D&D 5E skill challenges?

[Quickleaf]

I've been running skill challenges like 4e however now that attributes are skills too I'm finding the skill challenges are really boring and even disallowing back to back skill uses are not helping I'm. Not sure what to do

Can you give a specific example of a skill challenge you ran that was boring? Or of a skill challenge you anticipate running in your next session?

I've found that discussing skill challenges in the specific is far more helpful than general principles.

 

[The_Gneech]

I liked skill challenges on paper, but at the table they always seemed very forced, especially if I told the players they were actually taking part in one, because there was generally one character very well suited to the challenge (but who could only make one skill check per round) while the rest of the party preferred to hang back and let them take care of it (making for a lot of "skipped turns" or forced fails).

Simply presenting the players with a problem and then responding to whatever they came up with to fix it always ended up being more organic and less of an interruption in the flow of the session. So, while I applaud the attempt, I'm just as happy to see skill challenges retire.

-The Gneech

 

[Psikerlord#]

I liked skill challenges on paper, but at the table they always seemed very forced, especially if I told the players they were actually taking part in one, because there was generally one character very well suited to the challenge (but who could only make one skill check per round) while the rest of the party preferred to hang back and let them take care of it (making for a lot of "skipped turns" or forced fails).

Simply presenting the players with a problem and then responding to whatever they came up with to fix it always ended up being more organic and less of an interruption in the flow of the session. So, while I applaud the attempt, I'm just as happy to see skill challenges retire.

-The Gneech

yeah just running things on the fly works better than any skill challenge. you just need a DM willing to adjudicate as you go.

 

[Joe Liker]

Which was never their intent or their rules explanation. When play devolves to that, when the guidelines clearly stipulate that it should be done differently, then the DM and players need to look at what they are doing and modify it to taste.

What you described as "interesting skill use" is exactly what the guidelines were asking the DM to do.

It does not matter what the intent is. If there's this rigid framework behind it that everyone is aware of, that framework is always going to be on everyone's mind as the challenge progresses. It gives the players the feeling that only certain actions matter, that the DM has already determined what needs to happen before the plot can progress, and that there is no reason to think outside that neat little box. As long as they pretend to go along with that predetermined plan and choose skills that they are good at that fit that plan, everything will be OK.

It's terrible.

 

[KarinsDad]

Which was never their intent or their rules explanation. When play devolves to that, when the guidelines clearly stipulate that it should be done differently, then the DM and players need to look at what they are doing and modify it to taste.

What you described as "interesting skill use" is exactly what the guidelines were asking the DM to do.

And it was too tough for me to do as a DM. For some reason, running a skill challenge is like eating broccoli.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And it was too tough for me to do as a DM. For some reason, running a skill challenge is like eating broccoli.

And really... there was and is nothing wrong with ignoring the Skill Challenge format if you are comfortable running the roleplaying free-form and only asking for checks as needed and being able to adjudicate results through improvisation and invention.

Skill Challenges always read to me as a format to use that could help instruct DMs on when and how to call for checks, what checks to ask for, and to create results of successful or failed checks prior to having to invent them on the moment. Many DMs learned this type of pacing in years past just through trial-and-error and experience... but the SC format tried to help coach DMs along and make things a bit easier to understand and run. Which really was the hallmark of most of 4E... a system built to give all DMs (and especially new DMs) an easier and more self-explanatory set of rules and mechanics that could be run moderately successfully by even the most "in over his head" person with little-to-no grasp of what a DM should be. Which, when you're trying to bring in new DMs quickly and know you don't have the years of trial-and-error learning in order to grab someone anymore... was not the worst idea in the world to hopefully get a new DM up to speed.

But at the same time... if any DM felt as though they didn't need that Skill Challenge format to be able to ask and adjudicate checks... then ignoring the system altogether was and is no big issue. Just use the same "ask for a check when a check is needed and adjudicate results as rolled" concepts you've used for years.

 

[Skyscraper]

The broadest type of skill challenge, in a free-form context, is simply called role-playing. Just ask the players what they do with the challenges they face, and improvise as they go along. Don't hesitate to put road bumps or tougher challenges at them along the way, to force them to go over or around what you come up with. Make their lives complicated. But when you hear something really cool, let them win the day!

 

[D'karr]

It does not matter what the intent is. If there's this rigid framework behind it that everyone is aware of, that framework is always going to be on everyone's mind as the challenge progresses. It gives the players the feeling that only certain actions matter, that the DM has already determined what needs to happen before the plot can progress, and that there is no reason to think outside that neat little box. As long as they pretend to go along with that predetermined plan and choose skills that they are good at that fit that plan, everything will be OK.

It's terrible.

The only thing I would consider "rigid" behind a skill challenge is the Challenge Level and the XP awarded. Everything else for it should be dynamic, as with most things with roleplaying.

If you have an asshat DM(tm) that doesn't want to deviate from his precious specifics for the challenge that is not a problem that can be resolved by the guidelines themselves. The same way that a DM that constantly provides only one solution to a problem, in essence railroading, cannot be solved by the guidelines.

Inflexibility on the part of the DM is something rules cannot fix.

 

[MarkB]

The only thing I would consider "rigid" behind a skill challenge is the Challenge Level and the XP awarded. Everything else for it should be dynamic, as with most things with roleplaying.

If you have an asshat DM(tm) that doesn't want to deviate from his precious specifics for the challenge that is not a problem that can be resolved by the guidelines themselves. The same way that a DM that constantly provides only one solution to a problem, in essence railroading, cannot be solved by the guidelines.

Inflexibility on the part of the DM is something rules cannot fix.

If that's all it is, then a large majority of the DMs I played 4e with were asshats, and I don't believe that's the case. I've seen even creative, quick-thinking DMs allow themselves to follow the basic skill challenge mechanics quite rigidly a lot more often than I've seen them successfully play fast-and-loose with the concept.

Half the time, the players encourage it and even take the lead - once they know it's an important, XP-bearing encounter, they club together to check who has the highest scores in the most relevant-seeming scores, and have them take the lead, while figuring out which characters can reliably succeed at Aid Another checks, and which ones should sit it out. I've seen this with multiple groups, and it can be tough for a DM to pull players back from that point.

 

[D'karr]

If that's all it is, then a large majority of the DMs I played 4e with were asshats, and I don't believe that's the case.

Sure that's a possibility but not really for me to determine.

I've seen even creative, quick-thinking DMs allow themselves to follow the basic skill challenge mechanics quite rigidly a lot more often than I've seen them successfully play fast-and-loose with the concept.

So if the guidelines for skill challenges specifically call out that the DM should describe the situation, and then ask for the players to describe how they would address the situation, and then determine what skill, if any, is applicable and make checks as appropriate. How is that any different from any type of "roleplaying" check that the games has had since pretty much it's inception? What, all of a sudden, made these DM be paralyzed by the rigid mechanics?

Half the time, the players encourage it and even take the lead - once they know it's an important, XP-bearing encounter, they club together to check who has the highest scores in the most relevant-seeming scores, and have them take the lead, while figuring out which characters can reliably succeed at Aid Another checks, and which ones should sit it out.

How is this a problem with the guidelines as stipulated (describe the situation, ask for how they plan to deal with the situation, and ask for checks as appropriate)?

I've seen this with multiple groups, and it can be tough for a DM to pull players back from that point.

Once again the question remains. If the guidelines recommend to the DM to do A, and for whatever reason the DM decides to do B - how is it a problem with the guidelines?

As an example of looking at perspective - the guidelines recommend that an attack be resolved by rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing that number to a target number (AC, etc.). If the DM, for whatever reason (maybe the players want to try it this way), decides to have an attack be resolved by having the players run laps around the table roll a d12 and subtract their character's charisma modifier - how is it the guidelines fault if the game doesn't work as intended?

IMO, the skill challenge mechanic serves one purpose, and one purpose only. To provide a way to give consistent adhoc XP for things that are not necessarily related to combat. In 3.x the guidelines were, "sometimes - give adhoc XP." In 4e, the DMG provides a robust guideline and framework for actually doing so.