Skill Challenges

[Wednesday Boy]

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 believe the point pemerton is trying to make is that your issue of RAW Skill Challenges disallowing the completion of a goal regardless of the clever idea the PCs have is mirrored by the combat system. If a typical 1st level PC has a knife to an NPC's throat the combat RAW won't let the NPC automatically die from a slit throat no matter how logical this action should complete the goal. If you haven't done X hit points of damage yet... by RAW, the goal of killing the NPC is not accomplished.

 

[Imaro]

I believe the point pemerton is trying to make is that your issue of RAW Skill Challenges disallowing the completion of a goal regardless of the clever idea the PCs have is mirrored by the combat system. If a typical 1st level PC has a knife to an NPC's throat the combat RAW won't let the NPC automatically die from a slit throat no matter how logical this action should complete the goal. If you haven't done X hit points of damage yet... by RAW, the goal of killing the NPC is not accomplished.

Yet there are instances where this can be accomplished... the weapon does enough damage, you push the monster or NPC off a cliff or into a spiked pit, you cause an avalanche to crush the NPC, save or die spells, etc. My point is that pemerton's broad statement is wrong, and if you are clever enough, lucky enough, or whatever you can end a monster using one attack.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Yet there are instances where this can be accomplished... the weapon does enough damage, you push the monster or NPC off a cliff or into a spiked pit, you cause an avalanche to crush the NPC, save or die spells, etc. My point is that pemerton's broad statement is wrong, and if you are clever enough, lucky enough, or whatever you can end a monster using one attack.

And I believe (one of) [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s point(s) is that the same is true of SCs, per RAW, as is shown in the rule blocks he posted.

I haven't mastered 4e's SCs--and I don't really like the system as written--but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] appears to be correct here: RAW may not have done a very good job of hammering this home, but it's clearly intended.

 

[Imaro]

And I believe (one of) @pemerton 's point(s) is that the same is true of SCs, per RAW, as is shown in the rule blocks he posted.

I haven't mastered 4e's SCs--and I don't really like the system as written--but @pemerton appears to be correct here: RAW may not have done a very good job of hammering this home, but it's clearly intended.

You know what, you're right... it appears that if I had purchased another supplementary book about SC's then one of my major problems would be addressed... I guess it's too bad this wasn't in the first DMG... or even the essentials DM book... which is WotC evergreen product for 4e. But I do admit a little more than a year after we got SC's... my main concern with them was addressed in a seperate book.

 

[Starfox]

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.

Very often when you say a rule covers something, it is true by the letter, bu tthe "coverage" is so general and generic that it is actually more fluff than rules. Saying "you can do other things than roll skill checks in kill challenges" is not the same as having rules to arbitrate how to use attacks and powers. Following a rule like that is pretty much the same as improvising. It doesn't answer the question "What effect does the ability to fly for one round have on a mountaineering skill challenge" or any of ten thousand similar questions. But you are correct by the letter, and arguing the point doesn't seem to lead anywhere, so I prefer to not reply until you called us out on this.

 

[Greenfield]

My personal experience in playing through Skill Challenges is that they felt artificial, sor of a game inserted into the game. Normal rules of behavior didn't apply any more. And at the same time, the mechanic forces you out of the game: You have to meta-game or you fail.

Normally, when facing a challenge, everyone pitches in towards that common goal. In a Skill Challenge that will led to failure, as every "helpful" effort that doesn't result in a successful dice roll counts as a failure, and you can't afford them.

Suddenly being forced to say, "I don't know what that is" can cost the party. Better to sit empty headed and close mouthed than even try to think of something, try to see something, try to recognize or remember something.

So you have to look at your character sheet and say, "My character isn't trained in that skill, so I'll just have a seat over there."

That turned me off more than anything.

But that, I see, is a problem with the implementation, not with the concept.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The first rule of DMing skill challenges is you do not talk about skill challenges. You talk about the fiction and mark things off on a little tally behind the screen.

 

[Starfox]

The first rule of DMing skill challenges is you do not talk about skill challenges. You talk about the fiction and mark things off on a little tally behind the screen.

And if a skill challenge is at all challenging when the cards are on the table, how is it even remotely possible to do with the cards (rules) hidden away like this?

 

[Neonchameleon]

And if a skill challenge is at all challenging when the cards are on the table, how is it even remotely possible to do with the cards (rules) hidden away like this?

A skill challenge is a mechanical representation of the situation in the fiction. If that situation doesn't map pretty closely to the skill challenge then the skill challenge is wrong. If the situation does then the results that do well in the fiction should be the ones that do well in the challenge.

 

[Greenfield]

With the difficulty I already laid out in mind, it still penalizes people for trying to contribute, but now they get to do it blindfolded.

Presume that a Skill Challenge calls for people to recognize a family crest on a marker or shield. Or perhaps it calls for someone to know the history of a particular battle, or to recognize that a map has been altered. Normally it doesn't hurt to have several people think about the crest and try to recall whether and/or where they've seen it before. Normally it would help to let the party look over the map and familiarize themselves with where they're going. But if it's in a Skill Challenge it becomes crucial that certain PCs don't think, don't even try to notice things.

Presume that a Skill Challenge includes a Spot/Observation check: In a normal situation it wouldn't hurt at all to have several people looking around, but now suddenly it does. Everyone who fails to notice the clue should, by the rules, count as a failure. Those who aren't specifically trained as observers really should be attempting it blindfolded. It improves the odds of a success for the group.

Now explain to me how that's a good rule, how it can be anything other than artificial and contrived?

And if you don't tell them that it's a Skill Challenge then you're adding bad DMing to bad rules, in the hopes that the result will somehow turn out well.

Like I said, I appreciate the value of a game mechanic that lends structure to non-combat encounters, and gives a stable formula for rewarding success, but the 4e implementation is a bad one. Very much a square-peg-in-a-round-hole kind of thing, or at least that's how it looks from where I've been sitting.

I've said many times that a good DM can make any system work, and a bad DM can't make any system work. What we need are good rules for all of the other DMs that fall between the two extremes.

In myopinion, Skill Challenges, as laid out in 4e, don't make the cut.