Skill challenges

[JoeNotCharles]

I'm reading through all the adventure threads, and I keep seeing DM's post skill challenges using the old numbers. "X successes before 2 failures," things like that, instead of always needing 3 failures. I have a question for all these DM's:

Why are you doing this?

Do people not know about the errata, or are you just ignoring it because you like it better this way?

 

[covaithe]

I'm getting a little tired of skill challenges, myself. I don't think the mechanic WotC has provided, either the pre-errata, post-errata, or even their suggested skill challenge setups in published adventures (which often obey neither pre- or post-errata rules), is compelling enough to pay much attention to.

Besides, I think pretty much all DCs in published WotC products are too low. In E1: Death's Reach, I regularly see knowledge checks at DC 29 that tell you all sorts of ridiculous things, like what a particular enemy had for breakfast, who he really serves, why, and what his secret plan is. This, for epic characters, who hit DC 40 checks more often than not. 29? Really? Half of the level 1 parties in L4W can hit a DC 29 check if they really put their minds to it.

Anyway, all of this is a roundabout way of saying that I don't particularly like the current WotC model of skill challenges, where DCs are (ridiculously) low, but only a few failures will kill a challenge. I might use it for something where failure really is catastrophic, like, say, scaling a cliff, but for most skill challenges I'd rather have higher DCs that are really a challenge, but have a few failures be recoverable.

 

[Katana_Geldar]

That's always how I always played skill challenges anyway, makes them less contrived.

 

[renau1g]

What I dislike about a lot of WOTC skill 'challenges' in their published adventures is that there's very rarely what happens if they fail, ie. how to keep the game going without succeeding in the challenge.

I agree they're ridiculously easy. I'm thinking to drop them from my games, unless, as you say, there's a real penalty for failure (like falling down the cliff), but allowing other characters to negate a failure.

oh, and in Epic you can auto-aid another, so really there's no way a group should fail a knowledge check, assuming at least 1 person in the group is either trained in it, or at least has a high score in that skill.

 

[Fragsie]

I use the Obsidion Skill Challenge System which is a lot more free form than the WotC system; it's much easier to quickly alter the difficulty quickly, and there is no 'before # failures'; it's more like # = partial success # = total success. Definately worth having a look at if you're not happy with the WotC rules.

 

[CaBaNa]

The way skill challenges force RP, and creativity, is a plus for me. As for the DC's themselves, I can take it or leave it, more interested in rewarding RP and skill use.

 

[covaithe]

I did a bunch of reading in and around threads about Obsidian, but it was more trying to get a handle on the math behind the DCs -- there was a lot of good number-crunching in those threads -- than really trying to understand the Obsidian rules. I stopped reading when it dawned on me that the important thing about SC's is that failure should still be fun. As long as failing and winning are both fun, it really doesn't matter what rules you use.

That said, now that I've run a handful or two of skill challenges, maybe I should revisit those rules just for variety's sake.

 

[H.M.Gimlord]

DMG2 has a lot of good advice on how to run skill challenges from a setup standpoint.

Covaithe hit the nail on the head. A skill challenge should be at a fork in the game. Not at a dead-end alley. The result of the challenge should determine one of two (or several) possible courses, not determine success or failure of the party.

I actually think it was Covaithe that suggested this to me, (or was it THB?) when I was trying to set up the skill challenge for the wine cellar in Wayne's Basement. The advice worked. I had a backup in case the cask door didn't open. Unfortunately, I didn't set the DC's quite high enough. So, chalk one up for experience.

I agree with Cov on the DC's though. There's got to be a party specific way of setting the DC's.

 

[renau1g]

Unforuntately, (again from a lot of published modules) is that a failed challenge leads to a fight, which conversely rewards players more (in the form of more xp) than if they completed the challenge initially...

I love the idea of the skill challenge, a way of formalizing the use of skills (and encouraging their creative use) although I also find that sometimes it now results in a RP'ing crutch. In my RL game I have 1 player say, "Ok I'm going to diplomacy the guards" and I'm like "what are you saying to them" and he's like "uh...I don't know, whatever my diplomacy says?"... *sigh*

 

[Kalidrev]

Too true r1. It's an unfortunate truth that these days some players who roll play rather than role play tend to roll the dice first and back it up with fill in RP. I remember the old days of 3.0... oh wait, that wasn't that long ago ... anyways, I remember when I had a DM that said...

"You're not allowed to touch your dice unless I tell you to. Everything you want your character to do, describe it. Everything you want your character to say... say it. If I want you to roll the dice to see how much of an effect your characters words or actions had, I'll ask for it."

It was a little more difficult for the roleplayer, cuase you actually had to think in character! *gasp, shocked look*