Skill Challenges: can someone please explain?
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Ok. To a certain extent this is supposition, because we don't have the full chapter. But its relatively informed supposition, hopefully free from hysteria.
The party needs to accomplish something non combat related, that's likely to take more than a single skill check to complete. Lets say its convincing the Duke to redistribute his troops away from one border and closer to another.
You, the DM, declare that a skill challenge is taking place. You set a general challenge rating, which is sort of your default Skill DC for when the rules don't otherwise dictate a particular DC. Lets say you set it at 15. This is now your touch stone DC for the encounter. This is particularly useful when the PCs are using skills in an "opposed roll" type situation when the skills themselves aren't really opposed roll type skills. For example, climbing a wall faster than someone else. Climbing isn't usually an opposed skill, its a fixed DC. But in a skill challenge it might be best, based on story needs, to define it otherwise.
The PCs may then use skills to try to get closer to completing the challenge.
So PC1 comes up with an idea on how to use his Intimidate skill to help in the skill challenge. You set a DC for this skill check based on how likely you think this skill is to work, as per standard. You take into account all the usual stuff- what leverage do the PCs have to help them intimidate the Duke? You are permitted to declare that the PCs simply lack the ability to intimidate this particular character, for story reasons, as standard. Then the PC rolls his skill roll. As usual, you can assign bonuses for good roleplaying, or whatever it is you do with social skill rolls.
If you think that PC1s idea makes sense, and he beats the DC, the party gets a "success."
If you think that PC1s idea doesn't make sense, and he beats the DC, perhaps it doesn't give the party a success, but it doesn't hurt.
If you think that PC1s idea is likely to be counterproductive, or if he fails the skill roll, the party gets a failure.
Once the party gets a certain number of successes, they succeed at their overall objective.
If before that happens they get a certain number of failures, they fail.
That's... pretty much it.
It doesn't negate any of the usual rules about narration and DMing, but it does present a framework for you as a DM to prepare in advance for scenes that are likely to be resolved by using skills.
The party needs to accomplish something non combat related, that's likely to take more than a single skill check to complete. Lets say its convincing the Duke to redistribute his troops away from one border and closer to another.
You, the DM, declare that a skill challenge is taking place. You set a general challenge rating, which is sort of your default Skill DC for when the rules don't otherwise dictate a particular DC. Lets say you set it at 15. This is now your touch stone DC for the encounter. This is particularly useful when the PCs are using skills in an "opposed roll" type situation when the skills themselves aren't really opposed roll type skills. For example, climbing a wall faster than someone else. Climbing isn't usually an opposed skill, its a fixed DC. But in a skill challenge it might be best, based on story needs, to define it otherwise.
The PCs may then use skills to try to get closer to completing the challenge.
So PC1 comes up with an idea on how to use his Intimidate skill to help in the skill challenge. You set a DC for this skill check based on how likely you think this skill is to work, as per standard. You take into account all the usual stuff- what leverage do the PCs have to help them intimidate the Duke? You are permitted to declare that the PCs simply lack the ability to intimidate this particular character, for story reasons, as standard. Then the PC rolls his skill roll. As usual, you can assign bonuses for good roleplaying, or whatever it is you do with social skill rolls.
If you think that PC1s idea makes sense, and he beats the DC, the party gets a "success."
If you think that PC1s idea doesn't make sense, and he beats the DC, perhaps it doesn't give the party a success, but it doesn't hurt.
If you think that PC1s idea is likely to be counterproductive, or if he fails the skill roll, the party gets a failure.
Once the party gets a certain number of successes, they succeed at their overall objective.
If before that happens they get a certain number of failures, they fail.
That's... pretty much it.
It doesn't negate any of the usual rules about narration and DMing, but it does present a framework for you as a DM to prepare in advance for scenes that are likely to be resolved by using skills.
This thread will likely help. Take a read through it and see if you can follow the flow of the challenges. I know it helped me a lot in visualizing how it's going to work in 4e.
Hrm, still not getting it.
I'm having a problem wrapping my mind around how it will actually play out in a game, from a DM's perspective.
Right now, if I sat at a table and ran a 4e game, I would be utterly stumped on how to actually play out a skill challenge.
There's also an element of it not actually being any different from 3.x. That's what I'm struggling to understand. Where are the differences? I would often allow players to be imaginative about their skill usage and would often do several rolls throughout an encounter.
I think I need to actually sit in on a skill challenge to get it. See someone else DM one before I'll be able to visualise it and repeat it.
I'm having a problem wrapping my mind around how it will actually play out in a game, from a DM's perspective.
Right now, if I sat at a table and ran a 4e game, I would be utterly stumped on how to actually play out a skill challenge.
There's also an element of it not actually being any different from 3.x. That's what I'm struggling to understand. Where are the differences? I would often allow players to be imaginative about their skill usage and would often do several rolls throughout an encounter.
I think I need to actually sit in on a skill challenge to get it. See someone else DM one before I'll be able to visualise it and repeat it.
From what you're describing that you do right now in your 3.x games, it sounds like you're already doing Skill Challenges. 4e is just codifying it into (presumably) some sort of formal structure. "For PCs of X level, a SC rating of Y should be used to adequately challenge them."
Wisdom Penalty
First Post
baberg said:
Right, you're way ahead of the normal 3E crowd. There's nothing remotely close to a "skill challenge" in 3E. You may have complex skill checks, which were introduced, but a codified mechanic to allow all players to contribute to the success or failure of a non-combat task via game mechanics? Not so much.
thalmin
Retired game store owner
Playing out a skill challenge works like playing out a combat encounter. Everyone should be involved. Just go around the table (or use Initiative if you want) for what each character is doing to help. In the example about the Duke, it's more than " I make a perception check." Instead the player can say "I look around the room to get an idea what interests this guy." The player gives the DM an excuse to allow a skill to work. A non-successful roll doesn't have to count as a failure, it could just mean no progress towards success.
There is no set way to succeed. The DM decides if an action could help the situation (or hurt it) and when enough successes (or failures) are rolled, the encounter is resolved.
It will probably require a couple of encounters for the DM and players to get the hang of this, but that is the case for most things that are new.
edit: Then again, maybe not if you already do this. Dang, I type too slow!
There is no set way to succeed. The DM decides if an action could help the situation (or hurt it) and when enough successes (or failures) are rolled, the encounter is resolved.
It will probably require a couple of encounters for the DM and players to get the hang of this, but that is the case for most things that are new.
edit: Then again, maybe not if you already do this. Dang, I type too slow!
Thasmodious
First Post
Kzach, you're right. Its not anything new or revolutionary, and something many DMs have done before, albeit in a different form. In many ways, it's similar to things we did in previous editions, giving XP for a trap in 3e, for example. It's a set of mechanics for running non combat, skill based situations in game as an encounter that grants XP and other rewards.
From a DM's perspective, it's an easy way to plan and adjudicate mechanically, non combat encounters. You can set up the parameters of the challenge ahead of time, as you would a typical monster encounter. Players choose their actions in much the way they do in combat, round to round, stating their intent, rolling dice and trying to "win" the encounter.
From a DM's perspective, it's an easy way to plan and adjudicate mechanically, non combat encounters. You can set up the parameters of the challenge ahead of time, as you would a typical monster encounter. Players choose their actions in much the way they do in combat, round to round, stating their intent, rolling dice and trying to "win" the encounter.
This type of scene could be done in 3e, but to me some of the benefits in making it a bit more formal
1) helps create a complex non-combat scene using multiple skill checks with a set beginning and end (helps with pacing and tension)
2) mostly reward character skill (equivalent to combat stats and powers)
3) at the same time encourage player creativity (equivalent to combat tactics)
4) encourage all players to participate in the scene (although not always equally which is fine)
5) DM can set up interesting follow-on events based on the outcome of the scene, so players feel direct consequence of outcome
Simple skill checks are still fine for specific actions (climb this wall to get a better view).
Again, all of this could be done with 3e but was often not done (partly due to narrower skill definitions).
For instance, often in 3e a diplomatic scene like the one in the excerpt was handled as a single diplomacy role by the player with the highest skill level, and everyone else aiding.
A skill challenge would have the DM go around the table asking each player what skill they would like to use, and more than one skill (perception, diplomacy, history, religion) could be applicable in moving toward the goal. Each skill check represents an incremental step vs. all or nothing. You could even throw in a Wormtounge like advisor whispering in the King's ear, and add 1 failure every other round if successful at his own Diplomacy check.
Take a look at the non-trap skill compendium thread for some more examples of the kinds scenes ppl are thinking may benefit from this type of extended skill encounter. The summary list is below:
1) "Catastrophe aftermath" (e.g., save the town on fire)
2) "Broker a deal" (e.g., stop king from declaring war)
3) "Escape"
4) "Pursuit"
5) "Infiltrate" (e.g., find way into tower jail without alerting guards)
6) "Fortify defenses"
7) "Repair/sabotage structure" (e.g., repair before the ship sinks, sabotage the seige engine)
8) "Gather allies"
9) "Investigation"
10) "Long distance travel"
1) helps create a complex non-combat scene using multiple skill checks with a set beginning and end (helps with pacing and tension)
2) mostly reward character skill (equivalent to combat stats and powers)
3) at the same time encourage player creativity (equivalent to combat tactics)
4) encourage all players to participate in the scene (although not always equally which is fine)
5) DM can set up interesting follow-on events based on the outcome of the scene, so players feel direct consequence of outcome
Simple skill checks are still fine for specific actions (climb this wall to get a better view).
Again, all of this could be done with 3e but was often not done (partly due to narrower skill definitions).
For instance, often in 3e a diplomatic scene like the one in the excerpt was handled as a single diplomacy role by the player with the highest skill level, and everyone else aiding.
A skill challenge would have the DM go around the table asking each player what skill they would like to use, and more than one skill (perception, diplomacy, history, religion) could be applicable in moving toward the goal. Each skill check represents an incremental step vs. all or nothing. You could even throw in a Wormtounge like advisor whispering in the King's ear, and add 1 failure every other round if successful at his own Diplomacy check.
Take a look at the non-trap skill compendium thread for some more examples of the kinds scenes ppl are thinking may benefit from this type of extended skill encounter. The summary list is below:
1) "Catastrophe aftermath" (e.g., save the town on fire)
2) "Broker a deal" (e.g., stop king from declaring war)
3) "Escape"
4) "Pursuit"
5) "Infiltrate" (e.g., find way into tower jail without alerting guards)
6) "Fortify defenses"
7) "Repair/sabotage structure" (e.g., repair before the ship sinks, sabotage the seige engine)
8) "Gather allies"
9) "Investigation"
10) "Long distance travel"
It's not entirely clear from the excerpt, but assuming that D&D skill challenges are meant to resemble the mechanics in other RPGs that they resemble (eg contests in HeroWars/Quest) then they will have another important difference from skill use in games like RQ, RM and typical 3E.
In the above-mentioned games, success or failure on the skill roll indicates success at a certain task (eg climbing a wall, reciting a beautiful poem). It is typically left up to the GM to arbitrate whether or not succeeding at that task actually helps the PC get closer to the goal that the player is aiming at. With a skill challenge, on the other hand, it is the case that if the players rack up sufficiently many successes then they achieve their goal - and they thus earn the entitlement to explain how it is that, by doing those things, the PCs have got what the players wanted.
The skill challenge therefore removes a degree of control over the story from the GM, and hands it to the players - by successfully rolling skill checks in a skill challenge the players are able to make it be the case in the gameworld that doing those things that the PCs have done ensures success.
Whether the narration of the ingame events that gives voice to this state of affairs will be performed by the GM, or by the players, I think will vary from group to group. I am hoping that the DMG discusses this issue at least as well as it is discussed in other RPG books (eg the Hero's Book for HeroQuest).
In the above-mentioned games, success or failure on the skill roll indicates success at a certain task (eg climbing a wall, reciting a beautiful poem). It is typically left up to the GM to arbitrate whether or not succeeding at that task actually helps the PC get closer to the goal that the player is aiming at. With a skill challenge, on the other hand, it is the case that if the players rack up sufficiently many successes then they achieve their goal - and they thus earn the entitlement to explain how it is that, by doing those things, the PCs have got what the players wanted.
The skill challenge therefore removes a degree of control over the story from the GM, and hands it to the players - by successfully rolling skill checks in a skill challenge the players are able to make it be the case in the gameworld that doing those things that the PCs have done ensures success.
Whether the narration of the ingame events that gives voice to this state of affairs will be performed by the GM, or by the players, I think will vary from group to group. I am hoping that the DMG discusses this issue at least as well as it is discussed in other RPG books (eg the Hero's Book for HeroQuest).
