Skill Challenges

[wlmartin]

How do you run Skill Challenges?

I know that some people like to announce the Challenge and tell the group how many Success/Fails they need.

Some DMs like to tell the group what the Key Skills are

Some DMs like to tell the group if they fail or succeed


I am unsure the best way to approach it.


With announcing progress to the players (What the goal is, what the key skills are, if they fail or succeed) you can still do this within the game and make it sound plausible (ie. instead of "You need 4 fails before 2 successes" you say "After attempting to figure it out with your Arcana abilities, you know that you were unsuccesful and you can only suffer one more fail with this or any other skill before dire things may happen"

On the one side you don't want the challenge to feel so robotic and forced that the players dont feel immersed in the game however on the other side you don't want them to start rolling every skill on their sheet...

... lets start with Athletics, can i try and run around in a circle to impress the Duke? (DM says NO!)
... OK, Acrobatics --- I do a summersault in mid air, how about that does that impress him? (DM says NO!)
... Fine, what about Endurance, I hold my breath for 5 minutes and the... (DM says NO!)

You want your players to be smart and try to come up with ways to handle the situation but you dont want them to just sit back and think "I am lost, what do I do" - I suppose at those situations you can then prompt them with clues as to what skills to use and how well they are doing.


Also, one of the hardest things to do is try and find a skill that many people can contribute with. Since most skill challenges can revolve around
Arcana, History, Religion (knowledge based)
Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate (conversation based)
Dungeoneering, Nature, Perception (Enviroment based)
Endurance, Athletics, Acrobatics (Physical based)

it means that if your challenge is one of these it is hard to incorporate the others (ie a chat with the duke involves little or no enviroment or physical but would be knowledge and conversation) so what do you do with players who lack these abilities...??

2 tactics I have seen that may work well are
1 : You have the group roll a group check (say Endurance or Perception) and at least 50% need to succeed. A success can contribute to further progress or a failure can result in a penalty
2 : You have a couple of backup skills (insight, thievery, perception) where things happen to bolster the challenge but dont contribute to successes
(ie use of the skill opens up a new skill, you can give a bonus to anyone else making use of a primary skill, you can substitute that skill result for the next failure from your party member)

I just dont want to build a challenge where the Wizard is disabling the Portal (arcana), the thief is helping by finding rare wizard components from around town to bolster his checks (streetwise) but everyone else is sat on their hands forced to either sit it out or make an Arcana check with a -2 hoping to aid them.

Part of me thinks that this is natural, after all a locked door isnt something anyone can aid with - its for a thief to do, so a skill challenge naturally would involve some of the group members but not all. The balance in accepting that this is a fair way to keep the game "REAL" but you would need a number of skill challenges in the adventure so if some people need to sit out, they get to act in the next one.


So.. how do you guys play them?

 

[wedgeski]

This came up recently, here is a link to the thread. You might find it helpful.

 

[wlmartin]

This came up recently, here is a link to the thread. You might find it helpful.

I had seen this post before, it unfortunately for me posed more questions than answers (LOL) and didnt answer one of my fundamental issues which is

Do you say "This is a skill challenge, 6 successes before 3 failures and you can use the following Key Skills"

Do you say "You have become stuck in a room that is closing in on you, what do you do?"

Or do you do something in between ??

 

[delericho]

Do you say "This is a skill challenge, 6 successes before 3 failures and you can use the following Key Skills"

Do you say "You have become stuck in a room that is closing in on you, what do you do?"

Or do you do something in between ??

For the most part, I find that Skill Challenges work best if run "organically". That is describe the situation and keep track of what the PCs do, but don't tell them they're in a Skill Challenge, or what skills may be useful.

Also, it's definitely best to be as flexible as you can in what you'll allow them to try and what you'll count as a success. Even to the extent of allowing them to completely bypass a Challenge if they come up with something really clever that you didn't anticipate. The DMG guideline of fixing the Challenges to particular skills really doesn't work for me.

Truth be told, while I feel Skill Challenges are a really neat concept, I'm not now convinced that it's possible to implement them in a good and generic way. I think the fundamental issue lies in having a Skill Challenge system, rather than different systems for diplomacy, chases, building, and so on and so forth. Problem is, to cover all of this, you are probably left with only a very loose framework that doesn't really help much at all anyway...

 

[wlmartin]

For the most part, I find that Skill Challenges work best if run "organically". That is describe the situation and keep track of what the PCs do, but don't tell them they're in a Skill Challenge, or what skills may be useful.

Also, it's definitely best to be as flexible as you can in what you'll allow them to try and what you'll count as a success. Even to the extent of allowing them to completely bypass a Challenge if they come up with something really clever that you didn't anticipate. The DMG guideline of fixing the Challenges to particular skills really doesn't work for me.

Truth be told, while I feel Skill Challenges are a really neat concept, I'm not now convinced that it's possible to implement them in a good and generic way. I think the fundamental issue lies in having a Skill Challenge system, rather than different systems for diplomacy, chases, building, and so on and so forth. Problem is, to cover all of this, you are probably left with only a very loose framework that doesn't really help much at all anyway...

Say you have a group of adventurers that enter an area, immediately they become lost in a maze. The group should feel they are just going around in circles..

Dungeoneering will allow them to gain a success
(Where being a Minotaur or a Dwarf allows them to reroll the first failure they get)
Arcana will allow them to gain a success
Insight will allow them to defer their roll against a future failure a party member has in either of the above abilities

Each turn represents 1 hour and I will hide this from the group until the end of the first turn.

I am going to hide most of this from the group... i will let them figure out what skills are to be used however if any of them are unsure of what abilities they can use I will let them know (in a narrative) that Arcana & Dungeoneering can be used.

If a player is stuck as to what abilities he can use, I will let him try out any non key skill (Arcana, Insight, Dungoneering) as long as he gives me a good enough reason for it... then I will let him apply it as a +2 to any future check by another party member.

I will also allow them to assist each other with aided checks.

Upon the first failure, the closest member of the party is told that during your friends efforts you notice he made a mistake - on your turn you can use your insight skill to substitute your roll for his should this happen again.

When each member has taken their actions I will let them know that an hour has passed, the group is starting to feel the toll of being lost and panic starts to creep in that they may never find their way out. (Roll endurance as a group, 50% need to pass and if they do it counts as a success)

After the first endurance check I will let the group know that remaining composed when you are lost and they can use a diplomacy/bluff check giving a +2 to any ally they aid which translates to them giving encouragement to their ally whilst they attempt their next check.

No matter what happens they will get out of the maze but if they lose they each take a 1 healing surge loss and end up in front of the enemy rather than behind them in the next Combat Encounter.

if the Skill Challenge above works smoothly I am hoping that the characters will figure out what the key skills are themselves... I doubt any of them will figure out to use insight themselves so it will require a failure from another party member to prompt them for this.

The only thing I will force them to do is make the endurance check each turn, the rest is upto them.

If I honestly see that people are coming up with random actions (someone with -2 Arcana aiding in an Arcana check because they dont have anything better to do) I may prompt them with some narrative that tells them what the 2 key skills are.

I have given the group 2 (and then a 3rd) key skills to focus on, I will give them a group check so they are rolling at least once per turn and allow them to use diplomacy or bluff after the first turn to encourage their allies (a +2 aided bonus)... I can't think of anyone who doesnt have some choices as to what to do and each player should be rolling each round and if I do it right, it doesnt feel like they are rolling against a skill challenge but instead are trying to escape a maze.


What do you think?

 

[Riastlin]

For the most part, I find that Skill Challenges work best if run "organically". That is describe the situation and keep track of what the PCs do, but don't tell them they're in a Skill Challenge, or what skills may be useful.

Also, it's definitely best to be as flexible as you can in what you'll allow them to try and what you'll count as a success. Even to the extent of allowing them to completely bypass a Challenge if they come up with something really clever that you didn't anticipate. The DMG guideline of fixing the Challenges to particular skills really doesn't work for me.

Truth be told, while I feel Skill Challenges are a really neat concept, I'm not now convinced that it's possible to implement them in a good and generic way. I think the fundamental issue lies in having a Skill Challenge system, rather than different systems for diplomacy, chases, building, and so on and so forth. Problem is, to cover all of this, you are probably left with only a very loose framework that doesn't really help much at all anyway...

I confess that I don't feel as though I am very good at presenting skill challenges to my group. Part of this is my players preferences (they tend to be more combat focused) but part of it no doubt is me as well.

I have learned though that being flexible is key. I don't simply tell the players "Here are your options." Rather I tell them what their goal is and ask how they want to accomplish it. They make a suggestion and then I tell them to make a skill check. You still need to remain flexible even within that framework though. Yesterday I was running a skill challenge where the party was searching for the MacGuffins they had lost. The invoker decided to cast Hand of Fate to help point them in the direction. Technically, this isn't a skill check, but it made perfectly obvious sense so I counted each question of the hand (which really were all "Which way toward the MacGuffins?" as an automatic success. So yeah, keep it organic and let the players decide what they want to do and roll with it from there. In the above example, had I simply said "Here are the skills you can use" there's at least a possibility that the invoker never would have thought to use Hand of Fate.

 

[delericho]

Say you have a group of adventurers that enter an area, immediately they become lost in a maze. The group should feel they are just going around in circles..

Okay, cool. I think most of that is descriptive detailing as you go. Be careful with one thing: although a certain amount of "going around in circles" is a good thing, too much will lead to player frustration which is, of course, a bad thing.

Dungeoneering will allow them to gain a success
(Where being a Minotaur or a Dwarf allows them to reroll the first failure they get)
Arcana will allow them to gain a success
Insight will allow them to defer their roll against a future failure a party member has in either of the above abilities

Fair enough. I like the use of Insight here.

I am going to hide most of this from the group... i will let them figure out what skills are to be used however if any of them are unsure of what abilities they can use I will let them know (in a narrative) that Arcana & Dungeoneering can be used.

If a player is stuck as to what abilities he can use, I will let him try out any non key skill (Arcana, Insight, Dungoneering) as long as he gives me a good enough reason for it... then I will let him apply it as a +2 to any future check by another party member.

I would be inclined to not lock this down ahead of time, and see what they come up with. If they come up with something really clever, probably best to allow it to count as a success!

Upon the first failure, the closest member of the party is told that during your friends efforts you notice he made a mistake - on your turn you can use your insight skill to substitute your roll for his should this happen again.

That's pretty cool.

A similar suggestion: after the first turn, I would make a point of describing the rotted corpse of a previous adventurer, now thoroughly looted. Make a point of noting how he died (tie this in to the monsters they're going to meet next).

After the second failure, then, describe how they turn the corner, and find the rotted corpse of a previous adventurer, now thoroughly looted. Make a point of noting that he died in exactly the same way as the previous corpse, and that there's a reason for that...

That way, not only do the characters get a sense of going in circles (because you've told them that), but the players also get a sense of going around in circles.

When each member has taken their actions I will let them know that an hour has passed, the group is starting to feel the toll of being lost and panic starts to creep in that they may never find their way out. (Roll endurance as a group, 50% need to pass and if they do it counts as a success)

Yep, fair enough. Alternately, call for this after the first failure, as despair starts to set in...

After the first endurance check I will let the group know that remaining composed when you are lost and they can use a diplomacy/bluff check giving a +2 to any ally they aid which translates to them giving encouragement to their ally whilst they attempt their next check.

Fair enough.

No matter what happens they will get out of the maze but if they lose they each take a 1 healing surge loss and end up in front of the enemy rather than behind them in the next Combat Encounter.

For Challenges of this type, I'm generally inclined not to do that "X successes before Y failures" thing. Instead, have them count up to "X successes" in the same way, but don't put a cap on the number of failures. Instead, have the cost of success depend on the number of failures.

For example, if they get X successes with 0 failures, they take the opposition by surprise in the next encounter. If they have 1 failure, they don't get surprise, but are otherwise fine. For 2 failures, they lose a healing surge. At 3 successes, the enemy surprise them. And so on...

The effect is much the same (they get out anyway), but for Challenges of this type I've always found the "before 3 failures" bit to be really artificial and to hurt versimilitude.

Plus, that way you can make "X successes" really large, requiring 10 or 12 successes or something equally large.

What do you think?

It's well on the way. I think I would also add two more possible complications:

If the party have a really good turn (gaining 3 or more successes in one hour), have them stumble on a hidden cache of treasure abandoned in the maze. Give them a bonus treasure parcel at this time.

If the party have a really bad turn (suffering 2 or more failures in one hour), have them run into 'wandering' monsters, facing them off against a fairly easy group of opponents. Primarily, this should serve to break up the tension, especially at a point when the players may be getting frustrated. (I wouldn't give out any treasure for this encounter... and perhaps not even any XP, since it's a 'punishment' for doing poorly in the Skill Challenge. What I would do though, if any player thinks to ask, is allow them to interrogate a captured enemy after the fight, and so add Intimidate to the list of Key Skills.)

 

[wlmartin]

I confess that I don't feel as though I am very good at presenting skill challenges to my group. Part of this is my players preferences (they tend to be more combat focused) but part of it no doubt is me as well.

I have learned though that being flexible is key. I don't simply tell the players "Here are your options." Rather I tell them what their goal is and ask how they want to accomplish it. They make a suggestion and then I tell them to make a skill check. You still need to remain flexible even within that framework though. Yesterday I was running a skill challenge where the party was searching for the MacGuffins they had lost. The invoker decided to cast Hand of Fate to help point them in the direction. Technically, this isn't a skill check, but it made perfectly obvious sense so I counted each question of the hand (which really were all "Which way toward the MacGuffins?" as an automatic success. So yeah, keep it organic and let the players decide what they want to do and roll with it from there. In the above example, had I simply said "Here are the skills you can use" there's at least a possibility that the invoker never would have thought to use Hand of Fate.

I do agree that saying to the players "No, thats not a skill check - roll the dice please" is a little wrong.

I would let players do whatever they want as long as it seemed feasible and reward them for doing so. Creativity is one thing D&D is great for.

In one of my Combat Encounters as a player I was stuck to a sticky handle as the kelp tied tether dragged me under the water. A hag was coming towards me and I fought at it before swimming away with the handle still stuck to my hand but the tether not unhooked from it.

The Wizard cast a spell that created a zone in the water and i really wanted the Hag to be in that zone to take some damage so I decided to swim towards her, stick myself to her with the sticky handle and drag her back.

Unfortunately it didnt last long as she expired before I got back but that kind of creativity in players changes a hack+slash into a real exciting piece of combat.

I think that the organic-ness of the Skill Challenge is important... there should however be a cut-off point where if the players are stuck and the choice is for them to stumble around hoping to find a way to beat it or telling them the key skills to do so, the players should come first but my view now that telling them ahead of schedule about the mechanics of the Skill Challenge ruin the immersion

 

[delericho]

I have learned though that being flexible is key. I don't simply tell the players "Here are your options." Rather I tell them what their goal is and ask how they want to accomplish it.

I find that having some Key Skills in mind is a really good thing for me (since it helps me think about how the PCs might solve the Challenge), but that it's really important not to let them become a straightjacket when running the Challenge itself.

So, in the "maze" example, I might identify Dungeoneering and Arcana as the Key Skills during prep, but if I'm running it and a player says, "I want to use Acrobatics to run up the walls so I can get a good look up ahead", that should definitely allow them to accumulate a success... once.

I think that's also another key thing. With Skill Challenges, there is always a risk that the players will find themselves spamming one or two skills over and over again. This can obviously get a bit dull. When dealing with a larger Challenge then (one that will last more than a turn or two), I think it's important to group the Challenge into 'phases', each with their own conditions, a modified set of key skills, and different complications.

So, again in the "maze" example, I might declare that in Phase 1 the group are being chased by an overwhelming enemy force. So, each turn they have to make a group Athletics check, or lose a healing surge.

In Phase 2, then, they've lost their pursuit, but are now properly lost. Here, they have a group Endurance check to keep their composure.

And in Phase 3, they now feel palpably that the end is in sight, but the perils are that much greater - any failed Arcana check attracts the attentions of the Great Eye as they approach, and increase the number of enemies waiting for the party at the end of the maze...

 

[Kobold Boots]

Here's what I do now and it seems to work.

1. Advise the characters that they are in a situation that is a skill challenge.
2. It should be fairly obvious what's going on in the encounter and it shouldn't require much explanation. (e.g. a inn is burning down, a negotiation is going on, etc.)
3. Let the players roleplay their way through it.

4. The DM abstracts their actions to the appropriate skill for the player and calls for a skill roll.

5. You do not tell the players how many successes they need before how many failures. Doing so kills the tension at the table. As you have the floon you can certainly drop hints.. (e.g. wow that was a close one... the drop is quite severe and you need to be more careful..., the fire is smoldering lower, the diplomat seems pleased.. etc.)

Of course how they fail affects what happens at the end, but I think that all of the skill challenges threads I've read on the site have been both very helpful and unnecessarily complicated.

Thanks,
KB