D&D 4E What Doesn't 4E Do Well?

[Nifft]

As for KD's et al issues with SCs there are 2 things to note. First exactly how would you create an SC mechanic that magically meshes better with the flow of the game? We're all waiting to hear. ANY mechanical system is going to be something that starts and ends at some point. Its going to have exactly the same issues regardless of how you structure the mechanics. No amount of tweaking with the rules is going to hand to the DM a way to magically have it just work all the time.

The other social conflict system that I use regularly is Exalted 2e's "Social Combat" rules. They're just as intrusive as a Skill Challenge.

I frequently use their metrics (Dodge/Parry MDV, etc.) even when the PCs and NPCs are being polite, and not trying to talk over each other -- if they try to talk over each other, or otherwise become less than polite, it's time to roll Join Debate & and use the formal Social Combat system.

So yeah -- even the best social conflict resolution system I've seen in regular play has this same intrusiveness issue. It would be sweet if there were a system that didn't, but I don't expect such a thing actually exists yet.

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

As for KD's et al issues with SCs there are 2 things to note. First exactly how would you create an SC mechanic that magically meshes better with the flow of the game? We're all waiting to hear. ANY mechanical system is going to be something that starts and ends at some point. Its going to have exactly the same issues regardless of how you structure the mechanics. No amount of tweaking with the rules is going to hand to the DM a way to magically have it just work all the time.

Just because there are no perfect systems does not mean that there are no better systems.

It's not that hard for the players and DM to roleplay a conversation with an occasional "role diplomacy for me" by the DM. Does it break up the flow? Yup, a bit. But nowhere near as much as the formalized skill challenge system.

The nice thing about just roleplaying it out with an occasional roll is that this is what people have used for years. Having skill challenges doesn't have to be "an encounter with formalized turns", that's just some designers idea that from my perspective, sounds better on paper than in practice.

When talking roleplaying, it's boring to sit and wait your turn to speak. Can players get out of hand and talk over each other? Sure. It depends on how mature your players are. A simple "Fred, could you let Wilma speak?" by the DM is typically enough to handle any issues.

But the thing that skill challenges lose, IMO, is the spontaneity of roleplaying. The ability to just say whatever comes to mind without a formalized system of "wait your turn". zzzzzzzzzzzz

The DM is still in control. If one player tries to run roughshod over the situation, the DM should still ask for input from other players.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Just because there are no perfect systems does not mean that there are no better systems.

It's not that hard for the players and DM to roleplay a conversation with an occasional "role diplomacy for me" by the DM. Does it break up the flow? Yup, a bit. But nowhere near as much as the formalized skill challenge system.

The nice thing about just roleplaying it out with an occasional roll is that this is what people have used for years. Having skill challenges doesn't have to be "an encounter with formalized turns", that's just some designers idea that from my perspective, sounds better on paper than in practice.

When talking roleplaying, it's boring to sit and wait your turn to speak. Can players get out of hand and talk over each other? Sure. It depends on how mature your players are. A simple "Fred, could you let Wilma speak?" by the DM is typically enough to handle any issues.

But the thing that skill challenges lose, IMO, is the spontaneity of roleplaying. The ability to just say whatever comes to mind without a formalized system of "wait your turn". zzzzzzzzzzzz

The DM is still in control. If one player tries to run roughshod over the situation, the DM should still ask for input from other players.

Skill challenges don't have to break up the flow.

If you're running a social SC and the rogue has been hogging the spotlight, ask Joe the Fighter what he's doing. Nothing is forcing you to say, "Your turn Joe". Rather, say to Joe, "And what say you, Sir Knight?".

I can make "roleplaying" a scene pretty flat and boring too.
"You see a guard and it doesn't look like he'll let you pass."
"I try to get the guard to let me pass."
"The guard says he'll let you pass if you pay him a bribe."
"Okay, I pay him a bribe."
"The guard lets you pass."

Though I can imagine uninteresting RP scenes, it does not follow that all RP is uninteresting. Similarly, while SCs can be uninteresting and disruptive, certainly not all are. IMO, the result depends far more on those involved than upon the base framework, much as with roleplaying itself.

 

[KarinsDad]

Skill challenges don't have to break up the flow.

If you're running a social SC and the rogue has been hogging the spotlight, ask Joe the Fighter what he's doing. Nothing is forcing you to say, "Your turn Joe". Rather, say to Joe, "And what say you, Sir Knight?".

You do understand that there are actually turns in a Skill Challenge, correct?

Hogging the spotlight is not the issue because each player waits his turn.

If you are not doing turns, then you are not doing a Skill Challenge as per the rules.

If you are doing turns, then yes, you are breaking up the flow. You could be having a great conversation between the Paladin and the Cleric and the Mayor and on the Wizard's turn, the conversation stops as he does a History check and is forced to contribute to the roleplaying or is forced to minimally roll the dice and try to figure something out. What if on his turn he wants to do his History check, but doesn't want to relate that information in front of the Mayor? You just broke the flow in order to supply History information to the player of the Wizard.

By definition, skill challenges break the flow because they force the flow into a linear turn by turn encounter. Those players who want to speak are forced to wait their turn and those players who want to sit back and watch are forced to take their turn. And, everyone is forced to roll dice.

How can you not consider these types of rules artificial and contrived, as opposed to naturally flowing and spontaneous? It changes roleplaying to rollplaying.

Rules on roleplaying in general do not work. The very concept of roleplaying isn't to roll dice, it's to interact in real time. Dice rolls should only be involved when the DM decides that the outcome of the result should be random as opposed to just specified by the DM.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You do understand that there are actually turns in a Skill Challenge, correct?

I'm aware.

I assume you are aware that speaking is a free action and therefore can be performed even when it isn't your turn?

So what did you do when, before the advent of skill challenges, the mayor said something and the Wizard turned to you and said, "Sounds like BS. Can I get a History check to verify what he just said about the Miner Rebellion?" Didn't that break the flow of roleplaying just as much? When you were playing 3e did a player never interrupt dialogue to declare that he wanted to roll a Sense Motive regarding an NPC's statement? Those checks disrupt the flow of roleplaying and yet are, in my experience, a necessary part of the game (and were around long before SCs ever made the scene).

When I run skill challenges, I don't approach them from an artificial standpoint. I let players speak as they will. The checks will often flow naturally from the dialogue. Every now and then I'll call for a check, keeping the action flowing around the table by prodding players who haven't said much with an either in or out of character "what are you doing?"

I should also mention that I don't use the base SC mechanic for scenarios where I feel spreading the action around would engender an artificial atmosphere. That means that I usually don't use it for conversations, unless the conversation is something I believe the entire party is passionate about (such as negotiations with an NPC the entire group detests).

Not everything needs to (or even should) be a skill challenge. There are plenty of situations where one or more skill checks (or even none) outside the framework are just as good or better. SCs are intended for when the entire team is forced to work together (escaping a heist with the city watch on their heels) or they will want to work together (the aforementioned negotiation with a hated NPC).

 

[KarinsDad]

When I run skill challenges, I don't approach them from an artificial standpoint. I let players speak as they will. The checks will often flow naturally from the dialogue. Every now and then I'll call for a check, keeping the action flowing around the table by prodding players who haven't said much with an either in or out of character "what are you doing?"

Precisely. And that's why the DMG 2 example is better than the DMG example.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Fanaelialae precisely, and well explained. The SC system is just a set of mechanics and guidelines for keeping a tally of the progress of the PCs through certain types of situations where success or failure is a useful thing to gauge and the party can be engaged in a conflict.

KD, try doing it that way. If you read the rules in the DMG with the errata applied there actually is no mention of 'turns' in an SC at all. Yes, you want to engage all the players and its much better to not let things devolve down to one guy rolling his top skill over and over, but that is a lot more an issue of SC design than anything else. An SC simply shouldn't allow for that kind of easy solution unless that happens to be the way you want a particular challenge to play out.

Ideally from the player's perspective an SC should be just roleplay. There really isn't a need to make it seem special or different from your 'classical' vision of an RP sequence. I agree that the DMG section on SCs didn't do a particularly good job of explaining that and the DMG2 DOES help a good bit. I think even DMG2 misses in some respects though. Reading through all of Mike Mearls' columns on running SCs is more informative. Obviously the people over at WotC have spent a lot of time running them and they're getting pretty good at it. So am I for that matter.

Again, its not the SC system that is the problem in general. It CAN rope you into a poor way of thinking about a particular situation and that's not good, but if you're flexible in the way you approach SC they do work. It can be hard to learn how to do it well, a lot harder than running combat, but the system isn't a bad or broken system, its just a pretty tricky DMing skill to learn regardless of the specific mechanics.

 

[Taralan]

Star Wars Skill chanllenges

While I agree that skill challenge are very tricky to execute properly and have a high risk to break the immersion of a scene (especially in social skill challenges), everyone, including Wizard of the coast, is slowly learning how to make them work.

DM2 is much better than DM1 in that regard, and in fact, the recent Galaxy of Intrigue supplement for Star wars introduce a new formulation of skill challenge that is again vastly superior to DM2... it should make its way to D&D sooner or later, likely in DM3, but meanwhile, I encourage you to check it out... its fully compatible with the D&D skill challenge system ...

Its still a little too formualistic for my taste, but we are getting there... I think the most important advice given (and explained in a nice example) is too keep the situation constantly evolving , otherwise skill challenge become stale...

 

[Jhaelen]

I recall at least two feats and power (search the compendium for "skill challenge") that modify skill challenges, so the players need to know it is a skill challenge. The party also needs to know for "assisting" with the success, though that could be worked in other ways, I suppose.

Really? What feats are these (and what's their source)?

I never announce skill challenges and don't use the rigid structure as detailed in the DMG and I believe they work better that way.

 

[Garthanos]

Holy Speech and Gnoll tracker

Neither looks like the player needs to have a big "skill challenge" sign held up... However on the first the DM needs to remember to grant the character an extra success the first use of his Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate (presumedly via the feat and use of supernal). I think it is necessary to let the player know that he is getting further down the ladder to success a because of the feat... I suppose we can do that without presenting it in a mechanistic way.

The second relates to scent tracking and is useful for some perception checks out of a skill challenge or in if the DM allows that scent is beneficial in this instance.