The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[ExploderWizard]

The simple answer would be, because it would be fun. Introducing complications leads to more game play and makes play more interesting. Isn't that the goal, pretty much all the time? Being able to press the "I win" button might be great the first time, but, it does pale after a while.

If it would be fun then we we don't need mechanics to tell us this right?
I also don't see how a particular situation must either be solved by an "I win" button or by some pre-conceived mechanical process.

Using a magical "I win" button is just as mechanically dull as a pace controlled SC IMHO.

The whole point of a SC is that you have an event that is complicated enough that there shouldn't be anything you can do to succeed on the first try. If you could, then it wouldn't be a skill challenge. It would be a straight up skill check.

Yes. The mechanic exists to justify itself.

I see what you're saying. If the DM is on the ball and decides to call the situation a success or failure based on his own feelings and he's good at that, you have a scene that is going to play out better than a SC. OTOH, if the DM isn't on the ball, if the DM doesn't have a really great sense of pacing, then you wind up with an awful lot of very unsatisfactory scenes that either get cut short before they get interesting or drag on FAR too long (IMO, the much more likely scenario).

Good point. Most players that favor heavy mechanics either have little to no experience in more freeform games or worse, really bad experiences with such games that shape their view of them.

Again, it gets back to the idea that sure, a great DM doesn't need the framework. Sure, I'll buy that. But, the rest of us mere mortals sure appreciate having one now that I've seen SC's done right a few times. And, hey, after you get used to using the framework, you can start experimenting a bit and growing the framework into new and interesting concepts.

Instead of expecting every DM to reinvent the wheel.

Great DMs are mere mortals. They become great through experience.

 

[BryonD]

The simple answer would be, because it would be fun.

Absolutely 100% correct.

It is a DIFFERENT Rome, but everyone should pick the Rome they find fun and there is no case to be made that this isn't fun.

And, on that line of thought, I really have to question BryonD's assertiion that a SC actually removes the "Succeed on the first try" thing. The whole point of a SC is that you have an event that is complicated enough that there shouldn't be anything you can do to succeed on the first try. If you could, then it wouldn't be a skill challenge. It would be a straight up skill check.

In other words, I think BryonD is complaining about the removal of an element that never actually existed within the framework. Because 4e removes most of the "I win" magic abilities from the characters, it becomes a lot easier to create situations where it will take more than a single action to resolve the issue. No Zone of Truth spells mean that questioning people becomes a lot more problematic.

Wait, did it remove the "I win" button or did it never exist? Which is it?

It is about narrative. Even if I intend for one action to never be able to solve a problem, the players may think of something more clever.

And, more importatantly, even if the situation TRULY can't be solved in one action the narratibe should control that process. There is a fundamental difference between having that outcome manadated by narrative based flow and by having it mandated by counting check marks.

If DM's work the way you suggest, then if a really good "I win" solution is brought up, then the DM should immediately discard the SC. If SCs are in place as a contingency and that get tossed frequently, then that is a lot less bad. Of course, why not just toss them altogether in that case?

 

[Nagol]

Again, I just don't really feel the force of this. Are you really telling me that mine is the only group where, when I as GM describe a scene that the players are getting ready to engage with via their PCs, the players then look over their character sheets to see what sorts of resources - skills, spells, items, contacts, knowledge of backstory - that they might bring to bear?

Coming at it in another way - what is the difference between "thinking about what can be done to resolve the issue" and "thining about what applicable skill will be the best to roll against"? After all, the sole measure of applicability here is able to be used to resolve the issue!

I think this comes back to my difference in thinking between "How can I exploit the situation?" and "What strength can I bring to bear?"

A situation could be handled in a variety of ways where the different tactics the player can choose from have levels of difficulty attached that are appropriate to that approach.

A player may have a terrrific ability in Intimidate, and a lesser ability in Diplomacy, but perhaps a gentler approach is simpler and more applicable. Take the example of calming a fidgety child. Both Intimidate (scaring the child into being quiet) and Diplomacy (distracting and soothing the child) are workable strategies. The Intimidate has to hit just the right note or the child will start to bawl; the DC for the effective Intimidate is higher than the DC for Diplomacy.

Another example would be a chatty but attentive guard who knows a particular password and is guarding the safe containing the password notebook. Thievery is a perfectly good tactic, but is much more difficult than worming the password out of the guard though a subtle conversation.

If the player looks to his sheet for what strengths can be brought to bear, he'll gravitate to to his area of speciality. If the player tries to analyse the situation he'll look to a secondary ability as preferable.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

i have no real issue with SCs.

What I'm still not seeing, though, is how a SC- which to me seems to involve several rolls- is in any way superior to a single roll against a DC with modifiers for "aid another" and RP.

And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What I'm still not seeing, though, is how a SC- which to me seems to involve several rolls- is in any way superior to a single roll against a DC with modifiers for "aid another" and RP.

Because, generally speaking, having "single points of failure" tends to result in swingier results, and less capability to realize when something is or is not working and change your approach as required. Consider the difference between D&D's ablative hit points and, say, a damage save system where a failed save knocks you out. As combat progresses, D&D players can watch hit points (their own and their opponents') decrease and get a feel for how the combat is flowing, and whether they need to start tossing more spells or consider retreating. In a damage save system, it's much harder to know "where you are" in the combat, as everyone tends to be fine-fine-fine-fine-KO'd.

Consider, additionally, save-or-die spells. If you make your save, nothing happens. If you fail your save, you die. Everything comes down to a single die roll - and while you can try to stack the odds in your favor, you can still roll a 1 on that save.

Similarly, GMs have long been encouraged on this board to avoid "puzzle rooms" where there is a single solution that the players have to figure out or the adventure stalls or ends.

Moreover, you wouldn't routinely design combats where a single attack roll determines the entirety of the results - rather, you want combat to involve meaningful tactical challenges and multiple rolls spread around multiple players so that everyone is participating, and that "Just let the fighter handle all of it" is not a viable solution.

This is an outgrowth of that same philosophy: creativity, flexibility, and better progress tracking leading to better player involvement at all times at the table.

And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?

Mathematically speaking, it's possible, sure. Just like, say, everyone making Aid Another attempts to buff the fighter's first attack can, depending on the ACs involved, result in better average damage than everyone attacking individually.

It is, however, by no means a certainty, especially if people tailor their interactions with the skill challenge to highlight their own strengths and the particular situation's weaknesses.

So, as a general rule, no, what you say is not a "feature" of skill challenges.

 

[billd91]

i have no real issue with SCs.

What I'm still not seeing, though, is how a SC- which to me seems to involve several rolls- is in any way superior to a single roll against a DC with modifiers for "aid another" and RP.

And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?

I think it really depends on the task at hand. If the situation could involve multiple ways to make progress toward the end goal with no single failure scotching the whole task, then I think skill challenges can work pretty well. The play example in Galaxy of Intrigue for SWSE comes to mind. The PCs are trying to escape the punishment detail in the mines. Various events happen in the process, some of which can contribute to the overall success of the escape task, and some of which can detract but not immediately end the attempt. Succeeding eventually leads PCs to a landing platform and a ship, enough failures and they're all caught, but each failure means they end up losing some of the rest of the miners they're escaping with.

 

[BryonD]

My best rephrasing is (and, please, ByronD, correct me if I am wrong)

One major error.

My name is Bryon.

Other than that, it works for me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

BryonD, sorry about the juxtaposition. D'oh!

(It's....ah....because I think of you as a man of many talents.....like Lord Byron.....yeah....that's it.......)


RC

 

[BryonD]

Because, generally speaking, having "single points of failure" tends to result in swingier results, and less capability to realize when something is or is not working and change your approach as required.

... (snipped the rest, but this applies to all)

All of your points are fair and valid.
And if these things are important to you then the justification of SCs is absolutely established.

Three points:

1) These justify WHY mechanics controlling narrative is a good thing to some people.
2) Narrative controlling mechanics is more important, to me, than the sum total of the issues you identify, squared. (But that is just my own personal preference and is not meant to be critical of anyone else. I'll readily assume the disfunction is my own.)
3) Your D&D experience is in a completely different Rome than mine.

 

[BryonD]

BryonD, sorry about the juxtaposition. D'oh!

(It's....ah....because I think of you as a man of many talents.....like Lord Byron.....yeah....that's it.......)


RC

Dude, no apology needed. Just blame my parents. Seriously, I've been dealing with it all my life. They even screwed it up on my Master's Degree diploma.