The Unusual Math of Skill Challenges and Complexity

[Stalker0]

Alright, so the basics of skill challenges which we all know.

You set a DC which is based on the challenge level, then we set a complexity, which determines how many failures and successes we get.

Higher level + Higher Complexity = more challenging encounter....right?

Actually, its really not as simple as you'd think.

Let's compare some skill challenges and you will start to see the weirdness in the math.

Scenario 1: A party faces a Complexity 1 skill challenge and a Complexity 3 skill challenge and lastly a Complexity 5. In all cases, we will assume each party members' roll has a 40% chance to succeed.

Overall chance for party to succeed in challenge

Complexity 1: 8%
Complexity 2: 3%
Complexity 3: 1%

That's what we expect, more complex = more challenging. And yes, btw, the chance of success is in fact that low.

Scenario 2: Same complexities, but now let's give the party a 70% chance of success on each roll. The result:

Complexity 1: 53%
Complexity 2: 57%
Complexity 3: 60%

What happened? A higher complexity actually made the scenario easier!! This is a result of the way skill complexities are handled. Because the success/failure ratio remains the same, there comes a point where once your chance of success is high enough, it's very hard to hit that large number of failures you need. As a result, the challenge is actually easier.


And that number is exactly at 70%. Once your party has a 70% chance on each roll to succeed at a challenge, then if you want to increase the difficult, LOWER the complexity. And increasing the complexity actually makes it easier.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I am actually not sure if a Skill Challenge complexity is necessarily to make it more difficult.

I say this since, I view the complexity as a way of showing how well complex the challenge, not necessarily how difficult it is.

So your doing something that is time consuming and has many steps, but is easy would be a high complexity, but low level.

A brief, but very, very, tough skill challenge would have a low complexity and a high level.

It also discusses cutting and increasing the number of failures needed to fail. So, I think the initial complexity, simply shows the middle ground.

 

[Family]

Eating a sandwich in one bite is hard, eating a sandwich in many bites is easier. Of course if the sandwhich is hard to chew it gets tougher no matter how I eat it.

But, hey, at least I'm eating a sandwich.

 

[Stalker0]

I am actually not sure if a Skill Challenge complexity is necessarily to make it more difficult.

I say this since, I view the complexity as a way of showing how well complex the challenge, not necessarily how difficult it is.

Regardless of the intention, is you tell someone something is more complex, they will think its harder. And in general it is. But its important for DM's (especially) new ones to recognize that when altering skill challenges they may not get what they bargained for.

For example a DM might make an easy DC skill challenge, but decides to bump up the complexity to make it a bit more challenging. In actuality, he just made it easier. That's not intuitive, so I thought I would take the time to make people aware of it.

 

[mmu1]

I guess the way to fix this would be to adjust the DCs and the ratio of success/failures required.

Lower the DCs in order to give the players a better shot at succeeding on any given check, but then adjust the success/failure ratio to something other than 2:1 - basically, lower the number of failures allowed, so higher complexity challenges are 7:3 or 6:2, or whatever.

Of course, without either lots of trial and error or the ability to do the statistics, it's nearly impossible to figure out the right DCs / success:failure ratio for your particular party, and I'll also bet this "fix" breaks something else on the other end of the spectrum.

You see similar mechanics to this in Indie RPGs all the time, but there's one huge difference: Unlike D&D, those games expect the players to fail a LOT in order to drive "drama" and conflict.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

make it 8 successes before more than 4 failures and the math seems better... you actually could do a complexity 0 challenge: 2 successes before more than 1 failure...

edit: but of course: first play that damned game and see is it actually needs fixing^^

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok... a complexity 5 challenge gives xp as 5 monsters, a skill challenge of complexity 1 only xp as 1 monster...

so the math IS wrong... what about:

x successes before 4 failures as default assumption... so it really gets harder with added complexity...

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I think that skill challenges will go better, complexity and all, if they are done in the middle of things. If the challenges occur in the middle of combat or in the middle of social situations where the PCs must keep track of other things in order to get the opportunity to make skill rolls specifically for the challenge, then the complexity will have a real impact.

 

[Asmor]

I was thinking of the same problem... The parity between required successes before failures (always 2:1) does seem to skew the math.

I think the way I might implement it is to make a set number of failures, regardless of complexity. I'm thinking 4.

So a complexity 1 encounter requires 4 successes before 4 failures. A complexity 2 encounter requires 6 successes before 4 failures. etc.

EDIT: Looks like UngeheuerLich had the same idea. Great minds!

 

[ender_wiggin]

It doesn't work that way because success or failure on a skill challenge is NOT primarily determined by blind rolls at static difficulty levels.

Whether not the players succeed is measured is by whether they can (a) identify the skills that their character is good at, (b) identify the skills that are easily used in the challenge.

If they can do this, they turn a 30% chance of success on any given roll into a 70% chance.