• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Skill challenges: situation vs system

Mephistopheles

First Post
One problem with providing rules for something is that it can give people the idea that they need to keep their thinking inside the box and follow those rules. While the 4E section on skill challenges does cover the territory of describing what a skill challenge involves I think it should have been a lot less rigid in defining presentation, structure and resolution.

Having seen 4E skill challenge situations play out in a few different ways now - I'm currently playing in three 4E games, all of them with first time DMs - I feel that it's a system that is suffering from its own definition. My comments below summarize some of my thoughts about 4E skill challenges based on my experiences as a player in 4E games, followed by some of my thoughts on alternative presentation and resolution based on my experiences as a D&D player and DM. Some of this may be feedback that your players have not given you, some of it may be advice on how to alter things in response to feedback your players have given you.

(I'm not going to touch on any of the statistical elements of the system as presented - that has already been well covered in other threads.)

I. As a player facing skill challenges

First, my thoughts based on skill challenges as a player. While the fact that the DMs of the 4E groups I'm playing in are all new to the role I don't think that invalidates my experiences. I see the section on skill challenges as being largely aimed at new DMs; if those same DMs, and I'm assuming there are many out there, are struggling to present them in play in a fun and engaging manner then perhaps a discussion of presentation and bending rules to fit the situation will be of use.

1) Skill challenge incoming! All hands to dice bags!

When the DM announces that a skill challenge is commencing it is jarring to the flow of play. It breaks immersion and shifts the focus on to roll play rather than role play. While I understand the intent behind advising the players which skills are primarily effective in resolving the challenge I think it also takes the fun out of the player response.

2) Take a ticket.

Unless two players announce that they both want to try something at the same time and there is some need to distinguish who goes first I don't think running checks in a particular order adds much to the situation - if anything all it adds is more intrusion from the rules where it's not necessary.

3) Roll 'em.

I think this is one aspect of skill challenges that makes them feel particularly forced. Everyone has to make their checks every round, whether it makes any sense or not, because the system demands it. I understand the intent is to be inclusive and not have players feeling left out of the action, but when that involvement is coming up with contrived reasons that a particular skill is somehow applicable to the situation it just feels like jumping through hoops for the sake of the exercise.

4) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it!

Because a character may not have skills that are practical to apply to the challenge they end up having to come up with hokey justifications for using various secondary skills round after round, and unless they're attempting to aid a primary skill checker they are more likely to hurt the efforts of the group than they are to help. Sometimes discretion is the better option; not everyone can be useful in every situation.

5) We're playing dice, not D&D.

Sometimes a skill challenge plays out in a way that you feel you have no real control over: you need to notch up some number of successes before tripping up too many times - it all comes down to the dice. If there's no way for me to interact with and attempt to influence the situation beyond the random roll of a die then it's a pretty meaningless challenge.

II. As a DM reflecting on how to run skill challenges

Having identified some of the issues with skill challenges that I feel get in the way of having a good time as a player, I'll go over a few ideas for running skill challenges in a manner that is more conducive to a natural flow of play.

1) Let the players play.

When engaging enemies in combat a DM does not disclose which defenses of the enemy are strong or weak; when engaging in a skill challenge the DM should not disclose which approaches, in the form of primary or secondary skills, are likely to be most successful. Present the situation to the players and let them decide how they respond. Players will usually choose to act in line with the abilities of their characters in a way that makes sense in the context of the situation, the DM then translates their action into the most appropriate skill and resolves it against the specifications of the skill challenge. The role play determines the mechanics that will be used, not the other way around.

2) Just let it flow.

The order in which players act will often be determined by the actions they choose. Again, unless there is some conflict between the players over their response I think there is no need to look to the rules to tell us who goes when.

3) Roll 'em, but only if you need to.

If a character is taking action that translates into an application of a skill then the player makes a roll as necessary; if a character is taking action that meaningfully assists another then the player makes a roll as necessary; if a character is not taking any direct involvement in the situation at this time then they can stand back and let those who are in their element earn their keep.

4) Well, okay, if you think that'll work.

If the situation plays out in a manner that makes sense for more than one application of a secondary skill to be viable, then why not let it be viable? A character should not be stopped from attempting something if there's no in game reason for it.

5) So what happens when I do this?

When an interaction takes place the player should get feedback on it so that they can adjust their actions. With no feedback on an action there is no real interaction going on and the challenge devolves into a meaningless procedure of rolling dice until an arbitrary number of successes or failures have been resolved. A large part of role playing is the cycle of attempting an action, receiving feedback on how the environment responds from the DM, and then adjusting and proceeding on. Without some cycle of action and feedback we're just sitting around rolling dice for the hell of it.

6) Success and failures as guidelines and not requirements.

In some cases there will be physical conditions in which the requirements for successes and failures make objective sense, but if the skill challenge specifies that ten successes are required but the role play has progressed to a situation that seems resolved with only five successes what is gained by stringing it out any longer than necessary? Just wrap it up and move on if it makes sense to do so.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think just having an arbitrary number of successes and failures silly, a point you touched on in 6.

If you have 4 successes required then each success should have a goal.

Such as:

Success Track.

1) Get into the noble's court.
2) Get an audience with the noble.
3) Get on good terms with the noble.
4) Convince the noble to send aid.

Failure Track.

1) Offend the noble.
2) Display lack of ettiquettte.

Something like that. Make it objective based for each step rather than just the whole challenge. Each step should be as general as possible and the PCs can accomplish that goal anyway they wish.

This is a fairly poor example, but this principle needs exploring, as the main problem I see with skill challenges is the DM may as well just say to the PCs roll some skill checks until I say stop. I'll tell you if you won or lost.

The main purpose of the skill challenge system is to break an action into a number of parts so that it cannot be succeeded or failed in a single action or die roll. It needs developing past its current base state. As long as you keep its main purpose in mind it should not be difficult.

Several steps may be accomplished in a single action/roll or a single step may need several actions/rolls. The steps may not have to be accomplished in any particular order such as in the case of a trap.

Success Track

1. Block the nozzle.
2. Jam something in the clockwork.
3. Reset the pressure plate.
4. Snap the wire.

Fail Track

1. Break nozzle.
2. break pressure plate.

Another poor example, but just of the top of my head.

Or perhaps a lock.

Success Track

1. Set Pins
2. Add right rotation tension

etc.

These are just off the top of my head, so they aren't great, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point. I just need to make the elements as general as humanly possible so as to allow imagination and diversity.
 
Last edited:

Saeviomagy

Adventurer
I think that the overall concept is ok: let the player describe what they want to achieve that contributes to the goal, be flexible in what you allow to contribute and have some sort of concrete ending condition to avoid the whole thing dragging out for too long.

Unfortunately the mechanics presented are pretty bad in terms of an enjoyable system. The flexibility is false (ie - the level of punishment exacted for using nonstandard skills is enough to be prohibitive anyway), the concrete ending condition makes little sense, and there isn't enough depth to the system to make it tactical. Given that, it's not surprising it turns into a grindy session of rolling the dice for people who are good at the skill, and creatively avoiding doing so for people who are bad at it.

Bleoberis: Personally I think that your first example should actually be multiple skill challenges. Getting into the nobles court, subsequently gaining an audience and finally convincing the noble are big enough tasks that they could be considered seperate encounters.

On the other hand: I think you're adding too much detail on the trap department. Personally I don't think that traps should be skill challenges at all: a simple DC should be enough to cope with the disable device roll, and disabling should be a simple task than simply smashing the traps components.
 
Last edited:

Quickleaf

Legend
Great thread, thanks Mephistopheles. "Skill challenges" lumps a lot of different ideas together, and should have been approached in a more individuated way, for example with separate headings for "timed challenge", "PC vs NPC challenge", "on the fly skill challenge", etc. I'm hoping we'll see this in the DMG2, even though it should have been in the first one, or at least offered free on-line. The skill challenge "system" D&D players recived in a non-solution - it's uninteresting, poorly designed, and improperly used subtracts from the game. However, the *idea* behind it has so much potential, and hints that D&D is evolving.

3) Roll 'em.
I think this is one aspect of skill challenges that makes them feel particularly forced. Everyone has to make their checks every round, whether it makes any sense or not, because the system demands it. I understand the intent is to be inclusive and not have players feeling left out of the action, but when that involvement is coming up with contrived reasons that a particular skill is somehow applicable to the situation it just feels like jumping through hoops for the sake of the exercise.
Though I have no problem with rolling, I don't like how it always boils down to a *skill* check. This is why I prefer to think of them as "non-combat challenges". I may include notes on particular useful powers from each class, actions that require no roll and are auto-successes with some role-play, ability score checks (with augmented DCs), not only skills.

Mephistopheles said:
5) So what happens when I do this?

When an interaction takes place the player should get feedback on it so that they can adjust their actions. With no feedback on an action there is no real interaction going on and the challenge devolves into a meaningless procedure of rolling dice until an arbitrary number of successes or failures have been resolved. A large part of role playing is the cycle of attempting an action, receiving feedback on how the environment responds from the DM, and then adjusting and proceeding on. Without some cycle of action and feedback we're just sitting around rolling dice for the hell of it.

Mephistopheles said:
6) Success and failures as guidelines and not requirements.

In some cases there will be physical conditions in which the requirements for successes and failures make objective sense, but if the skill challenge specifies that ten successes are required but the role play has progressed to a situation that seems resolved with only five successes what is gained by stringing it out any longer than necessary? Just wrap it up and move on if it makes sense to do so.
I'm not convinced this is a problem in a well-designed pre-designed skill challenge. This is why the development track Bleoberis De Ganis suggests is so important - I think it's arguably the most important part because it identifies stages the PCs need to go through.
However, when it's a spur of the moment skill challenge, I can see this being a real concern for the DM. Some guidelines in the DMG would have been nice.

If you have 4 successes required then each success should have a goal.

Such as:

Success Track.

1) Get into the noble's court.
2) Get an audience with the noble.
3) Get on good terms with the noble.
4) Convince the noble to send aid.

Failure Track.

1) Offend the noble.
2) Display lack of ettiquettte.
I really like that you've identified the most important part of skill challenges - the development and unfolding in play. As I've been writing my first adventure, this sort of "development track" is exactly what I've been doing. Except for the rare most open-ended of skill challenges, every skill challenge should be designed this way, I think.
 

RyvenCedrylle

First Post
One of the more glaring differences between skill challenges and combat - which both primarily boil down to 'roll high a bunch of times' - is that dice rolls are not the only thing happening mechanically in combat. You have movement, HP tracking, terrain features, status conditions, etc. The die rolls are couched in a ton of other decisions and that buffering causes it to feel like something other than what is really is: roll often, roll high. The Skill Challenge on the other hand is utterly naked. There are no other meaningful decisions or even distractions from the repetitive rolling. So what can we add to Skill Challenges to get some clothing on them? Some of my ideas:

1) Enemies Bite Back - only critical failures (roll of 1) create failures for the party. Otherwise, rolls made by the NPCs against the PC's Skills or maybe Defenses count as 'failures' for the PCs. You don't take damage in combat when you miss an attack, do you? Neither should you take 'damage' for 'missing' a skill (most of the time) either.

2) Environmental Effects - Even the most timid speaker earns a little bit more attention from an audience when he is above them or is standing behind a podium. We're sort of trained to recognize certain body positioning or environmental cues as meaningful. Give the gal a +2 for properly (or -2 for improperly) positioning herself relative to the audience.

3) It Does What It Needs to Do - Maybe that lock is really too small for two people to work on and so all 'aid another' Theivery checks are at -4. The merchant's young apprentice may be easily Intimidated, giving PCs a +2 to those checks. Heck, maybe giving the right roleplay idea automatically garners a success. A Skill Challenge with DC 17 for every Skill possible may be statistically balanced but it's boring as all get out. Even more so if all Skill Challenges are always DC 17 at level X.

4) Status Conditions - I'm less sure how this one would work, exactly. For instance, an NPC might make some sort of check to 'frustrate' a PC, limiting him to 'Aid Another' this round. An NPC could end up with the 'removed' condition, prohibiting her from getting environmental bonuses. The mark would be an awesome Skill Challenge mechanic - my witty barb has gotten under your skin and so you take a -2 to interact with anyone but me.
 

Vaslov

Explorer
The DM in the game I play in has been holding off on skill challenges so far. It's a new concept the entire group is still looking for the right way to make it interesting. The first hint of how this could work and be exciting / fun I saw in a posting PC put together.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4767464-post434.html

This case it's combat, not a role play. That said, the ah-ha that struck me is to give the players some of the information around the skill challenge. This could allow players to come up with their own tactics. For me, as a player, this was the big puzzle piece that was missing. The second ah ha is to some degree it could be run like combat, with rounds and turns. This will get everyone involved through aiding or other needs.

I still see a need for a DM to be ready with a success or fail path, probably mitigating either one to a more mild result depending on how close the success or failure was. For that reason for now I would suggest only using them for designed skill challenges, not something on the fly.

Again, this is coming from someone with no real game experinece with a skill challenge. That said, for the first time I am actually a bit interested in them.
 

baphomet68

First Post
I have been using skill challenges more flexibly than presented, precisely because they seem so disruptive of gameplay. If a player can roleplay convincingly, no roll is used, they just rack up a success. Also, my skill challenge goes in parentheses after the problem it represents - Ex: "Gain audience with Duke (Diplomacy 10/Intimidate 16)" If my players cannot come up with any other approach to getting that audience, they fall back on dice. Otherwise, I follow their reactions and solutions, which often are way beyond what my skill challenge foresaw.
I think it is a great back-up to keep the game rolling and on-plot, but it plays a back-up role in my games so far.
 

Piratecat

Sesquipedalian
The first hint of how this could work and be exciting / fun I saw in a posting PC put together.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4767464-post434.html

This case it's combat, not a role play. That said, the ah-ha that struck me is to give the players some of the information around the skill challenge. This could allow players to come up with their own tactics. For me, as a player, this was the big puzzle piece that was missing. The second ah ha is to some degree it could be run like combat, with rounds and turns. This will get everyone involved through aiding or other needs.
Hey, looky there! It's my post! :)

For me, greater structure was crucial to having this be fun. I went around the table clockwise: monsters went, then each PC had a chance to take an action. People could change their order if they wanted to. Giving them enough information to make an informed decision meant that the excitement was in the success or the failure, not the trying to guess what they should do, and that made a HUGE difference.
 

Hey, looky there! It's my post! :)

For me, greater structure was crucial to having this be fun. I went around the table clockwise: monsters went, then each PC had a chance to take an action. People could change their order if they wanted to. Giving them enough information to make an informed decision meant that the excitement was in the success or the failure, not the trying to guess what they should do, and that made a HUGE difference.

Bad structure reminds me of a DM we had. We had virtually no world information (locations/history/npcs etc) and we were in a town at the beginning (know nothing about it though). He kept asking "What do you want to do?"

With what?

This can be the same problem as is common with skill challenges.
 

Rafe

First Post
Two things that can be done: Do not work it in rounds, and have only those who wish to participate do so.

By not doing it in rounds, it feels less like an encounter and can feel a bit more organic or "arising from play." Go in whatever order feels natural for the situation, and include those who wish to be included. Which takes me to....

I'm an editor while my buddy is a computer specialist. Why would he go at a document with a red pen when I'm there? Likewise, why would I yank the case off of a server and start meddling? The way it's written for skill challenges, if you force everyone to participate in something when they have the legitimate option to abstain, you'll just make them feel like they're the ones adding up the failures while those better suited are supplying the successes. Don't force what isn't there. A Barbarian with average Intelligence, whose skills are all Str or Con related, isn't going to open his mouth during an important negotiation or an appeal with a lord. The current system forces him to, for no gain. Personally, if it were me, I'd know my best contribution would be to shut it and let the Bard, Warlord, etc. do the talking.

In order to balance that, include both a mental and physical skill challenge per session (or one of each alternating every session).
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top