Skill Challenges : invisible ones ?

[Tymophil]

I have a question. From reading the Dungeon Master Guide, it seemed obvious to me that the Players should be aware of the fact that their PCs are entering a Skill Challenge. What I have read so far on the Net makes this impression stronger.

But, when I began writing myself an adventure, I came to the conclusion that it was not that self-evident. I mean, players should always, whatever the situation, feed the DM with information about the actions of their PC. The DM task is to translate these actions into tests. Now, I can't see what would stop me from making any non-combat encounter a skill challenge. But, if I do, and make the players aware that they go from skill challenge to skill challenge, I run the risk of have left no real place to exert their freedom.

That's why I came to write down most of my adventure as a series of encounters. But I don't want my players to know that they are in a skill challenge.

For example, the first scene in my scenario is fairly straightforward : each PC receives a letter. I wrote the thing as a skill challenge. The goal is to know how to behave to the next scene. If the PC succeeds, he gets a +2 to tests in the next scene (once again seen as a skill challenge), if he fails, he gets a -1 on any test in the next encounter. But, I would like to leave the possibility to the player to simply skip any further skill test to move to the next scene.

What kind of problems would such a way to use skill challenges (making them somehow invisible) will trigger ?

 

[RangerWickett]

My philosophy on skill challenges is that mental and social ones should be invisible to the players, while physical ones should be visible.

What I mean is, if the party is researching a topic (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Religion), negotiating with people (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate), or using a mix to gather information (Streetwise and other skills), you should just mentally determine the DCs and number of successes needed. Then you roleplay with the players.

Whenever a scene gets to a turning point -- will he accept the bribe, can you decipher the ancient scribblings of a madman, will the informant turn and run? -- you can call for a skill check, and the player can choose to either go for it or not. "Do you want to Intimidate him? If you screw up, he might run." Something like that. You let the story evolve as a consequence of these checks, and steer toward either failure or success in how you narrate.


If the party is involved in a physical encounter, though -- chasing somebody, disarming a trap, assembling a shelter before a huge storm -- you can go the other way, and bring the mechanics to the foreground. "Signs suggest the volcano is going to erupt soon. How are you going to get off the island? You each get three chances to make skill checks, and the party as a whole has to accumulate 12 successes in order to make a plan work."

At least, that's how I do it. (Also, I use the normal X successes before 3 failures variety for challenges with no time limit, and the Obsidian version from the house rules forum for challenges with a time limit.)

In your case, I think the idea of "have one skill challenge to help with another skill challenge" is a little wonky. Why not just make it one large skill challenge, and narrate the first few checks as "you're preparing for the social event so you make a good first impression," then the next checks as "you accomplish your goals at the social event"?

I mean, I think it's a good idea not to come out and say, "This is a skill challenge." That has a psychological effect of making players switch to mechanics -- looking at their skill modifiers for the best thing to roll -- rather than focusing on roleplaying the event. Maybe if you explained more of the scenario, it'd be easier to give suggestions.

 

[Rune]

I mean, I think it's a good idea not to come out and say, "This is a skill challenge." That has a psychological effect of making players switch to mechanics -- looking at their skill modifiers for the best thing to roll -- rather than focusing on roleplaying the event.

That has certainly been my experience, as well. I was very excited about the concept of skill challenges when 4e first came out, but when played by the book they invariably turn into, "It's my turn? I roll my best applicable skill check. If I'm not trained, I'll aid another."

What I've done for one of my groups (the non-tactics focused group) is simply assume passive checks for all skills in most situations (opposed checks or attacks being an important exception) so I can just look at a number and say, "now, get back to roleplaying. I don't typically use formal skill-challenges, but I do keep the structure in mind as I'm interpreting the results.

Even outside of challenges, even with physical abilities, and even in combat, I don't have a problem with the passive numbers. I want to see the monk jumping around and gracefully landing on the ground. I want he knowledgeable characters to know things about their surroundings. I want the high-perception characters to notice details that will make their environment more rich.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've never once mentioned the word "Skill Challenge" at the table. And don't intend to start. Of course some of my players are smart enough to recognise that they are in one...

 

[Wik]

When I tried running challenges by the book, they never worked for me. They just felt too mechanical, and I felt really constrained by the entire situation. I quickly abandoned them, using an approach similar to the one I used in 3e instead. This worked a bit better, but it was far from perfect.

Then I found Stalker0's Obsidian system. Link:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...skill-challenge-system-new-version-1-2-a.html

Read it. It is a loose system that is mechanically stronger than the base one in the original DMG, and I still think it's better than anything that's been presented by wotc since. The general idea is, you present a situation, and players choose which skills they want to use. If they do try to spam their best skills (which can happen in this game) they still have to find a way to make it applicable - and sometimes, those explanations can be very fun and "in-character". Other times, you just roll your eyes and give them a -4 penalty on the check.

You can run it "invisible" or "visible". I've done both, and they have advantages and drawbacks. I do find this system feels easier for me to run "invisible" as opposed to the DMG version. That being said, I prefer running it as a visible challenge if it's a short challenge (ie, one encounter) and keeping it invisible if it takes place over the course of the adventure. YMMV.

 

[Tymophil]

My philosophy on skill challenges is that mental and social ones should be invisible to the players, while physical ones should be visible.

It seems quite a good guideline. I'll keep that one in mind.

In your case, I think the idea of "have one skill challenge to help with another skill challenge" is a little wonky. Why not just make it one large skill challenge, and narrate the first few checks as "you're preparing for the social event so you make a good first impression," then the next checks as "you accomplish your goals at the social event"?

Here is what I have in mind :

1. The PCs receive a summoning from the King.
The idea is that players can ignore the skill challenge and simply ask “What's next ?” Or they can say “What do I know about the King ?”, “Do I know of someone that went to the palace ?”, “How one should behave in front of the King ?”, “Who's this Garlon that signed the letter ?”, etc.
The latter attitude/action/questions trigger skill checks. The skill checks are arranged in a simple skill challenge for the DM to “frame” the scene : control the outcome, and maybe, limit the duration of this part. Then, as a skill challenge can produce several outcomes (one for a success, one for a failure), I wanted to take advantage of this feature to have the players choices and PC skills impact the next scenes.
For this one... Success +1 for all subsequent interaction skills involving the King or its administration. Failure : -1 on such tests.

2. They are taken to the court by Royal Guards
Once again, the players can simply wait for the following scene or interact with the Royal Guards to roleplay and/or learn more about the King Court, politics, etc. This scene is a single encounter with the first scene. If the PC don”'t want to interact, then it's not even an encounter... Once again the scene is a simple skill challenge. The success triggers another +1 when interacting with the Royal Guards and their boss : Garlon. A failure triggers a -1 for the same interactions. Those results are cumulative and so, can nullify each other.
Those two first scenes could form a single encounter or no encounter at all, depending on the mood of the players.

3. They take a boat to get to the capital city of the kingdom (set on an island).
The players can choose to interact with the captain and the sailors. In fact, I planned some interactions, and it would be difficult for the players not to interact. For example, one sailor will challenge one PC on a race on the stays. Another will try to play dice. Etc.
If the PC succeeded in the previous challenges, the Royal Guards will be on their side. If the challenges were failures, they will side the sailors. If they did not interact, then the Guards will be indifferent. Success : +1 in subsequent tests with the Royal Navy/Army members (can also negate a previous malus). Failure : -1 for such tests.
This scene IS an encounter.

4. They meet Garlon and another VIP and have to solve a puzzle
They have to interact with those two characters, and will with all the bonus/malus they garnered so far. Their main goal is to solve a puzzle, but they can use the knowledge of the two NPC to get some help. The successes/failures of previous challenges impact on the attitude of Garlon toward the PC (the tone could be friendly or sarcastic).
This scene IS an encounter.

5. The PC are sent on a mission only them can accomplish...
They have to take the boat once again and can choose a Royal Navy one or a Merchant ship. They get an escort of a few Royal Guards. Unfortunately the boat will sink and most guards will die... Unless the PCs take action to help them. The PCs could also receive special help from the sailors if the scene 3 Skill Challenge was a success.
If the players did interact with Guards and sailors in the previous scenes/encounters this would set a very different mood to this scene. But I don't want to force the players to interact if they don't want to.



So, as you can see, I think the Skill Challenge structure is an opportunity to strengthen the scenario. But, I need to have the Skill Challenges go “invisible” to keep the whole thing interesting for players.

 

[surfarcher]

First up - go read everything in DMG2 about SCs. Then read it again.

Some of my thoughts and experiences on SCs....

• IME the more the players are aware of skill challenges the worse they play.
• Don't flesh them out too much. Narrowing it down to specific skills and DCs will tend to railroad PCs.
• Instead get them to RP and problem solve. Then negotiate the appropriate skill, ballpark the DC and decide on a result.
• Allow things besides skills (e.g., powers) to wrack up successes and let them act like secondary checks too. For example clever use of a fly power trhat advances the whole party up the mountain, in a challenge involving scaling a mountain, could be counted as a single success. This varies depending on appropriateness, SC complexity, etc.
• SCs work best for many folks when thought of as an "accounting tool". In other words don't let the SC defrinition run things. Instead you run them and use the SC mechanics to measure current progress in a task and to determine success/failure.
• Be inventive!

I've got a decent ongoing thread on RPG.net called [ALL Editions] Workshop: Non-Combat Game Structures (Skill Challenges, etc) where you'll find some interesting thoughts and examples... And feel free to ask questions there if you are so inclined.

 

[Rabbitbait]

I agree that players should not be told "this is a skill challange" and should just roleplay with the DM occassionally saying things like "OK, then role a xxxxx check to see how well you do that".

I think the skill challange framework is a tool for DMs - not for players. Players should hopefully not really be aware that they are in a skill challange situation.

I like to leave everything very loose so that I am not pre-judging where the players might go with the skill challange. I also keep an eye out for if the challange begins to feel as if it has run it's course - even if I expected it to run further. If it begins to feel a bit grindy, then cut it short. If it never takes off - cut it short. It's better not to have a skill challange than have one that is not fun.

How do you cut it short? - you can declare success or failure, or just handwave the rest of the scene. I'd rather cut something short and have it appear a little odd than spend the next 15 minutes rolling checks for a dull skill challange.

You know it's working if the players are engaged. A well run skill challange is more fun than combat.

 

[BobTheNob]

I personally prefer to keep it invisible. We were transparent and following the rules, and it just turned into "bid for skill, roll, rinse repeat until completed".

With it invisible, players have a feel for the encounter, but the way it unfolds is entirely role-played.

The difficulty is in incorporating powers that can effect outcome, like a +X to the next ??? skill roll you make. If players dont make a roll, how do they know to use? I got one person who is clued on and asks when he can and cant use powers, but the rest can miss things too easily

I have what we are doing at the moment, but I find it all so, I dont know, clunky. I have read many documents out there, but none of them have really brought skill challenges to "life" for me (yes, and that even include the vaunted Obsidian system)

 

[Mengu]

I think skill challenges as written are one way to resolve a challenge, but not the only one. The structure of X successes before Y failures should really not be a straight jacket, especially in a world where there are lots of shades of gray.

Recently I had a situation where they killed most the enemies, but one got a away. The party decided it was important to catch them before they could warn their allies. I had to come up with a quick challenge on the spot. I ran it more like combat than a skill challenge. During the chase, they were climbing down cliffs, sliding down chutes, chasing through winding tunnels, and eventually playing a game of hide and seek when they caught up to their prey. I didn't even count successes or failures, but just ran it ad hoc, with each success getting them closer to their prey, and each failure dropping them a bit behind. Failed skill checks resulted in falls that inflicted injuries (loss of HP), and even knocked one already injured person unconscious, who had to be healed up. Failed endurance checks cost healing surges. And at the end, the escapee got one final swing in against the PC who caught up, in a desperate attempt to escape, but was rendered unconscious shortly after (and that last bit was played out with an opposed initiative check).

So yes, skill challenges can be invisible if the consequences are made obvious at each step. You fail an athletics check to climb, and you might fall. You fail an acrobatics check to slide down a chute gracefully, and you might take some damage. You fail an endurance check to keep up and you may fall behind and/or lose healing surges. These are just natural consequences to actions. And don't really require a "knowledge of the structure."

However sometimes, the challenge is in the form of a puzzle, something that needs to be carefully solved. A bomb that's about to explode if you get 3 failures before 8 successes could have a dire consequence. You have to identify the circuitry, check for booby traps, implement contingencies, and disarm, contain, or move the bomb in a tight time frame. So this would be a good challenge to let the players know what skills will be relevant, what options they have, tell them the relative difficulty involved, and ask who will do what.

For me, skill challenges are not one size fits all, in mechanics and in transparency.