Skill Challenges : invisible ones ?

[Rune]

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.

No, because each check has some sort of consequence. Success leads to some sort of success in the game and, failure, likewise, leads to some sort of failure. They are linked by virtue of the story.

I think, fundamentally, you approach the idea of a skill challenge differently from those of us who want an "invisible" one. To you, it seems, a skill challenge is an encounter, or part of one, (evidenced by the XP attatched, incidentally).

To us, the skill challenge is just a framework for the DM to determine where the story goes. We're using the rules to support the game and not the other way around. The books don't set up skill challenges that way because it is the job of a rulebook to provide examples of using the game to support the rules.

 

[Hussar]

I think that's fair. To me, if the steps of a skill challenge are basically disconnected, there's no reward and it is spread across a number of other events in the game, it's not a skill challenge at all, but rather simply using skills as written. It's the 3e approach to how skills were used.

Try X, succeed go on to Y, fail, and try something else until you succeed and proceed to Y. Each element is self contained. You pass through the locked door. Avoid the trapped floor. Open the locked chest. Bypass the trap on the chest. Get the treasure.

That's not a skill challenge to me. That's just straight up skill checks. To me, a skill challenge is a defined challenge without an immediete solution. It's a challenge that requires various approaches to resolve, but, overall, it's more strongly defined that what I'm seeing you guys outline here.

Not that that's a bad thing. Just now how I view skill challenges.

 

[surfarcher]

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.

Then you are limiting your experience of skill challenges and limiting their usefullness.

It is definately a Skill Challenge by RAW, as defined within DMG2. Have you read that chapter? I really get the feeling you haven't, in which case you really should.

It's an SC because there have to be a ceratin number of successes before a certain number of failures, Advantages aside. It's an extension of natural play, as it should be. With this kind of "long term" SC I don't define scenarios or obstacles ahead of time. I adlib based on what my players do or say.

In my example the party will cross teh crevasse. They now have two successes. Consider:

• They succeed brilliantly and the next X checks - they get to the shrine early and watch the light from the full moon creep across the keystone and actually see the door swing open.
• They succeed, but only by a small margin - they get to the shrine as it's closing and just manage to get inside before the door shuts.
• They accumulate three failure - they'll probably reach the shrine just in time to see it closed.

This is what I meant when I said "the mechanic is really just an accounting tool, a way to measure progress, success and failure".

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.

I don't see how good DMing and roleplaying couldn't have solved this situation just as effectively and entertainingly.

FWIW when I design and implement short-term SCs like this I just pay more attention to detail and map out key problems that need to be addressed. Addressing each successfully is... You guessed it, a success.

In this case I see three factors to address (a) ceiling, (b) portcullis and (c) enemies. As long as the party addresses those three key problems you can succeed at the challenge. That could easily be a complexity 1 or 2 challenge, likely something like this...

• Ceiling - up to 2 successes. Theivery, dungeoneering or strength checks seem appropriate.
• Portcullis - up to 2 successes. Theivery, strength check.
• Keep the monsters at bay - probably up to 2 successes. Could be tactics or combat.

The players would come up with other things too, which is the beauty of it. I'd play this loose and very adlibby.

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.

To be honest, I fail to see why you would think a single skill check could solve a complex situation like that! To me it would be obvious that's a combined combat/SC and if my players asked me that I'd say "yes". Additionally if they were struggling with the situation or not "getting" it I'd certainly drop clues and maybe even come straight out and tell them if they just didn't get it. With my group I doubt I'd need to, but you never know.

I guess overall I just don't beleve if this was all really happening some voice form the sky would tell the PCs "this is a skill challenge". And in my experience it's not necessary to do so.

 

[surfarcher]

No, because each check has some sort of consequence. Success leads to some sort of success in the game and, failure, likewise, leads to some sort of failure. They are linked by virtue of the story.

Yeah. And because the checks are all related. And because the repercussion of too many failed checks has an impact on the storyline.

I think, fundamentally, you approach the idea of a skill challenge differently from those of us who want an "invisible" one. To you, it seems, a skill challenge is an encounter, or part of one, (evidenced by the XP attatched, incidentally).

It seems to me like he's also part of a very gamist group that enjoys the mechanic more than the story.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not what my group normally enjoys... Dabbling aside.

To us, the skill challenge is just a framework for the DM to determine where the story goes. We're using the rules to support the game and not the other way around. The books don't set up skill challenges that way because it is the job of a rulebook to provide examples of using the game to support the rules.

Yes and DMG2 is very careful to support this, partly in reaction to the outcry against DMG1 SCs as RAW.

 

[surfarcher]

I think that's fair. To me, if the steps of a skill challenge are basically disconnected, there's no reward and it is spread across a number of other events in the game, it's not a skill challenge at all, but rather simply using skills as written. It's the 3e approach to how skills were used.

They aren't disconnected. They are entwined.

Try X, succeed go on to Y, fail, and try something else until you succeed and proceed to Y. Each element is self contained. You pass through the locked door. Avoid the trapped floor. Open the locked chest. Bypass the trap on the chest. Get the treasure.

It's kind of the point! A SC isn't a group check. That's something different and maybe you are mixing those mechanics up a bit?

That's not a skill challenge to me. That's just straight up skill checks. To me, a skill challenge is a defined challenge without an immediete solution. It's a challenge that requires various approaches to resolve, but, overall, it's more strongly defined that what I'm seeing you guys outline here.

Not that that's a bad thing. Just now how I view skill challenges.

The kicker is this - that kind of skill challenge gets stale really fast. And a LOT of folks hate them. Just read all the bad stuff said about SCs everywhere over the internet. Most of those ultra-short-term SCs are better replaced by group skill checks OR reskinned so that the operate as intended but without having to be announced. The rest? To be honest I get rid of them. I've yet to see one that has a real impact on the story.

But wait! There's another kicker! That's this - you can view it however you like, but RAW very strongly supports the kind of Challenges we are advocating. I've just scanned through DMG and DMG2 and I can't see anywhere where it says that SCs should be designed and played the way you paint them - as multiple checks to overcome an atomic problem. I can see where it suggests that's not the way to do it tho And there is plenty of stuff in DMG2 that strongly suggests otherwise!

Some quick notes form DMG2 p78-89:

• The example p80-81 specifically shows an SC being implemented in the way I describe.
• "if standing in one place doing the same thing over and over again is the best plan, you need to go back to the drawing board"
• "a variety of options makes for an interesting skill challenge"
• "a skill challenge can cover hours or even days of progress" p82-83 talks about long term SCs.
• "Each skill check in a challenge should accomplish one of the following goals" p83 talks about checks opening up new ways to success and SCs unfolding in the way I have shown.
• In-Combat Challenges p84
• Encounter Challenges p84
• Structure Challenges p84-85
• Allow Options Besides Skills p86
• The stuff on Stages Of Failure and Stages Of Success p86-88
• Progressive Challenges p88-89
• Branching Challenges p89

You might want to have a careful read. It's interesting, inspiring and useful stuff!

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

Note, I do not own the DMG 2, so quoting the book to me gets you nowhere.

They aren't disconnected. They are entwined.

No, they are not entwined. They are discreet events that are lined up in succession. I must succeed (or fail) at one to proceed to the next one. Granted, my success or failure might impact the next part of the skill challenge, but, then again, it might not.

For example, in the crevasse example above, until such time as I cross that crevasse, I CANNOT get to the moon door. We have two separate, linear events. I must do A to proceed to B and then to C and then to D. Success or failure at any point will make it easier or more difficult at the next step, but, at no point can I simply jump from A to D.

OTOH, in my example, of the more compact skill challenge, the players can try any number of options simultaneously, some of which may open up further options on success.

I guess I just really dislike the linear nature of what you're outlining here. It's not a gamist thing. I just don't see skill challenges as being anywhere near that linear in nature. I should be able to have a skill challenge where any number (well limited by the number of players) of options can be undertaken at the same time in order to achieve the over arching goal.

 

[Hussar]

To be honest, I fail to see why you would think a single skill check could solve a complex situation like that!

Because a single Thievery check should open the portcullis normally? Or disable the drop ceiling? Either of which ends the threat. By announcing this is a skill challenge, the DM changes the assumptions at the table (that a single Thievery check will disable a trap or mechanism, which is does outside of a skill challenge) and lets the players know right off the bat that this situation is more complex than normal and additional elements are going to be in use.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

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...

This is also my approach.

 

[Rune]

Note, I do not own the DMG 2, so quoting the book to me gets you nowhere.

You should pick up the DMG 2. It has much better advice than the DMG 1, specifically for non-linear, success/failure driven adventure-building (and not just the skill-challenges chapter).

I guess I just really dislike the linear nature of what you're outlining here. It's not a gamist thing. I just don't see skill challenges as being anywhere near that linear in nature. I should be able to have a skill challenge where any number (well limited by the number of players) of options can be undertaken at the same time in order to achieve the over arching goal.

?

The example you are referring to is anything but linear. It proceeds in different directions based on successes and failures. The only thing linear about it is the time element, which admittedly, does play a larger role than you prefer.

 

[surfarcher]

Note, I do not own the DMG 2, so quoting the book to me gets you nowhere.

So you haven't read RAW? And you are asserting that the subsystem widely acknowledged as basic at best, fatally flawed at worst is right?

Oooohhkay.

"Don't bother me with RAW folks. I don't care what anyone or anything else says. Regardless of your logic, references or even by the fact that you are the authors of the game. My opinion is right and yours is wrong."

Sorry, why am I talking to you? It might be best if we just agree to disagree here. Everyone else on this thread (and it's reflected XP awards) seems to agree with me. You should probably just do what works for your players. I mean you're and experienced DM and know your group so run with what works for you.

No, they are not entwined. They are discreet events that are lined up in succession. I must succeed (or fail) at one to proceed to the next one. Granted, my success or failure might impact the next part of the skill challenge, but, then again, it might not.

Wrong. Your result with a given check will lead to a different scenario for the following check. You aren't stopped. It's not linear. That's kinda the point of adhoc.

Have you even read what I've been saying? Or just picked bits out?

To be totally honest you are coming across as either someone who is trolling or a player who doesn't really grok SC design and implementation.

For example, in the crevasse example above, until such time as I cross that crevasse, I CANNOT get to the moon door. We have two separate, linear events. I must do A to proceed to B and then to C and then to D. Success or failure at any point will make it easier or more difficult at the next step, but, at no point can I simply jump from A to D.

Sure you can. A failure at the crevasse shouldn't and wouldn't bar progress. If the party fails they lose precious time, because they have to take the long way around.

Enough failures accumulating enough lost time will mean they get to their destination too late.

Standard stuff, BTW.... All spelled out in DMG2.

OTOH, in my example, of the more compact skill challenge, the players can try any number of options simultaneously, some of which may open up further options on success.

And in my example of the more compact skill challenge the same is true. But it doesn't need to be played in an ugly metagame context of pooling checks to complete a complex objective.

I guess I just really dislike the linear nature of what you're outlining here. It's not a gamist thing. I just don't see skill challenges as being anywhere near that linear in nature. I should be able to have a skill challenge where any number (well limited by the number of players) of options can be undertaken at the same time in order to achieve the over arching goal.

There's nothing linear about what I suggested. You are reading that into it. And you seem to be the only one doing so.

Because a single Thievery check should open the portcullis normally? Or disable the drop ceiling? Either of which ends the threat. By announcing this is a skill challenge, the DM changes the assumptions at the table (that a single Thievery check will disable a trap or mechanism, which is does outside of a skill challenge) and lets the players know right off the bat that this situation is more complex than normal and additional elements are going to be in use.

Exactly my point! A single thievery check should open the portcullis! Maybe two checks if it has two locks. And a single check or two checks should stop the sinking spiked ceiling! And a perception or dungeoneering check should tell you this! And a diplomacy or intimidate check should help slow down the attacking monsters!

And failing at one of these wouldn't be overall failure... But failing at enough of them will be. You just do not need to bundle them up to play it out.

With your system what it sounds like you are saying is "make X successful checks to stop it all and if you get 3 fails first the whole lot doesnt work"!

This is also my approach.

Good man

You should pick up the DMG 2. It has much better advice than the DMG 1, specifically for non-linear, success/failure driven adventure-building (and not just the skill-challenges chapter).

?

The example you are referring to is anything but linear. It proceeds in different directions based on successes and failures. The only thing linear about it is the time element, which admittedly, does play a larger role than you prefer.

He's the only poster on here refusing to understand or accept this. In fact refusing to understand or accept anything until there's no reasonable way he can argue against it.

If you google his activity on this site you'll see he's invariably tied up in arguments and disagreement. And I can't find more than a couple of posts in his feed where he isn't actively disagreeing with someone.

At least that's how it's seeming to me. I guess time will tell...