Skill Challenges

[LostSoul]

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

I would say so. The level of the challenge was set by the level of the town the PC was in (4th, I think); the complexity was set by a Reaction Roll to determine how the NPCs feel about her. Standard practice in my game.

Those are both pretty abstract ways of setting values, but eh. It works well enough. (Town level is basically its size, so with more people I guess there's a better chance of being seen. With a better reaction roll the people are less suspicious. Or something. Oh well, no point in over-thinking it.)

I do share your thoughts that skill challenges can make decision-making a little... strange. I'm still not sure how they should be implemented. Sometimes they work (How many checks does the PC need to gather her victims & sneak out of town? Oh right, a skill challenge) but other times they don't seem to fit. I think it has something to do with the situation's level of abstraction but haven't worked it out yet.

 

[pemerton]

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.

But not a normal fighter, wielding a very sharp sword. Nor can a 1st level Moldvay fighter decapitate an ogre on a charge (as per the maths of my previous post), although from the point of view of verisimilitude there is no reason why that shouldn't be possible (and is, in systems like Rolemaster, Runequest etc).

Any extended conflict resolution mechanic, of which hit-point based combat is an example, puts pacing constraints around the narration of action. That's part of the point!

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.

<snip>

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?

<snip>

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?

This is discussed in the DMG 2, yes.

And otherwise I think is understood as implicit. To give another example: suppose the skill challenge is the wooing of a young maiden, unfolding over time while other things take place. If one of those things is the assassination of said maiden, then I would take it as obvious that the skill challenge is over! Guidelines for more borderline cases can of course be helpful, but does this sort of thing really need spelling out for a rules set to count as tenable?

So again, the actual plan, feasibility, effectiveness, situation and preparation, ultimately have no bearing on success or failure

As I said upthread, examples would help. What you're describing sounds to me like it might go to the framing of the challenge, but because you're presenting it so abstractly I can't tell.

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

<snip>

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.

And this is what I am disputing, as did [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] above.

Here is the relevant rules text from the 4e DMG (p 74):

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results. . .

Sometimes, a player tells you, “I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest.” That’s great—the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, “I want to make a Diplomacy check.” In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: “I want to scare the duke into helping us.” It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check.​

And here is the PHB (pp179, 259):

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face. . .

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail.​

The procedure described here seems pretty clear to me: GM frames situation; player describes PC's response; an appropriate skill check is made; GM describes result; repeat until challenge is resolved. Given that the result can change the framing of the situation, it's obvious that what you narrate as a player, and your "choices, plans, decisions, setting, etc" have a tremendous bearing on the skill challenge and how (if at all) the goal is achieved.

If you want to see some actual play examples, read the first posts in these two threads.

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

I wonder about your confidence that you are clear on the rules and that I and others who enjoy skill challenges have misunderstood them.

I mean, you have (in effect) posted that 4e gives you "artificial and boring" play; and I and others have replied pointing out that you seem to have misread and misapplied the rules of the game (for example by disregarding the rules on framing, resolving and reframing), and that when you use the rules as intended you'll get better results (like the episodes of play linked to in my paragrah above). I don't expect to be thanked - you may not care to play 4e in any event - but I don't know what makes you so sure that your boring experience, rather than my engaging experience, is what the designers were intending.

 

[pemerton]

I think it has something to do with the situation's level of abstraction but haven't worked it out yet.

In HeroQuest reivsed, the GM is directed to match the fiction with the mechanical DCs (which are preset according to the pass/fail cycle) by narrating in appropriate colour: for example, if the climb up a mountain is known (in the fiction) to be easy, but the DCs are high, then the GM has to narrate wild weather, or something similar, to account for the difficulty. (Maelstrom Storytelling has similar advice). It seems obvious that the more the details of the situation are predetermined (eg the GM rolls the weather on a chart) the less scope there will be to apply this sort of technique. It is a technique that depends upon a certain level of abstraction and improvisation. (And would lend itself reasonably well to a type of No Myth play, I think.)

Skill challenges seem comparable to this. To make the DC-setting and pacing work within the fiction, the GM needs to have the narrative freedom to bring in the right sorts of complications and consequences. This in turn requires some sort of minimum level of abstraction and improvisation.

 

[Manbearcat]

Why oh why am I doing this?


Bug vs Feature (for my gaming tastes)


Bug - Non-combat exploration challenge condition of success met by saying the magic words "I cast teleport/fly/find the path/discern location/locate object, etc".

Bug - Non-combat investigation challenge condition of success met by saying the magic words "I cast scrying/commune/legend lore/discern lies/zone of truth/locate creature or object, etc".

Bug - Non-combat social challenge condition of success met by saying the magic words "I cast charm <whatever>/geas/probe thoughts/tongues/suggestion, etc".

Feature - Non-combat exploration condition of success met through;

- engaging the environment which;
- establishes a running narrative which;
- broadens rather than narrows the scope of the intra-scene dynamics and its extra-scene outcomes.
- Has the advantage of allowing most classes to be involved in the formula for success rather than just casters.
- Removes (or at least marginalizes) the prospect of DM force or the arbitration of murky vagaries as ultimate conditions for success/failure.
- Have the freedom to adjudicate that powerful abilities or particularly clever approaches provide extreme advantage (multiple successes and/or bonuses to next check in challenge and/or unlocking further uses of a skill at the standard, rather than an accelerated, DC and/or narrative framing rights such that the next decision point is in the "sweet spot" of a PC and/or outright victory in the challenge).


At-Will/Encounter/Daily Attack Powers in Skill Challenges

I'm not sure where the idea came from that these cannot be used. It was never explicated in the rules texts as such. What's more, every class that has a primary power-source that is non-martial has a skill that is associated (and almost universally given for free) with the manifesting of its power-source;

- Arcane/Spells - Arcana
- Divine/Prayers - Religion
- Primal/Evocations - Nature

This is intuitive, for starters. However, its evidenced by Ritual mechanics and by the fact that each of the standard bearers (and almost all others) automatically get these skills signifying that their power source acumen is inextricably associated with it and/or a derivative thereof.

If slavers are at the docks loading smuggled children in barrels onto their ship, why shouldn't a Druid be able to interact with the environment (knock the barrels over spilling their contents, sunder the rigging tethering the ship to the pylon, cause a distraction for infiltration, etc) at range with Grasping Tide (summoning a vortex of water - burst 1) with a successful Nature check? There are a million and one ways to adjudicate this outcome as well. Perhaps she spills the smuggled children onto the docks and the guards take note and intervene. Perhaps its a partial success but a combat encounter ensues due to the overt use of force. Perhaps its a stunning success and they chalk it up to a rogue wave and they bug out. Perhaps she fails and the barrels are swept into the sea; more adversity and decision points. Now they have to extract the barrels from the sea/save the children/deal with the slavers on the dock who will be doing the same. If I want to put pressure on the PCs, I can exert it in a myriad of ways and amplitudes.

 

[Manbearcat]

I forgot to mention:

1 - Aggregate enemy force HP ablation (before they ablate yours)

versus

2 - Aggregate challenge successes required (before aggregate failures)

is much more congruent.

Comparing the mechanical interaction of downing a single of-level foe (a portion of the above aggregate enemy force HP) to the Aggregate challenge successes required is the quintessential apples to oranges. While a Ranger deploying a Daily to kill a single foe is certainly doable, a Ranger deploying a Daily to ablate all aggregate enemy force HPs of an of-level challenge is so remote as to be unmentionable.

Further, both 1 and 2 above can have multiple ways of reaching "conditions for success", up to and including outright circumvention.

 

[Starfox]

There is another thing about skill challenges that annoys me as written. They make success unexceptional; you need to have 75% or better chance to succeed at each step to make it meaningful to try. The only significant rolls are failures, which creates negative reinforcement. Its not "Yay, success", it is "bah, failure" you hear around the table.

What I did here is that I redesigned skill challenges. A skill challenge has a number of rounds, with bigger challenges having more rounds. Each round, only ONE success is needed, but the DC is high. For each player who has attempted this round's challenge before you, the DC decreases by 2. Players can spend action points to get extra tries on a skill challenge in a round where there have been no successes. This changes the "failure is exceptional" meme to a "success is exceptional" meme, while still making one of the secondary, less skilled character's contributions meaningful and helpful. The disadvantage with this system is that each round has a kind of "sudden death" mechanism in it - if the first character does succeed, no-one else gets to act. It is also sometimes tactically advantageous to have the most qualified character (who presumably has the greatest interest in the challenge) to wait until last to roll, which is counter-intuitive role-playing and can trivialize some challenges. But overall, I still liked it a lot better than the original system.

http://hastur.net/wiki/Rules_(4E)#Sudden_Death_Skill_Challenge_System

Looking over the rules I wrote back when I played 4E, I see that I tired to solve some of the above issues.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have a house rule for repeat skill use - each time you try to do the same thing again the DC goes up a step or up five if it was already hard. Makes it harder to rack up a string of successes spamming the same skill.

 

[pemerton]

I have a house rule for repeat skill use

I tend to keep in mind the Essentials guidelines - repeats for a given character step up from Medium to Hard, and total successes from a given skill is confined to the complexity of the challenge. But I tend to disregard both of these - especially the second - if I'm in the midst of a challenge, the players are doing interesting things with their PCs, and nothing obvious occurs to me to push the situation into a different field of endeavour in which a different skill would obviously make sense.

On a different note: over the past few months I've developed a habit of using Complexity 1 (4 before 3) skill challenges as my default non-combat resolution method. That's generally enough skill checks (5 or 6) for everyone at the table to contribute something, and also enough checks for the scene to evolve in an interesting fashion, but not so much that it makes me think too hard about the pacing and narration issues! This is particularly relevant when I'm improvising these challenges, which is the typical state of affairs.

When I prepare a scene in advance, I'm more likely to use a Comlexity 3 or higher challenge.

 

[Imaro]

But not a normal fighter, wielding a very sharp sword. Nor can a 1st level Moldvay fighter decapitate an ogre on a charge (as per the maths of my previous post), although from the point of view of verisimilitude there is no reason why that shouldn't be possible (and is, in systems like Rolemaster, Runequest etc).

Wait what?? You're original assertion was that no PC could kill a normal monster with one attack... that was wrong, I'm not sure what point you are making now with this post,I haven't mentioned versimilitude at all... I disputed a statement you made and gave examples of why your statement was false.

Any extended conflict resolution mechanic, of which hit-point based combat is an example, puts pacing constraints around the narration of action. That's part of the point!

Ok, let me get this straight, are you claimng that hit points as conceived of in D&D were designed as a pacing constraint for narration. That's a pretty big claim, anything to back that up. I'm going to say I disagree, and though I don't know for sure, I would say... if anything hit points were part of the mechanic to determine level of challenge for PC's... not the pacing of narrative. I think the fact that your earlier combat assertion was wrong... and it's a more powerful monster, not any monster that can't be killed in one attack speaks to this inference.

This is discussed in the DMG 2, yes.

I'd be curious to know where, that was why I asked.

And otherwise I think is understood as implicit. To give another example: suppose the skill challenge is the wooing of a young maiden, unfolding over time while other things take place. If one of those things is the assassination of said maiden, then I would take it as obvious that the skill challenge is over! Guidelines for more borderline cases can of course be helpful, but does this sort of thing really need spelling out for a rules set to count as tenable?

See posts like this make me assume you're drawing on rules and examples outside of 4e to fill in the gaps. I asked where this was disussed and you gave me your own example and assumptions as opposed to what is in the book.

As I said upthread, examples would help. What you're describing sounds to me like it might go to the framing of the challenge, but because you're presenting it so abstractly I can't tell.

And this is what I am disputing, as did @Manbearcat above.

Here is the relevant rules text from the 4e DMG (p 74):

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results. . .

Sometimes, a player tells you, “I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest.” That’s great—the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, “I want to make a Diplomacy check.” In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: “I want to scare the duke into helping us.” It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check.

And here is the PHB (pp179, 259):​

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face. . .

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail.​

The procedure described here seems pretty clear to me: GM frames situation; player describes PC's response; an appropriate skill check is made; GM describes result; repeat until challenge is resolved. Given that the result can change the framing of the situation, it's obvious that what you narrate as a player, and your "choices, plans, decisions, setting, etc" have a tremendous bearing on the skill challenge and how (if at all) the goal is achieved.

Yet again, no matter how brilliant my idea to circumvent the obstacles in the skill challenge the DM will still only let the party succeed if they get X successes before Y failures... nothing I narrate or do mechanically will change that in the skill challenge... there aren't any rules in D&D 4e for creating the SC organically from the actiuons of the PC's as opposed to the pre-determined challenge and complexity level that has been set.

I wonder about your confidence that you are clear on the rules and that I and others who enjoy skill challenges have misunderstood them.

Please don't do that I never claimed you and others who enjoy skill challenges have misunderstood them. I have tended to see a pattern where those who enjoy SC's in 4e either tend to do their own thing with them, as opposed to what's in the bok or they bring alot of experience from narratiive games and, IMO, fill in the gaps of 4e's SC rules with said knowledge. If anything I think that experience with games like HQ, MHR, etc. gives them a better understanding of what exactly 4e is trying to accomplish with SC's.

I mean, you have (in effect) posted that 4e gives you "artificial and boring" play; and I and others have replied pointing out that you seem to have misread and misapplied the rules of the game (for example by disregarding the rules on framing, resolving and reframing), and that when you use the rules as intended you'll get better results (like the episodes of play linked to in my paragrah above). I don't expect to be thanked - you may not care to play 4e in any event - but I don't know what makes you so sure that your boring experience, rather than my engaging experience, is what the designers were intending.

I have not been discussing 4e as a whole, so again don't mis-represent my point with hyperbole. I spoke to one reason I disliked SC's as a mechanic specifically in 4e. The rules you have pointed out as I having misunderstoood... are not relevant and don't address my major gripe with SC's... telling me that the narrativbe flows from the skill used does not address that no matter what that narrative is or how I choose to use a skill... it is a pre-determined number of successes or failures as opposed to an organic number of successes or failures based on the actual actions taken by the PC's. This is what makes it boring for me and my group, we don't feel like we are truely affecting anything mechanically and the narrative isn't being generated because it logically flows but because the DM is trying to keep it up to meet this artificial requirement of "pacing". If you enjoy the pre-determinedc X successes before Y failures set up... fine, but please don't pretend that you've addressed my complaint when you haven't.

 

[pemerton]

Wait what?? You're original assertion was that no PC could kill a normal monster with one attack

No it wasn't. I said that "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." And subsequently made clear that I meant in the general, or typical case.

It's the contrast between a hit point system of the D&D (as opposed to, say, Runequest) style, and a crit style as seen in (say) RM and HARP.

Assassins and monks in AD&D can also one-shot certain NPCs and monsters. But that doesn't negate my claim that, in general, hit points are an obstacle to single-blow kills, no matter how sharp the PC's sword and no matter how florid the player's narration of the blow, and the fighting footwork that leads up to it.

Ok, let me get this straight, are you claimng that hit points as conceived of in D&D were designed as a pacing constraint for narration.

No, they weren't designed that way. But they have that effect - and I'm hardly the first to notice it (eg the 4e designers noticed it, and built a combat resolution system around that fact!). I can't remember where I first came across the idea of D&D combat as conflict resolution - it would either have been on these boards or rpg.net, I imagine.

I'd be curious to know where, that was why I asked.

<snip>

See posts like this make me assume you're drawing on rules and examples outside of 4e to fill in the gaps. I asked where this was disussed and you gave me your own example and assumptions as opposed to what is in the book.

4e DMG 2, p 82:

Let's say you designed a combat encounter for your next adventure. The charaters need to cross a bridge, and there's a big, hungry troll in their way. TIme for a fight!

That is, unless the players decide to sneak around the troll or bribe it with a cask of fine ale. . . A good DM thinks on his feet and rewards clever, interesting ideas.

The same logic applies to skill challenges. . . D&D is a game about creativity and imagination. If there's only one specific, scripted path to success, you've lost what makes D&D fun. When you build a skill challenge, be prepared for it to head in a direction you didn't anticipate . . .​

Yet again, no matter how brilliant my idea to circumvent the obstacles in the skill challenge the DM will still only let the party succeed if they get X successes before Y failures... nothing I narrate or do mechanically will change that in the skill challenge... there aren't any rules in D&D 4e for creating the SC organically from the actiuons of the PC's as opposed to the pre-determined challenge and complexity level that has been set.

The relevant rules are the rules for setting level and complexity. As I've mentioned a couple of times upthread, because you are not giving any examples I can't tell what exactly you have in mind, but it may well be the sort of thing that goes to framing the challenge in the first instance (and hence to level and/or complexity).

I have tended to see a pattern where those who enjoy SC's in 4e either tend to do their own thing with them, as opposed to what's in the bok

And I have tended to see a pattern in which people say that the rules don't cover things - like for instance the role of the GM in framing and re-framing the situation, or the possiblity of achieving successes via something other than a skill check - and then not acknowledging when I post the relevant rules that discuss just these very things.

The rules you have pointed out as I having misunderstoood... are not relevant

They seem to me to be extremely relevant to the question of whether or not the plans that a player has his/her PC implement make a difference to achieving the goal of a skill challenge. You asserted upthread that they make no difference. The rules I quoted show that this is not what the rulebook says - so a GM who treats the choices of the players as to skill use, planning etc as irrelevant to the challenge's outcome is not following the rules.

That may be good or bad, depending on whether or not you prefer a railroad - but it is not following the actual mechanical procedure laid down in the book.

telling me that the narrativbe flows from the skill used does not address that no matter what that narrative is or how I choose to use a skill... it is a pre-determined number of successes or failures as opposed to an organic number of successes or failures based on the actual actions taken by the PC's.

I don't know what you mean by an "organic" number of successes or failures. We are talking about a narrative construct here - there are as many points of complication as the creators of the narrative choose to inject. The skill challenge framework is about establishing parameters for that injection.

This is what makes it boring for me and my group, we don't feel like we are truely affecting anything mechanically and the narrative isn't being generated because it logically flows but because the DM is trying to keep it up to meet this artificial requirement of "pacing".

You seem to be describing a game in which (i) one main aim of play is not to achieve outcomes within the fiction, but rather to manipulate the pacing at the metagame level, for example by reducing the number of dice rolls required to generate an outcome, and (ii) the GM's injection of complications to drive the narrative is a burden on the narrative rather than the source of the narrative.

The only way I can make sense of that is under a strong simulationist assumption, that (i) every die roll at the table corresponds tightly to some defininte event/action within the fiction, and vice versa, and (ii) that all resolution and GM ajudication must correspond to ingame causal logic triggered by those dice rolls.

I take it to be pretty obvious that skill challenges, and extended contest mechanics more generally, will not work under such an assumption. (And this relates to [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s point about abstraction, I think.) But as is often the case, I find myself wondering why anyone who likes playing a game with such strong simulationist emphases would be playing D&D. Why are successes before failures "artificial", for instance, but hit points "logical" and "organic"?