Skill Challenges: Individual Failure

[Fanaelialae]

While certainly not the only complaint, a serious issue that many raise with regard to skill challenges is that shared failures discourage participation.

This can be contrasted with combat where a failed attack roll, while typically not beneficial, doesn't actively contribute to the group's failure. I can miss every attack roll and the party can still achieve a flawless victory (speaking from experience). In a skill challenge, that isn't the case unless I either avoid rolling (not possible if the DM requires everyone to participate) or the party can achieve the requisite number of success before I roll my three failures (which might be impossible, depending on party size).

I realize it's only the bare bones of a working concept at this point, but what if failures were restricted to the individual? Using combat as a metaphor, an individual failure would be akin to your character being reduced to 0 hp, while failure at a skill challenge would generally be akin a TPK.

Basically, a PC who rolls a failure would simply be unable to contribute further successes. It would negatively impact the group, particularly in a timed challenge, but they could still succeed. The party fails the skill challenge if all PCs are "KO'd".

To keep things interesting, perhaps "KO'd" PCs could contribute in other ways. An easy check might allow them to aid another, a medium check might allow an ally to reroll a failed check, and a hard check might allow an SC version of second wind, negating the failure and bringing that PC back into the challenge.

Has anyone designed something like this? If so, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yep. I had an eladrin orb artifact called the urun'thiel which granted memory altering powers. It had brought a memory of reading a cursed book to the fore in an NPC's mind such that she became a monster called the strigha.

It was a short skill challenge (4 successes) to use the orb to restore her true personality and put the curse into hibernation. I think 3 PCs attempted it, all touching the orb at the same time, and right off the bat 2 of them failed - the orb expelled them from the NPC's mind and knocked them back (prone actually, which had implications because the rest of the group was fighting the strigha and it had powers that kicked in on prone targets). The only remaining PC - the bard - made all 4 checks himself and thus subdued the curse!

 

[Sunseeker]

This can work in certain situations, but this really only becomes an issue when you only provide players with ONE way to succeed. Lets say you have to assemble a puzzle. The only way to finish the puzzle is to match up the pieces right? Lets say that this is Insight. Well, how do players with low insight scores help? They can't really. There's no reason for them to even roll because with a DC25, that character with the +4 insight is never going to succeed(unless you consider 20 to be an auto-success, regardless of if they beat the DC). In my games, we used copious amounts of the "assisting" rule, which can be described in whatever way you see fit.

Personally I think the key is just providing multiple ways to success. Translating an ancient magical tome might require History(int) and Arcana(int) to begin with. But some of the information is missing or cannot be reasonably translated by your group, so now you need to get in touch with new sources of information, Streetwise(cha), Religion(int), Diplomacy(cha), who in turn might demand some tasks from you, such as recovering a stolen artifact, Thievery(dex), or transporting some large goods, Athletics(str). With such a system, all players get to contribute to the translating of the magical tome, instead of one or two simply rolling over and over again because they have the high scores.

Individual failure can lead to lack of participation just as much as group failure can, simply because if you present skill-challenges that only cater to a certain range of skills, those people aren't even going to bother.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This can work in certain situations, but this really only becomes an issue when you only provide players with ONE way to succeed. Lets say you have to assemble a puzzle. The only way to finish the puzzle is to match up the pieces right? Lets say that this is Insight. Well, how do players with low insight scores help? They can't really. There's no reason for them to even roll because with a DC25, that character with the +4 insight is never going to succeed(unless you consider 20 to be an auto-success, regardless of if they beat the DC). In my games, we used copious amounts of the "assisting" rule, which can be described in whatever way you see fit.

Personally I think the key is just providing multiple ways to success. Translating an ancient magical tome might require History(int) and Arcana(int) to begin with. But some of the information is missing or cannot be reasonably translated by your group, so now you need to get in touch with new sources of information, Streetwise(cha), Religion(int), Diplomacy(cha), who in turn might demand some tasks from you, such as recovering a stolen artifact, Thievery(dex), or transporting some large goods, Athletics(str). With such a system, all players get to contribute to the translating of the magical tome, instead of one or two simply rolling over and over again because they have the high scores.

Individual failure can lead to lack of participation just as much as group failure can, simply because if you present skill-challenges that only cater to a certain range of skills, those people aren't even going to bother.

I largely agree. This certainly isn't intended to address the issue of poorly written SCs.

However, I do think it would encourage more participation. Under normal circumstances, having a PC sit out a combat isn't likely of any benefit to the party.

Similarly, if one chooses not to participate in this type of SC, they're not contributing anything. In the worst case scenario, you could still roll and hope for a nat 20. At worst you fail and are reduced to making Aid Another attempts. At best you get lucky and contribute a success.

I've seen SCs which allowed numerous skills, but in which some PCs couldn't think of a way to contribute with their particular skill set. While I do think it's good for a DM to keep his PCs' skills in mind when designing SCs, I don't think a DM should have to include Athletics and Endurance in every SC merely because those are the only skills the party fighter took. I think this would allow such a fighter to at least attempt to contribute in challenges he isn't particularly well suited to, without becoming an anchor for the rest of the party.

 

[Sunseeker]

I largely agree. This certainly isn't intended to address the issue of poorly written SCs.

However, I do think it would encourage more participation. Under normal circumstances, having a PC sit out a combat isn't likely of any benefit to the party.

Similarly, if one chooses not to participate in this type of SC, they're not contributing anything. In the worst case scenario, you could still roll and hope for a nat 20. At worst you fail and are reduced to making Aid Another attempts. At best you get lucky and contribute a success.

I've seen SCs which allowed numerous skills, but in which some PCs couldn't think of a way to contribute with their particular skill set. While I do think it's good for a DM to keep his PCs' skills in mind when designing SCs, I don't think a DM should have to include Athletics and Endurance in every SC merely because those are the only skills the party fighter took. I think this would allow such a fighter to at least attempt to contribute in challenges he isn't particularly well suited to, without becoming an anchor for the rest of the party.

Emphasis mine. Of all the DM's I've had, the ones that I've liked the best are the ones that allowed me to give them a valid reason why this skill they may not have considered should be allowed. I think that players should be encouraged by the books and by the DM to at all times be creative. Perhaps your high dex means you were a dance savant, and while you may not be able to tell a person how to dance, it doesn't affect your innate ability to do so, or recognize other forms of dancing. So this ancient tome written in heiroglyphics seems to use some sort of dance-move for the final ritual.

Might be a stretch, but you get my point. It's one thing I do find favorable about RAW stat-based skill checks. I mean why is "Profession: Sailing"(3e), INT-based anyway? If you have spent your whole life at sea, it's just as likely to be WIS.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I mean why is "Profession: Sailing"(3e), INT-based anyway? If you have spent your whole life at sea, it's just as likely to be WIS.

In 3.5e, all Professions are Wisdom-based. I think it's the same for 3.0 as it is in 3.5, but I'm not 100%. Crafts were Intelligence-based, so maybe that's what you were thinking of? As always, play what you like

 

[Sunseeker]

In 3.5e, all Professions are Wisdom-based. I think it's the same for 3.0 as it is in 3.5, but I'm not 100%. Crafts were Intelligence-based, so maybe that's what you were thinking of? As always, play what you like

I probably was thinking of them backwards, but the same holds true in either case. Diplomacy can be taught(INT) as much as it can be a silver tongue(CHA) as much as it can be learned intuitively from watching others(WIS).

It's my only real qualm with skill-lists. How they came to the conclusion that X must be Y seems rather abstract.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Interesting ideas.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Emphasis mine. Of all the DM's I've had, the ones that I've liked the best are the ones that allowed me to give them a valid reason why this skill they may not have considered should be allowed. I think that players should be encouraged by the books and by the DM to at all times be creative. Perhaps your high dex means you were a dance savant, and while you may not be able to tell a person how to dance, it doesn't affect your innate ability to do so, or recognize other forms of dancing. So this ancient tome written in heiroglyphics seems to use some sort of dance-move for the final ritual.

Might be a stretch, but you get my point. It's one thing I do find favorable about RAW stat-based skill checks. I mean why is "Profession: Sailing"(3e), INT-based anyway? If you have spent your whole life at sea, it's just as likely to be WIS.

I agree. At my table if a player can think of a reasonable use for a skill that the DM didn't account for, it's allowed. The issue is that sometimes a PC simply won't have a pertinent skill. How many statues can the fighter honestly lift while negotiating a peace treaty with the king, before the game becomes farcical?

I think an individualized failure system is less discouraging to the fighter who wants to try to roll to see if he remembers a bit of relevant information he once overheard in a tavern while drunk, even though his Intelligence sucks and he's not trained in any relevant skills. Even if he fails, the worst thing that can happen is that he backs the rogue's play, rather than making a play of his own.

 

[the Jester]

Since many skill-challenges have consequences for the party, your idea is only practical sometimes, but it's quite practical at those times.

Examples where it works well: Fail a skill challenge, lose healing surges. Fail the skill challenge and take penalties until you have an extended rest. Fail the SC and catch disease. Fail and have enemy spies discover you are investigating the bad guys.

Examples where it works poorly: The party needs x successes to find their goal. The SC determines how long something takes to accomplish. The SC determines whether or not a repair job on the party's ship is adequate.

Here's something else that I've done to motivate players to participate when they might be discouraged from doing so by their skill lists: the party has, let's say, 3 "rounds" of skill challenge to succeed. If they don't acquire x successes in time, they fail the challenge. This means that the "Maybe not gonna" pcs have more weight in the SC; they can't just sit back and watch. (There's also the whole "you don't act, gain a failure" approach, but that is a bit heavy handed for my taste.)