Stalker0 said:
If you prefer a clean system that does not have so much "crunch", I highly recommend my Obsidian system, which can be found here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4319615#post4319615.
It is very different from the standard skill challenge system, but you may find its simplicity to your liking.
Heh, you've certainly been keeping yourself busy, Stalker0! I'll check it out.
On to your questions and comments:
Guiding Light is the biggest problem in the system, I'm pretty open about that. Unfortunately, its effect is so swingy in the math it has to be tightly regulated. Allowing multiple players to aid, even with a non-stackable bonus, can have a huge impact on the win rate, because your magnifying the players who have the high bonuses and are making all of the skill checks.
A high likelihood of success is desirable. After all, PCs win combat encounters virtually 100% of the time. However, I see what you're saying. It's a tough problem to solve.
The fundamental difference between combat and skill challenges is that combat doesn't have a direct penalty for missing a roll. Rather, it functions more like a race: can the PC's deal X damage before the enemy deals Y damage? Because enemy creatures are expected to accomplish a certain amount of progress each round, it behooves the party to accumulate as many successes (hits) as possible per round. This encourages an active role from each member of the party.
Skill Challenges are the opposite: the goal is to limit the number of failures, since the number of failures is what sets the end of the challenge. This encourages caution, since everyone except the highest roller should bow out.
I can see how Guiding Light addresses this issue, since it forces positions 2-4 (in a 5-person party) to roll regardless of their skill. In a sense, this creates a situation where players 1 (Skilly McAwesome) and 5 (The Guiding Light) are racing to accumulate the needed number of successes before the rest of the party accumulates enough failures to end the challenge.
Heroic Surge: My system assumes players are usually using a surge or two, perhaps 3 for a complexity 3 challenge. It shouldn't affect the numbers too much if you take it out. If you want, subtract 1 from the DC when doing a complexity 3 challenge. Other than that, I wouldn't make any other changes.
My concern is that Healing Surges are the recommend penalty for failure in the DMG. If Healing Surges are also the price for success, then the party is placed into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
Bold Recovery: Your idea for bold recovery is interesting, I haven't run any models on that variant but your idea is not a little change. The fact that players can use BR at any time is a HUGE increase in BRs power. The fact that a player can completely negate a failure instead of just adding a +4 is another increase in its power. The fact that you add a failure is a significant drawback. How all of these factors play together would have to be looked at in detail.
I disagree that using BR early would be an increase in power. If BR is a "hard" roll, it really would only make sense to use it to prevent the final failure, since the penalty for missing the BR (an additional failure) is so much more punishing at any other point in the challenge.