Skill Challenges: Please stop

[Weregrognard]

I feel that saying "skill challenges suck" due to their basic structure is like saying dungeons "suck" because all they are is a bunch of rooms, connected by corridors, with a) monsters, b) traps, c) treasure, or a combination of these. Sure, that's the basic structure of dungeon (adventure) design, but it's going to take a little work and creativity on the DM's part to make it into something great.

Skill challenges are the same: you get what you put into them. A DM should in no way feel constrained by their basic structure.

 

[the Jester]

Admittedly, since skill challenges have less support (by about 35 years!) than combat, attaining real mastery of them takes a lot of work and, especially, experience. But a dm's job is full of things that take work and experience to do well- world designing, culture-crafting, prophecy writing, npc voices, etc, ad infinitum. It's just another tool in the box, albeit one that still has rough edges and you don't get to be proficient in it without spending a feat.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

I see some bits of people getting personal, and some sarcasm floating around. Neither of these is appropriate when you're trying to actually get anyone who doesn't already agree with you to see your point of view.

Keep it a discussion of reasoning, not a butting of egos, please and thank you.

 

[mudlock]

Show me a "well run skill challenge" and I'll show you a good roleplaying session wherein the DM managed to create a mapping of the player's decisions to skill checks.

I agree completely with that, but disagree with...

in the process you've greatly discouraged creativity.

Worse, skill challenges encourage the "I diplomacize him" style of play

it these rules-focused, munchkin players who are skill challenges' biggest fans.

...all of this.

I never tell my players "this is a skill challenge" (and advise other DMs to do the same); it is always simply a way for me to eyeball the difficulty of a challenge and to structure the forces arrayed against the players, and they are awesome for that. It's precisely the same thing that xp budgets and monster roles do for combat encounters.

And for the same reasons (bit of a derail here) I really, REALLY, hate powers that refer explicitly to skill challenges (like the ones that say "you get a +2 to the check, and in a skill challenge, this counts as two successes") or explicitly to monster level (like "you get a +2 to hit enemies that are a higher level than you). That stuff needs to all stay on MY side of the screen.

 

[lin_fusan]

Worse, skill challenges encourage the "I diplomacize him" style of play where negotiation and conversation are condensed down into a single diplomacy check made by the most charismatic character in the party (inevitably being played by the least charismatic player at the table...) In fact, it is my obsevation that it these rules-focused, munchkin players who are skill challenges' biggest fans.

I've seen this kind of behavior pre-skill challenge. I don't think skill challenges should be blamed for what might be a problem with how skills are implemented.

Not only are skills considered rather boolean (you either succeed or you fail), but the tendency is to max out one skill rather than have a "well-rounded" kind of character. There isn't an incentive to play a mildly skilled player, for example.

So what are skill challenges supposed to accomplish or remedy in the D&D game? Is it to get all players involved specific non-combat scenario/encounter? I am personally all for that, especially when one player is hogging all the screentime with his Diplomacy or Stealth, while the other players are bored, watching TV, or playing on their iPhones.

The errata eliminated the requirement that all players participate in a skill challenge which defeats that purpose. The real goal (which Stalker0's Obsidian system addresses) is that characters without the appropriate skills should be allowed to participate and be rewarded.

I don't think the solution is to have games designed only so that Player A can shine while Player B waits, and then have another scenario for Player B to shine while Player A sucks it.

The other goal (maybe unintentional) of skill challenges is to soften that boolean effect of one roll to resolve a complicated situation. This either encourages players to choose their one good skill and thus turn the whole exercise into "I Diplomacy him again, and again, and again" or you might have to say "you can't use Diplomacy again, choose another skill" which might feel artificial.

I had thought that perhaps the die roll skill system could be removed and replaced instead with Skill Encounter powers. Perhaps a "Use Diplomacy Successfully" Encounter power could force a player to decide if convincing the one bandit to come to their side is more important than convincing the bandit leader from looting the church, for example. (I had wondered if a Daily Skill power would have been the way to go, but that might convince players to return to a 5 minute work day.)

 

[amnuxoll]

Personally I treat social skills much the same way. Sure we role play the social encounters. But when the 8 charisma shaman (with a player of 18 charisma) does all the talking, rest assured I'll ask for a diplomacy check and give NPC responses accordingly.

IMO, this is one of the traps that skill challenges lead you into. When that player playing that Cha 8 shaman makes a clever or moving statement that is strongly in character, you want to reward him for it. Immediately. If you, instead, you ask him to roll a Diplomacy check then you're opening the possibility of punishing him instead. Will that same player get into the game as much the next time there's a social encounter? I say no. Instead, he'll just roll his Diplomacy check like everyone else and the scene will die with a whimper...

Should the sorcerer with the 18 Cha get perquisites for investing in that stat? Absolutely! But punishing those with Cha as a dump stat doesn't reward the player with a big score in the same stat. In fact, it's more of a punishment since the shaman's failure is the party's failure too.

 

[Dedekind]

The most enjoyable Skill Challenges I have run have been decision points. As in, depending on the outcome, either A or B will happen. Yes, roleplaying can accomplish the same thing. But, rolling dice seems to add tension that wouldn't necessarily exist. For example, requiring a player to speak eloquently to convince the king to do something could be a roll or roleplaying. Roleplaying alone makes it a DM decision and the players are just waiting for you to decide. A roll involves some tension as a player evaluates whether or not they have the genuine capabilities to do something -- just like in real life, albeit with more certainty about your relative abilities.

Similarly, there is an implied fairness here, where the dice in some way determine the outcome and not just the DM.

 

[phoffman]

As a DM i have tried to run the Skill Challenges in the published adventures, and they just don't seem right. It tends to break up flow of the game. Instead I have modified what I think WoTC was trying to do with skill checks. This makes it much faster for my group, and we aren't bogged down by who is going to roll what skill.

I now have "group skill checks" with Primary Skills. As long as half the group makes the DC then they can move on with out a penalty, or they may gain a bonus for the next encounter.

If too many people miss the DC, i have a back up skill (a different one). that One Person can roll to negate a fail. This check most often has a different DC. And after that the checks are over.

For roleplay events I figure just adjust the DC by the creativity of the players. If they have been pretty clever the DC is lower for the group.

 

[the Jester]

IMO, this is one of the traps that skill challenges lead you into. When that player playing that Cha 8 shaman makes a clever or moving statement that is strongly in character, you want to reward him for it. Immediately. If you, instead, you ask him to roll a Diplomacy check then you're opening the possibility of punishing him instead. Will that same player get into the game as much the next time there's a social encounter? I say no. Instead, he'll just roll his Diplomacy check like everyone else and the scene will die with a whimper...

Or maybe he'll spend some skill points in Diplomacy.

Should the sorcerer with the 18 Cha get perquisites for investing in that stat? Absolutely! But punishing those with Cha as a dump stat doesn't reward the player with a big score in the same stat. In fact, it's more of a punishment since the shaman's failure is the party's failure too.

Should the wizard with a 3 Strength be able to shove the giant boulder out of the way because his player lifts weights?

If you ignore the low stat when it's Charisma you have pretty much made it a meaningless stat.

In the example you mentioned in your post, the dm can always give an arbitrary +2 bonus or something, but even that makes players less likely to invest in social skills or Charisma. And there's nothing wrong with that- until you have a guy who does invest in them, where the player isn't a good speaker but the pc has an 18 Cha and +15 Diplomacy. And he gets out-talked by the used car salesman playing a Cha 7 half-orc with no social skills, not even Intimidate.

 

[BobTheNob]

To the OP. This is a forum, meaning a place of discussion. To be frank, your opening argument was started in a manner that was utterly dismissive of counterpoint, which is just inappropriate.

Personally, I find skill challenges great for some circumstances. For instance, someone earlier pointed out the "dungeon crawl" i.e. replace the stupidly large map with a skill challenge. It speed things up greatly, removes a real boredom factor and saves the DM ALOT of preparation time.

On another level I do agree that skill challenges can come off as artificial. An imposition of structure where it wasnt required. For the "Diplomatic" example, I almost always roleplay them out, but I do also ask for skill rolls at the "key" points. I think that skill rolls are still needed in this circumstance as the players chosen actions do need to reflect their character. I mean, if they dont play their character...they arent roleplaying : they are just being themselves!