Skill Challenges : invisible ones ?

[surfarcher]

You know one of the things I am thinking about experimenting with, as far as SC go, is that the success or failure determines who has narrative control over the story... in other words when a player scores a success they get to describe the positive effect the success has on their goal, along with the specific action(s) they took to achieve it with said skill within the confines of the current story. A failure, on the other hand, allows the DM to describe a narrative setback (as well as the actions that caused it to come about) that affects the group or player. So with this system, the DM would just have to come up with failure conditions for the skills used... as opposed to success and failure conditions.

I guess what I am wondering is how would you implement something like this and still keep it "invisible" without running into the whole... first successful skill check by player is narrated as a success for the whole challenge? Or do people think it would be better when running something like this for it to be known that the PC's are in a SC and need X successes to reach said goal before Y failures?

That's quite an interesting idea and in some ways not that far off what I do in practice.... Although a bit more formalised I guess.

The problem I find is that my players don't always want to describe what success actually means. Don't get me wrong they enjoy RPing and some of them are good in this area, while the others are improving all the time. But generally speaking they seem to like describing their actions leading up to the roll. And it usually falls to me to describe the result either way.

I'm planning to give an example below that might help.

 

[surfarcher]

The problem is, without knowing that we are in a skill challenge situation, why would I bother? In a non-SC situation, I roll my check and off we go. I make my Nature check, for example, and that gives me a result that the DM will tell me.

You should bother because you have emotional buy-in. Because your DM has presented the scenario so that you want to succeed and use a number of resources to achieve that success. It's not all abotu skills mate.

Unless I should start being proactive with every skill check (and that would get annoying too), why would I suddenly start being proactive with one check and not with another.

If a skill check doesn't have any buy-in from you you won't be proactive. If it does you will. Simple.

To put it another way. If you care about your goal you will pull out the stops to get to it. If you don't care about it then you won't try and damn the consequences.

We need to cross the wilderness. Ok, a nature check lets us do that. But, suddenly, for no reason, my nature check doesn't work like that. Suddenly, my nature check leaves me stumbling around in the dark forest, when yesterday, my nature check let me travel X miles.

Without being a smart ass or trying to offend anyone - "crossing the wilderness" isn't worthy of a challenge. You don't have a goal besides survival.

How about we make it something like one of these?

• Find the hidden glade in the wilderness before the spring half-moon opens it's keystone allowing retrieval of the sacred balm.. Once closed it will not open for another year. The balm, of course, being critical to you party goal.
• Find the grotto in which the princess is bound before she is sacrificed.

If you have buy-in to one of these you will care about anything that threatens to halt your timely progress. And you will proactively try to address that thing. Whether it be hostiles, a mudslide barring your path or whatever.

I guess I should take the hint that now I'm in a skill challenge, but, sheesh, if it's going to be obvious, then why bother trying to hide it?

Psht why should you care about the accounting mechanic used behind the scenes? Does your DM announce "this is a combat" every time you see a monster? I'd resent being told how I have to resolve that kind of encounter. What if I want to use another way to get past them? Shouldn't that be my choice?

And who said they are trying to "hide it"? That doesn't mean we have to hti our players about the head with the fact.

I'm not saying that we just go with a straight up mechanical thing where no narration is going on at all. That's incredibly boring. But, gimme a hint here. Let me know, as a player, what you as the DM want. I loathe pixel bitching with a passion. If you want me to get detailed and you want to run a skill challenge, play the trumpets, get the fanfare going. Every roll matters. How you narrate that roll matters.

Create a sense of urgency and get PC buy-in and that will be the case. That has been my experience.

And I can't recall ever coming across a DM who tells me they and their players love SCs, but who broadcasts the mechnic to his group.

Still, you and your group might be different.

But, for the love of pete, gimme lots of details to work with. Don't be coy.

Ahmen! Where our opinions differ here is whether an accounting mechanic is really a relevant detail.

 

[surfarcher]

Rune, Kerranin,

I strongly agree

 

[surfarcher]

yes, I was sharing some of my failures with the thread. I've found with skill challenges you have to do a lot of different things and see what works. Also I have a ton of gamist players so i suspect that a sufficiently elaborate attempt at a carefully woven and multithreaded story runs the risk of falling on deaf ears. Also, the more stringently you spell out your story, the more you're likely to get tunnel vision if the players think of something unconventional. Either way, you always need to play to your PCs.

Yeah I understood and appreciate that... And that you had learned that hard lesson I guess I wanted to highlight to others in this thread how that approach is one of the worst ways to implement SCs.

And yes you certainly want to try a lot of things. You want to be coming up with a stream of original and customised SCs that are a good fit for your group and do off-beat things with them. Variety is the spice of life.

I think all players have a habit of derailing the kind of subtle storyline you are talking about. That's at least a big part of the reason I prefer to set the scene and objective and let them drive. Using the mechanic as an accounting tool comes into it's own then.

 

[Hussar]

Psht why should you care about the accounting mechanic used behind the scenes? Does your DM announce "this is a combat" every time you see a monster? I'd resent being told how I have to resolve that kind of encounter. What if I want to use another way to get past them? Shouldn't that be my choice?

And who said they are trying to "hide it"? That doesn't mean we have to hti our players about the head with the fact.

"Roll for initiative" is pretty close to "this is combat."

Or, put it another way, is there ever a point in the game where you are in combat and don't know it? Can you ever have hidden combats?

So why hide skill challenges? After all, the player is going to know that he's in a skill challenge as soon as he rolls and doesn't achieve his goal with a single roll. So, again, why hide it in the first place?

Player: "I try to find the glade, I contact nature spirits using Arcana to tell me where the glade is."

DM: Ok, you contacted the spirits, but, their directions are vague, you think you're getting closer.

Player: Ahh, ok, skill challenge time is it?

In a combat situation, you know that you're in combat as soon as initiative is rolled, and, usually, after the first round, you probably have a decent idea how easy or difficult this combat is going to be. At least in general terms, although there can always be surprises of course.

What does it add to the game to hide the fact that you're in a skill challenge? The players are going to figure it out pretty much instantly anyway, and if they don't, they're going to be frustrated because they are not getting the results they expect from their skills.

Making sure the players are invested in the scenario is just basic DMing advice. Of course it's true. But, just because I want to find the princess won't automatically make me care about your skill challenge. Instead, I'm likely to be frustrated because now I have to play Mother May I with the DM. Am I in a skill challenge or not? If I make this check, will it get the results I expect? What would be the best choices for me to make?

Like I said, it's not about just going straight mechanical. That's boring. "Hey guys, skill challenge time, X successes needed, start rolling" would suck. But, "Hey guys, you are trying to do X, what do you do? Ok, that gets you a little way there. Ok, little more, ok little more..." sucks as well.

I trust my players more than enough to know that they can take the mechanical aspects and weave them into the ongoing narrative without me trying to hide it from them to somehow magically make them start "roleplaying".

 

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

To give you an idea of who I am. Type in 'Fictions Upper Limit' in google. Or ask around for my ideas on it.

I also have reservations about giving out free legal advice if it works.

 

[Wik]

Hussar, I generally agree with your point of view - there is no shame in announcing a skill challenge, and using this to tip off the players as to what's going on. Generally, everyone is fine with knowing in a metagame sense that they are in a challenge.

That being said, our general favourite ones have been "invisible" challenges that the players didn't even know about until after the fact. At the time, they felt like the checks they were making were just logical extensions of the scene itself.

A disclaimer - I do use Stalker0's Obsidian System (as mentioned upthread), so we don't do any "by the book" challenges whatsoever. And I generally play with the framework of skill challenges rather heavily - I am apt to give out auto successes or failures based on PC actions (I gave out one of each last session).

So, two of our "invisible" skill challenges:

First was during a combat scene. The PCs were on a rail cart as it was speeding out of a mine, while being chased by a bajillion spiders and drow abominations. So, there's a combat going on, but the same time, the PCs have to steer this cart, avoid obstacles, and slow it down. While I don't remember all the mechanics of it all, I do remember rogues trying to manipulate the cart's controls while dangling over the edge, the bard being dragged underneath the cart and banging against the tracks, and the minotaur jumping in front of the thing to slow it down. All while a fight was going on.

No one ever thought "we need to get x more successes". Instead, it was "we need to stop this damned thing."

The second "invisible" challenge was during an information gathering campaign in the city. While the PCs were splitting up getting info, I had them make skill checks and would supply minor clues along the way. Failures led to no information or false leads. And during their investigation, there were combats, bar fights, intimidating threats, and revolutionaries. The players felt like they were just taking relevant actions to achieve their goals, while in reality I was tabulating successes and failures to see what information they'd get. The challenge took about three days of game time, and around three days of session time. And the players never realized they were in one, until they got the XP for it.

My thoughts on it? If the challenge exists by itself, as in, it's a scene on its lonesome, the GM is best to announce "this is a challenge" to focus the players and keep the suspense building. But if the GM is using the mechanics of a challenge to layer on top of a combat encounter or an extended set of encounters, you are best off keeping the challenge invisible.

 

[Hussar]

Wik - I can see that. Yar, I mostly agree.

 

[surfarcher]

"Roll for initiative" is pretty close to "this is combat."

Or, put it another way, is there ever a point in the game where you are in combat and don't know it? Can you ever have hidden combats?

Interesting thought process.

Surprise attacks might qualify. Interestingly initiative also applies to "combat" where there are no opponents, only traps, etc. So initiative is certainly valid when there are options besides combat.

In a combat focus "roll for initiative" only happens once one side or the other chooses to escalate the situation to violence.

But the DM still isn't literally announcing "you walk through the door and into combat".

How do you suggest the DM should "announce" challenges? And how do you suggest they do so without making everyone think in terms of only skills?

So why hide skill challenges? After all, the player is going to know that he's in a skill challenge as soon as he rolls and doesn't achieve his goal with a single roll. So, again, why hide it in the first place?

Player: "I try to find the glade, I contact nature spirits using Arcana to tell me where the glade is."

DM: Ok, you contacted the spirits, but, their directions are vague, you think you're getting closer.

Player: Ahh, ok, skill challenge time is it?

In a combat situation, you know that you're in combat as soon as initiative is rolled, and, usually, after the first round, you probably have a decent idea how easy or difficult this combat is going to be. At least in general terms, although there can always be surprises of course.

"Invisible" and "hide" aren't the same thing. I don't seek to hide Challenges, or combats. I do seek to make the demarcation of each less obvious and more a result of the players' actions, more a part of the story.

It's like Wik says, making the whole thing a series of naturally flowing events and interactions. And as soon as I announce "this is a skill challenge" I break that flow and I break suspension of disbelief and I make my players focus on metagame aspects of play.

BTW I don't like your example. Try this instead.

Cleric: OK well we are going to need that sacred balm, then. How do we find it?
DM: *shrugs*
Rogue: Since we are in town I'll ask around discreetly and see if anyone knows anything.
DM: Roll streetwise.
Rogue: 17+11, that's a 28.
DM: You find an wrinkled and half deaf old man who recalls legends that a shrine somewhere in the wilderness to the east holds the balm. You have to listen to his ruminations for quite some time and ply him with food and drink at a whopping cost of 5sp... Will you pay that?
Rogue: Gladly.
DM: To cut a long and, for the rogue, mostly boring story short. There is a shrine somewhere in the eastern wilderness that opens once a year, when the light from the first full moon of spring falls upon it's keystone. The balm is located somewhere within this shrine. He's a bit hazy on the exact location but he is able to give you a rough idea of how to get there.
Rogue: OK I meet up with the others and tell them what I found. What do you think guys.
Paladin: It's just started spring, right? How long to the first full moon.
DM: Less than a week.
Paladin: I think we better get moving!

Insert general agreement, the party getting ready to leave town, etc... This is where the Challenge actually starts, but it's a blurry line...

DM: And so you leave town and head roughly eastwards... Soon the road heads north, rather than east and the landscape become wild, untamed. There are roads, just game trails and winding paths. Progress will not be straightforward.
Paladin: What about the directions from the old man?
DM: They are pretty vague and... Of questionable accuracy.
Paladin: Any ideas guys?
Ranger: Well I'm a woods-ey, outdoors-ey Ranger. Can I figure out how the directions might fit the environment?
DM: Sure, make a nature check.
Ranger: 21?
DM: (makes a tick on a scrap of paper - 1 success) You are pretty sure you'll need to go through the pass between two mountains you can see... Probably a bit over a day's travel from where you are.
Barbarian: Let's go!

Fast forward through camping overnight and it's associated assassination attempt and combat...

DM: So without further incident you approach the point where the two mountains meet and, sure enough, there's a pass.
Paladin: Do we go through it?
Ranger: Can we go around the mountains instead?
DM: You could try, but it will take days.
Rogue: And we only have a few days to the full moon.
Paladin: Bah! Don't be weak! Let's go!

Insert usual PC discussion here, but they end up going through the pass...

DM: The way is pretty clear for several hours... Until you reach a place where a huge crevasse cuts across the pass.
Sorcerer: How wide is it?
DM: A couple hundred feet.
Sorcerer: Can I fly over it?
DM: Well Sorcerous Sirocco wouldn't normally allow that, it's way too far. But this is outside combat and so you can focus carefully on it and on only yourself flying. You might need to carefully focus your arcane abilities on this, but you could try.
Sorcerer: (gets excited) Guys, I could fly over holding one end of a rope!

The DM might include a modest Arcana check here but is essentially going to allow the Sorcerers creative use of powers to accumulate a success...

Will the PCs make it across the crevasse? Will they reach the shrine in time? What more will happen when they camp tonight? Tune in next week!

What does it add to the game to hide the fact that you're in a skill challenge? The players are going to figure it out pretty much instantly anyway, and if they don't, they're going to be frustrated because they are not getting the results they expect from their skills.

What does it add to announce Challenges? It breaks a lot of things and creates ugly play and story.

Where is the point in my example above where a player instantly realizes they are in a challenge? Where are their skills not producing the results they want? Where is the frustration caused by that?

Making sure the players are invested in the scenario is just basic DMing advice. Of course it's true. But, just because I want to find the princess won't automatically make me care about your skill challenge. Instead, I'm likely to be frustrated because now I have to play Mother May I with the DM. Am I in a skill challenge or not? If I make this check, will it get the results I expect? What would be the best choices for me to make?

If the Skill Challenge is irrelevant it shouldn't be there! It needs to be part of the flow of the game. If you want to find the princess then the skill challenge is part of that. If it's framed right and used primarily as an accounting tool you won't know it's there and you won't need to.

Instead you'll be part of a story. You'll go into situations and spend resources to try and achieve a result you want. You'll make a check and get the result you want or not. And that will lead you on to another situation. Where you will also take some action, spend some resource, to try to achieve a result you want. You'll roleplay, you'll problemsolve, you'll commit larceny and assault as you see fit.

The mechanic doesn't drive that. It's simply a way for the DM to track your overall progress and figure out where you end in the story - in a success scenario or in a failure scenario. Which then lead into the next bit of the story.

Like I said, it's not about just going straight mechanical. That's boring. "Hey guys, skill challenge time, X successes needed, start rolling" would suck. But, "Hey guys, you are trying to do X, what do you do? Ok, that gets you a little way there. Ok, little more, ok little more..." sucks as well.

I trust my players more than enough to know that they can take the mechanical aspects and weave them into the ongoing narrative without me trying to hide it from them to somehow magically make them start "roleplaying".

Cool. I'm glad that works for you.

The fact is I discuss pretty much everything with my players. Including changing playstyle in ways I personally dislike. Such as putting all the monster stats out where everyone can see them. They prefer monster stats not to be out in the open. And they enjoy Challenges that are used as accounting tools much more than Skill Challenges that are a menu driving play.

 

[Hussar]

I like your example Surfarcher, but I have a question. How is that actually a skill challenge and not just play? At what point is that a skill challenge and not just applying skills to individual questions as they come up? To me, this isn't really a skill challenge because it's too broad. Each element is barely linked to any overall goal and success or failure in one element doesn't really have any impact. If you failed the Nature check, for example, you stop until such time as another skill can give you the go ahead.

I tend to think of skill challenges as more compact.

Here's an example from our current campaign.

We enter a chamber and are ambushed by bullywugs. The fight starts, and we enter the center of the chamber. The bullywugs trip a trap and portcullises fall across the exits, trapping us inside and spikes begin being lowered from the ceiling.

The Dm announced it as a skill challenge (although he did not say how many successes we needed). Time was essential as the ceiling is going to impale us fairly soon. It was exciting and certainly kept our attention as we both had to fight the bullywugs and slow down the roof while trying to get through the lowered portcullises.

But, since he announced it as a Skill Challenge, we knew that no single check was going to solve this. Without knowing this was a Skill Challenge, a player could argue that his Theivery check should stop the roof in a single check. After all, outside of skill challenges, that's precisely what a Theivery check would do, disarm the trap.