Skill Challenges: Please stop

[kaomera]

Skill challenges aren't "for" everyone, as tired as that saying is. I think they're a neat idea, but none of the people I play with really want to engage the mechanics in any significant way, so for me it's easier to just not run them as such. And IMO that's perfectly easy to do and it doesn't impinge on the many, many people I've seen here on enworld and elsewhere who just love them to death. (And sure, I'm a bit envious of their ability to have fun with something I just can't do anything with, but really - nobody cares. Let them have their fun, and I'll have mine!)

But I think if you're trying to do one thing and the players are trying to do another they can come off as a "crutch", or more specifically as an artificial and unwelcome limitation to play.

So people who are introverted or perhaps a bit "less charasmatic" IRL should be penalized in game, and the raging barbarian with the 8 CHA, but happens to be played by the Used Car Salesman with the silver tongue can talk his way through anything?

Wow, I'm sorry but that came off to me as a really jerky / trolly response. Yes, players who can't bring anything extra to the table should be "penalized" in the sense that I'm not going to omit rewarding good play. Yes this style of play can be handled unfairly, but the DM can always be a jerk, sticking to the rules and dice rolls doesn't change that fact. Skill challenges should not preclude roleplaying, and making roleplay significant doesn't have to over-ride the rules. So, yeah, the player who can back up their characters actions should get a bonus, and you could look at that as penalizing the character / player who can't.

 

[WizarDru]

I like calamari.

But I find that calamari is easy to do wrong. Some restaurants overcook the squid, making it rubbery or too chewy. If an inexperienced chef undercooks it, it can be slimy and inedible. Some folks only expect calamari in rings, while others like the tentacles, as well. I prefer mine with marinara sauce, though ground up squid-ball in tonkatsu or soy is great, too.

Skill challenges are, to me, like calamari. They're easy to do poorly. They can be poorly executed or used when a simple skill check might be more appropriate. They can be used in place of role-playing. They can be dull or lead to meta-game abstractions. Just like calamari, they have the potential to fail to deliver the tasty meal that was hoped for. But that's not really the calamari or the skill challenge's faults.

Certainly, the core issue from a skill challenge CAN be that it can be used in place of role-playing. Whether that's a strength or a detriment is up to the individual group. Some groups can view that as a bonus; they don't have to bother with lengthy discussions and faux-acting...they can make a few rolls and get back to the dungeon. Other groups can view that as a weakness; they want to act out the motivations and discussions, in character and with nuance as often as possible. Neither approach is wrong, at least not to the group in question. Most groups will probably fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

As some people like only the rings and some folks like the tentacles as well, so to do skill challenges have different kinds and approaches. Some prefer anonymous challenges, whose success is only revealed upon completion or failure. Others present them as minigames, with set rules and bonuses that are clearly established from the start. Some make it clear a challenge has begun, but the parameters are vague. All are valid approaches and I've had success with all three. Some folks don't like calamari at all and that's OK, too. They view skill challenges as a detriment.

IME, skill checks in general can engender these issues...skill challenges have the capacity to alleviate some of the meta-gamey nature of skill checks, though there is no guarantee that they will in a game. That responsibility lies with the group itself. I have used skill challenges in a variety of ways:

• A 1st level party engages 60 pirates while fighting alongside 20 NPCs, their goal to drive them off and recover a stolen item. Instead of running it as a straight combat, we ran it as two simultaneous skill challenges. The players LOVED it.
• The players had to hunt down another party of adventurers in a competition, over the course of a few days, through the wilderness.
• Stealing into an enemy camp, the players needed to foil the bad guys plans; they destroyed a dangerous device, rescued some prisoners, hijacked a boat and killed the enemy leader stealthily...as part of a single skill-challenge
• The players had a sailing ship split in half beneath them; a challenge required them to escape alive, rescue other crewmen if they could and retreive valuable equipment before she went down
• A clockwork automaton carrying a tremendous magical bomb was racing to town hall. The players needed to catch it, evacaute the mayor and deactivate it if they could.

These are just a few of the challenges I've used. Piratecat has used a bunch more interesting ones than me (see his heroic tier thread for details). They have been all well recieved, though I've learned important design choices from each one. I learned lessons on what worked for my group, what did not work and when skill challenges were either unnecessary or got in the way of the game.

Skill challenges can certainly be used a crutch or poor framework for player interaction. This is, however, true of skill systems in general. It was true before skills or even proficiencies became a part of the system. For as long as the game has a social component and a mechanical representation of that component, the potential has existed for abuse, misuse or poor gaming implementation. I don't personally see skill challenges as being responsible for that particular trend nor do I see them as the solution to remove that trend. Calamari can be cooked technically well, but if the players don't enjoy tonkatsu sauce on their squid or don't prefer it with chiles in its own ink, then it doesn't much matter how well prepared it actually is. (For the record, I certainly don't like it that way). WotC's extremely poor examples of skill challenges certainly don't argue in their favor. Many articles and modules treat it as a very bland mechanical exercise, simply assigning some numbers to some skill uses, with little finese to their use. I have seen very few illustrations of the concept as compelling as anything Piratecat has shared in his thread, for example (though there have been a few Dungeon modules that rose to the challenge).

One aspect I like about skill challenges is that it offers two enhancements to skill usages in previous editions. First, it removes the 'keep trying until I get it' idea from some skill uses....or rather, makes it more meaningful. 'Take 20' did something similar, but IMHO with less success. Second, it recontextualizes the usage of skills in a greater framework and intends to make the interaction more interesting than a simple binary success or failure. Whether it succeeds at this goal is up to the individual DM or group.

Simply put, I don't agree with the OP's feelings. For my group, Skill Challenges work and have presented us with some fun and unique gaming experiences. For my money, they are one of the best things about 4E. They are the Panko on the calamari to me.

And I find them DELICIOUS.

 

[amnuxoll]

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

You've been playing this game too long. I'm sure you know better than that!

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

YES!!! Yes, this is my point. The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him. He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is. He makes an empassioned plea to Kord. Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here. The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock. As the DM, do you:
a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."

If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.

 

[Barastrondo]

I much prefer games that set up situations, and allow the players to decide how to tackle them, than games that set up "combat encounters", "social encounters", etc.

Well, the skill challenge mechanic is pretty much like a block of combat stats: it's a tool that you can use to resolve some sort of question or conflict. If you decide that the only way for the players to tackle a situation is through a particular scripted skill challenge, that's not too unlike setting up a riddle that unlocks the only known entrance into the dwarven mines on this side of the mountains, or placing a monster with the notes "It attacks immediately, and will fight to the death." In all cases, it's an appropriate way to handle a situation so long as you don't overuse it.

That said, a good skill challenge is often aiming to do exactly what you describe: letting the players decide how to tackle a situation, and then keeping a running tally of their various successes and failures (some of which might not be skill checks, technically) until some sort of resolution is clear. It simply adds some structure, which may or may not be what the players want; some may prefer to leave it up to the DM's judgment when they've done sufficient undermining of the tyrant's position that his troops are on the brink of rebellion, and others may prefer the clear target of "15 successes, and the fire ignites." Just another way of defining win conditions, really.

 

[Riastlin]

YES!!! Yes, this is my point. The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him. He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is. He makes an empassioned plea to Kord. Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here. The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock. As the DM, do you:
a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."

If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.

First off, it's perfectly fine to play this way if the group enjoys it. However, at this point, I have to ask, "Why have stats at all?" Why not just have players roleplay all their actions? I agree with you that the great roleplay should be rewarded but there are plenty of ways to reward it other than just an "auto-success". You can give a bonus to the check result (remember that a 1 on a skill check is not an auto-fail), you can give bonus XP, you could even have Kord help the character out, or have the character inspire his fellow PCs to help out.

But if the only rewards that come from good roleplay are auto success, then you've created a situation where either you don't need dice ever, or the players just might not try to roleplay if they feel they are inadequate at it. More to the point, there is little to no incentive for them to think "outside the box" for creative uses of their skills, powers, and abilities. After all, it doesn't really matter if they are skilled or not because if the player (not the character) is introverted, then he or she is already at a disadvantage in every situation in the game to the more extroverted players. Don't get me wrong, this is perfectly acceptable in some groups; but in my personal experience, it goes against the core of what makes RPGs so great in the first place: namely, the ability to "be" the person or character that we can't be in real life. I can't cast spells or slay dragons in real life. If a massive boulder fell on my buddy, I wouldn't be able to budge it. But in the game, I MIGHT be able to provided I invested in the right skills, attributes, powers, and abilities. If all those choices can be negated by a simple "real world" application of a particular skill (diplomacy/bluff) then there is a) no longer much point to making the choices in the first place and b) a dissolution of verisimilutude.

 

[delericho]

The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock. As the DM, do you:
a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."

If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice.

Says who? Isn't it equally appropriate to have the random d20 represent the fickle whim of the gods? Kord is Chaotic, after all (well, classically; he becomes Unaligned in 4e).

Plus, the comical failure after all that is just as likely to be a memorable event as the DM giving the PCs a free success for hamming it up.

And anyway, you haven't actually addressed his question. He didn't ask "should the wimpy Wizard be able to lift the boulder because the player roleplays a bit", it was "should the wimpy Wizard be able to life the boulder because the player lifts weights"?

Otherwise, you've just shovelled yet more bennies on to the fast-talking player. Now he doesn't just have Charisma as a dump stat - he can dump Strength as well.

 

[jbear]

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.

Only that a character with 8 Charisma, when they say things, speak or attempt to have people listen to them, they are weak at it. Maybe they mumble, speak too quietly or too aggressively. Perhaps when you 8 CHA Shaman speaks he does it with such a freaky spirit world look on his face, eyes bulging, tongue flicking out licking badly cracked lips and with a freaky ghostly otherworld echo of the spirits in his voice that surround him that even if he says something valid, his message may not get across because of the way he projects that message.

If it is particularly to the point, if he hits the bullseye you can just notch up a success without rolling anything. If you insist on a roll give him a bonus and drop the DC to easy.

Personally I don't run Skill Challenges on the fly. I do a lot of prepartaion for them, I often sketch them out. I think this is vital in order to make a skill challenge worth the while.

Failures are points where I get to add a complication to the situation that the PCs must immeadiately resolve before they can progress. So even with a single failure in a challenge something exciting happens to twist the situation and add to the tension.

I also use a lot of group skill checks where either the majority need to succeed to notch up a success. Partial success is neither a success or a failure, but a complication arises that has to be dealt with. Group failure means that the complication is more severe. Even with a group success, even a single individual failure during a group success leads to a minor dramatic complication that the group needs to resolve.

The other way I involve everyone and avoid the 'best skill use' syndrome is to have a main PC make the skill check (the speaker for example). Let's say the Sorceror wants the Hobgoblin Captain to swollow his Fishy Tail. No sweat, with that High Bluff score, not a problem. But I'm not having everyone just sitting back while she does her stuff. No way in hell. Besides, the Captain is no fool, he's checking out the rest of the group's body language as the Sorceror speaks, listening to their side comments to see if her story rings true. So everyone has to make a moderate bluff roll; of course i actually want to see and hear what your character is doing while the sorceror speaks, +2 to the roll if I like what I see. Every failure adds a +2 to the DC on the Bluff check that the Sorceror has to make.

Hell you should have seen how fast the chairs went scraping back as my players scrabbled to their feet to build a living portrait around the player running the sorceror, striking their best in character convincing poses and adding comments to support her lies. Awesome moment.

Anyway, I could go into different elements I involve in my challenges that makes them work but what i really want to say is that the challenge provides a great structure for me to adjudicate when a situation changes direction, for better or for worse, when things get complicated, how complicated things get, when the group gets to the goal, when things have gone so terribly wrong that some serious unforseen complication changes the situation and sends the adventurers in a new unforseen direction. For me failure doesn't mean things end, for me it's when something dangerous happens.

But they require a lot of thought and preparation in my opinion. I probably spend more time working on my skill challenges than I do my combat encounters. Although there is nothing like adding a simultaneous challenge during a combat situation. But simply put, like someone up page said, you get out of them what you put into them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You've been playing this game too long. I'm sure you know better than that!

Nah, actually that's the way of things. When you want to be good at specific things you pick the things to be good at. Other things you're probably not so good at. Some things you may even be downright poor at, though most heroes can at least fail with style. This is a core element of the game. It was a bit less central back in the days of rolling stats and you get nothing but the features of your class with few to no choices, but even then there were things you were good at and things you weren't.

YES!!! Yes, this is my point. The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him. He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is. He makes an empassioned plea to Kord. Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here. The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock. As the DM, do you:
a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."

If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.

There is a 'rule of cool' argument, but that is only one possible situation. Much more often the character simply wants to do something that requires some STR. Usually they'll do it poorly with a low STR. Beyond that maybe it isn't the wizard's place in the grand scheme of things to be lifting the rock. Maybe the barbarian should be doing that, or even the modestly strong bow ranger. It isn't ignoring the rules that makes the game great. It is knowing how and when to use them for best effect and when and how to ignore them or modify them.

In terms of raw skill checks I find that by far the best way to use them is to first ask the player what they are going to do in general. You now understand what action they are taking and why (just like they would announce the power they are using in combat). Once you've determined what skill or ability score should govern that situation you can ask for a check. The character may now narrate the results in keeping with what they tried to do and whether or not the check succeeded. Again this is just exactly how it is always done in combat. You don't describe chopping the orc's head off before you roll to hit do you? That deals with the issues surrounding "made a great speech and failed the check" because the player won't describe it that way. The DM may also supply some explanation the player can use.

In a skill challenge this can flow very naturally. The party face negotiates with the NPC, but a complication comes up, he's misunderstood what the NPC wants and his effort goes awry (failed check). This may create an opening for another character. Perhaps someone with some Insight can make a check "As I watch the bard negotiate with the wizard I try to ascertain his goals and attitude." Bingo.

SCs should always be dynamically evolving situations, not static barriers you bang on until you overcome them. A social SC should involve moving through a series of situations. Maybe with a more difficult one they involve dealing with different people. Simpler ones can just include an unexpected twist or two. Doing it in the style I'm suggesting I've had plenty of these sorts of SCs and they usually work pretty well.

For other types of situations SCs are generally very straightforward as long as again you make sure there is progress and an evolving situation with each check. The SC framework gives you a good quick way to gauge progress. Suppose the PCs need to navigate down a river in a boat. How many checks are required to succeed? Well, you can do this without an SC, but you're just doing the same thing, the party rolls a few times until the DM is satisfied they've done enough to succeed or mucked up badly enough to have failed. Nice to have a system for that which will give you an appropriate difficulty.

 

[aurance]

YES!!! Yes, this is my point. The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him. He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is. He makes an empassioned plea to Kord. Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here. The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock. As the DM, do you:
a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."

If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.

I disagree with the premise that (b) is necessarily making the game great. Secondly, there's nothing preventing you from awarding ad hoc bonuses in skill challenges for RP that you think is fantastic, or for whatever reason you want. (Personally, as a DM, just making an impassioned plea to a god in and of itself wouldn't strike me as particularly special or interesting RP.)

 

[Mengu]

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.

For the record, the 8 charisma shaman's player thoroughly enjoys playing the low charisma. Whatever talking he does, he makes sure to have an abrasive tone about it, so when he fails the check I have an easy time disputing his argument, and hopefully someone with better charisma will jump in and offer further input to salvage the situation. I find this to be "fun" as DM.

I've had my 8 wisdom warlord ask for untrained insight checks even though I know I'm terrible at them, just because I like giving the DM a tool to mess with me should I roll dismally low, or occasionally gain some benefit with a lucky roll.

I realize it's not all black and white, and you don't want to punish players for being involved in the game, you want to reward them, but it's also the player's responsibility to play to their strengths and weaknesses. I play a half-orc barbarian with high charisma, low int, and he walks around with a big dumb grin on his face all the time, acts friendly and a bit naive, which gains points for simply being likable and honest, even if what he had to say was the dumbest idea. I tend to make a lot of diplomacy assist rolls to help the bard, often providing terrible ideas that basically make the bard's idea shine. While one could do the same thing with a sarcastic rogue or a devious warlock, the naive barbarian works just as well. And if I fail an assist check, the DM/NPC can look at the bard and say "the company you keep is not exactly inspiring." And my barbarian will just smile like he got a pat on the head, while providing the bard with a -1 penalty.

Making dice rolls, or even failing at them, doesn't necessarily mean people aren't involved or invested with their actions, or that they aren't enjoying their actions. Yes this will be the case for some newer players, or in awkward situations where occasionally the DM can't quite portray the encounter well, or the players don't understand it. And in those cases, something has to keep the game going, so roll some dice, call it a day, move onto the next fun thing.

One other thing to keep in mind is, dice don't tell you what to say. Everyone knows that guy, who rolls a diplomacy check, natural 20, turns to the DM and says "I rolled a 20 on my diplomacy, I ask the ambassador, the exact right questions for him to tell me everything." And I hate that guy as much as every other DM.

Skill checks and skill challenges are simply a resolution method, much like every other mechanic in D&D, removing part of the responsibility of being a bad guy from the DM's shoulders, and placing it on a bit of luck, and a bit of savvy party building and cooperation.