Skill Challenges

[Greenfield]

I loved the idea of Skill Challenges in D&D4e. The implementation left something to be desired, in my opinion.

This isn't an Edition Wars entry, so forgive me if it starts to sound like one.

Consider the Skill Challenge based on pursuit of an enemy: Whether it's over a mountain or across a desert, there are some skills that are obvious.

Endurance checks seem reasonable, Handle Animal to make sure you don't ride your horses to death, Knowledge Geography to try to plot where the enemy is heading, and Survival/Tracking seem like obvious ones.

The problem is that your Ranger or Druid makes Tracking/Survival rolls, and probably Handle Animal as well. Since Rangers get the Endurance feat, he's the obvious one to make that check as well. Knowledge Geography is up for grabs.

But in the end, the rest of the party can dead-head on the checks. If they don't have the skills then they never even try. In fact, it's best if they don't, since they can't roll a failure if they don't roll.

So how would you adapt that mechanic to avoid that issue, and make it viable for other editions?

And remember to K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Stupid!)

 

[Quickleaf]

You mean the issue of "before 3 failures doesn't encourage participation"?

 

[Starfox]

The problem with skill challenges is that they tried to use one unified mechanic for all these situations (that, and too many rolls). I find that it is better to narrate the situation and make skill rolls as they come based on the PCs tactics.

In other words, no system but instead common sense.

 

[billd91]

I guess my standard reply to this is check out Galaxy of Intrigue for Star Wars Saga Edition if you can find it. It has a nice treatment of skill challenges.

 

[Sunseeker]

When multiple players are doing something wherein skill checks are required, ALL players much make the check.

Your party is travling through Caradhras, it is incredibly cold and they must make fortitude checks. ALL players much make these checks and the overall pace of the party is set by the slowest. Other players may assist the weaker ones in some way, but it is only assistance.

When the whole party is involved in something, the whole party must make checks. If members of the party cannot reasonably make the checks, then the party needs to take that into account.

EX: the armor-clad paladin has difficulty climbing because of all their armor. There is no way for them to succeed the check because of it. How do we resolve this?
The rest of the party could haul him up, basically making a different check in place of the Paladin's "climb" check(I'm aware Climb doesn't exist in 4e, but bear with me).
The Paladin could remove their armor, much less encumbered now that it is stored, the Paladin can make the check.
The party could cast a spell on the Paladin to allow them to fly(insert other forms of flying the party up the cliff instead).

OR:
The halfling will freeze in the cold weather.
The party purchases extra-heavy clothing for the halfling, giving them a bonus to their checks.
The party casts a magical spell on the halfling, giving him resistence to cold, and thus, a bonus to his checks.

I NEVER allow a single party member to make a check for the entire party, when every member of the party is affected by the situation. That would be like allowing the Sorcerer with the high will save to make the save for everyone against a Banshee's wail(3.5/PFD). If the whole party must participate, then every member must make their checks.

However, for issues like tracking, it's perfectly fine for one member of the party to make all the checks. Why shouldn't the cleric take the lead in matters of religion? Why shouldn't the druid handle nature stuff?

 

[delericho]

I loved the idea of Skill Challenges in D&D4e. The implementation left something to be desired, in my opinion.

I agreed on both counts. Unfortunately, where I think we diverge is that I have since come to the conclusion that I think any implementation of a single "Skill Challenge" system would fail. Basically, every Skill Challenge really needs to be its own, unique, and carefully customised system in order to not fall flat.

But in the end, the rest of the party can dead-head on the checks. If they don't have the skills then they never even try. In fact, it's best if they don't, since they can't roll a failure if they don't roll.

So how would you adapt that mechanic to avoid that issue, and make it viable for other editions?

My simple solution for that issue is this: if you refuse to roll, you automatically fail. Skill Challenges were intended to ensure all players got to contribute to these various situations; the corollary to that is that all players must contribute, or the group will fail.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I agreed on both counts. Unfortunately, where I think we diverge is that I have since come to the conclusion that I think any implementation of a single "Skill Challenge" system would fail. Basically, every Skill Challenge really needs to be its own, unique, and carefully customised system in order to not fall flat.

I agree with this. 4e's SCs didn't gel with me until I stopped trying to force the 4e SC system to fit all situations. I don't think every situation needs it's own minigame, but I think the SC framework needs to be a bit bulkier.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My own particular rules for running a skill challenge that would/should include the entire group making a particular check (like Endurance or Stealth) made it such that the PC with the lowest skill mod would be making the particular "check" for the group. This would be at whatever the Moderate or Hard DC for the level the check was meant to be. The other PCs helped the "weakest link" by all making the same skill check at the East DC for the level. Each of those Easy successes granted a +2 to the main check, each failure penalized a -1. Then the designated PC made the check with all the additional bonuses and penalties attributed to it. The results of the roll would then gain the party a Success or Failure in the challenge.

This allowed me to use group checks within a standard skill challenge, and forced everyone to participate, especially involving checks that everyone together should have been making.

 

[Greenfield]

So what I'm getting is a rule that says some checks are group checks, where everyone needs to succeed. That would apply to things like endurance checks, climb checks, etc. Call those a Group Check.

Other skills, such as tracking/survival and some (but not all) knowledge checks would allow for one individual to make them and that would be enough. Call those Individual checks.

Oddly, things like Spot or Search would need a special rule: I don't care how many people fail to Spot the needed clue or sign, as long as one of them does that's enough. It's kind of the opposite of the group check. Call that one a Collective check.

Failures in Individual checks may or may not accumulate. Miss a roll by more than five and you've followed a false trail, recalled some misinformation or otherwise added confusion to the effort. Simple failure, meaning that you don't have a clue, doesn't detract from the group efforts.

So the new mechanic would be to set a Challenge Rating for the skill challenge, then decide what Group checks are called for, which Individual checks are called for, and which Collective checks are needed. Plot your story line to determine how many of which.

"Okay, they need to climb the castle walls, sneak past the guards without raising an alarm, disarm the trap, make a copy of the map, then get out. Oh, don't forget swimming the moat. So that's a Group check for swim, one for Climb and one for Move Silently each way. The Move Silently can be bypassed with an Individual Spot and either a Search or Sense Motive to find the guards and identify the lazy or sleepy ones, or spot a hole in their patrol pattern. Then another Climb for anyone entering the Tower room, and they need an Individual check for Search/Find Trap and Disable Device. Then reverse the process, with easier DCs on the climb checks, and they're home."

I can see that working, though the granularity might be a bit much.

 

[Warbringer]

Or ... They party needs 7 successes to achieve this.... Or everybody suffers the following consequences: enemy knows your here, you lose some resources ( equipment, hps, recovery dice (whatever the form)...

So, what are you all doing .... Players rationalize the skill and roll...