Things to do in a tabletop rpg that are not combat related?

[pemerton]

And that is exactly where skill challenges fail.
The goal should be to solve the problem you are facing no matter how many rolls that takes. That allows for a lot more flexibility and verisimilitude than skill challenges.

<snip>

As I said: "Roll the highest skill you can get away with".
Skill challenges detract from the actual in game situation by making not the solution of whatever problem the PCs face the goal, but to rack up enough successful skill rolls so that the problem goes away.

There's nothing quite as helpful as a post telling you that you've been doing it wrong for all these years!

Derren, there are two ways to show you're wrong: one theoretical, one empirical.

Here's the theoretical refutation: a skill challenge has the same basic structure as D&D combat. D&D combat does not invovle "solving the problem no matter how many rolls it takes". Players don't describe the ir PCs' brilliant sword play to the GM, who then decides - in light of the fictional situation, like how skilled the enemy is - whether or not the PCs win. Rather, players roll attacks according to a mechanical structure (turn structure, action economy) until the enemy's hit points are all ablated. But plenty of people enjoy D&D combat, and find it more engaging than "rocket tag" combat. For those who do enjoy it, it's engaging because it obliges the players to engage the scene, while preventing everything turning on a single choice or roll. A skill challenge has the same virtues.

Here's the empirical refutation: actually read the play reports I posted, and then tell me where there is a lack of flexibility and a lack of verisimilitude. Until you actually engage with the reality of people's play experience with skill challenges, why should I take seriously anything you say about them?

 

[pemerton]

The goal should be to solve the problem you are facing no matter how many rolls that takes. That allows for a lot more flexibility and verisimilitude than skill challenges.

<snip>

As I said: "Roll the highest skill you can get away with".

Further to this:

In a combat encounter, I would expect a player whose PC is an archer to take actions, or encourage the other players to have their PCs take actions, that increase the distance between his/her PC and the enemy, thereby improving the viability of archery as a combat tactic. That is generally regarded as good play.

In a skill challenge, I expect a player whose PC is an athlete to take actions, or encourage the other players to have their PCs take actions, that increase the viability of physical solutions to the situation. That strike me as good play in much the same way.

 

[Type1RPG]

One approach which may help in figuring out non-combat activities is to approach the game from either playing as, or DMing for, a party of commoners. I'm in a commoner campaign right now and it has definitely pushed us outside the box of normal D&D. We now know what the overland fatigue rules are, all the minor details of crafting for income, how to feed ten orphans for a month when you only earn 1-2 gold a day, etc. One of the biggest challenges are dealing with the various phobias the characters have. One of the longer arcs was game-weeklong scouting excursion around a razed village without being caught by goblins. Trying to find a nice hidden camping spot, navigating open spaces without being caught, tracking details on a map so we wouldn't forget them at the debrief.

 

[Derren]

a skill challenge has the same basic structure as D&D combat.

A closed, gamiest system which constraints the options the players have to what the powers (= skills) their class has?
You are right. And that is also why they are bad.

You are constraining the PCs to solve a problem with X rolls no matter what they do (unless you follow your own skill challenge advice of not using skill challenges by stop rolling before the challenge is finished) and you reduce the problem solving a player has to do from "How can I solve this problem" to "How can I justify to roll my highest skill).
This focus on "high skill rolling" together with the requirement of the party to all take part and everyone rolling each "turn" results in the players are more focused on simply rolling dice than planning how to solve a problem.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A closed, gamiest system which constraints the options the players have to what the powers (= skills) their class has?
You are right. And that is also why they are bad.

You are constraining the PCs to solve a problem with X rolls no matter what they do (unless you follow your own skill challenge advice of not using skill challenges by stop rolling before the challenge is finished) and you reduce the problem solving a player has to do from "How can I solve this problem" to "How can I justify to roll my highest skill).
This focus on "high skill rolling" together with the requirement of the party to all take part and everyone rolling each "turn" results in the players are more focused on simply rolling dice than planning how to solve a problem.

This is true if and only if you aren't roleplaying in the first place. Where you talk about justifying rolling their highest skill, people actually playing in character would be trying to bring their own strengths/the strengths of their character to bear on the problem at hand, and trying to work as a team by bringing everyone else's strengths to bear and covering their weaknesses. Working out how everyone can contribute most effectively and don't have their weaknesses exposed is something called teamwork. It's something you do in character. I know you don't get skill challenges. But stop claiming that they aren't there to get just because you don't like them.

 

[Derren]

teamwork[/I]. It's something you do in character.

Which works a lot better when not stuffed into a artificial X success before Y failure corset which adds nothing to the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Which works a lot better when not stuffed into a artificial X success before Y failure corset which adds nothing to the game.

That you don't see what giving a DM a tool they can use to handle insane PC plans with elegantly and with good pacing and relatively transparency for the difficulty adds to the game doesn't mean that it adds nothing to the game. If it means that in my third session DMing I was able to handle something that would have broken some DMs with a year's experience and would have made me want to hide under the table if I hadn't had such a tool (which it does) then it adds something to the game. That you don't see what it adds is not an issue with the game, it's an issue either with the presentation of the game or with what you see (I'm going with the former given the number of people who don't get skill challenges - the presentation is terrible). But just from my own games, it's added pacing, elegance, and an ability to deal with creative players coming up with plans that in most other systems would make me want to gibber.

 

[Derren]

But just from my own games, it's added pacing, elegance, and an ability to deal with creative players coming up with plans that in most other systems would make me want to gibber.

Your idea of "dealing" with creative players seems to be to shoot down their creativity and squeeze it into a 3 successes before 2 failure box.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your idea of "dealing" with creative players seems to be to shoot down their creativity and squeeze it into a 3 successes before 2 failure box.

My idea of dealing with creative players is to enable them to carry out their plans if they can overcome difficulties inherent in them. And not allowing the entire plan to overrun the game, merely to take a few scenes if that's what was intended - while giving them things to deal with and not making it an auto success. Or, as unadorned skill checks would do, making each point a pass/fail situation.

Your idea of skill challenges mistakes scaffolding for the building it helps you create. This is because you don't understand how skill challenges work when done well - I'm sure if you search for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] whelm forged into overwehelm you'll find a decent use.

 

[pemerton]

A closed, gamiest system which constraints the options the players have to what the powers (= skills) their class has?
You are right. And that is also why they are bad.

You are constraining the PCs to solve a problem with X rolls no matter what they do

Actually, the principal constraint from a skill challenge operates on the GM, not on the players.

This is similar to combat. The GM can't just declare that the NPCs kill the PCs. The action resolution mecahnics must be engaged.

you reduce the problem solving a player has to do from "How can I solve this problem" to "How can I justify to roll my highest skill).
This focus on "high skill rolling" together with the requirement of the party to all take part and everyone rolling each "turn" results in the players are more focused on simply rolling dice than planning how to solve a problem.

Which works a lot better when not stuffed into a artificial X success before Y failure corset which adds nothing to the game.

How do you know these things?

I linked to some actual play examples upthread. In what way do they not exemlify players trying to solve problems? And what is objectionable about a player trying to bring his/her PC's best skill to bear?

Also, what is objectionable about involving all players, via their PCs? That sounds like playing the game to me!

As for the X before Y structure, it adds something very important to the game: it creates a space in which the GM is obliged to keep the scene alive. It encourages exploration of the situation in depth, player creativity, and memorable events.

After nearly two decades of RPGs using this sort of resolution structure (the first I know of is Maelstrom Storytelling from 1996), theorycraft has no place anymore. There are actual play examples that you need to engage with if you're going to say plausible stuff about how this sort of resolution works.