Skill Challenges

[Oompa]

So.. tonight my party will have 2 - 3 skill challenges and i know the setting, which skills and likes but i've got 2 questions..

- The rules were updated and iniative is out, how is everyone handling it now? Just let the players discuss about who should take the roll?

- Any other tips about how to handle things? or suggestions to make things smoother?

 

[ValhallaGH]

Lots and lots and lots of descriptions. Each roll shouldn't just be an Arcane (or History, or Athletics, or ...) roll; it should have a context that conveys both the activity attempted and whether or not it succeeded. And, if possible, the ability to re-use the skill and some of the consequences of failure.

This has added a lot of interest and excitement to skill challenges in my games.

Good luck.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, SCs are definitely an art form. I think the best ones feel very organic and like "just roleplaying". Don't feel too constrained by the default SC rules either. They're OK as a starting point, but you can go in a lot of possible directions with an SC.

Sometimes its better to break something up into more than one SC too. As a rule of thumb an SC (or any other "scene" in the game) should involve one and only one "fork" in the plot. A lot of people try to create an SC where several things MUST happen in order for the story to logically progress in a certain direction, but because SCs accumulate die rolls this often won't make sense. In other words if figuring out a mystery requires finding some tracks and figuring out what made them it doesn't make sense if the PCs pass 100 monster knowledge checks if nobody actually sees the tracks. You can have perception unlock a use of arcana and have it be one SC but some of these situations are better modeled as multiple SCs so that if nobody finds the tracks, then the plot goes in some other direction.

 

[mvincent]

- The rules were updated and iniative is out, how is everyone handling it now? Just let the players discuss about who should take the roll?

- Any other tips about how to handle things? or suggestions to make things smoother?

In DMG2 (and several articles) the designers recommend not even saying it is a skill challenge... just roleplay it out, using the Skill Challenge framework as more of a guideline.

Some familiarity with the SC mechanics is useful here (so you don't inadvertently hose your players when they are making perfectly reasonable role-playing decisions):

I generally assume that when someone is using a skill that they are poorly trained in, they are using it more in an 'aid another' capacity. That way it's not an actual failure... unless it seems like the rest of the group is going to rely on this poorly-trained individual (or otherwise allow their success to hinge on him).

 

[BASHMAN]

My advice on SC is to ignore and avoid them whenever possible. They suck the fun out of DnD 4E like an industrial strength vacuum, and are completely unnecessary to play. The wonkage of players justifying using Diplomacy skill to escape from shackels, etc, ruins all suspension of disbelief for me, and I also prefer actually role-playing negotiations instead of just rolling dice and fast-forwarding past it. If a GM insists on running skill challenges, I invoke the right not to participate (which was one of the things they added in the rules update to SC).

 

[Rothe_]

epochrpg, do you then also think that social skills are not needed? There will be a lot of characters that are more skilled than the players playing them.

I'd rather use the skill roll as the final arbitrator, but I will give bonuses for a good roleplay, even more than +2. The character can still present the information better or worse than the player, so the dice roll is needed in cases where failure would have plot significance.

I tend to reward good playing when the character does not only say the generic "I try to get him to help us", but instead includes references of the game world and earlier play "You should help us so that we don't repeat the failure of the battle of Blademeet. Surely you see this is heading the same way, if you refuse?".

I like story continuity if possible, sometimes good players can go along and tie things together nicely.

 

[Jhaelen]

My advice on SC is to ignore and avoid them whenever possible. They suck the fun out of DnD 4E like an industrial strength vacuum, and are completely unnecessary to play. The wonkage of players justifying using Diplomacy skill to escape from shackels, etc, ruins all suspension of disbelief for me, and I also prefer actually role-playing negotiations instead of just rolling dice and fast-forwarding past it. If a GM insists on running skill challenges, I invoke the right not to participate (which was one of the things they added in the rules update to SC).

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective: Let the players roleplay and describe what they're doing, then you tell them what skill to roll. If you don't feel that diplomacy covers the described actions, don't tell the player to roll diplomacy. If the description matches something that can be achieved using diplomacy, you still have the option of saying "All fine and well, but being diplomatic won't get you out of your shackles right now." And if you want to reward good roleplaying grant a bonus on the skill check.

The alternative is a system without skills.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective: Let the players roleplay and describe what they're doing, then you tell them what skill to roll. If you don't feel that diplomacy covers the described actions, don't tell the player to roll diplomacy. If the description matches something that can be achieved using diplomacy, you still have the option of saying "All fine and well, but being diplomatic won't get you out of your shackles right now." And if you want to reward good roleplaying grant a bonus on the skill check.

The alternative is a system without skills.

Personally I think doing things in the opposite manner is more amenable to RP. Have the player roll a skill check and THEN RP the results. If they rolled a horrible diplomacy check then they describe committing some horrible faux-pas or something. Whatever they describe then feeds into the next bit of the scene where maybe another character uses insight and the player describes how that works out "I figure out what this guy will respond to", "oh, he's mad now, you'll have to threaten him if you expect to get anything out of him". The next character fails intimidate check and describes issuing some lame threat, etc. It can be done in a fairly natural fashion, you just have to encourage the players to RP out the consequences of their rolls. Of course if someone won't RP it really doesn't matter if there are dice involved or not.

 

[Mesh Hong]

Personally I think doing things in the opposite manner is more amenable to RP. Have the player roll a skill check and THEN RP the results. If they rolled a horrible diplomacy check then they describe committing some horrible faux-pas or something.

You know, I have never thought of that. It's an interesting idea, and I suppose in keeping with normal use of skills:

e.g. player declares they are going to pick a lock = make thievery check = result of check points towards the description given by the DM.

I am just not 100% sure it would work in conversation, and might confuse players by pointing towards the outcome before the event (so to speak), I think it might stilt any conversation to a greater degree than the normal speak then roll when asked order.

conversation start:-
DM: what are you going to say?
PC: brief description
DM: makes allowances for the context then asks for roll
PC: makes roll and is informed on the outcome by DM
PC: says what they were intending to say, but altering it within the context of their success/fail dice roll

Having written all that I am assuming I must be overcomplicating it somewhat as it is far too unwieldy.

PC: declares use of diplomacy skill, makes roll calls result
DM: gives single word response - Great, good, OK, poor, terrible etc
PC: says what they were going to say, either with the confidence that it will be well recieved or intensionally bad due to poor roll.

I suppose it might work, with the right group. I still think it is best to just let the player say their piece and respond, calling for checks as necessary. After all you never know what's going to come out of your players mouths, it could be an inspired and elequently put point, or it could be a well meaning but offensive or undiplomatic statement (whether that is what they intended or not!)

For conversation I generally work on the general level of skill, position and context of the PC speaking and only call for checks when they say something that might require it (e.g. they don't in reality realise that what they have said was inappropriate - the check is to let me pretend the character said something subtley different which wouldn't cause offence - this is an example of where character skill seperates itself from player skill)