D&D 5E So...Skill Challenges

[darjr]

Ah. The roleplay suggestions are kinda annoying. It's what I've been doing for decades now. The nice idea behind skill challenges was the codifying of all these different things into a concise structure. But that very structure works against you trying to roleplay.

Can you work through it and past it, yes, but you might as well throw it out and just do what we've been doing.

Though I haven't watched the video, I will, Colevilles videos I've been meaning to watch.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I’m a big fan of describing the challenge, then asking the group “how do you deal with it?” For example, I might say “Arcane runes on the floor pulse with necrotic energy, blocking your path. How are you going to try to get past them?” One player might say they try to dance nimbly through, avoiding the runes (Acrobatics). Another might try to use their knowledge of magic to negate them (Arcana). Now, if they give a good description of what they’re doing, I might reduce the DC for them. If they just say “I use Acrobatics,” well, it might be a little harder.

For less concrete skill challenges, like say an ornery harbormaster that doesn’t want to let them dock right now, I also come up with the failed path – how the adventure might proceed if they fail to convince him to let their boat in. Maybe he needs an extra-large bribe, or they have to dock outside of town, or end up having to deal with some sahuagin.

Is there a good way to use skill challenges while keeping the "just tell me what you want to do" aspect of playing D&D? I want my players to say "I swing my sword," not "I roll to hit." And I want them to say "I look around for clues," instead of "I use my perception skill."

I appreciate the hive's thoughts.

 

[Jester David]

Skill Challenges are basically Complex Skill Checks from 3e: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/complexSkillChecks.htm

There's not much to them. The foundation of the mechanic just assumes that instead of requiring one success to succeed you require multiple.

The obvious example is climbing a mountain. It's not a single Athletics check.

 

[LordEntrails]

I like skill challenges, but they have to be used appropriately.

For DM's that already have a good way to deal with non-combat challenges that they and their players are happy with, codifying the process isn't needed. But if you want to share your adventure with others, then a system or standard for laying out such things is important. And to me, that's where you need some sort of system.

Here's how I handled them in the adventure I published on the DMsG (Balance Disturbed);

Skill encounters are non-combat related challenges for the party that lay out a mechanic for using skills in a role-playing setting that allow for varying degrees of success. These encounters are detailed with several levels of complexity (tiers), each level indicating a number of skill successes that are needed before failing a specified number of times. If the first level of complexity is reached, the next level can be attempted by continuing the role-playing, noting that the successes and challenges from previous tiers count towards the current (and future) tiers. Following the complexities are a list of skills and their difficulty class (DC) needed to succeed, along with other restrictions or information regarding the use of the skill. The DM can allow other skills to be used as s/he sees fit, especially as players present creative suggestions and active role-playing.

These encounters should be used to help en-courage creative and in-character role-playing, and not simply as a mechanism for die rolling skill checks. The DM should feel free to grant advantage (or disadvantage) and inspiration to those players actively representing their character’s personalities and histories.

The complexities (tiers) of these encounters are each assigned an experience point value, these values are not cumulative, e.g., succeeding at a second tier grants the XP assigned for that tier only, not for the first tier as well.

There are more details and suggestion in the module, as well as several challenges. I also think it's important in a published adventure that you give the DM examples of what the individual skill checks might sound like when roleplayed by a character.

For instance;

Intimidation (Charisma): Unlimited successes, DC 10, DC increases by 1 with each success, DC increases by 2 each time an intimidation fails. Threats or shows of violence sway the discussion. (“If you don’t start packing, I’ll kill you myself!”)

History (Intelligence): one success per tier, DC 12. A character supports their case by calling upon historical precedence. (“In the time of Balgeraud the Third, an orc invasion much like this one burnt the villages of the Riverlands and was only stopped at RiverHold itself.”)

 

[dco]

I always found them a waste of time and an obstacle for roleplaying.
It has been possible with all games I played since the 1980s to roll various skills to complete some tasks, no extra rules needed for that, always following the essential flow of the game, the players roleplay if interacting with NPCs or tell the DM they want to acomplish something, then the DM tells them what skills they have to use to succeed.
For whatever reason D&D 4e complicated things and sometimes it seems the DM tells the players what they have to do and then the players try to roleplay their way for the sake of dice rolling, usually there is a ton of dice rolling needed for nothing, for example countless diplomacy rolls till you get a number of wins as the example of the book, at the end it goes against roleplaying when DM or the player doesn't know how much more to say and they end slaves to a bad mechanic.

 

[Sunseeker]

Whenever a player says "I roll diplomacy." I immediately interject "For what?" After a while it tends to set in that they need to say something like "I want to make a diplomacy check to try to convince the guards we're friends." The roll of the dice and the skills of the character are always the filter through which the players statements get translated.

In any case, skill challenges are usually obvious, like a fight. You know when a situation is about to turn ugly, skills are the same way. Just the resolution mechanic is via non-combat skills instead of combat skills (though there are times where that is player's choice). Every DM has to train their players to make skill checks in the way that DM prefers. Some DMs are cool with "I roll diplomacy, is he nice now?" some DMs aren't. I'm personally not picky. Finding words is hard and even if their character is very diplomatic, the player may not be.

Is there a good way to get your players to tell you want they want to do without rolling dice to do it? Yeah, take their dice away. You don't need to physically take their dice, but basically deny their rolls. If a player goes "I roll to hit!" then you just disregard whatever they roll until they say "I swing my axe at it!" and then you give them permission to roll the dice.

Personally, I only use this method with unruly players. If my player intends to attack a target, he'll need to roll the dice. So waiting for me to tell him to roll the dice is just a waste of everyone's time. It's easier for me to fudge the resolution behind the scene than to make him wait for permission. If I want the outcome to be something different than what the dice prescribe, I'll just make that outcome happen anyway.

One thing to note: 4E was huge on player empowerment. They wanted players to declare their action and do it. Not wait for the DM to give them permission to do it, or wait for the DM to resolve their action. 4E was big on "if it says you can do it, you can do it." with a DM taking a more reactionary posture to what the player just did, instead of a prescriptive posture in determining what was allowed to take place. I understand this is a big divergence from earlier editions.

 

[MechaPilot]

4E was big on "if it says you can do it, you can do it." with a DM taking a more reactionary posture to what the player just did, instead of a prescriptive posture in determining what was allowed to take place. I understand this is a big divergence from earlier editions.

There was no divergence in what you're describing. In every edition, you can do what the default rules say you can do, unless the DM rules otherwise. That is exactly how BECMI, AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e work.

 

[Sunseeker]

There was no divergence in what you're describing. In every edition, you can do what the default rules say you can do, unless the DM rules otherwise. That is exactly how BECMI, AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e work.

That certainly hasn't been my experience with non-4E editions. So I mean, unless it's just universally agreed that every DM rules in the same way, which seems implausible, my general experience has been that other editions leaned in the direction of "you can do it if the DM lets you" as opposed to "You can do this" period.

 

[dave2008]

That certainly hasn't been my experience with non-4E editions. So I mean, unless it's just universally agreed that every DM rules in the same way, which seems implausible, my general experience has been that other editions leaned in the direction of "you can do it if the DM lets you" as opposed to "You can do this" period.

I can't speak for every edition, but in the 1e (mostly BECMI), 4e, and 5e groups I played in it has always been "you can do it if the DM lets you."

 

[dave2008]

I love the idea of skill challenges but in practice they never quite worked, imho.

I think it's probably because it never seemed like a real consequence was at stake, like dying, and the 'challenge' to overcome was never as concrete as a monster.

What you say can be the case, but it is definitely possible to have skill challenges that have real consequences and concrete obstacles. I've even had players die in skill challenges.