Why are skill challenges "broken"?

[Nail]

It's fair to say that you don't understand it, and ask for a "layman's explanation", but to dismiss it out of hand is outright foolish.

QFT.


Look, I know math can be intimidating. I teach it! But what's cool is realizing the math is showing you something useful. This is doing that: you are more likely to fail than succeed at Skill Challenges as RAW. (EDIT: And really, even a simple fix is better than nothing at all.)

 

[Kraydak]

Yes, and it is great that some are doing just that. My point is that providing a simple explanation to the DM's is what is needed. A post chock-full of jargon is just confusing to those not familiar with what the problem is to begin with. As a matter of fact, IMO, it is even more confusing and worse off than the "broken" system.

The math isn't trivial (college level statistics, and I could easily have made minor errors). Would the following addition be useful to you?

The question of the +5 to DC for skill checks is unrelated to skill challenges being broken as a system. 4e's skill challenge system can be thought of as having a target skill check successes to total skill check attempts ratio (in this case, 2/3). If you plot the probability of the outcome, as the number of skill checks increases (in 4e's case, the complexity of the challenge), the result is a spike at the most likely result, that becomes higher and narrower as the number of skill checks increases. Eventually (and it doesn't take long) the entire spike will be either above or below the targeted ratio, and you have virtually guaranteed success or failure at the challenge.

You can imagine managing to "balance" the probabilities so that the spike lies almost exactly on the target ratio. There are two (in reality identical) problems that makes this "solution" illusory. Firstly, as the number of checks increases, the width of the spike becomes narrower and so "balancing" the challenges becomes harder. Secondly, as the spike gets higher and narrower, the sides of the spike get steeper (what I referred to earlier as the gradient). This has the effect of magnifying small changes in the individual check DCs. Even very small DC modifications at the individual check level can move the spike substantially. This magnification of small modifications makes Skill Challenges very hard to use because the effect of small modifications becomes unpredictable: keeping the spike "balanced" in actual play is functionally impossible.

If you are having problems with the results of Skill Challenges being all over the place, it isn't your fault: the system is working against you. The fix to the above is to move to a system that takes into account the fact that the range that the total number of successes falls into scales differently than the average total number of successes (for example, you might go from 4 +/- 2 to 9 +/- 3).

 

[D'karr]

Way to ignore what is by far the most insightful post on this topic I've read to date.

Well, good for you. I'm glad it was helpful to you. Yes, I routinely ignore things that unnecessarily complicate things that under most circumstances can be easily described without the complication.

Thanks for your condescension though, it was greatly appreciated.

 

[Nail]

My reading of that footnote is that it applies only to standalone one-off skill uses and not the more complex challenges.

Interesting omission in your post there.

Ahem: What are those "challenges" called? Skill challenges. And to what sort of DCs does the footnote apply?......

 

[D'karr]

Okey dokey!

Here it is:

The Problem: Skill Challenges are more likely to fail than succeed at level-appropriate DCs. Paradoxically, they also get slightly *easier* if they are higher Complexity. This is RAW in the DMG. (You wanted "simple" so I'm omitting the math proof showing this is so.)

The Solution: Make the number of failures equal to the number of successes -- that is, 4 successes before 4 failures (instead of 2 failures). In addition, hand out +2 modifiers for "good role-playing/puzzle solving stuff". And finally, sometimes allow less skilled PCs to "aid another" the more skilled PCs. Do not allow this all the time.





That's it! Simple enough?

Yes, that was much more useful. Thanks.

 

[Stormtalon]

Interesting omission in your post there.

Ahem: What are those "challenges" called? Skill challenges. And to what sort of DCs does the footnote apply?......

Omission? Please. I was taught early on to avoid pointless repetition of words when they're not needed. I assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to skill challenges.

Additionally, I stand by my reading of it. See my more recent post above. It's nonsensical to increase the difficulty in two dimensions for skill challenges: i.e.: by both requiring 2X successes before X fails AND by increasing the DCs by 5 across the board.

 

[RabidBob]

This post, which seems to have gone unnoticed, is actually one of the most sophisticated and interesting things I've ever read on EnWorld.

Thanks for posting.

I'd like to second that, even though my maths knowledge was not quite up to the task and I had to read it a couple of times to grasp all that was being said!

 

[Spatula]

My reading of that footnote is that it applies only to standalone one-off skill uses and not the more complex challenges. The new Dungeon adventure Rescue at Rivenroar uses DCs that don't include the +5, so it seems to be the correct interpretation.

Except there are other WotC skill challenges that do include the +5, such as the KotS web excerpt (written by Bill Slaviseck, one of the primary 4e designers). I think getting rid of the +5 to skill DCs is probably the in-house short-term fix, adopted after people started talking about how the system as presented didn't match expectations. It's certainly not clear from the DMG itself that you shouldn't use skill DCs for skill challenges.

 

[Spatula]

It's nonsensical to increase the difficulty in two dimensions for skill challenges: i.e.: by both requiring 2X successes before X fails AND by increasing the DCs by 5 across the board.

You're not increasing the DCs, though. The table value +5 is the normal DC for skill checks. Heck, look up "skill check DC" in the DMG index.

 

[Aservan]

Thanks for your condescension though, it was greatly appreciated.

Dude in Starwed's defense you did get on a thread about why skill challenges are broken and then complained when Kraydak explained the math. Yes his posting style is a little dense, but he's right and that makes up for a lot.

The problem is this. They tried to make a sort of game within a game for skills. Much like combat works but they failed. I don't really blame them for this failure as most games completely dodge the issue. Avoiding the problem sort of works so they get away with it and call it "role playing."

I like role playing. Don't get me wrong. I also know that there is a human being doing the role playing. We all have the buddy who thinks he can play the charismatic talker. We all know he can't or he would be more charming in real life. His idea of picking up a girl starts with "Did it hurt?" or some such. He doesn't get why this doesn't work in life and the game is no different. Letting him roll to see if he can pull off his poor dialogue lets him have fun while the rest of us don't have to listen to him bumble through another conversation with the DM.

We also all have the pal who wants to role play absolutely every bit of minutia up to and including potty breaks while the party camps. BORING! Abstraction is good. Skill challenges are meant to let people have some drama in their games with out making them actually know how the thing the are simulating works. Whether the thing is climbing a cliff or talking to a woman.

I applaud the idea in 4th but I decry the execution. There is no game within a game. There is mention of how a player's skill can adjust the odds in his favor but precious little guidance on how to do that. I mean if it all relies on the DM's judgement then why even mention the system? We pay them to try and get this stuff right. Like the warlock they half assed this part of the game. I am sure they can make it better though.