Stalker0's Obsidian Skill Challenge System (Update: Version 1.1) Now with PDF!!

[Stormhound]

I've used OpenOffice to create a very rough PDF version of this system, but unfortunately it seems I can't send the file to Stalker0, and I haven't anywhere to put it up myself. Stalker0, if you'll get in touch...

 

[Stalker0]

I feel like a jerk for asking but would more/fewer rounds than 3 work fine with a different set of DCs and thresholds? If so, you could always slave away at more simulations and then present among super-advanced options supplementary tables for people who are looking for more/fewer rounds/checks to engage the challenge.

You are a jerk, how dare you insult the perfection of my system!!

Hehe, j/k!!!

When I have time, I'll take a look, I may be able to come up with some guidelines on using a 2 segment system. I won't look at 4 segments, if you want a larger challenge its very easy to put two skill challenges together.

 

[Stalker0]

With your example large challenge (Escape from Jail), how much does succeeding or failing at the first section effect the success rate for the third section?

Also If success is worth experience equal to a complexity 5 skill challenge, how would you recommend giving experience for partial success?

One of the things I was pleasantly surprised about when I ran the numbers was how little effect stringing consecutive challenges together was. Generally the +1's and -1's don't swing things too much, approximately +/- 10%.

Question: Is it your intent within this system that the normal Aid Another action can be taken? When the enemy is time and not failures it seems like frivolous or cowardly Aid Another would be discouraged but if a party really thinks that it's the better strategy for them, it seems fine with me as long as they realize that's giving up a chance for a success.

In the Obsidian System, aid another is "flavor". When a player describes their actions, they are free to say they are working towards helping another player. However, mechanically its no different, you roll vs the DC for a success. I currently have no intentions of adding aid rules, I am VERY happy to be rid of aid another, as that was the major headache in my last system.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

PDF Version of 1.0

EDIT: Ignore this post now - I removed my .pdf as Stalker has put up his own.

Long story short, I couldn't sleep, so I started converting the WotC 4e FAQ's into .pdf's for myself and figured why not give it a shot for Stalker's Obsidian Skill Challenge System. Four hours later, here you go:

What's different:
I fixed some spelling errors that OpenOffice kept buggin me about, also removed/rewrote the little bits that refered to the document as a forum post, unformatted and reformatted all the text to make headings pop out to the reader a bit more (so there's some difference from the forum posts to .pdf there) and tried to space everything out neatly on the pages. There's gonna be some white space, but oh well. Looks pretty enough to me. Came out to 15 pages.

If you don't want this up here or don't like the format Stalker, let me know and I'll rip it down.

 

[bardolph]

Ooh. Very, very, very nice. The 3 segment system solves the main problem with the core system: that the party becomes its own enemy. Using Action Points for bold recoveries is perfect. There's incentive to use it if it makes the difference between success and failure, but there's even more incentive to succeed without using them at all (and save those Action Points for the next encounter).

Regarding Aid Another: no reason to ban it now. The benefit of granting +2 to someone else's roll is so small that players are usually better off rolling on their own.

One tweak I'm considering is the idea of a "lead character" for certain challenges. This would apply to the captain of the ship, the lead negotiator, the lead researcher, etc. The "lead character" would roll just like any other character, but would count for two successes instead of one. In this scenario, players with bad skill scores might be tempted to aid the lead character, but players with decent skills should roll for themselves.

I assume that if I allowed a "lead character," I would also need to increase required number of successes by two.

 

[Stalker0]

Long story short, I couldn't sleep, so I started converting the WotC 4e FAQ's into .pdf's for myself and figured why not give it a shot for Stalker's Obsidian Skill Challenge System. Four hours later, here you go:

Looks good, except for one problem. The DC table only has half the entries! Its missing levels 16-30.

I actually just got acrobat myself, so I've been looking into pdf making. I would like to know how you created those headings, and how you got the tables looking so nice. Are you editing the document in acrobat, or is it all in open office and then converted to pdf?

Regarding Aid Another: no reason to ban it now. The benefit of granting +2 to someone else's roll is so small that players are usually better off rolling on their own.

In general, using a true "aid another" mechanic with the Obsidian system would be harmful to the players. I am giving up the chance to get a success in order to give my teammates a small bonus. There are very few times when that is worth it, but the players may not know that, and they will shoot themselves in the foot using it.

Or I can create a new easy DC table, create a whole new aid another rule. But I don't want to increase the complexity of the system, the goal here is to create something that is a backdrop to the action, not a forefront. The players are encourage to come up with crazy ways to use their skills, but mechanically they always know what to do.

If the demand for an aid another mechanic is great then I'll look at putting one it. But I cheered when I was able to take it out of this system, and I'm not eager to put it back in.

I assume that if I allowed a "lead character," I would also need to increase required number of successes by two.

If your lead guy has a 70% success rate normally, he would gain 2.1 successes more than normal, so increasing the success number by 2 would put you just about right. If the lead guy got a +2 to go to 80%, he would increase his successes to 2.7 over the basic 70%.

Once the core system is to my liking, I will start looking at more advanced options such as these, model them mathematically, and see what comes about, but for right now I think the +2 success with a lead guy is a good starting idea.

 

[keterys]

I spent a few hours on my trip back from out of state working on a skill challenge replacement, log in... and this looks very interesting indeed. I'm not sure I buy into everything, but between this option and the other you did I'm not sure it makes sense for me to finish mine either.

Anyhow, cool work Stalker.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Also If success is worth experience equal to a complexity 5 skill challenge, how would you recommend giving experience for partial success?

I see this question of yours got missed. Maybe just give a fraction of the XP for partial victory = to the fraction of successes they had relative to the threshold for full success? So for instance a group of 5 needs 8+ for success, with 6 or 7 as partial success. So 75% of XP for 6 successes and 87.5% for 7 successes.

 

[bardolph]

In general, using a true "aid another" mechanic with the Obsidian system would be harmful to the players. I am giving up the chance to get a success in order to give my teammates a small bonus. There are very few times when that is worth it, but the players may not know that, and they will shoot themselves in the foot using it.

With a "lead character" mechanic, it can be useful. I'm actually considering tripling up the swing of the lead character, by granting two points on a success, but -1 on a failure. Aid Another would then amount to a 10% bonus x3, which is a 30% bump on average. Basically, if you need a natural 16 or better to succeed, you're better off rolling Aid Another.

If the demand for an aid another mechanic is great then I'll look at putting one it. But I cheered when I was able to take it out of this system, and I'm not eager to put it back in.

I think it depends on the challenge. I think sometimes it is appropriate for one person to be the star, while the other characters assist in various ways. In other cases, a more democratic system works better.

"The Negotiation" is a great example. Having one "face man" doing most of the talking while others chime in to make a stronger case seems right to me, from a roleplaying perspective.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Possible advanced option to emulate the "unlocking" feature of the core and other Stalker0 system without screwing up the probabilities:

Unlocking: Sometimes successful use of a skill will not directly contribute to overcoming the skill challenge but will reveal an especially effective way to do so (e.g. History reveals a precedent that makes a successful Diplomacy check capitalizing on it worth 2 successes).

Under the Obsidian system, Aid Another as a separate mechanic is not worth wasting an attempt to earn a bonafide success, so similarly using one check to simply permit or give a bonus to another isn't usually worthwhile. On the other hand, "unlocking" in the sense proposed above compensates for the effort which cannot produce direct results by enabling a double success. This allows some "gating" by the DM, who may not want, for instance that successful History check to count unless it is subsequently exploited in Intimation/Diplomacy, etc.

This could be generalized into "Aid Another" style attempts where the DM feels the effort is only worthwhile IF it the effort it is supporting is successful.

Of course this is only worth the trouble if the DM doesn't think the skill should even help toward a partial victory without leading to success in another, otherwise the skill should just be treated as any other non-primary.