D&D 5E So...Skill Challenges

[MechaPilot]

In my experience on both sides of the table, players become frustrated if they can't predict how the rules are going to be applied. Even if they respect the DM's right to adjudicate such situations, it affects their ability to engage with the game and the world, and a DM who needs to make such rulings frequently will adversely impact the enjoyment of the game for everyone at the table.

The only way to truly be able to predict the application of the rules is to have experience with the DM you're playing with.

Both 3E and 4E are presented in such a way as to minimize the need for DM adjudication, as a means of empowering the players by letting them know (with reasonable certainty) how events are likely to play out. That's why fighters have codified powers in 4E - so the players can easily understand the mechanics associated with the narrative and don't have to guess about what unknown logic the DM is operating from. Even though the book explicitly acknowledges that everything is subject to DM adjudication, and may not always work as advertised, it still sets up the expectation that it will generally work unless the DM takes positive action to override it.

As I said, that's true of every edition of D&D. In AD&D 2e I know my wizard can begin to cast a spell she has memorized on her turn because, barring a DM ruling to the contrary, the rules say I can.

It always takes more effort to do something than to do nothing. It requires a greater amount of conviction to oppose the establishment than to go with the flow. You don't need a reason to follow the rules, but you need a reason to change the rules, and that reason needs to be strong enough to persuade you to put in the effort required to do so.

So you need a good reason to rule against an existing rule? Sounds fine. As a DM I try to have a good reason for the rulings I make, even if a player disagrees with my rational or my application of it to the rules.

If they really expected the DM to invest a lot of effort into adjudicating every power at the table, to carefully weigh whether or not it really makes sense in any given situation, then they wouldn't have bothered codifying all of the powers in the first place. Instead, they created a bunch of unique powers, and stated that it's perfectly fine for you to change the narrative associated with them as long as you didn't change their mechanical functionality too much. (Presumably, the altered narrative would then be used as a basis for the DM's adjudication on whether or not it still worked as written in any given situation.)

Or maybe they just expected people to use their common sense, as uncommon as common sense seems to actually be. Really, it's not that hard. If it doesn't make sense for a power to work in a given circumstance, you can and probably should rule that it doesn't work (or at least doesn't work entirely as written).

 

[Jeffrey Malcolmson]

So you need a good reason to rule against an existing rule?

I don't remember reading that in any corebook. XD

(Though it probably should have been said...)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Others feel that a game can be shaped and molded at will and on a whim, original spirit and authorial intent be damned, specifically because such flexibility is self-justified by the form the game took.

It certainly /can/ be (who'd stop you?). But, yeah, there's debate as to whether it should be, and by how much....

In 3e, the community clearly leaned heavily on RAW over tinkering, for instance. 5e actively pulls the game in the other direction.

D&D is neither extreme, it is somewhere in the limbo in between, and very few peoples attitudes line up perfectly with that ambiguity. In particular, people who dislike ambiguity tend to get the most upset by it on either side.

Actual ambiguity in the rules themselves is greater in some editions and less in others (ie clearer rules, more precise jargon). It's quite pronounced in 5e - natural language and rulings not rules and all - but even that still leaves it open for a DM to settle on a less ambiguous set of advance rulings and house rules.

So you need a good reason to rule against an existing rule? Sounds fine. As a DM I try to have a good reason for the rulings I make, even if a player disagrees with my rational or my application of it to the rules.

Seems to go without saying. Wouldn't want to rule for a bad reason.

Or maybe they just expected people to use their common sense, as uncommon as common sense seems to actually be. Really, it's not that hard. If it doesn't make sense for a power to work in a given circumstance, you can and probably should rule that it doesn't work (or at least doesn't work entirely as written).

Just as common sense isn't that common, it's not that easy to make a ruling. It's not just what makes 'sense' (which may very well be completely different things to each player at the table), but what's good for the flow of the story, what's fair, what keeps everyone engaged and gives everyone the illusion that their decisions matter and their characters are contributing heroically (or whatever it is they value their characters doing/being), &c...

And all that in a split second, or they get suspicious you're making stuff up...

...which, of course, you don't want them catching on to.


















...DMing, not as unlike being a Sith as you might think...

 

[MechaPilot]

Just as common sense isn't that common, it's not that easy to make a ruling. It's not just what makes 'sense' (which may very well be completely different things to each player at the table), but what's good for the flow of the story, what's fair, what keeps everyone engaged and gives everyone the illusion that their decisions matter and their characters are contributing heroically (or whatever it is they value their characters doing/being), &c...

And all that in a split second, or they get suspicious you're making stuff up...

...which, of course, you don't want them catching on to.

Different DMs will, naturally, prioritize different things based on playstyle. Fairness might take a backseat to the story, or not, depending on the DM. That's all part of finding a DM you enjoy playing with.

Plus, it's not as if an absolutely final decision has to be rendered once and for all in that moment. I've issued temporary rulings (rulings that stand at that session but which will be revisited between sessions) before, and taken player comments and concerns into consideration before finalizing or modifying and finalizing a ruling. DMs are just people, and no person is ever perfect. I don't expect my players to think I'm perfect, and I don't hold myself to a standard of having to be perfect in the moment.

...DMing, not as unlike being a Sith as you might think...

Good! Good! Give in to your greed. Let the murderhobo flow through you. Only then can you know the power of the Exp!

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging a mechanic behind the narrative. Not sure why "I swing ny sword" is any better than "I roll to hit." Both are equally boring when said a dozen times.

Because different methods lead to diffferent results, even though they might use the same roll.

"I swing my sword" and "I swing my hammer" both use the same mechanic ("make an Attack roll") but have different effects (for example, against an ooze).

"I pretend to be the captain of the guard" and "I pretend to be a visiting noble" and "I pretend to be a nobody peasant" all use the same mechanic ("make a CHA/Deception roll") but have widely different effects (on both failure and success).

As a GM, you can build a scene around "pretend to be a noble", but if given "I roll Deception" all you can really respond is "you fail" or "you succeed."

I think you could describe the differece as , "I make a Deception roll" is a board game, "I pretend to be a visiting noble" is a roleplaying game.

 

[werecorpse]

Tony Vargas - what was the difference with the way skill challenges were done in 4e essentials?

To me the importance of skill challenges is because combat basically works well because
1. The whole group can contribute (attack as well as more complex contributions like positioning, healing, other spells etc)
2. The mechanic is not just a single (or a few) rolls so isn't totally swingy
3. The hp system means you have a threshold to beat down or be beaten, over several rolls (multiple attacks v ac, damage rolls to see how much you have worn down the stamina of the enemy etc) - and resources to lose

Where as much of the skill use in the game fails on all three of these.

So while the combat with the street thugs is fun, when the party then needs to get past the guard the group shoves the diplomacy guy forward and stands quietly while a single (or a few) d20 is rolled (with or without roleplaying), which is not a fun way to get over an obstacle.

That's my view of the "problem" - I'm interested in how others have dealt with it.

 

[MechaPilot]

Tony Vargas - what was the difference with the way skill challenges were done in 4e essentials?

To me the importance of skill challenges is because combat basically works well because
1. The whole group can contribute (attack as well as more complex contributions like positioning, healing, other spells etc)
2. The mechanic is not just a single (or a few) rolls so isn't totally swingy
3. The hp system means you have a threshold to beat down or be beaten, over several rolls (multiple attacks v ac, damage rolls to see how much you have worn down the stamina of the enemy etc) - and resources to lose

Where as much of the skill use in the game fails on all three of these.

So while the combat with the street thugs is fun, when the party then needs to get past the guard the group shoves the diplomacy guy forward and stands quietly while a single (or a few) d20 is rolled (with or without roleplaying), which is not a fun way to get over an obstacle.

That's my view of the "problem" - I'm interested in how others have dealt with it.

The first thing to recognize is that not every situation is skill challenge worthy. Some should just be a single person check or a group check. Getting past a single guard is probably not a good skill challenge and is more of a skill check. Infiltrating a place (like one of the cults in PotA) long enough to surreptitiously look for something (like the missing delegates) is more likely to qualify as a skill challenge.

Once you decide that a situation is robust enough to warrant a skill challenge, you have to try to figure out how to use multiple skill or ability checks so you can engage more PCs. Also, you can incorporate non-skill actions and the use of information gained during play (like the use of the cult hand-signs from PotA).

 

[Tony Vargas]

what was the difference with the way skill challenges were done in 4e essentials?

The relative DCs were changed several times from PH to RC and the Skill Challenge guidelines obviously played out differently with different DCs, so there was that. The big difference also came earlier (DMG 2, IIRC) and that was to always use 3 failures as the threshold to fail the Challenge. The RC version also elaborated with suggestions not just on how many successes, but the mix of DCs (easy vs moderate vs hard) and a variety of possible 'advantages' to help parties get through more complex challenges.

It's worth digging up if you can. Sadly, there was never a real SRD, so I can't just give you a link to a generic version.

To me the importance of skill challenges is because combat basically works well because
1. The whole group can contribute (attack as well as more complex contributions like positioning, healing, other spells etc)
2. The mechanic is not just a single (or a few) rolls so isn't totally swingy
3. The hp system means you have a threshold to beat down or be beaten, over several rolls (multiple attacks v ac, damage rolls to see how much you have worn down the stamina of the enemy etc) - and resources to lose

Where as much of the skill use in the game fails on all three of these.

Nod. The SC structure definitely delivers on the first two. You bring everyone in, and it doesn't hang on a single 'expert PC' let alone a single roll. Obviously, the n success before 3 failures mechanic is a threshold to determine success/failure. The first two failures can each carry a consequence in resource loss (healing surges being the obvious candidate), but resources might also be spent to negate failures or gain successes.

 

[iserith]

So while the combat with the street thugs is fun, when the party then needs to get past the guard the group shoves the diplomacy guy forward and stands quietly while a single (or a few) d20 is rolled (with or without roleplaying), which is not a fun way to get over an obstacle.

That's my view of the "problem" - I'm interested in how others have dealt with it.

If it is a skill challenge to get past the guard and you want to encourage all the players to participate in the interaction, the guard must present barriers to the PCs achieving their goals that can't or aren't easily bypassed with diplomatic efforts alone.

Though it's questionable whether this sort of interaction is even complex enough to call for a skill challenge, substitute "getting past the guard" with any other somewhat more complex situation and the presentation is largely the same: Multiple challenges or complications that speak to a wide range of applicable skills.

 

[werecorpse]

I agree my "getting past a guard" isnt a good example of something for which a skill challenge would be suitable.

I guess another "skills" issue is working out how complex the skill use situation should be.

It seems 4e was the main source of the developed skill challenge mechanic (sadly I largely missed that edition), does anyone have good examples of how it was used and worked well in a wotc (or 3p) adventure?