Two Example Skill Challenges

[Delgar]

I think this just goes to show how difficult the skill challenge is going to be able to pull off in practice.

In both cases, I believe the situation is not one that lends itself to a skill challenge. And in neither case are the skill challenge mechanics either helpful or (untweaked) the obvious way to handle the encounter.

The first example is the better of the two, but even it has problems. For example, in the first case, how much time elapses before the walls close? Is inaction explicitly failure in the system, or if I stand back and let the skill player work is the group punished? Does this ensure group participation more than a round by round 'what do you do to solve the puzzle' approach would? As it is, the encounter plays out as a pretty standard 'search, think, use skill' investigative procedure that could have happened in any edition - even those that didn't have a skill system. In the example, the Insight skill is a bigger change than the skill challenge and I percieve already that its going to be the all-purpose win any challenge skill. I mean, when won't Insight apply? The players did do anything remotely out of the box, and its not clear how the skill challenge system would help a DM handle out of the box propositions.

The second example really illustrates the problems though. It basically plays out as 'the party provides cover while the thief tries to get the door open'. Exactly what is the skill challenge doing for the DM in this case? Is inaction explicitly a failure in the system? Does this ensure group participation more than the traditional round by round approach would? Once again, its a pretty standard 'search, disarm, open lock' sort of affair. Hows this for an approach, 'Difficult diplomacy - (in orcish) - 'Hey, does anyone have the key to this door?'. Or how about following that with, 'Difficult nature - I emulate the sound of a hungry Cave Lion to scare the orcs' Finally, 'Can I use a climb check to allow the party to escape while the Orcs are terrorized?' So does this really help the DM when the players go out of the box? And if it is nothing more than 'search, think, thief stuff', hows that really any different than what we've been doing?

Again, the bad thing about the first example is failure equals death. So sure you can sit around and wait to be crushed or do something. I don't need to set how long, I just set up the success/failures. That determines how long they have. If I set it at 6/4 and there are 5 players they basically have two rounds (give or take) to succeed. The thing is, is that ALL the players can contribute. The players could have tried to bash the door down, they could have tried to open up the trap door in the ceiling. They had options and it just matters which ones they decide to go with.

In the second example, the party chose to provide cover for the rogue while he did his work. Anyone of them could have particpated in the skill challenge if they wanted to. A fighter could have tried bashing down the door, or looked around for another way out. They had the option and really I was just trying to see if I could come up with a way to combine the two with dramatic effect.

Really what the skill challenge is trying to do is take the place of the aid another action. You've been there, we talk to the king (then four players go I aid!), so you decide to let them roll or not, then the person rolls his diplomacy and rolls a 1, and the 3 people that aid roll really high. In the aid another system it comes out to a failure. In the skill challenge system, the first player stumbled his speech, but the others come to his rescue and start swaying the king in thier favor.

But, It's not for everyone, and it will take some getting used to. But, they are really easy to set up and all it takes is a little imagination, which is win win on my part.

 

[Propheous_D]

I think Celebrim is doing one of 3 things. 1. Doesn't get it. 2. Gets it but hates it and thinks we are dumb for not hating it. 3. Playing devil's advocate.

Any of the above is really irrelevant because his continued arguements against the system are pretty plain to see and frankly have no real bearing on the system.

The skill challenge system is not something that is in there to make the mechanics better or more streamlined in the sense of cause and effect or resolution of problems. It is purely there to engage the players and facilitate a more interactive out of combat experience.

I think there is a strong possibility we could see 2 versions of traps. The skill trap and the combat trap. The combat trap being something that is involved with in a combat. This is done with a standard quick and dirty resolution due to the nature of combat. The Skill trap is a trap that the party can help solve and will most likely be much more involved.

Examples would be :

Common pit trap is pretty much a combat trap. This is something you would setup as a combat obstacle that would allow you to have an advantage against your foes.

Advanced pit trap were you get dropped in the old crushing room. Due to the nature of being out of combat you have alot of options for interaction with this trap. Different ways of resolving it, and many layers to the trap itself. Exmaples: stop the crushing part of the trap, reseting the trap, climbing out of the trap, temporarily stopping the trap, etc,etc. This lends to a skill challenge because defeating one aspect of the trap does not neccesarily mean the challenge is over.

I think that any situation were multiple layers are at play that do not involve combat would result in a skill challenge. The DM would setup the rules for failure, and yes time could be a proponent of that skill challenge. You can easily deem that each round counts as a failure. Further failures form the PC could lead them to further folly or work against them by furthering the opponents.

 

[Imaro]

I guess my main question about these skill challenges is this...

If "failure" is dependent upon the number of failed checks, and you have one player who is a skill monkey type (thus a wider range of skills at higher proficiency) and another who isn't (more narrow base with lower proficiency) why wouldn't a party let the skill monkey make all the checks to lower the chance of failure? I'm just not seeing how this will stop the uber-skilled character from stealing the spotlight unless the players decide to go sub-optimal in their choice in approaching said trap.

 

[ryryguy]

From what I understand, there is no set time limit. The walls close after however many failures. The OP didn't say how many failures players could take, or what, exactly failure means, but there is no set time limit. Personally, I wouldn't have the players killed by the closing walls when they get that final failure, but I would have them be captured or something. Failure on a skill challenge should be more about setbacks than actual death, IMO.


Quote:
Is inaction explicitly failure in the system, or if I stand back and let the skill player work is the group punished?


The purpose of skill challenges is that no one will simply stand back and watch the skill player any more, just like how the cleric no longer has to stand back and heal during combat. Everyone will probably have some way to contribute in a skill challenge.

This seems a little hinky to me, too... what I think Celebrim is getting at is that if one player has a really good skill, and there is no actual time pressure, why would the other players pitch in if they have a higher chance of a failed check? Why risk it? Just as a matter of math, you'd be better off letting the guy with 80% chance of success rack up the 6 successes you need once per round, rather than having guys with 50% chance of success "pitch in".

Maybe there are other mechanics working against this, or something else I'm missing?

 

[Propheous_D]

There are two things that also need to be considered when running skill challenges. The DM will really need to judge which skills are important and to what point. Also, the challenge does not resolve itself once you get X of Y. The challenge continues till the DM ties in the proper resolution.

Example:
PC's use 5 knowledge skills to determine the effect, outcome, origin, and abstract information about the situation. This allows them to pass a 5/4 skill challenge. However, the challenge is not over till the PC's do something. They are assured that success will happen, however they haven't done anything yet in game.

Example:

PC's determine that there is a dart trap using perception. They then perceive the origin of the dart trap using theivery to determine possible triggers, obervation to notice impact zones, and then dungeoneeering to determine best placement. This allows them to know pretty much everything about the trap and gives them the require successes to bypass the challenge. However, the rogue goes up and rolls abismally on the disarm roll. The outcome is success however the trap is still set off. The dm would then simply cover this by stating that the previous knowledge of all the other facters means that the trap went off but no one was in the line of fire.

This is an example of passive completion of a skill challenge that resulted in a win were normally a loss would result.

(sorry my spelling sucks)

 

[Delgar]

I guess my main question about these skill challenges is this...

If "failure" is dependent upon the number of failed checks, and you have one player who is a skill monkey type (thus a wider range of skills at higher proficiency) and another who isn't (more narrow base with lower proficiency) why wouldn't a party let the skill monkey make all the checks to lower the chance of failure? I'm just not seeing how this will stop the uber-skilled character from stealing the spotlight unless the players decide to go sub-optimal in their choice in approaching said trap.

I think you're looking at it from a 3.5 perspective. In 4E there are a lot less skills and peoples proficiency with skills will be much closer together, which is why this system works.

Plus each character is likely to have 1-4 skills that they are good at, and even still they can participate in the challenge by completing easy rolls with skills they are not good at, of course failure there has more of a punishment.

Also, I don't know if you can skip your turn or not, as I don't have the rules yet, but it's entirely possible that if you just skip your turn it counts as a failure, so your better off trying something than nothing.

 

[Crosswind]

Propheus - I assure you, Celebrim gets it. His issue is that he does not feel that the players, in the examples, do anything different than what they would have done in 3rd edition. He does not feel that Skill Challenges help DMs, help roleplaying, or add anything to the skill system.

I disagree, and will attempt to state why:

Celebrim, Skill Challenges allow module-designers to codify CR-appropriate non-combat challenges for groups to work together to solve in diverse and somewhat creative ways.

If you had a good DM, you were already doing this. But many, many people weren't. Skill Challenges are there to ease newer or crunchier DMs into the idea of setting up non-combat challenges of appropriate difficulty, with appropriate rewards.

-Cross

 

[Vaeron]

This seems a little hinky to me, too... what I think Celebrim is getting at is that if one player has a really good skill, and there is no actual time pressure, why would the other players pitch in if they have a higher chance of a failed check? Why risk it? Just as a matter of math, you'd be better off letting the guy with 80% chance of success rack up the 6 successes you need once per round, rather than having guys with 50% chance of success "pitch in".

Maybe there are other mechanics working against this, or something else I'm missing?

From what I saw, Skill challenges offer the option to "assist", where another character can add a bonus to another character's skill check. A successful assist might be along the lines of holding a wire out of the way so your primary bomb guy could clip the right one. Failure doesn't hurt, it just doesn't provide a bonus.

 

[Imaro]

I think you're looking at it from a 3.5 perspective. In 4E there are a lot less skills and peoples proficiency with skills will be much closer together, which is why this system works.

Plus each character is likely to have 1-4 skills that they are good at, and even still they can participate in the challenge by completing easy rolls with skills they are not good at, of course failure there has more of a punishment.

Also, I don't know if you can skip your turn or not, as I don't have the rules yet, but it's entirely possible that if you just skip your turn it counts as a failure, so your better off trying something than nothing.

No, I'm not looking at it from a "3.5 perspective"...I'm looking at it from a logical perspective. Even if a PC has a 10% greater chance (2 points higher than another) it still makes more sense to let him try to amass 4 successes at 70% than for me to try and get one or two at 60%...it's plain probability. He has a better chance of not amassing a failure than I do. That has nothing to do with 3.x, it's about math.

As to your second point...those skills won't necessarily apply to the situation so it is still possible a PC doesn't have a way to deal with the situation through his "good" skills. And it still does nothing to solve the question of why the highest ranked in appropriate skills shouldn't make all the rolls so that failure is minimized.

The last paragraph is (if true) a very heavy handed way of slapping a band-aid on the whole "spotlight on one character" problem they were trying to fix.

 

[Propheous_D]

Propheus - I assure you, Celebrim gets it. His issue is that he does not feel that the players, in the examples, do anything different than what they would have done in 3rd edition. He does not feel that Skill Challenges help DMs, help roleplaying, or add anything to the skill system.

I disagree, and will attempt to state why:

Celebrim, Skill Challenges allow module-designers to codify CR-appropriate non-combat challenges for groups to work together to solve in diverse and somewhat creative ways.

If you had a good DM, you were already doing this. But many, many people weren't. Skill Challenges are there to ease newer or crunchier DMs into the idea of setting up non-combat challenges of appropriate difficulty, with appropriate rewards.

-Cross

I pretty assume that much, but thought I would throw the other options in there. I agree with you on that. I mean its not about if this can be done in a different way, or if some specific DM's who consider themselves Elite were doing this. Its a Core functionality that should be in the game to help everyone. Not many DM's/Players have any experience outside their group and WoTC needs to take back what those Elite DM's are doing and make it accessible for everyone.