typically set up the "stop the ritual" adventure so that success is defined as smacking the high priest mid-syllable. I wonder if I can make the ritual more robust, and the defeat of it more intricate by use of a skill challenge, but have that interrupted by the temple guards. Then I have an extended combat and an extended skill challenge at the same time.

What do you think?

PS

That would be a very interesting combat. I'd probably have the players roll the skill challenge rolls on their turn and either not charge them an action or maybe a minor. Sure it goes outside of the "box" of the rules, but I've never been one for keeping my game in one.

 

[Nine Hands]

Like you say it is one group's interpretation. The DM didn't have to tell them the challenge was won and continued having them roll. But the point is that the challenge was already won.

Do marathon runners continue to run way past the goal line or do they stop once the race is run?

The outcome of the challenge had already been decided. There is no need to continue to beat the dead horse at that point, as it does not add anything of value to the adventure.

At first I was thinking you were talking about this thread

As long as the players have figured out how not to set off the trap, they can interact with it without the need for dice rolls.

Personally if I see players coming up with good ways to use their skills in game via a skill challenge, I will be very happy and the system will work for me. I've already throw skill challenges into my Star Wars game and they worked pretty well.

Sadly some people don't like em, but thats the way things go. Whats important is if it works for your group, everything else is secondary.

 

[hong]

When you exclude the middle ground, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Yes, postcount-challenged one, that's what I said.

Option A is pretty much how the system has been presented, with the 'say yes' design philosophy. Clearly, that leads to absurd situations.

Only by those willing to extrapolate to absurd lengths.

The suggested solution, ie option B, with DMs deciding what skills are appropriate, isn't any different than how things are done now, except for the meta-game tally.

Yes, that is also what I said.

Between those two, we have 'flexibility'.

Precisely.

So, you tell me which one is more enjoyable. The players figuring it out one step at a time, or the players rolling dice to see if they are allowed to figure it out.

The players rolling dice to solve the problem, of course. That is the essence of avoiding pixel-bitching. Well, assuming we can agree on what pixel-bitching is. Presumably it's not postcount.

 

[pemerton]

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.

And without the players getting to narrate and create content.

Cel, I agree w/you that from a certain perspective the skill challenge system looks a lot like what good DM's have been doing for a long time. It's less a new system than it is advice on how use/think about using the existing one.

But it's good advice. Especially for those who aren't already heeding it.

I don't agree with this. The notion that the mechanics of games like HeroWars or The Dying Earth are simply RQ or 3E D&D plus good GMing advice is not very plausible. They are different mechanics, intended to deliver a different play experience. I would expect the skill challenge mechanics to do the same.

 

[pemerton]

Because the skill challenge system doesn't track what skills you use, just how many. So, climbing a rope, talking to a stablehand, recalling trivia, or any other skill has the exact same value. It doesn't matter how or where you climb the rope, just that you do or don't so the appropriate tally can be marked. A player could use any other skill interchangeably for any particular part of a skill challenge.

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.

You seem to be assuming that what is narrated in an RPG doesn't matter - ie that there is no difference between narrating the skill attempt of "my ropeclimbing guy" and narrating the skill attempt of "my diplomancer". This is a bizarre assumption to make in the context of a discussion of RPG mechanics.

In other words, the "meaning" of a skill challenge is introduced by player narration. If the players don't care for this - ie if they are indifferent to whether their PCs are ropeclimbing guys or diplomancers, and the various thematic or aesthetic implications of such differences - then they may not care for skill challenges.

Option A is pretty much how the system has been presented, with the 'say yes' design philosophy.

I don't think so. Option A says nothing about the importance of player narration.

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.

This makes no sense to me. The skills on a character sheet tell us what a PC is good at. From that we, as players of the game, can infer that much of the action in the game will involve the PC doing that thing (rather than some other thing at which s/he is not good).

And of course the skill used does matter: it determines which narrations by a player are permitted and which are not. And it seems that these narrations may in turn feed back into the mechanics, via the GM's assignment of difficulty both to the check for the PC who's action is being narrated, and for future checks for other PCs.

You seem to be inferring, from the fact that at the gaming table any skill may be used if the player makes a good case for it, that in the gameworld there is no causal relationship between tasks attempted and skills used. This inference is as fallacious as the following one: because at the table a GM can decide to put whatever monsters s/he wishes in her or his dungeon, in the gameworld there are no demographic constraints at work. The second inference ignores the fact that we infer demographic constraints from metagame dungeon-design choices. The first ignores the fact that we infer ingame causality from player skill challenge narration.

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.

No. As noted by Lost Soul in multiple posts, the sequence of narration colours what is possible. And it probably also effects the mechanical difficulty of subsequent skill checks.

No single roll in a skill challenge is causally related to any other roll.

Do you mean in game causality? In that case the checks are so related, because previous narrations colour subsequent narrations. Do you mean causality at the game table? In that case the checks are also causally related, because (i) previous narrations must be accounted for by subsequent player narrations, and (ii) previous narrations are likely to affect the mechanical difficulty of certain subsequent skill checks.

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

Are you suggesting it would make no difference to play to resolve combat by one die roll (computed out of the stats of the monsters and the PCs) rather than as currently done? That seems an odd view to take about RPG design. When one factors in that choices at time 1 can change the relevance of a given stat at time 2, the notion becomes even more bizarre, either for combat or skill challenges.

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.

You seem to be missing the part where the player explains how it is that climbing the tree brings the PCs closer to a solution. And then when the next player to take a turn explains how his or her PC is capitalising on the tree-climb-benefit.

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.

Why is it divorced from player authorial stance? Their narrations determine ingame causality, colour the action, and influence subsequent mechanical outcomes. What more "authorial stance" do you want?

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.

In fact, if the GM gets to decide whether or not my PC's attempt actually contributes to success, then I don't have authorial stance.

The DM sets up a situation, say a poison bomb in a corpse, and hangs it in a tree.

<snip description of sequence of task-resolution PC actions>

So, it progresses logically

<snip>

we see that once the challenge is won, nothing further they do in regards to that situation matters. The can swing the corpse around by the heels and toss it at each other.

<snip>

So, you tell me which one is more enjoyable. The players figuring it out one step at a time, or the players rolling dice to see if they are allowed to figure it out.

There is nothing illogical about the progression of a skill challenge. The GM does not have a monopoly on the capacity for logical narration. Nor does it follow that "nothing further done in regards to the situation matters". The actions narrated by the players were actions consistent with resolving the challenge (and thus couldn't fail, given the challenge was over). If the actions narrated were not so consistent, but were rather such things as "swinging the corpse around by the heels and tossing it at each other" it would be quite a different matter.

As to which is more fun, RQ or HeroWars, opinions differ. But your suggestion that HeroWars is unplayable, or produces illogical or untenable play, is absurd.

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!

The notion that 1st ed AD&D action resolution mechanics (if they can be called that - is persuading the GM a mechanic?) will produce more player participation and more intelligent roleplaying than the sort of mechanics that are common in contemporary narrativist RPGs is a little surprising to me. Do you have any evidence or personal experience that you base this hypothesis on?