Why are skill challenges "broken"?

[Kraydak]

The main problem with skill challenges in 4e is that the entire design is flawed:

Skill challenges, as described in the DMG, output the ratio of successes to failures and compares that ratio to an effective threshold. Unfortunately, this means that the result is being normalized to the range 0 (no successes) to 1 (all successes): the spread around the most likely result goes as 1/sqrt(N) where N is the number of rolls. For largish (and it doesn't take that large) N, then, you have either virtually guaranteed success, virtually guaranteed failure or almost exactly 50% success WITH extreme sensitivity to small modifiers (a +/-1 on the DCs might take you from 50% success to 10/90% success). The extreme sensitivity to small modifiers is the core of what kills 4e's skill challenges.

Now let us take a better system (Stalker0's Obsidian system might be an example of what follows, I'm too lazy to relook it up). In this system, we work on an additive rule: the system outputs the total number of successes. Further, the range we compare the system to varies as sqrt(N). In the Obsidian system, this would mean that you expect a partial successes, and the width of the partial success range (total success-failure success numbers=constant*sqrt(N). Stalker0, if this isn't the case, it should be). What does this get us? Mainly the fact that the probability gradient is independent of N: our sensitivity to small modifiers does not depend on N. Under such a system, IF you correctly center everything (most individual rolls succeed near 50%, the expected success totals gives you the desired outcome, modifiers on individual rolls are +/- 4ish or less on a d20), the final success/failure probabilities will behave reasonably, NOT depending wildly on N.

In short, NO system based on success/failure ratios will either do well over a large range of N, or behave well for even moderate N. A good system using many rolls will need to have a total number of successes margin of error that scales as sqrt(N), however they choose to implement it.

So, finally, we want a system where:
(1) target number of successes T scales linearly with N, with the skill challenge difficulty delta T (as opposed to individual check difficulty) being a modifier on T that also scales with sqrt(N).
(2) success/failure/partial success windows that (when measured in successes) scale with sqrt(N).
(3) individual check success probability averaging near 50%, and modifiers around that number small (which keeps us in the linear response regime).

 

[D'karr]

Snip Jargon

This is one of the reasons I prefer the existing "flawed" system to most explanations purported to "fix" it.

 

[DracoSuave]

Skill challenges might be a bit more doable if characters didn't keep optimizing themselves towards combat and actually took advantage of this part of the game.

In other words... stop shooting your own damn foot off and blaming the system.

 

[Gargoyle]

Skill challenges might be a bit more doable if characters didn't keep optimizing themselves towards combat and actually took advantage of this part of the game.

In other words... stop shooting your own damn foot off and blaming the system.

Skill challenges are the exception. They are the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. To turn this question around, why should characters have to optimize to succeed at a small part of the game (skill challenges) when their lives depend 95% or more of the time on combat?

They shouldn't. Saying the system is fine is ok, it's your opinion. IMO the players aren't to blame for skill challenges being too difficult. It's just a lack of playtesting in that area, or an assumption in the design that players should usually fail at skill challenges unless they gimp themselves in combat.

4e is kind of like a good looking girl with a couple of ugly moles...don't pretend they're beauty marks.

 

[two]

The main problem with skill challenges in 4e is that the entire design is flawed:

Skill challenges, as described in the DMG, output the ratio of successes to failures and compares that ratio to an effective threshold. Unfortunately, this means that the result is being normalized to the range 0 (no successes) to 1 (all successes): the spread around the most likely result goes as 1/sqrt(N) where N is the number of rolls. For largish (and it doesn't take that large) N, then, you have either virtually guaranteed success, virtually guaranteed failure or almost exactly 50% success WITH extreme sensitivity to small modifiers (a +/-1 on the DCs might take you from 50% success to 10/90% success). The extreme sensitivity to small modifiers is the core of what kills 4e's skill challenges.

Now let us take a better system (Stalker0's Obsidian system might be an example of what follows, I'm too lazy to relook it up). In this system, we work on an additive rule: the system outputs the total number of successes. Further, the range we compare the system to varies as sqrt(N). In the Obsidian system, this would mean that you expect a partial successes, and the width of the partial success range (total success-failure success numbers=constant*sqrt(N). Stalker0, if this isn't the case, it should be). What does this get us? Mainly the fact that the probability gradient is independent of N: our sensitivity to small modifiers does not depend on N. Under such a system, IF you correctly center everything (most individual rolls succeed near 50%, the expected success totals gives you the desired outcome, modifiers on individual rolls are +/- 4ish or less on a d20), the final success/failure probabilities will behave reasonably, NOT depending wildly on N.

In short, NO system based on success/failure ratios will either do well over a large range of N, or behave well for even moderate N. A good system using many rolls will need to have a total number of successes margin of error that scales as sqrt(N), however they choose to implement it.

So, finally, we want a system where:
(1) target number of successes T scales linearly with N, with the skill challenge difficulty delta T (as opposed to individual check difficulty) being a modifier on T that also scales with sqrt(N).
(2) success/failure/partial success windows that (when measured in successes) scale with sqrt(N).
(3) individual check success probability averaging near 50%, and modifiers around that number small (which keeps us in the linear response regime).

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.

 

[Sanzuo]

After running the first session of my first 'real' 4e campaign I would have to say I dislike skill challenges strongly.

For the first session I set up two skill challenges the players would run into, and a third that they might run into. They were of varying complexities. What we experienced at first was the beginnings of an intriguing non-combat set of skill checks that soon degenerated into a monotonous series of rerolls and retries. The players were very aware that suddenly they were in a skill challenge.

I would later be told that the session I ran totally rocked EXCEPT for the moments when I called for skill challenges. My players informed me that the pace of the game crashed as soon as I called out for skill checks. I tried my best to make the challenges fit seamlessly within the game, but it was hard when I had to say; "Okay, now make ANOTHER check..."

It's worth mentioning that the party failed all three skill challenges I had set up for that session. I did plan contingencies for that scenario so that the game wouldn't simply stop, but nonetheless we all felt somewhat dejected and I got the impression that the players felt "whelp, our party fails at adventuring." And since the game started dragging itself after the failed skill challenges, I worked in the one main "success scenario" I had lined up to perk things up and move the plot along.

You can argue about the math behind skill challenges all day, and whether or not the system is broken still doesn't address my big gripe with the system in the first place.

My gripe is no matter how it's played; a skill challenged just feels like an interruption in the flow of the game, and not in an exciting way like combat.

In past games we have always resolved non-combat scenarios simply through role-playing. A DM presents a scenario and the players say how they'll react - as simple as that. If the player describes an action that sounds difficult or carries a risk ask for an appropriate skill check. These situations are the part of the game that's intended to be played out based on the characters appropriate responses - and in my opinion that's where you get to learn about the characters personalities.

Adding a mechanical dice system to these scenarios in the first place is just stupid - it interrupts the flow of the game, makes role-playing pointless (taking all the personality out of the characters and the game), and takes CONTROL away from the players entirely. Combat is violent and chaotic, negotiation, investigation and social interaction shouldn't be.

Skill challenges suck.

 

[Stormtalon]

I tossed in my first Skill Challenge (Complexity 3, I think: 6/3) this past weekend and it went pretty smoothly. I went with what seems to be the prevailing opinion (and which is reflected in the new Dungeon adventure) and ignored the +5 footnote.

I did treat it like combat with initiative and strict order to keep the flow in line with player expectations for an encounter; I think it helped keep tension throughout the encounter, as well. I also told the players to think of what was happening as Social Combat (it mostly consisted of Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy checks) and encouraged them to actually come up with what their character was doing/saying as it progressed.

Now, I don't think they're going to be something that I'll use a lot, but from time to time they make for a great change of pace.

 

[Sanzuo]

...and ignored the +5 footnote.

That's a pretty big modification. You essentially knocked the difficulty DCs of all the checks down a level. Had I done the same, I'm pretty sure with what my players were rolling they would have PASSED all the skill challenges instead of failing all of them.

 

[Stormtalon]

That's a pretty big modification. You essentially knocked the difficulty DCs of all the checks down a level. Had I done the same, I'm pretty sure with what my players were rolling they would have PASSED all the skill challenges instead of failing all of them.

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. Here's the thread and post I'm talking about.

 

[Sanzuo]

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. Here's the thread and post I'm talking about.

Interesting. It seems I've interpreted it differently. "For skill checks: Increase DCs by 5" says to me that it applies to all skill checks. Or rather; I haven't read anything that says this is NOT the case for skill challenges.

If it's as you say, I think it's poor form not to indicate it as such clearly and concisely in the basic rules. I've never played or run any pre-made adventures/modules so I don't generally use these as dogma in my own campaigns.