Skill Challenges

[Imaro]

There simply is no easy way to structure all the possible actions a PC can use in such a situation.

I think this line right here sums up my issue with SC's as presented in 4e... Instead of letting the narrative create it's own natural endpoint where the goal is either met or not met by the effectiveness of the choice of actions the PC's take... SC's have a DM create a limited and artificial construct that is, for all practical purposes, logically and mechanically divorced from the actions the PC's will choose to take. As an example, regardless of how clever an idea a PC comes up with, and no matter how logical it would seem to let this unexpected idea complete the goal... if there haven't been X successes yet... by RAW, the goal is not accomplished. IMO, it feels like the forced parameters in a computer program or a CYoA book. One of the reasons to have a DM as opposed to a sophisticated computer run the game is because he/she can adjudicate things... like when a logical conclusion has been reached to a problem.

Now before anybody claims that you can still do this in 4e... I know you can, but my point is that at this point why even have skill challenges? Why not just have advice and examples on how to run and adjudicate good non-combat encounters?

 

[Starfox]

Are there really GMs who disregard the rulebooks and adjudicate the game this way?

What we are discussing here are rules, not DMing skill. A good DM can make do with any system. But we cannot affect that trough rules. So we are restricted to discussing and restructuring skill challenge rules. One of the problems with this is that DnD of any stripe divorces skills and attacks - they use different metrics, and thus cannot use the same skill challenge rules. A skill challenge in which attack rolls are allowed needs special DCs for these rolls. Most modern game systems have some kind of unified metric, where combat and noncombat skills are not fundamentally different in this way.

One of my game groups sayings is that the strength of the original Call of Cthulhu game is that the rules are so bad, it forces GMs to improvise.

 

[LostSoul]

I know you can, but my point is that at this point why even have skill challenges?

I think Skill Challenges can help a DM be impartial. The last one I ran had a PC trying to sneak around town gathering victims for sacrifice. I didn't have a map or know where are the people in town were, so the abstract "X successes before 3 failures" helped to determine when the conflict was resolved without any bias.

One of the problems with this is that DnD of any stripe divorces skills and attacks - they use different metrics, and thus cannot use the same skill challenge rules. A skill challenge in which attack rolls are allowed needs special DCs for these rolls. Most modern game systems have some kind of unified metric, where combat and noncombat skills are not fundamentally different in this way.

Skill Challenges have Levels. From the Level you can determine the appropriate DC or Defence (Level + 14 for AC and Level + 12 for Fort/Ref/Will). So if, in a Level 8 Skill Challenge, a rock is tumbling at the Wizard and he decides to blast it out of the way with Thunderwave, the Defence is 20.

 

[pemerton]

What we are discussing here are rules, not DMing skill.

And I quoted the rules that indicate (i) that successes in a skill challenge need not (though typically do) come from using skills, and (ii) that abilities other than skills, such as attack powers, may be used in a skill challenge.

My point was that your example B, which disregarded those parts of the rules, is therefore not just poor GMing skill but a GM who is disregarding the rules in the interests of making the game suck.

I think Skill Challenges can help a DM be impartial.

Agreed. In my own experience, they also do a lot to support strong pacing without requiring GM fiat/force to achieve it.

Instead of letting the narrative create it's own natural endpoint where the goal is either met or not met by the effectiveness of the choice of actions the PC's take... SC's have a DM create a limited and artificial construct that is, for all practical purposes, logically and mechanically divorced from the actions the PC's will choose to take. As an example, regardless of how clever an idea a PC comes up with, and no matter how logical it would seem to let this unexpected idea complete the goal... if there haven't been X successes yet... by RAW, the goal is not accomplished.

No matter how wonderful a PC's attack in combat, and how brilliant both the idea and narration behind it, it cannot kill a monster or NPC on full hit points. A skill challenge is the same. In both cases, the GM's job is to narrate so as to account for the outcome.

In this respect, a skill challenge is no different from a HeroWars/Quest extended contest.

 

[Imaro]

I think Skill Challenges can help a DM be impartial. The last one I ran had a PC trying to sneak around town gathering victims for sacrifice. I didn't have a map or know where are the people in town were, so the abstract "X successes before 3 failures" helped to determine when the conflict was resolved without any bias.

Are you really "impartial" though? You're still deciding the level and complexity...

 

[Imaro]

No matter how wonderful a PC's attack in combat, and how brilliant both the idea and narration behind it, it cannot kill a monster or NPC on full hit points.

Uhm... this is untrue. A first level PHB ranger with a high damaging weapon (broadsword) and a high strength using Jaws of the Wolf can generate enough damage to kill a monster or NPC of equal level.

A skill challenge is the same. In both cases, the GM's job is to narrate so as to account for the outcome.

No they are not the same... there is a chance for a PC to kill a monster or NPC with one attack. SC's don't have a way built into them for something extraordinary to happen. Well IMO, it seems the DM's job in a SC is to think of narrative filler until a set number of sucesses or a set number of failures are achieved... in a combat he could very well be narrating the death of a monster in one round... in a skill challenge, no matter how good the roll or how briliant the plan a SC doesn't end until X successes or Y failures are rolled.

In this respect, a skill challenge is no different from a HeroWars/Quest extended contest.

I guess this is why after playing a very short game of Nameless Streets, my group and I found ourselves strongly disliking the booring and artificial feel we got from the system. YMMV of course.

 

[Manbearcat]

My point was that your example B, which disregarded those parts of the rules, is therefore not just poor GMing skill but a GM who is disregarding the rules in the interests of making the game suck.

I have nothing to add to this thread as I'm rather weary of this particular topic by now as it has been perused, penetrated, and pontificated upon ad nauseum. However, I cannot insert an xp comment for this bit here and it actually caused me to belly laugh when I read it. It is, of course, correct but the last bit is extremely amusing in a Monty Python sort of way when you read it out loud.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well IMO, it seems the DM's job in a SC is to think of narrative filler until a set number of sucesses or a set number of failures are achieved...

"Narrative glue" to make the running scene of the conflict resolution coherent while challenging the PCs with genre/thematic/trope-relevant decision-points that provoke them strategically and dramatically. Its not "filler" as the next decision-point should be a coherent, organic outgrowth of that "glue" onward toward the ultimate results (and its implications on the stakes at hand). If its "filler" then the group is "doing it wrong."

GAH, WHY DID I GET INVOLVED IN THIS! ABORT! ABORT!

 

[pemerton]

Uhm... this is untrue. A first level PHB ranger with a high damaging weapon (broadsword) and a high strength using Jaws of the Wolf can generate enough damage to kill a monster or NPC of equal level.

<snip>

there is a chance for a PC to kill a monster or NPC with one attack.

Perhaps with the odd build and the odd NPC. But not in general.

A first level fighter in Moldvay Basic, for example, cannot kill an 18 hp ogre in a single blow of his/her two-handed sword (max damage 13 hp). A first level fighter in 4e cannot kill a 30 hp humanoid in a single charge (max damage 12 for the crit +5 for 20STR +1 for expertise +2 for whatever miscellany I'm not taking account of gets you to about 20 or so). The cleverness of the charge, or the player's narration, doesn't change this. The GM, rather, is expected to narrate what occurs around the mechanics, with an assumed "I try" out the front of the player's description of the foe's decapitation.

Similarly in a skill challenge. When the player explains what his/her PC is doing, and how it will brilliantly accomplish all that needs to be accomplished to resolve the situation, the GM's job is to narrate the consequences and ensuing complications in a fashion that (i) reflects the result of the skill check as framed, and (ii) reflects the location of the success/failure within the overall challenge, and hence either keeps the scene alive, or closes it, as required.

it seems the DM's job in a SC is to think of narrative filler until a set number of sucesses or a set number of failures are achieved... in a combat he could very well be narrating the death of a monster in one round... in a skill challenge, no matter how good the roll or how briliant the plan a SC doesn't end until X successes or Y failures are rolled.

What some people call "narrative filler" others call playing the game. I've never heard Vault of the Drow described as "narrative filler until Lolth is killed"! Of course, if your narrative (or, if you're playing, that of your GM) is boring and creates no room for meaningful player choices, then my commiserations. Those of us who are using skill challenges successfully have mastered the arts of avoiding boring narrative and avoiding railroading.

Another issue here, that is hard to address in the absence of concrete examples, is the relationship between scene-framing and action resolution. If the "brilliant plan" is one which kills off the scene as framed, then of course the challenge doesn't continue. If the challenge, for example, is negotiating with the Duke, and in the course of the challenge a PC activates his/her Horn of Invoked Devastation (or whatever) then obviously the negotiation does not continue. The scene has been peremptorily reframed.

my group and I found ourselves strongly disliking the booring and artificial feel we got from the system. YMMV of course.

You said upthread that skill challenges "have a DM create a limited and artificial construct". I take it that you are accepting my drawing of a comparison between skill challenges and extended contest mechanics in other systems, and are now saying the same thing is true of HeroWars/Quest.

I hope you can appreciate that (as you yourself put it) others' mileage might vary - of the various criticisims I've read of HeroWars/Quest, "limited", "artificial" and "boring" are not that common. Presumably you are aware that many people regard it as a hugely innovative and powerful system. And therefore, I would hope, are able to see why some people might regard skill challenges as comparably effective as a mechanic (obviously not as innovative, being highly derivative, and also having maths issues that arise from the extreme scaling of the 4e maths, but equally having some nice features that not all extended contest systems have).

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps with the odd build and the odd NPC. But not in general.

Yes, in general... and no it's not an odd build or odd NPC... it's a normal ranger and a monster of equal level I am comparing it to.

A first level fighter in Moldvay Basic, for example, cannot kill an 18 hp ogre in a single blow of his/her two-handed sword (max damage 13 hp). A first level fighter in 4e cannot kill a 30 hp humanoid in a single charge (max damage 12 for the crit +5 for 20STR +1 for expertise +2 for whatever miscellany I'm not taking account of gets you to about 20 or so). The cleverness of the charge, or the player's narration, doesn't change this. The GM, rather, is expected to narrate what occurs around the mechanics, with an assumed "I try" out the front of the player's description of the foe's decapitation.

A first level fighter in Moldvay can kill most anything with equal HD in one hit... And a 4e Fighter is now more based around defending than attacking... but the Rogue and Ranger would disagree with your assertion that a PC cannot kill a normal monster with one attack. This assertion is just flat out wrong... If the PC rolls well enough to hit and enough damage... the decapitation is not a "try". So with a good enough roll the PC can kill a monster in one round... what he can't ever do is complete his objetive in a skill challenge with less than the pre-determined successes. As another example of how one can end a combat in one round, in the right situation the choice to narrate pushing an enemy off a cliff and succeeding at it mechanically allows one to circumvent the normal attack and hp depletion routine of combat.

Similarly in a skill challenge. When the player explains what his/her PC is doing, and how it will brilliantly accomplish all that needs to be accomplished to resolve the situation, the GM's job is to narrate the consequences and ensuing complications in a fashion that (i) reflects the result of the skill check as framed, and (ii) reflects the location of the success/failure within the overall challenge, and hence either keeps the scene alive, or closes it, as required.

So again, the actual plan, feasibility, effectiveness, situation and preparation, ultimately have no bearing on success or failure... only whether one has rolled a pre-determined number of successes or failures actually matters.

What some people call "narrative filler" others call playing the game. I've never heard Vault of the Drow described as "narrative filler until Lolth is killed"! Of course, if your narrative (or, if you're playing, that of your GM) is boring and creates no room for meaningful player choices, then my commiserations. Those of us who are using skill challenges successfully have mastered the arts of avoiding boring narrative and avoiding railroading.

I call it narrative filler because ultimately the choices, plans, decisions,setting, etc. beyond using something to garner one more success or failure... have no bearing on your success or failure for SC's... it comes down to whether you roll x successes or Y failures that's it. I am not speaking of boring narrative or railroading (though deciding beforehand that the player must get X successes before Y failures before they even approach the situation does seem... a bit linear.). I am speaking of narrative filler in the sense that what you narrate as a player doesn't affect anything about the SC or achieving your goal.

Another issue here, that is hard to address in the absence of concrete examples, is the relationship between scene-framing and action resolution. If the "brilliant plan" is one which kills off the scene as framed, then of course the challenge doesn't continue. If the challenge, for example, is negotiating with the Duke, and in the course of the challenge a PC activates his/her Horn of Invoked Devastation (or whatever) then obviously the negotiation does not continue. The scene has been peremptorily reframed.

The impression that the 4e SC rules left me with was that the use of a magic item would be the same as garnering a single success for the SC...Is the above just how you would handle it or is something like this addressed in the rules somewhere for 4e's SC's?

You said upthread that skill challenges "have a DM create a limited and artificial construct". I take it that you are accepting my drawing of a comparison between skill challenges and extended contest mechanics in other systems, and are now saying the same thing is true of HeroWars/Quest.

No, they are different... as just one example take this passage from Heroquest...

"If the action attempts to leapfrog a series of interesting
obstacles to solve the main problem of the story in a
disappointingly abrupt fashion, assign a Very High Resistance.
(If they succeed, you must then find a new main problem
arising from their solution of the one you were prepared for.)"

So even in Heroquest you can come up with something brilliant and roll high enough to basically auto-success an extended challenge... Is there anything like this in 4e's rules?

I hope you can appreciate that (as you yourself put it) others' mileage might vary - of the various criticisims I've read of HeroWars/Quest, "limited", "artificial" and "boring" are not that common. Presumably you are aware that many people regard it as a hugely innovative and powerful system. And therefore, I would hope, are able to see why some people might regard skill challenges as comparably effective as a mechanic (obviously not as innovative, being highly derivative, and also having maths issues that arise from the extreme scaling of the 4e maths, but equally having some nice features that not all extended contest systems have).

Hey I have no issue if you enjoy SC's... but that also doesn't mean I'm not going to say what I think are problems with the mechanic. As far as Heroquest goes... I honestly see very little discussion of it at all on most rpg forums, but I'll take your word that it is enjoyed by many... it just personally wasn't me or my groups cup of tea. That said Heroquest's rules are, IMO, much better for this type of play than 4e's rules are and I think sometimes, because you've read and played Heroquest... you fill in the gaps and problems of 4e's SC mechanics with stuff that isn't really part of the 4e rules or advice...