Why I like skill challenges as a noncombat resolution mechanic

[Frostmarrow]

The third dimension is the choice of gear. You buy it, you plan for it, you find it; you can waste it on a single attempt or improve upon it. A mithril shovel is nice treasure if it allows you to excavate 1d10 points of dirt.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Obviously this is the guts of it. It's a GMing skill that needs to be cultivated - not unlike knowing how to play multiple monsters well in a complex combat.

D&D (including 4e) has extremeley poor advice for this, unfortunately - it tells you to do it, but doesn't give any techniques. I tend to find the best advice is in the games I mentioned upthread (especially Burning Wheel). There is also good stuff on about every second thread at The Forge.

I think this is one of those cases where the original 4E tried to have it both ways, in an area where you can't. Namely, they wanted to have a mechanic that leaned towards hard-edge framing and pushing of the scene, but one that could also be used as a loose structure to narrate how the PCs eventually get what they want. Or rather, the mechanics only make sense in terms of the hard-edged push, but the advice is all of the "make it work out" type.

It would have been far better to include two separate, disparate systems, with those two goals, than to have tried to blend them, IMHO. I really don't want to play "Robin Laws runs Burning Wheel."

 

[Herschel]

I find skill challenges work great so long as I don't let the structure get in my way. In other words, I have an end goal in mind. However the party gets there works, whether they schmooze or diplomacize or sneak or bully their way to that end. I let their actions determine where the skill rolls should be (and what skills be used). It's still within teh framework, just the guts are not as defined.

 

[delericho]

The third dimension is the choice of gear. You buy it, you plan for it, you find it; you can waste it on a single attempt or improve upon it. A mithril shovel is nice treasure if it allows you to excavate 1d10 points of dirt.

I'm afraid you need more to it than that. Otherwise, your "construction" challenge boils down to nothing more than "I dig with my shovel. 6 damage." every round - that's dull when it's the Fighter in combat; it's dull here.

What's needed is scope for different strategies and tactics to come into play - perhaps by spending time doing proper surveying work, the group then gets a boost to all their 'damage' checks later. Or by applying pressure to the duke's family loyalty, they find it easier to sway him than if they try to invoke an honour he doesn't care for. Or whatever.

Funnily enough, the Skill Challenge systems do give scope for that sort of thing, with some skill uses 'unlocking' later uses and so adjusting the overall Challenge (as the OP notes). I think that by putting these together, you can get close to a really good system.

Nonetheless, I doubt that the rules can ever really provide one system that will cover diplomacy, and chases, and construction, and navigation, and reforging artifacts, and... and do them all well. Instead, I'm inclined to think they should provide a toolkit, coupled with DM advice in how to use the tools.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm afraid you need more to it than that. Otherwise, your "construction" challenge boils down to nothing more than "I dig with my shovel. 6 damage." every round - that's dull when it's the Fighter in combat; it's dull here.

Also agree with this, though note that doesn't mean there isn't room for the shovel. (My dogma is at least three independent dimensions. There can be more than three. ) The main problem with equipment is that it is like character skills--the interesting decisions were all made before this particular challenge takes place. That's great for operational/strategic play, but not much else.

Consumables can help, but that's still "use this now versus use this later" instead of "how to use this most effectively." Of course, I guess you can say that about almost all resources in D&D, at some point. Perhaps that is a clue to the nature of the problem? (I'm really guessing here, not being rhetorical or snarky.)

 

[Herschel]

I think this is one of those cases where the original 4E tried to have it both ways, in an area where you can't. Namely, they wanted to have a mechanic that leaned towards hard-edge framing and pushing of the scene, but one that could also be used as a loose structure to narrate how the PCs eventually get what they want. Or rather, the mechanics only make sense in terms of the hard-edged push, but the advice is all of the "make it work out" type.

In my view I think they made some rather large assumptions when publishing the original PHB. To me it always looked like "We have too much to fit in our print space budget, how do we make it all fit?" "Well, we need the rules out and most of our early buyers will be experienced players so they'll be able to step in and should be able to run it without a lot of added direction in a smooth way. With our agressive release schedule we can have more guides and tips out soon. We'll even have two preview books to introduce some of the flavor and non-mechanical info."

The question is how many even read those preview releases before 4E was released? As there were no rules I didn't pick them up.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The basic dynamic is very similar: I as GM frame the situation, the players engage it via their PCs, skill checks are made and resolved, I renarrate the situation in light of that, and the process continues until either N successes or 3 failures is reached. The trick to the narration is to (i) keep the scene alive, so that the players continue to engage, but (ii) be able to bring it to a close at the requisite time. A good sense of both the evolving fiction, plus various complications that can be introduced to push things in the appropriate direction, is important to running these encounters.

As I just said in another thread (and in a reply to you), I like the X successes before 3 failures rule, as long as each failure introduces a complication, and as long as the in-game fiction keeps moving between each check. I think 4e usually hits these goals.

However, I do run my differently from you. I, as GM, call for what the next check will be. And, it usually won't be immediately after the next check. And, I also don't make everyone participate (the best goes when applicable, and the worst when applicable).

For example, if they're trying to research, then infiltrate a castle, and then convince a king of something, it might look like this:

(0) Fictional setup in-game already established. Plan established. Skill challenge begins.
(1) I'll call for a Knowledge check first for researching. If they succeed, it'll be one success on the skill challenge.
(1a) The interaction from there continues, and convincing the guards to allow them into the castle will generally not be towards the skill challenge.
(1b) Speaking to the chancellor might be, but may not be, depending on whether anything even gets rolled.
(2) The second check may not even show up until they speak to the king, where they try to convince him using the Negotiation skill (modified by the Empathy, Sense Motive, Leadership, and Knowledge skills, maybe the Intimidation, Bluff, or Perform skills, rarely other skills [like Appraise, Assess, Disguise, Martial Prowess, Tactics, etc.], and stunts).
(2a) Depending on how much he buys into it (he may go for it from the start, even before the skill challenge ends), the challenge continues. If he bought into it, his advisers might begin to attempt to convince him not to follow through, or to go through with it in a way that doesn't work for the PCs, or to stall until they can coordinate the effort better, or the like.
(2b) Depending on their success, we either have the king altering his plan, and the PCs trying to convince him again (harder than before if the advisers succeeded), or convince the advisers.
(3) Depending on the PCs' choice, I might call for a Knowledge check to know about their personality, or a Sense Motive check to figure out what they value in this conversation (so they know what to appeal to).
(4) As of this point, I might ramp the tension or excitement up a little by following an actual skill challenge check with a second one (Negotiation check, again augmented by the same set of possible skills or stunts).

And on it goes. I didn't account for complications that might arise from failures, but complications can arise even via success (the advisers trying to change the parameters of the success). I find this to make for a dynamic fictional outcome, and one that is unpredictable in most cases (something I also want it to produce for me).

I think, personally, that calling for the checks as the GM (based on what they players say they want to do) is important for dynamic and fun skill challenges. Players can certainly think "I want to convince the king", and tell me "[to the king] Your majesty, we're just trying to keep your kingdom safe by aiding you in your cause against the goblins*. If you give us twenty-five knights, I think we can clear out the goblin cultists we've found." In such a situation, I don't deny the player his Negotiation check, but I do decide whether or not it applies towards the skill challenge's successes.

*(As an aside, I don't have goblins in my game currently, so it's obviously just an example.)

There is also the need to apply "genre logic" in adjudicating players' declared actions...

Second, they have nothing analogous to the "genre constraint" on permissible actions. So there is no simple mechanic for (for example) evaluating the success of a dwarven fighter-cleric's attempt to facilitate the reforging of an artefact by shoving his hands into the forge and holding it steady...

I don't think this sort of improvisation is so easily incorporated within a system that relies heavily on the mechanics themselves, rather than the logic of situation and genre, to determine what is feasible and what the consequences of actions are (and what makes this workable, in a skill challenge, is that the push towards resolution of one form or another is provided by the metagame imperative of the "N before 3" structure, rather than the mechanically-determined outcomes of discretely resolved tasks).

This seems like an argument for a rules-light system. I see the appeal, but I think it's not necessary for a good skill challenge system, personally.

For D&Dnext to support this sort of non-combat resolution, at a minimum it would need to give me DC guidelines, some sort of resource system able to play the same functional role as the power system in 4e, and a general approach to scene framing and scene resolution which allows "genre logic" and metagame-driven complication introduction to work (so eg no need to track time and durations outside the context of the scene, which is one enemy of scene-based resolution).

I'd disagree, other than with your "this sort of" qualifier. It doesn't need those things in order to have a skill challenge system. It doesn't need to force everyone to participate, it doesn't need to define the skills usable at the beginning, it doesn't need to allow the players to decide which check will contribute towards the skill challenge total. Those are all fine, or even better, depending on play style, but they aren't necessary for an enjoyable skill challenge system (obviously for a different play style).

At any rate, I'd like to see some form of system in effect in a rules mod in the PHB (with advice on running them in the DMG, probably). They can definitely add to the game, from my experience, and while many people dislike them, I would like them around in some form. As always, play what you like

 

[KidSnide]

You need to combatize your non-combats. The genius of D&D is the to hit followed by damage rolls.

...

In earlier editions you always used a monster to symbolize a danger. You didn't weather an icestorm - you fought a yeti. Now, we need to realize that the opposite us true too. Any danger can be handled in the same way a monster can. We just need to assign dice to the tools in the equipment list.

I agree with your insight that we should look to combat to improve SCs, but not your conclusion. The problem isn't that SC lack a damage die. The problem is that every SC monster is the same monster (and making matters worse, it's a solo).

What makes a mechanically heavy system like 4e combat fun is that there are a wide variety of monsters with a variety of ways to defeat them. Any given party has a different set of strengths that compare differently to the strengths of an arbitrary encounter. Yes, there is a set of monster rules that all combats use, but the details of each encounter vary considerably.

SCs need to be reforged along the same lines. We don't need a generic SC system, we need an SC framework to create chase SCs, infiltration SCs, persuasion SCs, clue finding / investigation SCs, traveling SCs, tracking SCs, ritual SCs, crafting/engineering SCs and the like. It is asking too much work from a DM to say "here are generic SC rules -- go write a chase." The rules should say: "here are a few generic chases -- go personalize yours."

(And, much like a good solo monster, any SC needs to address the action economy by thinking about how many PCs are involved in the SC and how that impacts the math.)

D&D would be a much weaker game if, instead of a monster manual, WotC only provided a monster building system and 10-20 examples. That is essentially what they did for skill challenges. Nobody should be surprised that they were so often unsuccessful.

-KS

 

[Neonchameleon]

As far as I can tell, there are four weaknesses with Skill Challenges, the first two of which should have been obvious at the outset:

1) If a character has a directly-relevant skill, the player will proceed to make use of that one skill, again and again. This tends to be very dull. (And sure, the DM can restrict the spamming of a single skill, but very often this is, and feels, very artificial.)

And they get diminishing returns - the target DC rises from medium to hard. And then if I'm DMing it goes upwards from there. You've already done what you can with this skill - to convince me you can do it again without seriously diminished returns you need to show me how you are using your skill in a fundamentally different way.

And [MENTION=54710]KidSnide[/MENTION], I consider skill challenges I run to vary at least as much as ogres did from orcs pre-4e. I do consider skill challenges to be a scaffolding-based meta resolution system. And trying to present the scaffolding itself rather than the building it helps you build just looks bad.

2) If a character does not have a directly-relevant skill, the player will either seek to step out of the challenge altogether, or at least will look very very hard for some way to minimise the damage that his PC does. That's really not fun for anyone.

One exploration skill and one interaction skill isn't a high bar to set.

3) When preparing a Skill Challenge, establishing the structure of the scene was generally easy. However, I found that adjusting the scene as it went on, and especially adjudicating anything but the simplest results of PC actions, was quite difficult - in fact, this gained very little (if anything) over simply not using the mechanic. Ultimately, SCs proved to be more trouble than they were worth.

Honestly to me this is a matter of experience. Skill Challenges are an attempt to systematise the way some good DMs handle complex situations and make it accessible to all DMs. The guidance isn't what it might be. And not all DMs will handle all situations the same way.

But ultimately most experienced DMs can get by without such a guideline. The people who need it are new DMs. In my third session DMing my PCs threw a slightly insane plan at me (I've given details repeatedly on other threads). And had I just had skill checks rather than skill challenges to fall back on I don't know what I'd have done. Possibly hid under the table gibbering. But with a mechanical structure to fall back on that covered the entire scene I was able to concentrate on weaving that with the fiction and handle it almost seamlessly.

And that is where skill challenges or something like them are incredibly useful. Not for experienced DMs - most will tweak the system. But for newbies wondering how to learn to pace a scene or handle an off the wall plan.

 

[Nagol]

I agree with your insight that we should look to combat to improve SCs, but not your conclusion. The problem isn't that SC lack a damage die. The problem is that every SC monster is the same monster (and making matters worse, it's a solo).

What makes a mechanically heavy system like 4e combat fun is that there are a wide variety of monsters with a variety of ways to defeat them. Any given party has a different set of strengths that compare differently to the strengths of an arbitrary encounter. Yes, there is a set of monster rules that all combats use, but the details of each encounter vary considerably.

SCs need to be reforged along the same lines. We don't need a generic SC system, we need an SC framework to create chase SCs, infiltration SCs, persuasion SCs, clue finding / investigation SCs, traveling SCs, tracking SCs, ritual SCs, crafting/engineering SCs and the like. It is asking too much work from a DM to say "here are generic SC rules -- go write a chase." The rules should say: "here are a few generic chases -- go personalize yours."

(And, much like a good solo monster, any SC needs to address the action economy by thinking about how many PCs are involved in the SC and how that impacts the math.)

D&D would be a much weaker game if, instead of a monster manual, WotC only provided a monster building system and 10-20 examples. That is essentially what they did for skill challenges. Nobody should be surprised that they were so often unsuccessful.

-KS

This is one of the reasons I've built a library of resolution systems.

I have Tug-of-War (two or more groups whose efforts affect each other directly and only one will win), Race (multiple groups with separate efforts that do not directly affect each other; can have the same or different victory conditions), Reactive Opponent (situation will react to one or more group efforts), and Oblivious Opponent (situation is basically static and will change only marginally in reaction to efforts).