Xorn said:
Three rounds. This is up to you as the DM, when you design the challenge.
No, it isn't. That's precisely my point.
This is a gross simplification, but suppose this is my design:
Skill Challenge: 'Escape Crushing Room'
Stakes: 5 success/5 failure
Narrative: The walls are slowly closing and will crush the PCs.
On Success: Escape room.
On Failure: Crushed to jelly.
First of all, we are advised not to design skill challenges this way were failure indicates death. Yet, the OP instinctually designed not one but two. So that's one indication of how difficult this is going to be for DMs to get adjusted to. But that's only a minor point. There is in my opinion a bigger problem.
Suppose that the players make no skill checks? No failures, and hense, the walls never close. Good safe place to take a long rest if you ask me.
Ok, you say, 'obviously' not doing something is the same as failure.
No, it isn't.
How long do the walls take to close? It's not a trivial question. Let's suppose that the first thing any party trapped in the room says is, "I use my dungeoneering skill to estimate how long before the walls come together?" How do you as a DM respond? What is the answer to this question.
Suppose one player is trapped in the room. The walls never close in fewer than five rounds. Suppose six players are trapped in the room. Then there is a finite chance that they'll close before the sixth player even gets a chance to act.
Suppose you answer 'obviously' they close in X rounds. Well, then a party could concievably do something (cast healing spells) or just do nothing for X-2 rounds, then solve the challenge entirely in round X-1. In delaying so, they are no worse off than they would have been had they done something useful, and in fact there is a finite chance that by doing nothing they are in fact better off. The party that did something could have already accumulated thier 5 failures and be looking forward to the inevitable big squeeze.
If the walls really close after 3 rounds, then what you really mean isn't any finite absolute number like '5 success/5 failures'. What you really mean is, 'The walls close after everyone gets 3 chances to contribute, whether they succeed or fail'. After all, my pushing against the wall and failing shouldn't make it move faster. If instead of saying '5 success/5 failures' you say, 'Everyone gets 3 chances to contribute', then inaction is the same as failure. But under the standard skill challenge system, inaction isn't the same of failure or if it is, there is a 'special relativity' concept of time in skill challenges where by the length of time an action takes depends on such things as how many people are in the challenge and how many failures are accumulated along the way. That is to say, for example, the more failures you have the more actions you are allowed to take in a round. Although really, we must admit that such simulationist notions of rounds have no place in a skill challenge as described.
If the player always defaults to "I use Insight." Then you say, "You use Insight to do what, exactly?" When my characters in 3.x say, "I'll search." I ask them what they are searching.
This represents no change from what we have now.
Diplomacy - Instant failure, not a feasible use.
Nature - Interesting enough, but the challenge is the barrier, not the orcs. The orcs are the incentive to overcome the barrier. Still, I'd allow that to impact the fight with the orcs for a round.
Climb - Sure. If the barrier is passable by climbing--I'd count that as feasible, and it could include securing a grapple/rope for the rest of the party (less climbing inclined) to use.
But if the DM exercises his judgement in this fashion, then perforce he is going to exclude players from the skill challenge who aren't trained in the skills the DM feels are reasonable and relevant. So then we are back to everyone watching the trained character do the work, and we have not in fact achieved the goal skill challenges were supposed to achieve of getting everyone involved.
Again, the approach of 'DM exercises his judged to determine what skills are relevant to solving the problem' is what we have now in 3.X (and prior) editions. Where is the chorus of 4e fans decrying your insistance on 'pixel bitching'? Surely the 'skill challenge' system escaped that danger? :smirk:
I had a party trying to climb over a wooden fort wall (20 feet high) with grapple after a patrol passed by. They had to make a perception to time when to go, the grapple throwers had to make climb checks to scale the wall, and I called for a stealth check to find a hiding place before the patrol passed again. Technically it was a skill challenge--and I only made one person roll perception, two climb checks (two grapples), and one stealth check. Apparently I wanted 4 successes.
'Apparantly' I've been running 4e skill challenges since 1984 (at least). So for that matter have most of us.
