Why are skill challenges "broken"?

[jtrowell]

In the new adventure path by WotC, there are several level 1 skill challenges, whose DC with primary skills are ~15, giving (I think) adequate success %

 

[Runestar]

if you adjust the DCs extremely carefully. When you calculate your own DCs, you need make sure to look for the sweet spot, where roleplaying bonuses and clever choices actually will be the things that can push the challenge as a whole from being 30%-50% chance of success into 70%-90% territory.

I honestly don't see the rationale behind giving ad-hoc "roleplaying bonuses". The point of skill checks is exactly that they represent how good or bad your PC is at whatever it is the check involved, regardless of how well or poorly the player fleshes this out. Adding a bonus on top of this seems to defeat the purpose!

Likewise, the DMG is not very exhaustive in this aspect. For example, if I require 8 success before 4 failures, what percentage of success per skill check should I be gunning for if I want a decent chance of success? I should not have to be adept in math to have to figure these all out.

 

[Schmoe]

Regardless of whether skill DCs can be adjusted to achieve a reasonable success rate, I thought that the discussion in the threads by Stalker0 were very interesting and raised some good points.

I mean, I think we've all (DMs, anyway) been doing something vaguely reminiscent of skill challenges, where one skill check leads to another, which leads to another, and most of us probably just eyeball DCs to come up with something that feels right. I know that's what I've been doing, anyway. Still, if you accept the medium DC as "average", it's clear that the more complex skill challenges become an exercise in futility. I like to know beforehand if I'm setting out to frustrate the party, but the DMG doesn't provide any guidelines in this area.

And it's counterintuitive that a more complex challenge with easy DCs actually has higher success rates, but there it is. I personally prefer intuitive frameworks.

I also thought it was especially astute to note that the skill challenge system penalizes players for action, thereby discouraging participation from any but the most skilled. I'd personally prefer something that encourages participation.

I really like that the DMG provided a more structured framework to make skill use an interesting, valuable part of the game. I don't like that the framework provides no guidelines on how to use it to achieve reasonable success rates, creates counterintuitive results, and discourages participation by some PCs. So, in my opinion, the skill challenge system as presented in the DMG is broken.

 

[eamon]

I honestly don't see the rationale behind giving ad-hoc "roleplaying bonuses". The point of skill checks is exactly that they represent how good or bad your PC is at whatever it is the check involved, regardless of how well or poorly the player fleshes this out. Adding a bonus on top of this seems to defeat the purpose!

Think of it like combat: you may be a great fighter, or you may be poor, but flanking and using smart tactics still matters. In other words, even if your execution may be based on your stats, you still need the right plan in the first place. Since we're playing a role-playing game, at some point the players get to decide the decisions of the characters, and those decisions represent the plan, whereas the character's stats represent the quality of the in-game performance.

 

[austinwulf]

I'm of two minds with the Skill challenges. On one hand, I like that they tried to put something in game that wasn't just "beat you with a stick"

On the other, a good deal of the skill challenges seem more "roleplay" oriented.

If you want your adventure to go on, you are going to let the players "succeed" in their challenge one way or the other.

I think a good example of skill use was seen in the DnD Day game. There were puzzles present. They players could have A. figured out the puzzle just by being good at puzzles. B. Gotten lucky C. made relevant skill checks to get puzzle hints, or D. upon being "beaten" by the puzzle, allowed entry due to circumstance, (in this case, a hobgoblin opening the secret door to grab a smoke)

I think I'd allow RP to completely substitute die rolls.

"I'm searching the room...I roll a 27" is fine, and keeps the game moving.

"I run my hands along the wall slowly, looking for a slight shift in the stones...I take off my helmet and undo my ponytail to help notice any air currents by the hair blowing in my face..." etc.

Its all preference...and the skills are there for a reason, so use them, but I'd much rather hear a character's well thought out (or well improvised) speech then just base things off a die roll. (though if the character doesn't have the proper skills or decent charisma, I might not let him try, unless he roleplays his terrible score )

 

[Insight]

Here's what I did when I didn't want to make huge changes to the RAW. I made the failure threshold higher than the success threshold. I set the failure threshold at 50% higher than successes. Thus, if you need 6 successes, your failure threshold would be 9.

That way, you can set the DCs at pretty much the listed values without giving the PCs a practically unwinnable situation.

 

[austinwulf]

You could also treat failures as "failing the roll by 5 or more"

So if the DC is 20, but you roll a 16, you can keep looking/talking/climbing, you just haven't made any head way.

 

[Tervin]

I honestly don't see the rationale behind giving ad-hoc "roleplaying bonuses". The point of skill checks is exactly that they represent how good or bad your PC is at whatever it is the check involved, regardless of how well or poorly the player fleshes this out. Adding a bonus on top of this seems to defeat the purpose!

Likewise, the DMG is not very exhaustive in this aspect. For example, if I require 8 success before 4 failures, what percentage of success per skill check should I be gunning for if I want a decent chance of success? I should not have to be adept in math to have to figure these all out.

True. The DMG is not really useful in this case. It tells you what a skill challenge is, then does not give you any really good advice on how to run it.

Using the "DM's best friend" bonus to reward players who roleplay well and make clever decisions is the only way that we have to make a skill challenge in any way depend on what the players actually do rather than how they roll their dice. It also motivates them to be inventive and help make the scene fun, and if you manage to find the right DC it will also be the way to make it reasonable that a more complex skill challenge gives a higher XP reward.

As for my "additional advice" to make the DMG version of skill challenges work, see this post.

 

[Aservan]

I think my biggest problem with the skill challenge system is that it's boring or a heck of a lot of work for the DM. If you treat it as a mechanical system where the goal is simply to roll well more often then you roll poorly then that sucks!

BORING. I didn't like roll playing when it was "The Way." I don't want it now either. The alternative is to do what Keith and the Designers (Mearls) suggest and make the challenges more dynamic where the skills involved are flashier and all that.

Well that makes for an interesting challenge but aren't we back to 3rd edition now? The DM spends 5 hours planning a skill challenge that the PCs pass or fail in 20 minutes. They need to make skill challenges more plug and play. We have a big book of monsters. While we don't need a big book of skill challenges they might have put more examples and the like in the DMG. Stuff like climbing the cliff with party in tow. If the PCs do X then give them bonus Y. If they are tard buckets then give them Z penalty. If the the noble is arrogant then a PC who is acting obsequious gets bonus Y. If he is arrogant and the PC acts arrogant then give Z penalty. That sort of stuff. Make the GMs job easier rather then:

"Well we messed up so only the halfling rogue with skill spec can actually succeed in theivery. Oh and it's boring whatever happens anyway, so you, DM, should do a bunch more work to make it all Ok. Ok? Good my work is done here."

By the way the Obsidian system is great but it still shifts a lot on the DM. But at least Stalker0 fixed the horrendous math and only One PC gets to play problems.

 

[amysrevenge]

You could also treat failures as "failing the roll by 5 or more"

So if the DC is 20, but you roll a 16, you can keep looking/talking/climbing, you just haven't made any head way.

I actually really like this one - these near-misses counting neither as successes nor failures. Gives that tiny bit more incentive to try things out...