Skill Challenges for Dummies

[Stalker0]

I certainly started a firestorm with my other post

The OP's post is valid that I didn't talk about utility powers in the other thread. Let me show you some numbers now to once again validate my point.

Let's use stick with the scenario I used before. Let's take that average party, but now the rogue will get the reroll his bluff check utility power. Also, let's give him a +2 skill item, afterall he's the skill guy!

Let's look at a complexity 5 challenge. Normally the rogue would only get his power once in this encounter, but to make the math easy and see just how strong that utility power could be theoretically I'm going to give him the benefit on every roll.

Normally that complexity 5 would have a 7% win rate. Now? It has a 18.42%.

I should caution people that I'm fudging the rolls on this one for convenience, I am averaging the rogue's skill roll into the party average. Because the way equations work, my answer is actually slightly higher than the actual result, probably by about 2%-4%.

How about a complexity 1? Normally we have a 18.75% win rate for this one. With our new skilled rogue, its 28.39%.

So the utility powers do help, there's no question...but they certainly don't fix the system. However, keep in mind that if they did, that would be the most horrible thing in the world!!! Basically the system would say that your party is doomed to failure unless you take concerted effort to bump your skills and get utility powers that help them. The system must be able to handle both parties with and without a lot of skill assistance.

However, I do thank the OP for his comments. In designing my skill system I wasn't taking a hard look at some of the higher level utility powers, and I will consider them more in the future.

 

[two]

No, what the math calculates is the probability that a certain sequence will take place before any part of it happens to take place. The math is not wrong in that context.

Where the math does not tell the whole story, what it is dismissing, is the fact that each die roll is an independent and unrelated occurance. The result of one die roll does not dictate the probability of the next die roll.

I am going to do my "good deed" for the day.

I'd suggest you just stop. Seriously. Just let it go. It's not a big deal, and it's not worth getting worked up about, and if you insist on continuing this debate... well, let's just say you are not... you are probably not presenting yourself in the best light... not quite sure how to put it in a way that's kind... just... let it go...

 

[SableWyvern]

No, what the math calculates is the probability that a certain sequence will take place before any part of it happens to take place. The math is not wrong in that context.

Where the math does not tell the whole story, what it is dismissing, is the fact that each die roll is an independent and unrelated occurance. The result of one die roll does not dictate the probability of the next die roll.

Situation 1: I offer you a $10 bet, paying out $30 if you win, that you can't toss five heads in row. You won't take the bet, because the chance of tossing five heads in a row is only about 3%. The Gambler's Fallacy does not come into play.

Situation 2: I see you toss a coin four times, and get heads every time. I offer you a $10 bet, paying out $30 if you win, that you can't make it five in a row. You know you've got a 50% chance of getting another one, so you take the bet. By offering the bet in the first place, I am probably engaged in the Gambler's Fallacy.

When the DM is planning a skill challenge, his players are in the first situation, not the second. None of the probabilities have been resolved. If he sets a skill challenge, "Make five 50/50 Skill checks, and you lose if you fail one," then the players will not want to have anything to do with that challenge. The challenge isn't a challenge, it's in invitation to failure.

I'm not convinced one way or the other about skill challenges in D&D4E, but I'm certain the Gambler's Fallacy has no part to play in the discussion either way.

 

[pemerton]

The complexity problem is there because the rules state that a success in a complexity 1 challenge should give out as much XP as 1 monster of its level, while a success in a complexity 5 challenge should give out as much XP as 5 monsters of its level. It doesn't feel fair to the players to get a lot more XP for something that is easier to do, just because it meant rolling more dice.

If the skill challenge is nothing but rolling the dice then something's gone wrong with the game, I think.

It's worth more XP because it was more important to the story. The greater number of dice didn't cause that; they're an effect of that.

 

[mmu1]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=229919

Thanks.

 

[hong]

There is also a difficulty factor in complex skill challenges that hasn't been touched on: finding more ways to narrate/describe what your skill checks are doing in-game. How many ways can you spin "I roll Diplomacy"?

 

[LostSoul]

It doesn't feel fair to the players to get a lot more XP for something that is easier to do, just because it meant rolling more dice.

I am assuming that the designers decided to reward all that extra XP because the encounter is more significant.

Quest XP has nothing to do with the ease of the challenge to complete it, either. It's all about time spent by the players playing the game.

 

[Tervin]

There is also a difficulty factor in complex skill challenges that hasn't been touched on: finding more ways to narrate/describe what your skill checks are doing in-game. How many ways can you spin "I roll Diplomacy"?

I have tried to merge the skill challenge concept with how my usual D&D accomplices play through social scenes. For our group it will probably mean that in order to use a skill more than once you have to come up with fresh things that you are doing - in this case fresh arguments, probably building on other things that have emerged during the encounter. And for those players that would never be a problem.

I have been considering a table rule that no player can make two rolls in a row during a skill challenge (only counting rolls that can lead to successes and failures) in order to make sure that it is a group effort. I might also include a rule that it is impossible to get a bonus to a roll if it means using the same skill the second time in a row. Don't think I will really need either though.

 

[seusomon]

It's not true that more complex challenges are easier in general. They are easier if the probability of success on an individual skill check is above a critical value. If the probability of success is around 0.5, then the more complex challenges are much more difficult than the less complex ones.

I mentioned this on the other thread, but I don't think it was noticed. Higher complexity benefits extremely skilled characters and hurts less skilled characters. This makes some sense from an in-game perspective: highly skilled characters are more likely to succeed if their skills are tested repeatedly, as this gives them an opportunity to overcome a random bit of bad luck.

The XP awards seem OK to me. More complex challenges are more involved, more significant in narrative terms, AND more difficult unless the PCs are highly skilled in the appropriate areas. It's much harder to get through them by relying on luck.

 

[Tervin]

It's not true that more complex challenges are easier in general. They are easier if the probability of success on an individual skill check is above a critical value. If the probability of success is around 0.5, then the more complex challenges are much more difficult than the less complex ones.

True, complex challenges end up very hard to get through if you set the DCs high. That was one of the first things handled in the other thread, I think. Thing is, I don't think most people want a system where it is really unlikely that you will succed in your skill challenge - it sort of becomes pointless from the players' point of view.

For the DCs that seem to give reasonable results for the players, the complex versions feel too easy comparatively. And that is what I think people have been saying.