Two Example Skill Challenges

[Lacyon]

And my answer would be, "How could I know? I'm not a thief, my character is, an expert one, too. HE should know what to do."
Actually, I'm not even sure what do you mean with that.

Do you want to jam a spike into the floor to keep the walls from crushing in? Do start examining the trap itself for a weakness?

If all you want to do is say "I disable the trap" and get by with that, the skill challenge system is probably not for you.

And this would mean that the players will *never* use the most logical skill as first thing in any skill challenge.

Of course they would. It counts at least as much as any other skill.

"OK, the challenge is to open this door so first i'll make a perception, check, followed by an history check and then a knowledge dungeonering check"
"why not a thievery check?"
"What would be the point to do that?"

The point of that would be to begin disabling the trap. Of course, if you'd prefer to make a history check, or a dungeoneering check, or a perception check instead, that's fine. Just describe what you're doing instead of saying "I roll X".

Extreme and silly example, I know, but do you see the problem? The situation become forced and counter-intuitive, it could be fun the first time, by the third player had developed a routine, first perception check, it is an easy free success (because, come on where perception would not apply?)

Perception would not apply whenever it's inappropriate. Attempting to use perception in Escape from Sembia, for example, would take some explanation rather than just "I roll perception".

then it depend on the situation, but history is another good "jolly" skill, or insight, then use the higher skills you have that have a modicum of sense in the situation, then, only as last resort, or to formally conclude the challenge the skill that actually would make sense to use.

Indeed. You are expected to use the skills your character is good at in resolving a skill challenge. Feature. Not all of them will always be applicable to the current skill challenge without some major creativity. Also feature.

These are situations where skill challenges don't work well, skill Challenges are for situations where there are multiple skills that can possibly be used, but with traps or locked doors 99 times out of 100 there is one skill that make sense to use.

While there are instances where skill challenges are inappropriate (such as simple locked doors), the crushing walls trap is a fine place for a skill challenge - nobody says you need to disarm the trap, you just have to get out of the room without dying. That being the case, Thievery is only one of many possible ways to resolve the situation and manifestly not "the one skill that makes sense to use".

 

[LostSoul]

What I absolutely hate about skill challenges, is many of the skill challenges can be overcome without any uses of skills whatsoever.

In the crushing wall trap example, no doubt one of my players would say something like "I cast my wall of iron utility spell to brace the walls and stop their movement."

How would this not be an autosuccess? How would this not be stealing the spotlight away from the other players and the skill challenge in general?

I think this is a good question. If it's not addressed in the game - how powers interact with skill challenges - I think the system will be a failure.

 

[Imaro]

Just another quick comment, and I don't know if this has been addressed yet...but I get the impression that these skill challenges will end up promoting a repetitive style of handling challenges, where each character uses their highest skills (creating a reason for this particular skill to apply) in descending order...over & over again in each challenge. Has this issue been addressed?

 

[RigaMortus2]

In this case the encounter was:

Overwhelming force of orcs. Wave after wave will just keep coming till your dead or escape.

I personally like it, but I am going to play devil's advocate for a moment. Does this seems a bit video gamey (yeah yeah, I went there). I mean really though. The orcs just keep coming? Where are they coming from? Is it really an infinite army of orcs chasing them down? Do they have a spawn? How fast are they respawning, every 2 seconds?

 

[Hussar]

Awesome. This way you can continually thwart your players' good ideas just to adhere to an artificial DMG mechanic? It's like railroading, but with even less point - instead of BSing events so that the players go along with the plot you have created, you're BSing events so that they can keep rolling skill checks until they have X out of Y done. Just fantastic.

In all seriousness, I don't think that anybody involved thinks the above is a good idea.

That said, the ability to resolve skill challenges without using skills is a pretty compelling reason for the skill challenge framework to be discarded as silly. I'm pretty much with Celebrim here - it's acceptable, to help mediocre DMs model abstract situations, but I don't think it's anything that a good DM needs.

-Cross

This has always been an issue really. I think the point would be, don't use that skill challenge when you know your group can bypass it so easily. For the same reason you don't use simple murder mysteries in 3e when you have a 15th level party. You can do murder mysteries at that level, it's just that you have to involve a WHOLE LOT more stuff. A 3rd level murder mystery looks like CSI. A 15th level murder mystery involves planar travelling assassins and probably demonic rituals to keep the victim dead.

This likely won't change in 4e. If the party can teleport (for example) then trash compactor style traps are not a big deal. You obviously have to match the challenge to the level of the party. That won't change.

--------------

Something I've always been interested in running in D&D is a naval style campaign. I tried for a couple of years actually. Used a number of different supplements to try to run ship to ship combat, and, to be honest, none of them really worked for me.

And I realize why now. The mechanics of ship to ship combat, which can take hours, or even days, in game to resolve are boring. They are just TOO SLOW and the players, by and large are sidelined for most of it. You have the pilot making skill checks, you have the crew making skill checks and the rest of the players sit around twiddling their thumbs.

A skill challenge though. Now that might actually be a better way to handle it. Cut down on the time and die rolling, more cinematic, success=catching the bad guy's ship, failure=ship escapes. Not entirely sure just yet how to involve more of the players. That's a problem I haven't quite worked out, but, it could be a much easier and more satisfying way to handle the situation.

 

[RigaMortus2]

So beeing overly critical because the scenarios do not "match" a mechanic that nobody has actually seen, does seem like excessive nitpicking.

And what do you call creating a hypothetical example of what a skill challenge MIGHT look like w/o seeing those same mechanics (which nobody has seen)? Wishful thinking?

 

[hbarsquared]

Here's the philosophy, I think -

Outside a "skill challenge" you can make single checks and rolls. You come to a locked door in a dungeon, the rogue moves up and unlocks it. Bam, Thievery check, no problem.

However, a "skill challenge" is specifically a challenge designed to engage all the characters. Your group will get XP for the encounter, and just as much thought and preparation should go into it on the DMs part as does a normal combat. The rogue does not get XP for unlocking the door above, but will get XP if he uses the Thievery skill in a "challenge."

With that said...

Given a complex "trap" as a skill challenge, like the example given by the OP: a crushing wall with a locked door.

When the rogue makes a Thievery check, he does so not to unlock the door, but to make progress in unlocking the door. Perhaps a successful check results in one or two of the tumblers falling into place, but not all. Or it means that he has positioned his tools within the lock perfectly. A success means that the rogue has made progress, and you need multiple successes in order to complete the whole challenge.

Now, granted, I agree that the "crushing wall and locked door" challenge isn't the best of examples. However, how about this...

Indiana Jones Style
Short Round steps on the button, Indiana can't make it to the closing door in time, and Willie is inside the room instead.

You have a crushing ceiling, with spikes. Spikes rise up from the floor. Must find the lever to disable the trap and unlock the door.

PC 1: I use Thievery to disable the trap!

DM: How? All you see is the spikes in the ceiling above you. From your point of view, there's nothing to disable.

PC 1: Uh, crap. How about I use Thievery to unlock the door!

DM: How? There is no lock. The door slid completely shut.

PC 1: Uh, crap. Uh, I use Perception.

DM: To do what?

PC 1: Um... I'm looking for any cracks in the wall or the door, hoping to find a lock, a handle, a lever, something as a failsafe to disable the trap from the inside. *rolls* Fails

DM: (1 failure) Okay. You look around, wild-eyed, and see nothing.

PC 2: Um... I try to stall for time. I pick up a skull and try to cram it in the corner of the wall and the ceiling.

DM: Okay. The ceiling is still pretty high, so... roll an Acrobatics check.

PC 2: *rolls* Succeeds

DM: (1/5 success, 1/3 failure) Great! You jump into the corner, rotting skull in hand, and wedge it into the corner. The ceiling is still descending, but slightly slower as the skull screeches against the wall.

PC 3: I use Perception, looking for the same things PC1 did. *rolls* Succeeds

DM: (2/5 successes, 1/3 failure) Amazing! You find one hidden nook, obscured by cobwebs and vegetation. You have time to make another check, with a +2.

PC 3: Woohoo! Well, my thievery is really no good, I can't do much about it. How about I try Dungeoneering to figure out how to disable it. *rolls* Succeeds

DM (3/5 successes, 1/3 failure) All right, from some reports back from various other adventurers you've overheard that have visited similar ruins, you know that there should be a lever of some kind in the nook to disable the trap. *pauses* Everyone roll an Acrobatics check.

PCs: ??? WHY?

DM: Spikes just rose from the ground.

*roll* *roll* *roll*

DM: PCs 2 and 3, you manage to avoid the spikes. PC 1, take 1d4+2 damage.

PC 1: Aw, crap.

DM: You're up.

PC 1: Finally! NOW can I use Thievery?

DM: Sure.

PC 1: I head over to the nook, avoiding the spikes, and try to find this lever. *rolls* Succeeds YES!

DM: (4/5 successes, 1/3 failure) As the ceiling descends, the spikes are getting closer and closer, each of you needing to maneuver around both those from the ceiling and the floor. PC 1 manages to reach his arm through, and yank the lever. The ceiling stops, but does not reverse.

PC 2: Okay. I roll a History check to figure out if I know of similar dungeons that might have an escape hatch, or a way to open the door from the inside. *rolls* Failure

DM: (4/5 successes, 2/3 failures) (Knowing that the party needs either 5 successes or 3 failures, the next roll will determine success or not.) As you think for a moment, the ceiling begins descending again. You took too long! In just a moment all of you will be crushed to a pulp. Only PC3 has time to act.

PC3: Ohmygodohmygod. Uh, uh.... I roll History for the same thing! *rolls* Succeeds

DM: (5/5 successes, 2/3 failures) You recall that the lever only needs to be pushed further in, past the first click that stopped the ceiling in the first place.

PC3: Push the lever in! Hurry!

PC1: I shove in the lever!

DM: Congratulations! The spikes recede, the ceiling raises, and the door rolls open to reveal the passage beyond.

PCs: *sigh*
​

Now, (1) I agree that setting up a skill challenge where a TPK is a possible outcome is not a good idea. In combat, that's fine: you have tens to hundreds of rolls going on. In a skill challenge, rarely more than ten. Total failure in a Skill Challenge should have penalties, but not outright death of the party.

And, (2) the above example is how Thievery does not automatically "win." Perhaps, first, before even trying Thievery, you have to find out what actually need to disable in the room: not all traps have an obvious control panel. Dungeoneering, History, Perception all help this. Also, perhaps disabling the device only gets you halfway there. Perhaps there is more to disable? A second trick, a second panel? Who knows? You need more checks to find out.

The Skill Challenge system, in many ways, promotes creativity. If a character "solves" the skill challenge on the first roll, and you as a DM know they really should have four more successes, make something up! Then leave the players to come up with more solutions. Because they will. And the trap/challenge/whatever will be far more gratifying in the end because the DM decided to make it more difficult than a single roll.

 

[3 Man]

Jeremy

Great post! Thank you. I need to go work on my campaign now...

 

[Hussar]

Ok, Jeremy, what would you do in the case of a third failure in your example?

Note, there is something to remember here. 3e did give xp for some skill checks. Notably disable device checks. However, you got xp as long as you survived, so, pass/fail didn't really matter (unless, of course, you died, and, even then, the rest of the party still got xp). So, right off the bat, we have a system that is spreading the loving around to other skills and other players.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose my players decided that the best use of thier time was making 'Conan the Barbarian' style preparations for the battle - fortifactions, stakes, weapon caches, etc. I've had players or been in groups that would get heavily into that sort of thing. When the battle comes am I going to tell them that there work and planning has no presence or role in the battle and that the results of the battle have no logical connection to the preparation that they made? Players IME do things because they want to produce a particular outcome.

If the players describe this activity before the dice are rolled, then yes, they are playinig 1st ed AD&D-style simulationism. If they describe this activity after the dice are rolled (and shield a success on "siege tactics" skill or whatever is the relevant skill) then it fits with a narrativist, skill challenge approach.

Instead, they look more like simulationist gaming than not

That probably depends on whether the description of activity comes before or after the dice are rolled.

I'm arguing that that is actually better for most peoples games than this novel subsystem you are a proponent of

Maybe. As I think some of your ruminations on perception checks have illustrated, there can be a degree of tension (not necessarily, but potentially, reaching the level of incoherence) when a game's action resolution mechanics try to combine dice-based skill checks and drama-based (AD&D-style) action resolution. The skill challenge mechanic seems to be an attempt to resolve this tension in the direction of a dice-based system rather than a drama (and, therefore and necessarily, player knowledge and GM-persuasion-based) system. That is, succeeding on the dice roll gives the player permission to introduce a certain description into the game (such as making the Conan-style fortifications and other preparations).

most people seem to be avoiding the potential pitfalls by defining 'skill challenge' in a very loose manner and fudging as necessary.

<snip>

It's going to be interesting to see how the real system works in its write up and what it says, because I've seen alot of claims about the new system by fans - many of them contridictory.

I'll also be interested to see it. I am assuming that it will look more like HeroWars than like AD&D, RQ or 3E.

And just out of interest - I gather that you are not arguing that HeroWars is impossible to play well, but just that it is at odds with the standard D&D way of doing things? If so, I agree with you, as the paragraphs above hopefully demonstrate.

But unlike you I think that this is a good way for D&D to go. I think it has the potential to increase the appeal of D&D as a game- ie success on dice rolls triggers certain permissions for the players. In the more simulationist approach, success on dice rolls or drama at best imposes certain prohibitions on the GM (ie the GM must take account of the fact that my tactics roll was a success, or that I have carefully described my siege preparateions). This dominant role for one player is a little counterintuitive for someone new to RPGing, I suspect.