Skill Challenges: Please stop

[KarinsDad]

OK so in your opinion we shouldn't have RPed that through?

Was there much roleplaying at that point?

Or just some die rolls to finish it up?

Who am I to cut their fun short?

Or do you prefer to force your will on your players regardless of what they want?

Players have fun doing a lot of things. Like, cutting it short and getting back to the real adventure, just as much as continuing on and being railroaded by the DM to finish up a bunch of unnecessary skill checks.

Both can be fun, so your POV here is mistaken. Having the players continue extra dice rolls to finish it out to the nth degree is forcing your will on your players just as much as not doing so.

I personally think that the extra rolls are mostly meaningless and LESS fun for most players, but YMMV.

 

[surfarcher]

There's some limit on what the PCs will / can do (or should be, I think?) in a given situation. From a strictly RP standpoint, "My Guy's A Righteous Paladin" shouldn't be punching random old ladies on the street. "My Guy's A Learned Wizard" is going to try to find ways to make use of the stuff he's read in all those weird old tomes. Ideally, IMO, "My Guy's Kind Of A Klutz" is going to try to find ways to make that relevant without annoying the rest of the group with it.

Sure I'd agree with that. And generally I'd say you can't force an SC on them with good results. It's got to be an objective they want to take on. And good SCs should make it possible for everyone to contribute. That's part of why I prefer to put it to the players and determine success on more than just skills. It's their choices and actions that really do the work.

We've got mechanics to try and encourage all but the last example, I just think that maybe they've gone a bit too far (especially given the absence of that last one being in there). When the players thing "What would My Guy do?" they look in part to their character sheets for guidance. When we get to the point that the players choose an action for their characters I'm not seeing tons of variety in the choices. And without visible mechanics I can't think of many good ways to encourage them to try something different. (I've come up with mechanics that did that, but they made it clear they just weren't interested.)

I'd say the last example isn't that hard to include! OK he's a clutz but he's good at something or he is going to dye pretty soon. Play to everyone's strengths, don't exclude anything unless it's patently irrelevant. Again, let their actions and choices decide the results. Whether they use a skill isn't really the point.

I brought up the example of undead, elsewhere. The game I'm running is Dark Sun, and as a result none of the PCs have religion trained (kind of a reasonable assumption, but IMO flawed). Religion happens to be the skill you use for knowing stuff about undead in 4e. The players where a bit upset when I called for Religion checks, which I really didn't expect. I don't think it was a matter that they just didn't want to roll on a low skill, it was the whole basis of the decision no to train religion in the first place, which led them to believe that on Athas undead should be Arcana or something. I think in a way it broke the idea that their character-building decisions actually mattered.

To be pefectly honest I would have simply let them work around the absence of religion. And if it's a planned SC I would have intentionally provided alternatives. But I often don't flesh mine out in that much detail. I like to let the players come up with something inventive and use that.

Was there much roleplaying at that point?

Or just some die rolls to finish it up?

Very few die rolls. A lot of dialogue... They wanted to sneak along the top of the cliffs and see what they could see. IIRC there were two die rolls amongst this additional discussion and interaction.

Players have fun doing a lot of things. Like, cutting it short and getting back to the real adventure, just as much as continuing on and being railroaded by the DM to finish up a bunch of unnecessary skill checks.

So I railroaded them by adlibbing and letting them explore a course of action that I hadn't planned for?

I guess we have different definitions of the term "railroad"

Both can be fun, so your POV here is mistaken. Having the players continue extra dice rolls to finish it out to the nth degree is forcing your will on your players just as much as not doing so.

OK so my extra one die roll for overall success was "going to the nth degree? Railroading? OK well w/e.

So what do you make of the many numerous examples where I decide the PCs actions and roleplaying are sufficient to definitively close the SC, even though the mechanic isn't satisfied?

Yeah I'm a bad, railroading, overly mechanically oriented DM who just doesn't get anything. Thanks mate.

I personally think that the extra rolls are mostly meaningless and LESS fun for most players, but YMMV.

Oh if you were actually right and not talking off on some unrelated tack you might be right!

 

[wedgeski]

I once convinced our DM to do this for a river crossing instead of the skill challenge she originally had set up (one of the WotC SCs btw). 40 feet or so across, the first PC swam it and then each PC after that was roped over (swimming, but pulled over quickly by the PCs on the far bank so that they did not end up drifting downstream too much). The DM didn't bother with rolls beyond the first PC.

Which was probably the right thing to do with a relatively still river on a warm day. but it's dangerous swimming a cold, fast-flowing river (although I would probably allow Take 10, depending on the depth and speed), and at some point the first PC might be holding the second PC against the current (Strength or Endurance check); if the water is frigid, a simple Endurance check to avoid losing a Healing Surge or getting a penalty to your Athletics seems logical as well. You could effortlessly couch such a thing in a simple Skill Challenge and run it in five minutes.

Heroic or not, these are the day-to-day travails of an adventuring sort, and it allows those who have high scores in physical skills to shine at the table (which is very important in-and-of-itself).

In the name of "excitement" or "fun" or "I want to use a skill challenge", some DMs just throw a lot of extra stuff at players, even if it seems a bit forced (this is often seen in trap layout as well).

Well, is this D&D or not? I kind of get that you would rather hand-waive what you see as non-heroic adventure, and that you see Skill Challenges as artificial padding around things you would rather roll one d20 for and move on? My response to this is simply: SC's should meet your definition of heroic, else don't use them.

For example before the PC's even reach the river you make things much more interesting (whitewater, flooded with debris racing downstream, at the bottom of a gorge with a rotting tree for a bridge, getting smacked in the face by migrating trout, etc.!). As in your previous "roll 5 Nature checks to cross a swamp" complaint, mundane obstacles make for mundane Skill Challenges, so don't make them mundane.

Instead of climbing the mountain, maybe the PCs will walk around it. If the players come up with a way to avoid the meat and potatoes of a massive skill challenge, the DM should be flexible enough to just let a few skill rolls suffice and move on.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that a Skill Challenge can't be avoided or worked around. They represent an obstacle, if the PC's avoid that obstacle or surmount it in unexpected ways, then so be it.

Sure. I don't think anyone is arguing that you should use a skill challenge for every out of combat action.

Absolutely not, and yet there are still people out there in other threads who think that Skill Challenges actually replaced skill checks in 4E.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah I'm a bad, railroading, overly mechanically oriented DM who just doesn't get anything. Thanks mate.

Just like you implied that I force my will on my players regardless of what they want. Thanks mate. The point is, all DMs force their will at points on their players and unless the DM does something really heavy handed, cutting a skill challenge short when it's obvious that with proper tactics, there is no reason for more skill rolls is no more heavy handed than continuing on with the skill challenge.

Yes, having additional skill checks will allow for additional dialog, but it's often mostly meaningless dialog. There's no deep discussion here at this point. There are no NPCs to have deep discussion with. The players had already solved the problem.

Yes, the players can tell jokes and have fun and maybe even solve some minor little additional obstacles that the DM continues to throw at them. But after the first two PCs got up to the top of the cliff, were the minor additional little obstacles really worth it to continue the skill portion of it?

Isn't it possible that some of the players felt at that point that it was basically over? That they had solved it? Was it necessary to have the last few climb rolls and "Opps, the dwarf fell and took 2D10 damage"?

As a player, I would say "Wait a second". There are 3 of us at the top of the cliff. We can lift without being encumbered 350+ pounds and lift with being encumbered 700+ pounds, but the 300 pound dwarf who has ropes tied to him and is assisting in his own climb is a problem?" To me, that's +15 to the climb skill per PC assisting and an auto-success mate.

And isn't it possible that getting to the next more important portion of the adventure would have been just as much fun or more fun for the players? Are you positive that "Nope, the players had more fun doing it my way" is actually true?

Cause I know that as a player, there sometimes becomes a point in the game where the "set up" to the real adventure is taking too long and I do just want to cut to the chase. This often happens for me when pedestrian things are happening like minor side discussions with unimportant NPCs is occurring, or when players are hashing out multiple ways to accomplish the same thing for a long time, or quite frankly, when the DM explains a skill challenge that seems like it's blown out of proportion or when the DM squeezes out the last few skill rolls for a skill challenge.

The WotC skill challenge of making Nature rolls to walk less than 100 feet north through a woods was a prime example. The first level module actually stated word for word "Any time a character makes a skill check as part of a skill challenge, another character must simultaneously attempt a DC 15 Nature check. If the Nature check fails, the party loses its way and gains 1 failure." I stopped the DM mid-explanation and asked if it was really necessary to have a SC to walk through less than 100 feet of woods. Were we really going to get lost doing that? She more or less realized that just because the SC was in the adventure module didn't mean that it added to the gaming experience.

Walking 100 miles through a wood? Sure, the PCs can get lost. 100 feet???

It was unfortunate that such a BAD SC was in this module because this was a first time DM who didn't have the experience to realize a bad one from a good one. Not that all experienced DMs would have caught it either. I suspect a lot of experienced DMs played that SC exactly how it was written in the module. And a lot of DC 15 Nature skill rolls are bound to be missed at 1st level if the players have to roll Nature each time they roll a different skill, especially if nobody in the party trained the Nature skill. That's a terrible mechanic even if it was 100 miles through the woods.

My opinion is that if WotC modules can have such blatantly bad SCs in them, that many ad hoc and designed SCs from DMs probably have elements in them which players scratch their heads over as well. Your example of forcing the last two PCs to roll the Climb checks when there is enough physical strength above them to just pull the PCs up (plus the PC is climbing as well) is just such an example. IMO.


Another aspect of skill challenges is the "high level" pedestrian challenge. Is it really necessary to have any skill rolls for 10th level PCs to climb that same cliff? These PCs are local heroes. They have climbed half a dozen cliffs by the time they got to 10th level. As DM, a cliff is no longer a challenge. I don't even bother with rolls and I don't bother with an explanation by the players of how they are going to do it. The PCs just say that they are doing it and it's done.

But I suspect that because the skill challenge mechanism is in the game system, many DMs go out of their way to create the 10th level equivalent of the cliff climb challenge.

DM: "The rock on this cliff is really crumbly. It adds +5 DC to the normal climb roll."

I would never do that to my players. At 10th level, they have better things to do than a SC to get over a cliff. A cliff challenge is for low heroic tier.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

It was unfortunate that such a BAD SC was in this module because this was a first time DM who didn't have the experience to realize a bad one from a good one.

So, there ARE good skill challenges. I agree with that, but I'm interested to hear how you would define a good challenge?

 

[KarinsDad]

So, there ARE good skill challenges. I agree with that, but I'm interested to hear how you would define a good challenge?

I think the vast majority of challenges with skills can be handled via a few skill rolls and cut to the chase. Having said that, I do think that there are some elements that most good skill challenges have in common.

1) They have to involve all of the players. There should be at least 4 primary skills in them and the 4+ primary should be a mixture of at least two of the four types of physical, mental, awareness, and interactive skills.

2) They should be designed for the party makeup in mind. When the SC has Endurance and Religion as primary skills and one group has a Paladin with both of these two skills and nobody else has them, whereas the second group has a Fighter with Endurance and a Cleric with Religion, the SC is better designed for the second group than the first. Occasionally, one PC might be left out in the cold with regard to a primary skill, but that should be the exception, not the rule.

3) The SC should be pertinent to the overall adventure and exciting/new for the players. A lot of SCs that are used are more mundane like "sneaking into the town" or "trampsing through the swamp". These are less exciting uses of SCs. Yes, SCs can be used for that, but I think that SCs should be reserved for cool and interesting encounters, not more mundane ones. It's possible to run more mundane SCs at lower levels and more exotic ones at higher levels once the PC's skills start to really improve, but mundane uses of SCs can be boring at low level as well. Exotic SCs should trump mundane SCs because the former is interesting whereas the latter can be boring.

4) SCs should not be used for one specific obstacle of one specific type. For example, they shouldn't be used to climb a cliff. Or cross a river. Or bribe the guard. These should be handled with a few dice rolls. Move on.

5) SCs should not be used just to have X number of SCs per level.

6) SCs should have a significant penalty for failure.

7) SCs should be doable. Since they shouldn't be used a lot, the average dice roll of 10 or even as high as 12 for a primary skill should succeed for most primary skills.

8) The number of dice rolls in SCs should be relatively short. The 12 successes before 3 failures model should rarely be used. 6 successes before 3 failures is better. 9 successes before 3 failures is 11 rolls max for 5 players or 2 per player. That should be the upper end. The roleplaying aspect of SCs can be lengthy, but the number of rolls until success or failure should be relatively few.

9) SCs should be rewarded with XP. If it's important enough to have an SC, it's important enough to reward.

10) SCs should have few Aid Another opportunities. If there are enough primary skills to go around, then most every player has something to do other than just try to help out someone else to shine. Aid Another should be possible in most SCs, but it shouldn't be the only option for some of the players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, there ARE good skill challenges. I agree with that, but I'm interested to hear how you would define a good challenge?

Thus far, "the Jester wrote it" is high on my list.

It is part of LostSoul's "Fiction First" hack is also on there.


RC

 

[Balesir]

4) SCs should not be used for one specific obstacle of one specific type. For example, they shouldn't be used to climb a cliff. Or cross a river. Or bribe the guard. These should be handled with a few dice rolls. Move on.

...

9) SCs should be rewarded with XP. If it's important enough to have an SC, it's important enough to reward.

Several good points in this post, but I would make a small point on these two. I have used the SC framework for very short, informal rolls in situations where a single roll really doesn't quite cut it, and I think there is scope there for this. The most recent example was during a much longer, formal skill challenge when one of the PCs wanted to climb a "very tall tree" (to see as far as they could). A single climb check here would have (a) shortchanged the moment, in that there was some scope for an impressive accomplishment, here, and (b) skewed the probabilities too much - even with pretty good chances the probability of a single failure can be too high - and then what consequences do you impose, given that a 100'+ fall would be plausible? What I did was a "quick and dirty" SC, 4 success before 3 failures, all on Athletics from the same character. I would have accepted ideas that used other rituals/powers/skills (another character flew up on an Ebony fly), but all that was really required was "a few dice rolls". I just found that the simple, basic structure of the SC gave a model to grab for to decide what those "few dice rolls" might mean.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Awesome, Karinsdad. I love skill challenges, and here's how I line up with your points:

1. Agree mostly, unless they will be very quick challenges meant to sketch out a bit of action that only one PC can reasonably get involved with (the rogue scouting out an enemy camp, for example -- a quick SC can make that easy to manage and run in a matter of a minute or two, make it more complex than a single skill check, and let that individual character shine for a moment with his unique skills.) The key is to be mindful of the other players at the table -- they're sitting there blowing spit bubbles while you run the rogue through this, so keep it short and sweet.

2. Agree 100%, although it's difficult to write customized skill challenges for a print publication meant to serve hundreds of different gamer groups.

3. Agree 100%

4. Agree 100%

5. Agree 100%

6. Agree 100%

7. I almost agree. I think, just like combat encounters, there's room for skill challenges that are not a nailbiter every single time. If you're the sort of DM that doesn't put his players up against combat encounters that are not Level+2 at least, then you probably don't agree that there's a design space for easier skill challenges, either.

8. My only reservation about this is that I would like to reserve the right to use a much longer skill challenge if I come up with a way that it makes sense... but in 95% of cases skill challenges should be short.

9. Agree 100% -- I think there should be XP rewards for all kinds of things other than combat. Doesn't have to be a lot of XP, but there should be some. If, as DM, you think that's pushing your PCs through the levels too fast, then house rule the XP system and double the amount of XP require to reach each level. Or something.

10. I almost agree. What I would say is that aid another should be allowed in limited ways/occassionaly, and the DC for each skill check should be adjusted if you are going to allow for aid another -- and aid checks should use appropriate DCs. (I usually add +1 to the DC for every PC that I'll allow assist on a given check). I also like the idea of using group skill checks instead of a single check with a lot of aid checks if I need a group effort for the scene I'm trying to create.

So, I agree with you about 90-95%. I'd add a few conditionals to your black and white rules, but I mostly agree with you.

What's interesting to me is that we're on opposite sides of the issue. If I had started this thread, I might have called it "please stop bad skill challenges".

I use a wide variety of challenges -- some where the PCs see the structure, some where they don't. Some big, mostly small. Some handle big plot elements, some handle small tasks. And, because I'm human and make mistakes, some are better than others, and every once in a while I drop a real stinker on the table. I start from scratch when I create each challenge, and think about the game and story effects I want to try to create, and I customize the challenge for that.

I pay attention to the party's skills, but I'm not afraid of pitting the PCs against a challenge for which they must find a creative solution because their skills don't match up exactly with the obvious requirements of the challenge -- of course, that means being flexible and accepting enough of player creativity to allow for those solutions.

Bottom line, what makes any sort of gaming interesting, IMO, is the idea of giving players choices. The essence of everything is making choices -- even combat. Which power do I use, which enemy do I attack, do I heal the fighter now or later ... those choices are where player engagement is working. The player and the character's personalities are expressed in those choices.

So, skill challenges should be built around the idea of creating the same sort of individual and party choices. If there are no choices there, the skill challenge is dull. If the player has the opportunity to make hard choices, they're engaged. If the player has the opportunity (and DM acceptance) to make creative choices, the player will remember that skill challenge a year later.

-rg

 

[Storminator]

Last Sunday's session had 3 skill challenges and 2 combats.

The PCs are a bunch of goblins and they're on their way to the rival clan's headquarters to kidnap a weaponsmith.

Last session the group figured out the general area the smithy is in, so this session was trying to get there without tipping off the clan. I let the group know up front that no matter what the results of the skill challenge, they would get to the smithy - the challenge is to get there with surprise in tact. In previous skill challenges I had given out the list of skills I thought appropriate, with the caveat that I can be convinced to add skills/powers/etc. This time I just said "I have a list of skills I think appropriate." I didn't tell them the list, and instead asked "what do you want to do?" The bard talked a pass phrase out of a local (streetwise), the monk snuck a head and scouted routes (stealth), the cleric inferred the best way from foot traffic patterns (insight), the warden found the exhaust vents from the smithy (dungeoneering), the ranger rigged some ropes to climb down the tunnels around the vents (athletics), the wizard calculated the location of the supply entrance (dungeoneering), and the assassin scouted the door guards (stealth). They arrived at the door without any failures, meaning few and lax guards.

I didn't even announce the second challenge - getting in the front door, navigating the tunnels and entering the smithy. The group RPed out a combination of using the pass phrase, bluffing the guards, killing the guards and navigating the halls, while I kept track of successes and failures and called for the occasional skill check or attack roll.

In the smithy there was a big combat with the smiths, the guards, the reinforcements and the forge fire brought to life. When the bad guys were defeated and the smiths convinced to join the PCs' clan I started the last skill challenge, which was escape the entire clan when the full alarm goes off.

This challenge was complexity 5 (12 successes) as the group ran thru the goblin city escaping their enemies. Again, I didn't suggest any skills, but there was athletics, acrobatics, bluffing down side tunnels, endurance, attack rolls, stealth, thievery to set traps and others I've forgotten. At various points group endurance checks were called for, there was an ambush which I ran as a group attack check, and a trap that made attacks against the PCs. In the end they made it out to "civilization" where they got attacked by a 3rd clan, which stalled them long enough for their enemies to catch up and chase the PCs away.

I'm really liking building the sessions around skill challenges. As an added benefit, with SCs and quests it pads out the XP without forcing me to send fight after fight after fight at the group to get them to level.

PS