D&D 5E Skill Challenges in 5E

[LostSoul]

Great post here except I would say that Skill Challenges work only, not best, when they are resolving an abstract situation. They don't work at all when you're premising your expectations upon granular, zoomed-in process simulation. If you want that, then you should be using task resolution (see pit > check > gauge pit > check > dodge artillery > check > navigate terrain > check > jump pit > check) and objective DCs. I would reserve "they work better" for when they're resolving a high stakes scenario.

Yep, that was always my problem with skill challenges. That's why I don't use them in my hack; everything is too detailed to make it work. Except social challenges.

To repeat myself, I think that's why they are so good at social challenges: there's no way the DM can "map out" the personality of the NPC(s) involved, so skill checks - when the DM is unsure how the NPC will react - are an excellent solution.

 

[pemerton]

4E is a strange game. It's almost a very powerful Story Now engine hidden under a mass of character build options. I think that, if the build options were more obviously thematic - representing the conflict inherent in the 4E world - and the reward system were a little different, it would be similar to Burning Wheel. As it is, I think it's missing the mark.

The lack of the reward system is why I describe my 4e play as "vanilla narrativist".

Otherwise what you're describing here is basically how I see 4e - but gonzo to BW's gritty.

 

[Starfox]

4E as narrativist in the Forge sense? That would force me to change my expectation of narrativist gaming quite a lot. I'd expect a narrativist game to have a much deeper take on character motivations and involve the players (as opposed to merely the PCs) a lot more in the creation of the story. But then, I never saw a really narrativst game, except perhaps Robin Law's recent Hillfolk. I probably have not groked Forge narrativism, as I disagree with most things the Forge essays says about narrativisim vs simulationism.

 

[pemerton]

4E as narrativist in the Forge sense?

Yes. That 4e leans this way in certain respects is not very contentious, I think, among those who care for the Forge framework. Whether it's actually well-suited to narrativist play is a different matter - I think it is (based on my own play experience) but [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] and others have good points to make (based on their own play experiences) about 4e's issues and limitations in this respect.

I'd expect a narrativist game to have a much deeper take on character motivations and involve the players (as opposed to merely the PCs) a lot more in the creation of the story.

4e does give the players a high degree of control over story, via their choices at PC build. This is the matter of "thematic loading" of PC design choices - [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and I find this to be quite high in 4e, whereas others disagree.

At least in part, I think this reflects different attitudes towards certain gonzo fantasy tropes. But that's probably not all of it.

 

[Imaro]

Between the DCs for a single check and the DCs for a skill challlenge.

Again, this was accounted for by the fact that the wall was presented as more difficult to climb in the fiction (It being more brittle and less stable than a normal wall). So what incongruence does allowing the wall to be climbed in the narrative when the roll failed address? Also I still haven't seen you address the supposed "silliness"of the rogue falling, care to elaborate on that some?

Why do you say this?

Because it's true...

I don't unerstand why you say this. Look at the example in the DMG, for instance, of the conversation with the Duke. Each check reflects an event in the fiction, which then has a consequence within the overall development of the challenge. This is also what the DMG advice (quoted by me upthread) says. The fiction changes as the resolution unfolds.

So let me get this straight... each check reflects an event in the fiction... right? Because earlier other posters were claiming that the rolls for skill challenges weren't tied to specific events on a micro level. Just making sure we're on the same page here. Now I never said whether the fiction was affected or not, but in a SC per the DMG you either attain your goal (through attaining x successes before y failures) or you suffer the failure consequences (because you suffered Y failures before x successes). That's binary either succeed or fail... there is no SC condition that is a partial success or a partial failure per the book... and regardless of how the fiction changes throughout the SC, at the end of it you have either succeeded or failed, plain and simple. In the example you cited the PC's either gain the help they need from the duke or they do not... there is no partial success and the conditions of such don't exist.

EDIT:I'm curious about your take on the fact that the SC rules have you designate skills ahead of time as primary or secondary, and while the narrative may allow other skill choices to open up, the book states that such skills should have a hard DC (pg. 75 "Reward Clever Ideas"). So it seems like in a Skill Challenge it is advantageous for players to try and think in the mind space of the DM since they will be rewarded with easier DC's, vs. thinking outside the box which will result in harder DC's. This seems like an issue where it's easier to just go along with what the DM has pre-planned rather than try and "create"the narrative you may want.

Well, there are two ways to update/improve the rules and advice for a game. One is to release revised versions of already-published books. Another is to publish more/better material in follow-up books. 4e adopted the second model.

If your real point is that the advice in the DMG would benefit from supplementation, I haven't seen anyone deny that. If you contention is that the DMG2 changes the rules, I don't agree with that.

I'm not commenting as to why they created DMG 2... I just find it ironic that when one talks about any other edition, the discussion is usually regulated to the core books while with 4e it isn't.

I'm not sure about DMG 2 but I believe the rules in essentials for Skill Challenges are different from DMG 1.

 

[pemerton]

Because it's true...

Evidence? Rules text?

So let me get this straight... each check reflects an event in the fiction... right? Because earlier other posters were claiming that the rolls for skill challenges weren't tied to specific events on a micro level.

Who said that? The only poster who contrasted macro/micro levels was [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], and I know he agrees with me on this point.

I just find it ironic that when one talks about any other edition, the discussion is usually regulated to the core books while with 4e it isn't.

I don't see any irony. Also, when I pop into 3E or PF threads I see plenty of discussion of non-core material.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by Starfox
I'd expect a narrativist game to have a much deeper take on character motivations and involve the players (as opposed to merely the PCs) a lot more in the creation of the story.

4e does give the players a high degree of control over story, via their choices at PC build. This is the matter of "thematic loading" of PC design choices - @Manbearcat and I find this to be quite high in 4e, whereas others disagree.

At least in part, I think this reflects different attitudes towards certain gonzo fantasy tropes. But that's probably not all of it.

I do. I just wrote a pretty abridged post regarding the formalization of Quests in 4e and how, by my eyes and certainly by the effect on play at my table, it is D&D's version of "establish transparent and focused premise" and the PC build tools and resolution tools are D&D's version of "address transparent and focused premise." I would say that is as bare-bones for Story Now creative agenda as you need. Whether or not the tools are up to the task is contentious, and thoughtful folks (like Ratskinner, LostSoul moderately disagree, while other thoughtful folks like Imaro, Nagol, billd rather vehemently disagree) have differing opinions there. But I say it meets those two criterion. Further, it provides players with deeply thematic tools to affect the narrative, engaging and attempting to affirm their various premises, via deployment of Author stance, and on rare occasion, Director.

Case in point. I had a player with a formalized, transparent, self-authored quest for the Heroic Tier of play. It was sort of a "Dark Side vs Light Side of the Force" Quest. A lengthy Skill Challenge (spanning all of 10th level) decided the outcome of that Quest. He was able to deploy a great deal of authorship over the outcome (via PC-build resource deployment). In the end, he lost the Skill Challenge. Inherent to that outcome was (i) the more negative outcome to the Quest, (ii) retraining a few feats/powers and/or adding a few keywords to powers and removing a few others, (iii) an Alternate Advancement award, (iv) and his choice of Paragon Path and Epic Destiny for those Tiers. It completely shaped the character for the final two tiers of play. There was no GM fiat or force in any of it. It was formalized Quest meets PC build tools meets GM-framed situations meets player decisions meets mechanical resolution tools meets naturalistic GM-deciphering of that mechanical resolution into narrative output. All of that addressed premise and created the emergent story of the game generally and the nature of the PC's protagonism specifically.

Similar in many respects to your Wizard dieing and returning as Deva Invoker.

 

[Imaro]

Evidence? Rules text?

Dude it's logic, I just explained it... you either succeed at your goal or you fail... and SC call for specific success and failure outcomes... did you not read anything I posted??

EDIT: This is simple enough to prove... Do skill challenges as designed by the rules have a distinct success outcome and a distinct failure outcome? If so then are there any rules for achieving both or either of these in part (if you think so tell me how many X successes vs. Y failures equal this supposed condition of partial success or partial failure)? If not you either succeed or fail. It's pretty simple.

 

[Imaro]

Who said that? The only poster who contrasted macro/micro levels was @Manbearcat, and I know he agrees with me on this point.

Here you go... emphasis mine

Skill challenge are a bit of a shift in frame of mind - you need to think of them not as a collection of several skill checks, but a larger challenge - and success/failures aren't focussed on a particular task, but overall progress (hence you can have "successes" that fail to contribute to overall goal and vice versa). Does that make sense? It also means, you need to cast them bigger than "cross a bridge", they need to be large in scope, just like combat encounters.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by Imaro

So let me get this straight... each check reflects an event in the fiction... right? Because earlier other posters were claiming that the rolls for skill challenges weren't tied to specific events on a micro level.

Who said that? The only poster who contrasted macro/micro levels was @Manbearcat , and I know he agrees with me on this point.

That may be a reference to what I wrote above. If so, I'll clarify.

- Each check does reflect a singular event in the fiction.
- However, each event has multiple vectors involved, up to and including the fact that the event is subordinate to the stakes, the question being answered in the Skill Challenge.

In the social encounter paradigm with the Duke:

Event - The Duke challenges you with a historical dissertation on an event that took place just like this in the past...and the Baron/Duke/King went with the path that the PCs are currently proposing...to the ultimate demise of his legacy.

There should be a lot going on here outside of the event of knowing that history and parrying that blow. The grueling pressure of being in leadership over a large group of people, their lives contingent upon your decision-making. The Duchess/Baroness/Queen inherently doesn't trust and she must be won over so she stops huffing at your responses and giving you a raised eyebrow at her husband's rejoinders. The Court Mage thinks your incompetent or is far too enamored of his own resources/ability to handle the problem. There are rumors of an assassin implanted in the D/B/K's court by a rival. The players are exhausted from a long day's ride. The guards are aligned in a pike hedge between the players and the D/B/K, polearm tips within breath's reach. The players may have notoriously failed or succeeded at something either for the D/B/K or by proxy brought strife or peace to his land. The Paladin of the group may have just displayed the voice of his God (which is the D/B/K's as well) and stunningly succeeded at conveying their aligned interests (successful Diplomacy with a Divine Keyword buff). Etc etc.

So one event, just like "can I jump this pit" above...but a lot of vectors to account for (inherent trust of lackthereof, reputation - poor or good, station issues, territory staking out or protection, fear and indecision, dangerous court politics, a lurking enemy and a paranoid leader, etc etc) along with the fact that ultimately a decision must be made...and that decision will bear major consequences for the person making it and the people who are staked to it.