# Stalker0's Alternate Core Skill Challenge System: FINAL VERSION 1.8!



## Stalker0

The final product is ready.

Version 1.8 will be the last version for a while, barring on gross mistakes or things that people just find flat out offensive.

As before, I am going to show the system here, and then I will detail what’s going on in the next post.
For those who want to see version 1.0, you can get that here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=229796

First, some ground rules:
1) If you don't believe the current system is broken, then please do not mention it in this thread, as this thread is for those who do believe it.
2) This thread is to discuss my system, not for you to talk about yours. If you would like to post your own system, I would be happy to take a look and comment in your own thread. But please keep comments focused on what is presented here.

*VERSION 1.8 – “It’s Time to be Bold!”*

The skill DC and Complexity tables are the heart of the new system, carefully crafted to provide balanced skill challenges for a party. Complexity 4 and 5 challenges are especially difficult, generally for parties with stronger than average skills.

Table 1. Skill DC Table



		Code:
	

[b]Level	Easy	Med	High[/b]
1	14	18	23
[b]2	15	19	24[/b]
3	15	19	24
[b]4	16	20	25[/b]
5	16	20	25
[b]6	17	21	26[/b]
7	17	21	26
[b]8	19	23	28[/b]
9	19	23	28
[b]10	20	24	29[/b]
11	20	24	30
[b]12	20	25	31[/b]
13	20	25	31
[b]14	22	27	33[/b]
15	22	27	33
[b]16	23	28	34[/b]
17	23	28	34
[b]18	24	29	35[/b]
19	24	29	35
[b]20	25	30	36[/b]
21	25	31	38
[b]22	26	32	39[/b]
23	26	32	39
[b]24	27	33	40[/b]
25	27	33	40
[b]26	28	34	41[/b]
27	28	34	41
[b]28	30	36	43[/b]
29	30	36	43
[b]30	31	37	44[/b]



Table 2: Complexity Table



		Code:
	

[B]Complexity Table[/b]
Comp. Success Failure
1	3	3
2	5	4
3	7	5
4*	9	6
5*	11	7

*These complexities tend to be very challenging to normal parties (only 51-56% win rate). A DM may consider subtracting 1 from the DC when using these challenges.

_Changes from 1.7_
1) The easy DC at 11th level has been changed from 19 to 20 to prevent possible confusion.
2) Complexities 4 and 5 have opened up to normal parties. They will provide a near 50/50 win rate for normal parties.

*Setting up a Skill Challenge:*

*Allowed Skills:* When creating a skill challenge, the DM selects 3-4 skills as the standard skills for the encounter. In some cases, the Dm will leave allowed skills open-ended, allowing the player to describe why certain skills should be allowed skills.

*Non-allowed skils:* In some cases, a player will want to use a skill that is not allowed for the skill challenge. If the player’s argument is convincing enough, the DM may place the skill on the allowed list. However, if the DM wishes to allow the skill in a limited fashion, he can allow it with Guiding Light only. Never penalize a player by allowing it with a hard DC, as this not only penalizes the player, but every player in the challenge!

*Setting up Skills:* All allowed skills are given a medium difficult. Easy and Hard difficulties are only designed for special rolls during the challenge.

*Optional Setup Rules for the DM*

*Skill Tags:* If a DM wishes to spice up a challenge a bit, he can add various tags to some of the skills in a challenge, to let players get extra benefit when doing certain actions. Here are some example tags:

_Bold:_ A skill that has the bold tag is particularly helpful when making heroic actions. If the player uses a heroic surge when using a bold skill, he gets an extra +1. If he uses Bold Recovery with the skill, he gains a +2 to the roll.

_Helpful:_ These skills are particularly useful when helping out another player. If the Guiding Light uses a helpful skill, he provides a +3 power bonus to another's skill check (instead of +2).

_Secondary:_ Secondary skills are linked to another skill (the primary skill), and cannot be used at the beginning of the challenge. Whenever a player gets a success with the primary skill, and also would have beaten the hard DC, the secondary skill is unlocked, and can be used for the rest of the challenge. Secondary skills often have special tags and benefits as well.


*Playing in a Skill Challenge:*

*Guiding Light (Easy):* Each round the party can choose one character to be a Guiding Light, which is generally the character with the lowest skill bonus for the challenge. Instead of the character's normal turn, he rolls an allowed skill check that does not count as a success or failure. If he beats an easy DC, he can do the following:
1) Provide another character a +2 power bonus to his next skill check.
2) Reroll one of his own skill checks later in the challenge, though he must take the new result. He can accumulate multiple rerolls should he be a Guiding Light multiple times.

*Heroic Surge:* Before making a skill check, you may spend a healing surge to get a +2 to your skill check. If the skill challenge has entered the Time of Trials (see below), heroic surge provides a +3. Each character can use heroic surge once per skill challenge.

*The Time of Trials:*A skill challenge enters the time of trials when the party accumulates their second to last failure. In other words, one more failure will end the skill challenge for the party. During the time of trials, the party receives the following benefits:

1)	When using _heroic surge_, the character receives a +3 to skill checks (instead of the normal +2)
2)	All characters can now use the _Bold Recovery_ skill check (see below).

*Bold Recovery (Hard):*  During the time of trials, a player can use a bold recovery as an immediate reaction whenever another player rolls a failure. The player rolls an allowed skill at a hard DC. If he fails, the skill challenge ends in a failure.

On a success, he adds +4 to the failed players roll, or a +6 if he takes a -5 to his skill check. If the +4 (+6) turns the failed roll into a success, the failure is negated and the skill challenge continues to the next player. Each player can use Bold Recovery once per skill challenge, but never on their own rolls.




*Example Skill Challenge: The Negotiation.*

Complexity: 2 (5 successes before 4 failures)
Allowed Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight

*Diplomacy:* You use persuasion to win aid to your cause. If you get a success and also would have beaten a hard DC, you unlock the History Skill.

*History (Secondary, Helpful):* History is unlocked through the diplomacy skill. It is especially useful when helping other party members, if you use the skill while you are a Guiding Light, you provide a +3 to a skill (instead of +2).​
*Bluff (Daring):* You try to convince the other party using false pretenses. If you use a heroic surge with bluff, you gain an additional +1. You also gain a +2 to your roll if you use it with a Bold Recovery.

*Insight:* You empathize with the NPC and use that to encourage assistance.

_Change log from Version 1.7_
1) Aid Another is now called Guiding Light.
2) Guiding Light now gives the character a skill reroll on a success, in addition to the normal +2 he provides.
3) Guiding Light now provides a power bonus to skill rolls.
4) Heroic Surge now provides a +2 bonus to skill rolls normally, and a +3 while in the Time of Trials (changed from +1/+2)

For more detailed information on the system, especially for DMs who would like to tweak it, look to the next post.


----------



## Stalker0

*DM's Corner, adjusting the system to your party*

This system assumes (at 1st level) the following average party.

Two players at +9 (+5 training, +4 ability).
One player at +7 (+5 training +2 ability, or +9 -2 for armor check penalties)
One player at +2 (+2 stat only)
One player +11 (+5 training, +4 stat, +2 racial)

Your party is likely different from this one, but as long as the differences aren't that great, you won't have to change a thing. the following are some guidelines for DMs who want to tweak the system to fit their party a bit better. These are just guidelines and most parties should function fine without any changes.

*When to consider adding 1 to the DC of the Challenge:*
You are running a complexity 1 challenge
AND
Your best skill user has a +13 or higher to his skill (generally more than +3 the next best skill users)
OR
Your party (not including your lowest skill user) has +4 more in bonuses than this one.

*When to consider subtracting 1 from the DC of the Challenge:*
You are running a complexity 4 or 5 challenge with a normal party.
OR
You are running a complexity 3 challenge AND you have no good skill user in the group (no one above +9).
OR
You party has a low skill user who does not use Guiding Light.


The rest are design notes and technical information, feel free to skip it if you have no interest in the under workings of the system.

*The Nuts and Bolts of Version 1.8*

*Let’s Begin: The Problems with the Standard Skill Challenge system.*
1) A party handling a skill challenge of their level has a very low chance of succeeding. This is of course the heart of the issue. If a party is handling a skill challenge of their level they should at the bare minimum a 50/50 chance of winning. But in general, players are supposed to win, so even 50/50 would be regarded by many as too low. As currently stands, those numbers stand at around a 10% win rate or lower, which is completely unacceptable.

2) Skill Challenges have a huge variation in win rate based on DC and complexity. This is a problem hidden in the math of the skill challenge system. For example, let’s say the skill challenge is perfectly balanced at complexity 3 at a set DC. The win rate is exactly where you like it, and everyone is happy. If you add even +1 to the DC you can throw off the win rate by 15-20%. Change the complexity and you can change that number even more. If a party is just slightly weaker in skills than another party, they can literally go from a decent chance of beating the challenge to a very poor chance with the most minor changes in skills. 

3) Increasing complexity can actually make a challenge easier depending on the skills of your party. This one isn’t necessarily a “problem” as much as it is unintuitive. For example, if your party on average will succeed on each individual skill check of a challenge 70% or more of time, you will actually increase the party’s win rate by increasing the complexity. However, if the party has only a 65% chance, then their win rate will drop by increasingly complexity.

*Tackling the Problem: Our basic assumptions*
Before we can do any math to fix these problems, we need to know what the solution is. In other words, how often should a party beat a skill challenge? I took my own personal intuition, and asked many other people I game with. We each came to around the same conclusion:
We will assume that a party of 5 is facing a skill challenge of their level with complexity 5. All checks for the skill challenge will be medium difficulty (the standard skill challenge). Each player will have the ability to use their best or close to their best skills for this challenge. In other words, we are assuming skill training and a high ability score (probably +4 or more). So at 1st level, each player will roll at a +9 in general.
With this assumption, we felt that a party should succeed at that challenge 80% of the time. However, at the same time, we thought that each individual check should succeed around 70% of the time. We all know how it feels when your DM gives you a skill DC, and everyone looks at each other across the table thinking that DC is absolutely crazy. With a standard skill challenge, every check should have a reasonable chance of succeeding, so that players don’t get frustrated.

*Pen and Paper: Our major limitation.*
An important part of this process is to remember that we are playing a pen and paper game. Players are doing math in their heads and looking up charts in books. I could create an absolutely beautiful mathematical model that would run skill challenges perfectly across multiple skill levels, and you would never want to play it because it would simply be too darn complex! So while we are fixing the system, it is important to remember that the end product must be as easy to use as it is clean in its final results.


*The Motto: It’s Time to Be Bold!*
From the start, I wanted to do more than just “fix” the math of the system, I wanted to make the system more exciting. After all, a high complexity challenge is supposed to be as entertaining as a combat, and I wanted to add exciting elements that also helped fix the math. You’ll notice a lot of “Bold” mechanics in these rules. My goal is for players to feel empowered in using the system, while DMs can be comfortable knowing the system will support their party without breaking.

*Heroic Surge:* The more I cracked open the numbers, the more I realized that no system made with the pen and paper limitations could ever truly account for the variation in a party. Now, because my system has less variance in it than the core system, it can handle a lot more “punishment” but it still can’t work miracles. I decided the only way to ensure a solid system was to the give the players the ability to save their own skin. The first of these “bailout” mechanics is heroic surge. The idea is that players can consume resources (healing surges) to give themselves an edge. It’s also a tactical choice, do they use their surges early to get an early advantage (and possible get to use more do to critical success) or save them and get a bigger bonus if the time of trials started.

Overall, if players are using a lot of surges, they get a very large bump in win rate. Generally I think most DMs are fine with this, if a party is using a lot of resources they get an edge, just as if they were expending a lot of potions. And it curbs the failure rate up. Generally a party that is failing will want to use surges more than a party is doing well. This was a way to help “losing” parties get back into the winners circle without a lot of complicated math.

Originally I had Heroic Surge at +1, and then +2 during the time of trials. I changed this because I realized I could give a higher bonus without hurting the math too much, and it gives more incentive to use heroic surge before the time of trials. Previously, the bonus was so much more useful during TOT that mathematically it was stupid to use it earlier.

*Secondary Skills and New Skill Tags* One of the unfortunate things I had to do in the system was erase the hard and easy skills from the core mechanic. It wasn’t something I wanted to do, and believe me I worked endlessly to fix it. I begged and pleaded with the numbers, I yelled out the numbers, I even threw my keyboard at the monitor (okay not the last thing, but I thought about it!!). In the end though, the variation it caused was just too much. So I worked on ways to spice up the medium skills. I definitely wanted to include secondary skills, but I wanted something to be special about them.

So I included a mechanic so that secondary skills are unlocked by a particularly amazing skill roll. Unlike the original system, secondary skills are permanently in the challenge, so players can keep getting benefits from them.

In order to spice up the skills a bit more, I added the Daring and Helpful Tags.

*Critical Success:* Just like a natural 20 is a fun event in a combat, I wanted skill challenges to have a similar effect. The critical success provides both a fun moment for the player, as well as encouraging team work.

So...where are they? In the end I dropped the concept because people's greatest complaint was there were too many little things to keep track of in the system. I realized that CS didn't play a strong role in the system, so it got hit with the hammer and taken out.

*Time of Trials and Bold Recovery:* Oh how I love this mechanic! This is my brainchild, my solution to a host of problems. (and if you don’t like it, Skilly McAwesome will come a knocking!!)
My problem was this, any time you changed the basic probability of a party, the numbers would fly off the hook. The problem is laid within the complexity numbers. Any system where you have X success before Y failures has a lot of variance in it innately. And the more total rolls you have, the higher that variance gets.

I realized I need a bounceback mechanic. Basically I needed a way to say “Hey this party is losing!! Let’s give them a hand!” Or in other words, the more the party lost, the more it won. I tried numerous mechanics. I tried making DC adjustment specific to complexity. I tried giving parties a +1 to rolls after each failure. I spent 6 hours on one mechanic I thought would be perfect, and then wound up dropping it because I realized it had secondary effects that were outright bad for the system. Most ideas were either such a small difference it was a waste of time, or had such a huge impact I couldn’t rely on it.
And then I hit upon the Bold Recovery idea. This mechanic provides a very significant benefit, but only when a party really needs it. It also allows Skilly McAwesomes to shine, as they are normally going to be the first to use a Bold Recovery. Further, it increases the drama of the challenge. It bails the party out of a failure, but then they have to make that next roll and it could always end in a failure again.
The mechanic went through 3 distinct versions, and the first two just didn’t fit the math. But the third worked like a charm. The mechanic was fun, it greatly reduced the variance between complexities, and it reduced the variance when I changed the party’s probability. A 3 in one shot!

*Guiding Light* One distinct problem with the core system is its very casual about aid another, and mathematically it CANNOT be. Aid Another is the single most powerful mechanic in the entire system, and by the rules there’s very little restriction on it. Mathematically that’s suicide, parties can go from 7% to 90% win rates in the core system depending on how the DM utilizes aid another. 

However, I had to keep the aid another idea in the system in some form. The reason there has to be something for a low skill player to do other than roll a success or failure, because low skill guys screw up the system! But we can't just stop them from rolling, where's the fun in that?

First thing I did was heavily regulate it, and made sure only 1 player could use it per round. Its just too powerful otherwise. Then I made sure to use easy checks instead of DC 10, so that it would scale with level.

Unfortunately, aid another was still the weakest part of the system. Parties get a much lower win rate if their weakest skill guy decides not to be a sport and aid. I didn't want to force anyone to aid, but at the same time, the system works so much better if they do.

So I created a compromise. I tried to create a new incentive for people to use the aid another action. First I changed the name to Guiding Light. I think the name is much cooler and evocative. Further, it differentiates the mechanic from traditional aid another, which avoids confusion.

Then I made sure that the Guiding Light got a little something for his selfless ways, in the form of a reroll on his own skills. That way if the GL decided next round to take his crappy +2 to a check and have a go, he would a least have a reroll backing him up.

While not a perfect solution, GL provided a nice bridge between someone forced to aid all the time, and no one aiding ever.

So after all of this work,
*The Final Result:*
A system,
1)	That can tolerate variations in party’s skill use, including parties with high and low skill users.
2)	That is resilient to odd ball party members.
3)	Where the players can take active rolls in determine the fate of the challenge.
4)	Where increasing skill complexity equals a more difficult challenge.
5)	That allows for high drama and excitement when the chips are down.
6) That gets a Win rate of about 72-84%, with an individual rate of around 60-65%, very close to my original goal.

I am very proud to present this system to you all, and I hope that it will see use in many games, that it will provide an excellent source of enjoyment for people’s 4e system, which other than problems like these I have found an excellent system so far, one I hope to play in for many years into the future.


----------



## The Eye

This is, once again, fantastic. I've already copied it and formatted it into a no frill document I can print out for my players. Thanks for putting in the effort.


----------



## Azurecrusader

A solid system, but it looks like it would be difficult to run in actual play.  Only trial will tell for sure though.

My key question is how do you assign experience for a successful challenge?  How do different sized groups and complexity levels affect experience gained?  

The answer was fairly straightforward in the stock version; less so here.


----------



## Stalker0

Azurecrusader said:
			
		

> A solid system, but it looks like it would be difficult to run in actual play.  Only trial will tell for sure though.




If there's a specific part confusing you let me know. I want it to be as user friendly as possible, so perhaps the organization could use some work.


----------



## Azurecrusader

It's not so much that it's confusing, rather that it is detailed.  With this system I now need to keep track of specific successes and failures and make announcements about the progress of the challenge to account for things like Heroic Surges, Bold Recoveries and the Time of Trials.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing right away, I'll have to see how it plays out, but it is a lot more book keeping and a lot less transparency to the players.  My impression of the stock system is that players never really know how many successes they have or are trying to get, with this system that is vital information which in my opinion pulls them out of the game.

With all that said, I'm going to give this a try and see how it goes.

How about that experience question in my other post above though?


----------



## Stalker0

Azurecrusader said:
			
		

> How about that experience question in my other post above though?




Its one I'm thinking about

Remember that the only real time you need to tell your players what's up is at the time of trials, which means they only have 1 failure left. Then they can start frantically trying to save themselves Personally I think that's better than a player roll a failure and the dm declares teh challenge a failure without the party having known....but I can understand the desire for transparency for some.


----------



## Fredrik Svanberg

I still balk at the complexity of your system. If possible I would like to be able to play a skill challenge without looking up the rules and this doesn't look like it would fit inside my head.

Spending healing surges to gain bonuses is a great idea and I'll probably use that for my own version, in one way or another.


----------



## The Hitcher

Fredrik Svanberg said:
			
		

> I still balk at the complexity of your system. If possible I would like to be able to play a skill challenge without looking up the rules and this doesn't look like it would fit inside my head.




Those of you who think that Stalker0's system is too complex may want to have a look at my simple Skill Challenge fix in this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230222

I've gone for simplicity over rock-solid mathematics, but that's where my tastes lie. If you agree, it might work for you too.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

Not having tried it I can't speak to the viability of this system in play, but your dedication and creativity are astounding!  I'm especially pleased to see that recoveries are not contingent on rolling 20s but come at crunch-time, are totally elective, but still limited.  Some thoughts:

Much resistance has and will come from the apparent complexity. Much of that complexity is on presentation rather than nuts and bolts of the system. Core system has a lot of hard to remember fiddly bits as well but is perhaps "eased into" better. I recommend rewriting to completely separate a concise designer-notes-free explanation (e.g. FAQ/IAQ) and all the fun why/how bits. I also suggest not starting with tagged skills, which are odd to see out the gate.  Instead, start with the default, which is a normal skill check to gain a success (or suffer a failure). Move on to the next (chrono)logically relevant thing, probably Aid Another, then the unlocking secondary skills, etc. Leave stuff related to Time of Trials toward the end because this deals with a near end situation.
I suggest renaming Bold Opening to avoid confusion with Bold Recovery. I like something including "unlock" in the name. I would present a list where a primary skill with this capacity would be followed by an indented secondary skill to visually indicate that one is unlocked by the other.  The same convention can be used if a skill's main or only use is to aid another; often this will logically be only relevant to aiding another specific skill or angle of approach, which could be indented after the primary. (I know your system doesn't deal with narrowed options for how one skill can aid another, but I think some verisimilitude is appropriate and that it shouldn't hurt the players if the DM makes clear when the Aid is successful what would benefit and what wouldn't.
I disagree with the idea that DM's should always or even routinely tell players what the secondaries (unlocked skills) are. I think it depends on the situation. For instance, if an Insight or History check gives info about the Duke's motivations in a negotiation scenario, I wouldn't specifically tell the players that there is something the Duke personally wants or that there is some historical precedent that will help their Diplomacy. Many times the fun is in the PCs discovering these things through reasoning or trial-and-error.
This is not a well thought out proposal on my part, but in terms of XP, how about saying a skill challenge of your level is like a fight of your level and that for every row you go up or down (i.e. 1-2 levels) the XP go up/down a level's worth? The skill challenge RAW says raise or lower DC by 1 per level of change in encounter and your system's DCs usually go up/down one per row (1-2 levels).  I would actually suggest that the Complexity 2 be the default because I don't think 3 successes is comparable to a combat vs. your level. You can marginally in/decrease the XP for Complexity 1 or >2 to reflect not added difficulty but more time and effort (just as longer fights are sometimes no more difficult but do take more time and effort).
(Separate from concisely presented rules) any guidance you can provide from your analyses about average PWR increases/decreases from tweaking numbers would be helpful. I don't take issue with your using medium difficulty by default because I think that should be for a level-appropriate skill challenge and that an easier/harder one will correspond to a higher/lower level with attendant effect on both difficulty and XP. That said, unlike combats where you usually want to avoid excess difficulty and TPKs (though there are captures and you-should-flee scenarios), skill challenges should allow for much more difficult situations, like one in which parlaying may but probably won't allow PCs to avoid a tough fight. I'd like to know how to handle a range of target skill challenge success probabilities with your system.
Not to open a can of worms, but since you list so many mechanics or ideas you considered, how about one in which blowing a check does not result in a failure per se unless it fails by 5 or more, as opposed to the binary outcome of helpful/hurtful for primary checks? Just curious as to your thoughts on that sort of thing.
In place of the fun but lengthy (ha, lengthy, I'm a hypocrite) example of monologue from the rogue in your example, I would recommend a concise but complete example showcasing your system, complete with specific DCs (which the DMG sadly lacked in its examples).
Any info on effects of varying party size?
Thanks again for all of this!


----------



## vagabundo

From my quick read through: very nice system. 

Get it playtested, a lot (shake out those hidden bugs) and you could publish a nice PDF with a few fleshed out skill challenges. Seriously.

I like the simple fix mentioned above and may run with it, for the moment, until I get a feel for skill challenges.


----------



## banana

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *The Nuts and Bolts of Version 1.5*6)	_In general I like to keep things simple. I like what you’ve done here, but I want something a little simpler. What can I take from your system and still make it work?_
> This is a list of mechanics in the order of highest priority (must keep) to lowest priority (useful, but can do without).
> 
> Highest
> 1)	Complexity Table
> 2)	Skill DC Table
> 3)	All skill challenges are medium. Sorry, it’s nonnegotiable for this system.
> Medium
> 1)	Bold Recovery
> 2)	Time of Trials
> 3)	Aid Another
> Low
> 1)	Heroic Surge
> 2)	Bold Opening
> 3)	Critical Success
> 4)	Flawless Victory
> 5)	Bold and Aid Flags on Skills.




I really like what you've done here, both in recognising the original problems with skill challenges and in coming up with some solutions. As a GM, I'd like to use some aspects of your system. However, I don't really want to make changes/houserules that players have to know about - I don't want to have quantities of 'required reading' other than the PHB.

If I was to take just the Highest priority stuff, that would be fine - there would be no player-visible changes. I was just wondering, how well does this work in theory? Have you done any models of how your DCs and complexities affect the maths without the other changes? Does it still provide a useful improvement over the original system?


----------



## FunkBGR

I'd have to second the complexity - I don't think I could run this without referring to a cheat sheet or my computer.

That said, it does look good mechanics-wise.

I think if you could come up with some happy medium that keeps close to those numbers, but without going over (i.e. Easy = level +13, Medium = level +17, Hard = level +22), I'd be more apt to use it. Just something streamlined.

Keep up the good work!


----------



## mrphoenix

I like your system, but i think something "simpler" would be more useful for most players. 
I think i will use your 1.0 system, this is a little bit too complex for my taste.


----------



## Stalker0

Your voices have been heard!

I have just changed the system to Version 1.6. I cleaned up the little extra mechanics that were mainly there to spruce it up. I cleaned up the organization, cleaned out the flavor text so its easier to read, and tried to make the mechanics more readable. I also added an example challenge.

For those who though the system looked too complex, check it out now.


----------



## Dayspire

I like, I like!

One thing off the top of my head.  I really like that there is an increasing difficulty for Aiding Another (albeit still easy).  But - the "Aid Another" game mechanic always is against DC 10.  Perhaps it might reduce confusion if your mechanic is called something else?  "Helpful Hand", perhaps?


----------



## gonesailing

Overall I like it.  I like that it is pretty easy to create a Skill challenge with it and if the math works out that it is intuitive that is fantastic!!  
Some questions and then some comments:

1 - How will this combine with Combat Encounters do you think.  Will a Level 3-4 Skill Challenge be a replacement for a level 4 monster?

2 - XP awards are unmentioned in your synopsis.  See above question?

3 - Your target percentage is 80% Party Win Rate from what I see. What effect will +/- 1 or 2 to the DCs do to the Party Win Rate?

4 - What effect will DM awards of +/- 2 have on the mechanic?  For plus I would think it would be equivalent to Aid another, but what if it is on top of Aid.

Now for the comments:
I think the presentation of the System still leaves a little to be desired.  But you did most of the Hard work, so let one of us take a crack at that.

It needs Playtesting!

Your Skill Challenge example doesn't really highlight the system.  Try this one and give me your opinions

Edit...Oops wrong attachment.  I will fix it tommorrow when I get to work. This is just the template I made for myself


----------



## Harr

I just found this (some notice in the 1.0 thread would be nice for people who bookmarked it, as I did) and will run version 1.6 through a few hoops on Sunday. I agree with the crowd's voice that 1.5 was way too fiddly (going by the look of that second post.. whew), and if it had not been ported over 1.6 I would've been sticking with 1.0 (which I think works just great btw).

Anyway, I'll be back here on Monday with a nice play report most likely. Thanks for all this hard work Stalker, you're improving D&D games all over the place I'm sure (at least a twice-weekly down here in Caracas owes you one  )


----------



## Fieari

Can you post the 1.5 stuff you removed again?  I never got to see it in the first place...


----------



## Harr

Azurecrusader said:
			
		

> I'll have to see how it plays out, but it is a lot more book keeping and a lot less transparency to the players. My impression of the stock system is that players never really know how many successes they have or are trying to get, with this system that is vital information which in my opinion pulls them out of the game.




Hm, not to come off pedantic but I believe you mean a lot MORE transparency to the players. When a system is transparent, that means its inner workings are freely observable to everybody (hence the term 'transparent', ie, 'you can look inside').

If you want to keep the players from knowing the rules, I believe you are looking for a LESS transparent, more 'obscured' system.

By the way I run my games with 100% transparency, which is to say the players are aware of every single rule in play, every DC, every complexity, and every die is rolled in the open in front of everyone including mine. If you think that pulls players out of the game, think again. Nothing creates engagement like the knowledge that it's all out on the table and it *really could* go either way. This is not my opinion but my experience. I really recommend you try it. 

But anyway, I don't mean to derail the thread, just pointing out that when you say 'transparency' as 4e undesrtands it, Stalker0's system fully promotes and eases full transparency rather than hinder it.

PS, I have posted a play-test result of the 1.0 system for anyone interested in how that system served us in our game. Here it is (contains spoilers for KotS).


----------



## Harr

Sorry for double-post, but just finished reading 1.6 and... you seriously took out Critical Success for 1.6? Like, seriously? That's the first change for me right there 

Looks really good otherwise! Contrary to CS I'm actually glad Daredevil Stunt is gone, that thing was ic-ky.


----------



## Lokathor

A system so good I registered just to ask about it.

I did a quick survey of the level 1 characters I had around from DMing my own game and from a game I'm playing in (8 characters total), and the average trained skill bonus was only +7.8. This is mostly because my players don't get as many 18s with point buy, they go for more even arrays.

If I'm reading this right, that means I should subtract 1 from all the DCs and it'll all work out. Is this correct?


----------



## 77IM

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 1)	_So Stalker, why did you go to 2 levels instead 3? Personally I liked the smaller table._
> Giving DCs every 2 levels gave me a bit more precision than the 3 level model. And when you’re working with this kind of math, more precision equals more good. I figured Dms wouldn’t mind a slightly larger table if it led to a more balanced system.
> 2)	_Regarding the footnote, why do I need to add +1 DC at those levels?_
> Simplicity has its price. With those particular levels, I noticed a spike in the party’s win rate. If the table had shown every level, I would have modified the DCs. But I figured that would make the table too large, so I added the footnote. Adding a +1 to the DC at those levels will fix everything very nicely.



As a totally minor bit of feedback, I'd really like it better if this table had 1 row per level (each level having its own row).  I'm perfectly able to read a table 30 rows deep, and it gives me much better confidence that the numbers are accurately balanced for the party's level.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Stalker0

Lokathor said:
			
		

> A system so good I registered just to ask about it.
> 
> I did a quick survey of the level 1 characters I had around from DMing my own game and from a game I'm playing in (8 characters total), and the average trained skill bonus was only +7.8. This is mostly because my players don't get as many 18s with point buy, they go for more even arrays.
> 
> If I'm reading this right, that means I should subtract 1 from all the DCs and it'll all work out. Is this correct?




Yep, a -1 to DC should get you straightened out. I would love some feedback on how 8 character parties handle with my system. The baseline is 5, and I made allowances for larger and smaller parties but that math gets fuzzier, so feel free to let me know how it goes!


Many people are asking about XP. From a strict number of roll perspective, my complexities tend to equal WOTC's.

So 1 = 1, 2=2, 3=3, etc. However, my system allows party members to spend more resources. I would go with Complexity 1 = WOTC Complexity 1. Complexity 2 = WOTC Complexity 3. Complexity 3 = WOTC Complexity 4.


Also, a question was asked about the 80% win rate. If the party is at 62%, these are the win rates:
Complexitiy
1: 84%
2: 80%
3: 78%

+1 DC
1: 79%
2: 73%
3: 69%

-1 DC
1: 89%
2: 87%
3: 85%

Subject to change slightly for guys with higher or lower bonuses, but in general they shouldn't move much.

These numbers do not factor in any heroic surges, so a party that utilizes surges can bump that number up.


On to the question of Skill Challenges in combat, I think they would absolutely work. As mentioned before, a level 4, complexity 1 challenge should represent 1 level 4 monster....assuming that WOTC is correct about a complexity 1 challenge being equal to a single monster.


----------



## Stalker0

Harr said:
			
		

> Sorry for double-post, but just finished reading 1.6 and... you seriously took out Critical Success for 1.6? Like, seriously? That's the first change for me right there
> 
> Looks really good otherwise! Contrary to CS I'm actually glad Daredevil Stunt is gone, that thing was ic-ky.




If you want to throw it back in here's teh original rule:

Critical Success: On a natural 20 you score a critical success. You can refresh 1 other players Bold Recovery or Heroic Surge


----------



## Stalker0

77IM said:
			
		

> As a totally minor bit of feedback, I'd really like it better if this table had 1 row per level (each level having its own row).  I'm perfectly able to read a table 30 rows deep, and it gives me much better confidence that the numbers are accurately balanced for the party's level.
> 
> -- 77IM




I should be able to do that


Also, I would really like to hear back from people who thought Version 1.5 was too complex. I feel like Version 1.6 is a lot cleaner and easier to read, getting down to the core mechanics of what makes the system good. Is there anything left that's confusing or poorly presented?


----------



## gonesailing

Here are a couple of initial versions of documentation for this system.  Feedback is encouraged.

I used the format in the DMG.  Also my Open Office-Fu is weak, but I use Linux at home so if the files are difficult to open, I will work at them...at work.


----------



## Lokathor

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I would love some feedback on how 8 character parties handle with my system. The baseline is 5, and I made allowances for larger and smaller parties but that math gets fuzzier, so feel free to let me know how it goes!




Actually, there were two groups worth of PCs there (the group I run and the group I play in). The party is usually 3 to 4 players big depending on who shows up, and the group I run already hit one TPK so far >_<. It's alright though, all but one of us loves making the characters and looking at the optimization aspects about as much as we love playing, so it works out.

I will report back with success or failure after a few challenges though. Games are on weekends for my groups.


----------



## The_Universe

Very interesting system!


----------



## Stalker0

Alright guys, I've updated the system to Version 1.7.

The reason is I decided to make a 30th level table for those who asked, and as I was making it I decided the system would be smoother if I could add a +1 DC here or there.

Finally, I realized that the system is just plain smoother if I show all 30th levels and have the freedom to tweak each level individually. I think the added smoothness is worth a bit more table space.

Also a couple of questions someone in person asked me about teh system.

1) So, if the system is smoother and can handle changes in DC without breaking, does that mean I can now run higher level difficulty skill challenges without a problem?

I am happy to say...YES YOU CAN!! Running a skill challenge one or two levels higher than your party should give you a reasonable amount of increase in difficulty, without nose diving into complete failure. But if they do have some trouble, heroic surge and Bold Recovery are there to help, and should aid in making those difficult challenges memorable ones.

2) If a party used a lot of heroic surges, wouldn't they have a very high chance of success?

If every player uses his heroic surge for a skill challenge, that will bump up the standard win rate from 80% to about 88-90%. Keep in mind that's an average, in general heroic surges are a way for a losing party to come back, that's why you get double the bonus is used at the time of trials.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

I love how this is shaping up!  I wrote a revised draft of 1.6 for you to check out, so if you can PM me an email address or some other way to get it to you (it's a RTF) I'll be happy to do that.  Separately, I'd suggest you provide attachments in revised post to previous iterations of rules for those who want to follow the evolution or prefer an older version.

Edit:  Gee everything moves quickly and you're already on 1.7!  Well, still the point is not nicer layout in this case but suggestions on the structure of the documentation, language, and some terminology, clarifications, etc. so it should still be relevant.  I'd rather not attach it in a post because it could confuse someone into thinking you've endorsed it when I just want to give you some suggested revisions.


----------



## Stalker0

I can't PM unfortunately. Feel free to post any updates you would like in a separate thread if you feel that would make things cleaner.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I can't PM unfortunately. Feel free to post any updates you would like in a separate thread if you feel that would make things cleaner.



I'll just attach it here then and make clear that this is my suggestion and not a formatting of your approved product.


----------



## The Eye

Should the DC for Easy checks go down (from 20 to 19) when the challenge level shifts from 10 to 11? It could be ok mathematically, but it stood out as a possible typo.


----------



## Stalker0

The Eye said:
			
		

> Should the DC for Easy checks go down (from 20 to 19) when the challenge level shifts from 10 to 11? It could be ok mathematically, but it stood out as a possible typo.




Its not a typo, though I did notice that as well. For ease and consistency I altered the easy and hard checks at every tier. Although it wouldn't make a huge difference if I changed it to a 20, so if people feel its just too weird I can change it.


----------



## The Eye

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Its not a typo, though I did notice that as well. For ease and consistency I altered the easy and hard checks at every tier. Although it wouldn't make a huge difference if I changed it to a 20, so if people feel its just too weird I can change it.




It was the only place I saw where the DC went down as the level went up. If it's as mathematically sound as the rest of the write-up, I've got no problems. It just stands out a little.


----------



## dragon_eater

When I read the first version of your skill challenge mechanics I was hesitant to try and use it. However, I feel that your new version has improved a lot.

Now I feel that not only are the numbers better then the ones in the Dungeon Master's Guide but that it would be more interesting to run then the default skill challenge system.

I suppose the only question I have is what should you do if you want to run complexity 4 or 5 challenges in a party without a really strong skill user?


----------



## Stalker0

dragon_eater said:
			
		

> I suppose the only question I have is what should you do if you want to run complexity 4 or 5 challenges in a party without a really strong skill user?




I'm actually working on that right now.

Basically I didn't run complexity 4 and 5 through the large variation of cases I've run the other ones through, I knew they were going to be special case scenarios designed for specific parties. However, the Bold Recovery mechanic curbs a lot of the issues I had with these complexities in the first place. With that in mind, I'm taking a much harder look at them. There is a possibility I could actually recommend complexity 4 as a regular challenge to normal parties. If not, then I should be able to come up with some guidelines for those who want to use them, a simple -1 DC might do the trick. I hope to have the results soon!


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

I don't know if this is feasible in the model or for that matter mathematically equivalent, but I think it would feel more intuitive if, instead of Bold Recovery successes retroactively modifying failed checks, The Bold Recovery check were modified by the magnitude of the original failure.  Since recovery is a reaction to the failure and not an interrupt, it shouldn't really be revising the result so much as trying to compensate for it.

An additional advantage to this approach is that the players would not decline to try a recovery on account of knowing ahead of time that it could not succeed (i.e. if the failure was by >6).  There could still be a chance for recovery, however difficult, if that subsequent roll went very well.


----------



## fuzzlewump

I used the your skill challenge system tonight for 3 challenges and it worked well. If complexity 1 wasn't a 1:1 ratio, nearly all 3 would have been a failure. The interesting one was in the second kobold ambush in the KotS, where the skirmisher attempted to run off into the woods and the ranger was hot on its tail. The rest of the party dealt with the wyrmpriest that was left and alone he rolled an Acrobatics, Nature, Perception, Endurance, and finally Acrobatics.

Before the last acrobatics he had 2 successes and 2 failures, and the last failure indicated that he lost the kobold and the Kobold Lair would be ready for the party. So, I told him he was in the "Time of Trials" and that he could expend a healing surge in order to gain +2 on his check. He agreed and made one final leap with his acrobatics skill, ending up with a 18 with the +2 included. Epic!

I also fudged it when everyone but 1 person (the wizard) rolled well on their stealth check on the first encounter, saying that the player could draw on his vitality in order to reroll the stealth check, which ended up letting the whole party have surprise at the expense of a surge. Not so much a skill challenge but I wouldn't have thought to use a healing surge as a bargain without reading this. On second thought though, maybe something closer to the bold recovery would make more sense. Something like the wizard is about to step on to a branch, so the ranger or rogue uses bold recovery and grabs on to the wizard's shoulders and shakes her head.


----------



## Gallows

*Bold Recovery*

Stalker,

I've been reading since the inception of version 1.0.  I have to say, its deffinately come along way and it appears to me that it is complex (in a good way for those of us who enjoy it) yet simple enough to understand, very streamlined.  Its adds a level of excitement and tension with the whole "risk vs. reward" when deciding to use healing surges.  I love it!  To me this is exactly the kind of tension and risk vs. reward that I love to offer as choices to players.  "Should I spend my healing surges to help overcome this encounter, or will I need them later"  Resource management at its finest.  

To add to this heightened sense of player choices, I believe that the Bold Recovery action (choice/decision) needs more weight added to a parties decision to actually use or not.  Maybe Bold Recovery isn't necessarily a straightforward "duh yea, I'll use BR" to a more thinking mans game of, "Is it worth it?".  Incurring a thoretical 2 healing surge penalty for use of Bold Recovery would very well get parties thinking about what may lie on the other side of that very same skill checked door.  All-the-while, their surges and other resources are slowly being drained away.  

With an actual high level expense to a risky choice, party members may actually elect to fail the encounter over expending more much needed resources.  Especially when they may not know what further lies ahead beyond the actual skill check encounter itself.  Risk vs. Reward my friend, gotta love it.

That would essentially be my only suggestion to you, as I will probably adopt it if I do indeed choose to run your system.  I'm very satisfied with your mathmatical expertise and work to improve on WotC's shortcomings in this area.  Thanks for all the hard work.

And thats my 2 cents.


----------



## Stalker0

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is feasible in the model or for that matter mathematically equivalent, but I think it would feel more intuitive if, instead of Bold Recovery successes retroactively modifying failed checks, The Bold Recovery check were modified by the magnitude of the original failure.  Since recovery is a reaction to the failure and not an interrupt, it shouldn't really be revising the result so much as trying to compensate for it.




I'm a little confused what you mean by this. Are you saying for example, that if a person fails teh original check by 5, then simply have the BR have a -5 on its check, but if it succeeds the failure is negated?



> To add to this heightened sense of player choices, I believe that the Bold Recovery action (choice/decision) needs more weight added to a parties decision to actually use or not. Maybe Bold Recovery isn't necessarily a straightforward "duh yea, I'll use BR" to a more thinking mans game of, "Is it worth it?". Incurring a thoretical 2 healing surge penalty for use of Bold Recovery would very well get parties thinking about what may lie on the other side of that very same skill checked door. All-the-while, their surges and other resources are slowly being drained away.




In an earlier version of BR, I did just that, although it was only 1 healing surge instead of 2. Eventually I decided I didn't want to move too far away from the original system, and have parties consume tons of surges. However, if you would like to add this in...go for it!! The math assumes a party will use BR...in general it also assumes the best skill user will use BR first. However, if you want to add in a requirement for a party to consume surges to bail itself out at the end there, that should work out fine. Just understand that a party suffers a higher failure rate should they chose not to surges in that critical time.


----------



## Stalker0

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> I used the your skill challenge system tonight for 3 challenges and it worked well. If complexity 1 wasn't a 1:1 ratio, nearly all 3 would have been a failure. The interesting one was in the second kobold ambush in the KotS, where the skirmisher attempted to run off into the woods and the ranger was hot on its tail. The rest of the party dealt with the wyrmpriest that was left and alone he rolled an Acrobatics, Nature, Perception, Endurance, and finally Acrobatics.
> 
> Before the last acrobatics he had 2 successes and 2 failures, and the last failure indicated that he lost the kobold and the Kobold Lair would be ready for the party. So, I told him he was in the "Time of Trials" and that he could expend a healing surge in order to gain +2 on his check. He agreed and made one final leap with his acrobatics skill, ending up with a 18 with the +2 included. Epic!




Wonderful to hear the system has worked for you so far. I am actually surprised to hear so much feedback about complexity 1 challenges, I actually expected more people to use 2 and 3...but that's the kind of live feedback that I can use to make my system better.

As for your question about whether to allow that heroic surge or a BR for the stealth check. As the DM, its your game run it how you like. I think a BR roll would have fine, the heroic surge was fine, heck even both would have been fine!


----------



## gonesailing

I am putting some sample skill challenges together for my own use.  I am going to keep them in this thread
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230819

Also, Magus Coeruleus, we seem to be working toward the same end (Documentation).  Would you prefer to collaborate?  My personal preference would be to keep the same terminology that Stalker0 is working on, though.


----------



## Paranoia23

I run a lot of one-shots for which I specially tailor the characters to work well with the encounters planned. Using Stalker's system, have I read correctly that the characters are supposed to hit the medium DC 62% of the time? Meaning they generally need an 8 or 9 on the die when using the skills helpful to the skill challenge?

Given how sensitive the skill challenge system is, it'll be nice to be able to tailor the probabilities exactly by pre-genning the characters. I think I read in the original thread that it presumes one minmaxed skill monkey. If I make a party and challenge in which _everyone_ is hitting their roll on 8 or 9, am I pretty much losing out on the monkey-oriented mechanics that require hard DCs?

I guess what would be helpful to me as a party designer is to hear what die rolls each character should be looking for to hit a medium DC, and if the answer is an average value, then how much variance is acceptable. E.g. "'1 Monkey @ 6+, 2 smarties @ 8+, 2 meatshields @ 10+' works but 'monkey at 2+ and meatshields at 13+' dooms the party"

Thanks for all the work. I'm going to do a test challenge during my game this Sunday.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

gonesailing said:
			
		

> I am putting some sample skill challenges together for my own use.  I am going to keep them in this thread
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230819
> 
> Also, Magus Coeruleus, we seem to be working toward the same end (Documentation).  Would you prefer to collaborate?  My personal preference would be to keep the same terminology that Stalker0 is working on, though.



Given my time constraints, I think I'd rather provide feedback on what you guys develop rather than contribute more directly.  I just wanted to show him what I was suggesting by modifying his documentation because I thought it was faster than writing tons of comments in a list the way I did before.  Hope you don't mind my passing the buck!


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused what you mean by this. Are you saying for example, that if a person fails teh original check by 5, then simply have the BR have a -5 on its check, but if it succeeds the failure is negated?



That's the concept exactly, yes.  Whether it would be a 1 for 1 penalty or some other function I don't know.


----------



## gonesailing

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> Given my time constraints, I think I'd rather provide feedback on what you guys develop rather than contribute more directly.  I just wanted to show him what I was suggesting by modifying his documentation because I thought it was faster than writing tons of comments in a list the way I did before.  Hope you don't mind my passing the buck!



I don't mind and understand that time is a factor.  I have some of the same issues.I just didn't want us to be working against each other.  And I really want feedback.  To that end I will start another thread for documentation so this one doesn't become (more) cluttered.


----------



## mrtomsmith

One thing I find interesting about the system is the potential for expanding it. The concepts of tags (Bold and Aid aka Helpful and Daring) could allow for the invention of additional tags in the future to provide more variety in skill challenges. Just like combat always has new features and abilities for the players to master, it'd be nice if skills could stay fresh over 30 levels.

Examples: (kept vague to avoid balance concerns)
(Comeback) Failure provides a bonus to future rolls within some limitations (with a specific skill, within the next round, aids only, etc.)
(Recoverable) If you fail on this one, another PC can roll (specific skill) to save you, even if not in Time of Troubles.
(Insightful) Success reveals what other skills can be used.
(Risky) Failure prevents the use of (allowed skill) until the end of this character's next turn.

You could probably also invent Feats and/or Powers that play into the system. Bonuses specific to Recovery or Time of Trials, for example.

Could the name "Time of Trials" be connected in some way to the 'bloodied' term from 4e combat? It's vaguely similar in that things change when you're closer to failure, so it might be nice to connect the two.


----------



## Dayspire

Hey Stalker - check out this http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dungeon - it's a new adventure from Dungeon magazine, and it has two examples of skill challenges.


----------



## Fieari

Again, from the "Nuts and Bolts" section, what are: 







> Secondary Skills, (Bold) and (Aid) tags, and Bold Opening




This sounds interesting, but you don't describe it in the post!


----------



## Stalker0

Fieari said:
			
		

> Again, from the "Nuts and Bolts" section, what are:
> 
> This sounds interesting, but you don't describe it in the post!




That section is from Version 1.5, I've moved up several versions since then and I haven't had the time to update that section I'm hoping to get the system completely settled and then go from there.


----------



## doctorhook

In your original post, level 11 in the Easy column looks like a typo.

Also, two questions, Stalker0:
1.) Is this the final version of your skill system?

2.) I just bought myself a beautiful new car. Two weeks later, I found a better car for the same price. I'm really tempted to trade in my new car for this better car, but I feel like I haven't really had a chance to enjoy _my car_ yet, even though I waited and saved for so long to buy it.

4E is my new car, and your skill system is the better one; I really like the look of what you've done, but I'm hesitant to try it before I've even tried the core version.

Can anyone testify to how truly awesome this system is _in practice_? Don't mince words; if this way has a downside over the core version, lemme hear it. I'm really interested here, but I'd like to know exactly what I'm getting into.

Thanks,
Kyle


----------



## dragon_eater

Keith Baker just wrote an interesting article about skill challenges. Link 

I bring this up because one of his house rules is allowing Action Points to reroll failed checks. I think some use for Action Points in your version would be a cool addition.


----------



## Stalker0

doctorhook said:
			
		

> In your original post, level 11 in the Easy column looks like a typo.
> 
> Also, two questions, Stalker0:
> 1.) Is this the final version of your skill system?
> 
> 2.) I just bought myself a beautiful new car. Two weeks later, I found a better car for the same price. I'm really tempted to trade in my new car for this better car, but I feel like I haven't really had a chance to enjoy _my car_ yet, even though I waited and saved for so long to buy it.
> 
> 4E is my new car, and your skill system is the better one; I really like the look of what you've done, but I'm hesitant to try it before I've even tried the core version.
> 
> Can anyone testify to how truly awesome this system is _in practice_? Don't mince words; if this way has a downside over the core version, lemme hear it. I'm really interested here, but I'd like to know exactly what I'm getting into.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kyle




The easy column actually isn't a typo, I changed the easy progression at each tier, and that happens to be when it happened. I do think I'm going to change it though, as people are going to get confused by it.

And no, I plan one more version (which I'm currently working on) before I sit back and let the fur fly.

As for benefits/drawbacks comparison, here are a few:

Benefits:
1) More interactive, more player input
2) Better balance overall, more consistent results.
3) Higher complexity = High difficulty, this is not always the case in WOTC's system.

Drawbacks:
1) Higher complexities are shorter than WOTC's
2) Reliance on aid another to compensate for weaker skill users (see below). This is actually a problem that WOTC system has as well, even worse in many cases, but I count it as a drawback because I still feel I should have something better.

The Problem with Aid

You asked for the real deal, and here it is, naked for all the world to see. The biggest flaw in my system is that it doesn't handle well parties that have a low skill user who doesn't use aid another.

Basically your win rate will drop pretty drastically (on the order of 15-20%) if you low skill guy isn't aiding, and by low I mean a difference of 3 or more from the average skill people.

It is a flaw I have worked countless hours to correct, and ultimately found no way to solve it. Here's the problem:

1) You can't take out aid another. Basically that low skill user has to do SOMETHING, or the fun factor of the system fails. But there's no good way to balance the system if the low skill guy is actively participating in the normal mechanics of the system, the variance is too high in an already variable system. This is one of the roadblocks between the math and the fact that the system has to be easy for people to use. If I didn't care about the human element, I could throw in lots of little conditions and requirements that would smooth everything out. But I can't. Further, if I had a system where players were needing 2001 successes before 2000 failures, then it wouldn't be as big a deal. But I can't.

2) I can't force aid another. No one likes being told what to do with their character. Again, the fun factor fails if I do that. But on the other hand, I want the DM to be REALLY encouraging with aid another.

I have made sure in the system that a normal party will always have have higher than 50% win rate even without aiding and an absolute garbage skill guy in there who doesn't aid.

Further, I am working on the next version now, and I will incorporate some corrections that dms can use for players that don't choose to aid. But that's the best I can do right....

wait a minute. I've just had an idea that may help!! Hmmm, back to the spreadsheets!!


----------



## doctorhook

Thank you very much, Stalker0, for taking the time to give me such a detailed response!

One last question, sir: Frankly, I'm in awe of what I see you doing here. I'm highly interested in game design concepts and theory, and I'd like to know, what particular type of math should I study in order to do the sort of things you're doing here?

Thanks again,
Kyle


----------



## Stalker0

doctorhook said:
			
		

> Thank you very much, Stalker0, for taking the time to give me such a detailed response!
> 
> One last question, sir: Frankly, I'm in awe of what I see you doing here. I'm highly interested in game design concepts and theory, and I'd like to know, what particular type of math should I study in order to do the sort of things you're doing here?
> 
> Thanks again,
> Kyle




Hehe, most of what I've done is actually not that complicated. I haven't had a huge study of probability, so a lot of what I've done a more educated person probably could have done in half the time. Mainly what I've done is basic probability and combination theory. But I've been merciless at it, I've run hundreds of scenarios, tried and retried different equations again and again.

Some people would write computer software to model the design, and I did that towards the end to verify my calculations and to more accurately represent certain sections that I was averaging to make the math easier. However, I find in general working directly with the math gives more a more intuitive understanding of what's going on. With a program, I can quickly see what changes do what...but the why I usually got by messing with the equations.

Also, a good knowledge of excel works wonders.

Here's an example of my thought process to help you understand better:

For a while, the biggest problem with my system was that as the complexity increased, the win rate started to tank. That's a natural response to this kind of probability work, and its not something you can just reverse.

So what I needed was a mechanic that gave a bigger bonus to a higher complexity challenge. Of course, the simplest way to do this is simply to say: "If your complexity is 3 or higher, subtract 1 from the DC or something". Things like that are actually the best way mathematically to fix the problem. Thing is, you never want the rules to get too complicated. In general, you want things as consistent as possible.

So I started working on mechanics that affected all complexities, but that would affect higher complexities "more". I tried a whole lot of things, some worked but were too complicated to run, others simple but didn't help the math.

Eventually I hit the idea of the bold recovery mechanic. Bold Recovery is a way for players to help themselves if they are doing badly. Which means the more the fail, the more they "win" as far as that mechanic comes in. So the higher the initial rate of failure, the more potent bold recovery becomes, and therefore, it tends to help higher complexities more than lower ones. Voila! That was a critical mechanic that allowed me to tighten up the differences between a 1st and a 3rd level complexity and provide a way for players to have a more active role in the system.


----------



## Stalker0

Alright everyone, Version 1.8 is out!!

Unless someone finds any obvious mistakes, this will be the last version...for a while.

I want to test the system in my own game (starting tomorrow) and hear feedback from live tests. Further, I want to here how close my "default" party is to the actual ones out there.

Good luck in your games, and I hope the system works well for you!


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

I did a quick copy/paste into a pdf file.. not pretty but easier to print off than the thread


----------



## gonesailing

Just a quick question.  So the "Tags" are gone right?  Guiding Light and Bold Recovery should be useable on every check?  Simplifies things.

Also, I think the "problem" of a weak skill user is really a problem of Challenge design.  I think a challenge needs as many Allowed skills as possible with varied Ability bases.  All physical, mental, or charisma based challenges will tend to leave one or more player out.


----------



## Stalker0

gonesailing said:
			
		

> Just a quick question.  So the "Tags" are gone right?  Guiding Light and Bold Recovery should be useable on every check?  Simplifies things.
> 
> Also, I think the "problem" of a weak skill user is really a problem of Challenge design.  I think a challenge needs as many Allowed skills as possible with varied Ability bases.  All physical, mental, or charisma based challenges will tend to leave one or more player out.




If the tags confused you before I apologize. Even in Ver 1.7 you could use bold recovery and guiding light on every check, except bold recovery could only be used during the time or trials.

The helpful tag just gives you an extra benefit when using Guiding Light, and Daring when using heroic surge and bold recovery.


----------



## IvanHo

I made a somewhat more printable version of the system (still not pretty, but I managed to fit it on a single page and there's less black).

I placed the bold and daring tag info in the setting up skills section.

IvanHo, back to lurking....


----------



## Stalker0

IvanHo said:
			
		

> I made a somewhat more printable version of the system (still not pretty, but I managed to fit it on a single page and there's less black).
> 
> I placed the bold and daring tag info in the setting up skills section.
> 
> IvanHo, back to lurking....




Very nice! I especially like the sideways tables, they are clean and easy to read.

You didn't mention anything about secondary skills though.


----------



## Hawke

The PDF looks nice - one sheet with the info I need as a DM to run it. Overall from a player standpoint they just need to learn what Guiding Light is / does and that they can use a healing surge. Once it gets to the Time of Trials you can give them more info, but just those two bits shouldn't require them to learn a million new things but jump into the challenge. 

I'd suggest running extremely forgiving / easy challenges the first few for your players to give them an idea on how the system works and some of the things they can do with it before trying to destroy them. We always run 2-3 easier combat encounters in a very forgiving way that are setup to show major combat elements before we jump into the game. Considering you'll have maybe 1 skill challenge for every 10 encounters (random guess, will vary) it's almost that much more important they know how it's going to work so when you get to that do-or-die moment where it really matters it isn't the first time they're picking their guiding light and making a choice to use a surge or not. 

Stalker0, thanks for the great info. IvanHo, thanks for the pdf.


----------



## Hawke

The Skill DC lists as "Easy - Med - High," would consistent language sound better? Easy/Medium/Hard or Low/Med/High? 

I think the standard is to use Hard instead of High, though I don't have my books in front of me.


----------



## Verequus

Stalker0, reading through your first two posts I got confused a bit. I first thought that the low DC was missing, but then I discovered it being using by Guiding Light. The way you described it, I expected that a normal roll for success or failure has been given a low DC, not that the low DC belongs only to some new mechanic.

Then the unlocking of new skills isn't mentioned at all. It has to be inferred by the example. Can you give your text another round to look for missing rules? Otherwise your system looks good - I will use it, if I get the chance.


----------



## osmanb

I actually have some similar questions, with regards to the tags in the example. There is no explicit description of those in the rules. All of them make the challenge easier for the players. How much easier? I know that the system is designed to be very robust and tolerant of different parties at this point, but were the simulations done with some assumption about the skills and tags? (eg, there is always one daring skill?).


----------



## gonesailing

Verequus said:
			
		

> Stalker0, reading through your first two posts I got confused a bit. I first thought that the low DC was missing, but then I discovered it being using by Guiding Light. The way you described it, I expected that a normal roll for success or failure has been given a low DC, not that the low DC belongs only to some new mechanic.
> 
> Then the unlocking of new skills isn't mentioned at all. It has to be inferred by the example. Can you give your text another round to look for missing rules? Otherwise your system looks good - I will use it, if I get the chance.




The text is a little unclear in some points, but Stalker0 has done the really hard work(math).  I am trying use my limited English skills to whip up some better documentation for him to approve but in the meantime read the excellent PDF that IvanH0 attached to his post here 
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4298314&postcount=62


----------



## Stalker0

Verequus said:
			
		

> Stalker0, reading through your first two posts I got confused a bit. I first thought that the low DC was missing, but then I discovered it being using by Guiding Light. The way you described it, I expected that a normal roll for success or failure has been given a low DC, not that the low DC belongs only to some new mechanic.
> 
> Then the unlocking of new skills isn't mentioned at all. It has to be inferred by the example. Can you give your text another round to look for missing rules? Otherwise your system looks good - I will use it, if I get the chance.




The reason I did it this way is that in the last version I had people tell me there was too much text, too much complexity. So I tried to streamline, and take the optional things like the tags and secondary skills as an example for people who wanted to use them. But if I have caused more confusion, then I can easily edit that.


----------



## Stalker0

osmanb said:
			
		

> I actually have some similar questions, with regards to the tags in the example. There is no explicit description of those in the rules. All of them make the challenge easier for the players. How much easier?




The core math is done without use of the tags. The tags themselves have little effect on the system overall, as their bonuses tend to be minor and relegated to one roll.

for example with the helpful tag, the real advantage of aid another is not the +2 bonus, its actually the ability to take a person with a low skill mod out of the challenge for a while. So it adding a +3 instead of a +2 actually doesn't make that big of a difference.

So feel free to use or not use various tags as you see fit, they are designed just to give dms more customization in their challenges, and don't serve any balancing function.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The reason I did it this way is that in the last version I had people tell me there was too much text, too much complexity. So I tried to streamline, and take the optional things like the tags and secondary skills as an example for people who wanted to use them. But if I have caused more confusion, then I can easily edit that.



Did you have a chance to check out the Word file I had attached to post #33?  You may not like suggested name changes but I tried to provide concise but thorough explanations of each concept, including the tags.  It may be helpful.


----------



## gonesailing

IvanHo said:
			
		

> I made a somewhat more printable version of the system (still not pretty, but I managed to fit it on a single page and there's less black).
> 
> I placed the bold and daring tag info in the setting up skills section.
> 
> IvanHo, back to lurking....




Looking at it again, I don't think I could do better.


----------



## Verequus

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The reason I did it this way is that in the last version I had people tell me there was too much text, too much complexity. So I tried to streamline, and take the optional things like the tags and secondary skills as an example for people who wanted to use them. But if I have caused more confusion, then I can easily edit that.




Streamlining is good, but if you remove explanations for features you use later then it went too far. How about adding an "Optional Rules" section? That way people can use the simpler variant while knowing what rules encompass actually the simpler variant.


----------



## Stalker0

On Sunday I got to run the first playtest of my new system.

I was a player, and we ran through 2 challenges, a complexity 2 and a complexity 1. Both challenges were open-ended, so the players were allowed to choose their skills.

I won initiative on the first and showed the players how its done by opening up with a heroic surge. The players seemed to like that and so opened up with surges of their own. However, it came down to the time of trials, and the player used his heroic surge to gain a +3 and beat the challenge.

The second one was a complexity 1, and the party made it through with 3 successes and a failure.

One thing that was interesting is that the players naturally wanted the ability to delay their actions, after all being used to the initiative of combat. The Dm allowed it, and I think it should be part of the core system. Its intuitive, and that kind of player choice tends to help the system, not hurt it.

Second, my group HATED the name Guiding Light. What I thought was a cool, heroic sounding name they thought was completely corny. I guess that's why I do math equations and don't create names

However, I did note the once per round aid was a bit of a problem, but not in the way I originally thought. Most of the time, people wanted to aid, not because they wanted to be helpful, but because they were unsure of what to do. People weren't sure of what skills to pick, or how to apply their best skills to a combat, so they looked to aid as a way to "bail them out".

While no one said anything, I could tell there were a few cases of "why can't I aid as well?" written on the players faces. Further, it got a little confusing when a person chose to aid, and then later on a person trying to aid, not remembering someone else had done it. The DM had to remind them of it several times, and then the player would sit trying to think of something to do.

In general, the system did what I had intended it to do, but the AID problem still plagues me. As promised though, I would like to see more playtest results before I change anything, but I will continue to look for better solutions to what I consider the last remaining flaw in the system.


----------



## gonesailing

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> On Sunday I got to run the first playtest of my new system.
> 
> I was a player, and we ran through 2 challenges, a complexity 2 and a complexity 1. Both challenges were open-ended, so the players were *allowed to choose their skills.*
> ....... Most of the time, people wanted to aid, not because they wanted to be helpful, but because they were unsure of what to do. *People weren't sure of what skills to pick*, or how to apply their best skills to a combat, so they looked to aid as a way to "bail them out".



Emphasis Mine
I think it boils down to this.  Mostly this is due to player unfamiliarity, I think.  Also the DM has to be some sort of "Guiding Light"  for the players.  (Which I am sure he was).  Some skills just naturally lend themselves to certain challenges, others might be hard to pick up.  Perhaps more open and shut skill challenges.  Also the DMG has excellent advice on how to run Skill Challenges.  It does say there to explicitly spell out useful skills to the players.  That doesn't mean players can't try something else.


----------



## Knowledge Sinkhole

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Second, my group HATED the name Guiding Light. What I thought was a cool, heroic sounding name they thought was completely corny. I guess that's why I do math equations and don't create names
> 
> However, I did note the once per round aid was a bit of a problem, but not in the way I originally thought. Most of the time, people wanted to aid, not because they wanted to be helpful, but because they were unsure of what to do. People weren't sure of what skills to pick, or how to apply their best skills to a combat, so they looked to aid as a way to "bail them out".
> 
> While no one said anything, I could tell there were a few cases of "why can't I aid as well?" written on the players faces. Further, it got a little confusing when a person chose to aid, and then later on a person trying to aid, not remembering someone else had done it. The DM had to remind them of it several times, and then the player would sit trying to think of something to do.




If everyone wants the opportunity to aid each round, (which, from a roleplaying perspective, seems reasonable) couldn't you provide a remedy by allowing them to do so, but only allow one person to use their +2 bonus to assist someone else for any given check? As written, the guiding light rule seems to be a way for people to prepare for future skill checks; whether assisting someone on another check or rerolling your own. The only real problem from having multiple people use it each round is that you could then grant a character a massive bonus from multiple people assisting (which, as you mention, is the problem with the aid another rules as written in the DMG).  So, since you still couldn't ever get more than a +2 bonus from aiding, it seems that the only real problem would be that there would be more skill rerolls.  This might skew the math unacceptably; if so, perhaps limit the number of guiding light rerolls to 1x per character per challenge? That doesn't seem too different from what you'd get with the current rules, where you can get at most 1x per round. And heck, it makes it fit in with the encounter powers that players are familiar with already.

Perhaps as an alternate name, "Plan for the Worst".  Or, if that's too negative, "Cunning Preparation". Or maybe "Spit in Murphy's Eye," if you want it to be light hearted. 

In fact, writing it up as an encounter power might make it obvious how it works, and avoid player confusion.  Much as how basic attacks are at-will powers that everyone has, or second wind. Something like the following:



> Cunning Preparation
> You think ahead, planning for the challenges to come, and skillfully lay the groundwork for future success.
> 
> Encounter
> Standard Action -  Personal
> Effect:  During a skill challenge, instead of taking your normal turn, you may roll an allowed skill check against a lower DC that does not count as a success or failure. If you succeed, you may do one of the following:
> 1) Provide another character a +2 power bonus to his or her next skill check.
> 2) Reroll one of your own skill checks later in the challenge, though you must take the new result.




If you opt for this route, it might make more sense to let the player choose which skill check to give an ally a +2 bonus on, rather than mandate that it be the next one. That way, multiple people can use the power on the same round and not have it be wasted. And, you're still only ever going to see a single +2 bonus for any given skill, because power bonuses don't stack.

EDIT: I was looking over your original system again, and I think that you could actually write up each of the new skill challenge options that your system provides as encounter frequency powers. This would let you clean up the wording to make them inline with the rest of the 4e ruleset, and potentially make the whole system a lot easier to grok. For instance, you could give the guiding light power a keyword, like "Simple," and the bold recovery a keyword like "Challenging". Then, you can just title each DC column accordingly, and know instantly which to use.

SECOND EDIT: Actually, looking at the current DC table, you could remove the two extra column entirely if you turned them into bonuses or penalties associated with the powers.

For example, for the guiding light power, you could just have them make the skill check with a bonus dependent on level:
Level 1-11: +4 
Level 12-20: +5
Level 21-30: +6
(a little odd, since the bonus increases at level 12 instead of level 11, but workable. Or you could just make it increase at level 11 for sake of simplicity. Oh, I just realized you changed it TO its current form for simplicity; changing it back would make it more simple, AND more mathematically sound!)

For bold recovery, you could just have them make a skill check with a penalty dependent on level:
Bold Recovery:
Level 1-10: -5
Level 11-20: -6
Level 21: -7
(This one's even nicer, since it directly follows the tier structure!)

Then, you only have one DC column, no fuss, no muss. The DM doesn't have to worry about doing any extra bookkeeping; the players can adjust their bonuses accordingly (even noting them ahead of time), and roll against the same DC no matter what type of action they're taking.  And, with the power rules as written, it should be extremely easy to follow. 

What do you think?


----------



## Black Plauge

I've just seen this for the first time and must say that it looks good.  One thing though, you talk about "Daring" and "Helpful" tags for the skills but the most recent version (1.8) doesn't describe what these tags mean.  Clarification?


----------



## Stalker0

Knowledge Sinkhole said:
			
		

> If everyone wants the opportunity to aid each round, (which, from a roleplaying perspective, seems reasonable) couldn't you provide a remedy by allowing them to do so, but only allow one person to use their +2 bonus to assist someone else for any given check?




Unfortunately no. The reason is the +2 bonus from aid is actually not the real benefit from aid. The "real" power of aid is the ability for a player to pull himself out of the skill challenge, letting the guy with the best skill make all the rolls.

For example, take 3 people, with a +9, +8, and a +12 to their skill mods for a skill challenge. By electing the aid action, you can now let +12 make all of the rolls, which is a huge benefit. Then throw on the +2's you could potentially get, and the benefit is even bigger. 

However, if I don't allow all the extra +2's, that would curb the discrepency between small and larger parties. However, aid another would also become "bow out of the skill challenge", which is not what the system is supposed to encourage.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

Stalker0, based on your analyses, what recommendations would you make if I did not want to force anyone to make a roll or aid another necessarily?  I appreciate the 4e philosophy of encouraging everyone to participate in a skill challenge but frankly I feel that if the work has been done to make sure everyone usually has applicable skills and there is a meta-game social expectation that people should have their PCs participate when they can, that it should not be necessary to force anyone to roll if they really think it makes more sense to hold off.  Maybe there's even something useful they can be doing besides working on the skill challenge per se, for instance defending those making skill checks from attackers, making active perception checks for something potentially important but totally unrelated to the challenge, etc.

Thanks.


----------



## Stalker0

Black Plauge said:
			
		

> I've just seen this for the first time and must say that it looks good.  One thing though, you talk about "Daring" and "Helpful" tags for the skills but the most recent version (1.8) doesn't describe what these tags mean.  Clarification?




I have updated the front page with the tags as an optional rule. So I hope that clears everything up.


----------



## Stalker0

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> Stalker0, based on your analyzes, what recommendations would you make if I did not want to force anyone to make a roll or aid another necessarily?




In general, aid is only "necessary" when the person is using a low skill for the challenge. If he's using a skill that's about par with the group, you will only get a small drop in your win rate if he doesn't aid.

If the player chooses not to participate in the skill challenge at all, then check your new party vs the standard. If the rest of the party is average, there's probably nothing that needs to be changed for the challenge. If the new party tends to have a big skill user, you may wish to add +1 to the DC to balance it out.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

Stalker, the 3x rules by Penumbra for social encounters take the diplomancy rolls, etc and turn them into a combat-esque process that has 'hit points' on each side. Perhaps remove the 'success' and failures with a set number of hit points. A success deals 3 points of damage. A failure deals 0 points and may have other implications later.
Then replace 'aid another' with a check vs the simple DC that deals 1 point of damage on a success.

This allows the low skill monkey to still impact the success of the group.

Of course, you would need some attrition measure or time limit on the encounter. Perhaps 5 'rounds' per challenge levels. This would have to be set just right so that the low skill characters would need to act in order for the group to succeed.


--or, maybe I am talking out of my 4th point of contact


----------



## Knowledge Sinkhole

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately no. The reason is the +2 bonus from aid is actually not the real benefit from aid. The "real" power of aid is the ability for a player to pull himself out of the skill challenge, letting the guy with the best skill make all the rolls.
> 
> For example, take 3 people, with a +9, +8, and a +12 to their skill mods for a skill challenge. By electing the aid action, you can now let +12 make all of the rolls, which is a huge benefit. Then throw on the +2's you could potentially get, and the benefit is even bigger.
> 
> However, if I don't allow all the extra +2's, that would curb the discrepency between small and larger parties. However, aid another would also become "bow out of the skill challenge", which is not what the system is supposed to encourage.




I think, then, that my alternate suggestion of making it an encounter use power would work well. It would also mean that the timing of the power would be tactically important; if you use it on a check you could do well on, you lose the chance to bow out of one in which you would do poorly.


----------



## bardolph

Thanks for the terrific system, Stalker0.  I appreciate all of the hard work you put into it.

One of my reservations with this system is that it gets a little "crunchy" for my taste.  I'd like to be able to use this system, but without the resource management aspect. 

Here are some tweaks I'm considering when using this system in my game.

Guiding Light: I'm not so wild about integrating a "role" into the mechanics of a skill challenge.  I'd be satisfied with allowing a simple Aid Another roll at DC 10/15/20 (based on tier), but making this bonus non-stackable.  Multiple players can aid, but because the bonus is non-stackable, they might have to aid different players.

Critical Success: Rather than banking this success against future failures, could this count as an extra success, without skewing the numbers too much?

Heroic Surge: Do your difficulty DCs assume that the players are spending Heroic surges throughout the skill challenge?  Would eliminating the Heroic Surge throw off all the numbers?

Time of Trials and Bold Recovery: I do like the idea of "rescuing" a skill challenge from failure, but I'd like to avoid having distinct "phases" in a skill challenge.  What I'm think of is this: once per encounter, each player has the ability to reroll another player's failure, using a Hard DC and an allowed skill.  Success = erase the failure.  Failure = add one more failure.

Daring Skills: I like the idea of certain skills being riskier than others.  If I'm not using Heroic Surges, perhaps a "Daring" skill also carries with it a +2/-2 adjustment to the next skill check, depending on success or failure of the roll?


----------



## bardolph

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately no. The reason is the +2 bonus from aid is actually not the real benefit from aid. The "real" power of aid is the ability for a player to pull himself out of the skill challenge, letting the guy with the best skill make all the rolls.
> 
> For example, take 3 people, with a +9, +8, and a +12 to their skill mods for a skill challenge. By electing the aid action, you can now let +12 make all of the rolls, which is a huge benefit. Then throw on the +2's you could potentially get, and the benefit is even bigger.
> 
> However, if I don't allow all the extra +2's, that would curb the discrepency between small and larger parties. However, aid another would also become "bow out of the skill challenge", which is not what the system is supposed to encourage.



In many cases, it _is_ appropriate for the lead skill member to be the one making all of the most important rolls.  For example, in the operating room, the surgeon is the only one with the knife.  The same would apply in a Negotiation challenge.

A good way to mitigate this effect in some skill challenges is to require a certain number of successes in various skills per round, with group penalties if this quota is not met.  This is what the DMG recommends.  For example, a Wilderness Survival challenge may require a minimum of one Nature and two Endurance successes per round.


----------



## jeffhartsell

I like this revamped version.

Comments:
1. Instead of unlocking a secondary skill with a DC+5 check, grant a +2 to the next roll.
2. Removing unlocking secondary skills. The secondary skills are a reward for players thinking of creative ways to use skills not listed as primary and get the group involved in RP right away. If the first player to go does not have a primary skill and is not the "guiding light" he is screwed.
3. Allow the use of action points granting the player a re-roll.

I agree that the DCs given in the DMG need this minor tweaking to take into account each discrete level of play. A more intuitive approach would have been to stick with +5, so level 1 easy would start at 13 and you increase that by 1/2 level to account for leveling and increase medium and hard by +5 and +10 over the easy number.

So you get easy as 13, 14, 14, 15, 15, 16, 16, etc. all the way to 28 for level 30 easy check.

Or start at 14, 19, 24. But I agree with 18 as the medium DC for level 1. Using that as the base and adjust by -5 and +5 for easy and hard.


----------



## Stalker0

bardolph said:
			
		

> Thanks for the terrific system, Stalker0.  I appreciate all of the hard work you put into it.
> 
> One of my reservations with this system is that it gets a little "crunchy" for my taste.  I'd like to be able to use this system, but without the resource management aspect.
> 
> Guiding Light: I'm not so wild about integrating a "role" into the mechanics of a skill challenge.  I'd be satisfied with allowing a simple Aid Another roll at DC 10/15/20 (based on tier), but making this bonus non-stackable.  Multiple players can aid, but because the bonus is non-stackable, they might have to aid different players.
> 
> Critical Success: Rather than banking this success against future failures, could this count as an extra success, without skewing the numbers too much?
> 
> Heroic Surge: Do your difficulty DCs assume that the players are spending Heroic surges throughout the skill challenge?  Would eliminating the Heroic Surge throw off all the numbers?
> 
> Time of Trials and Bold Recovery: I do like the idea of "rescuing" a skill challenge from failure, but I'd like to avoid having distinct "phases" in a skill challenge.  What I'm think of is this: once per encounter, each player has the ability to reroll another player's failure, using a Hard DC and an allowed skill.  Success = erase the failure.  Failure = add one more failure.
> 
> Daring Skills: I like the idea of certain skills being riskier than others.  If I'm not using Heroic Surges, perhaps a "Daring" skill also carries with it a +2/-2 adjustment to the next skill check, depending on success or failure of the roll?




If you prefer a clean system that does not have so much "crunch", I highly recommend my Obsidian system, which can be found here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4319615#post4319615.

It is very different from the standard skill challenge system, but you may find its simplicity to your liking.

On to your questions and comments:
Guiding Light is the biggest problem in the system, I'm pretty open about that. Unfortunately, its effect is so swingy in the math it has to be tightly regulated. Allowing multiple players to aid, even with a non-stackable bonus, can have a huge impact on the win rate, because your magnifying the players who have the high bonuses and are making all of the skill checks.

Critical Success doesn't exist anymore, that was in an earlier version of the system but was dropped.

Heroic Surge: My system assumes players are usually using a surge or two, perhaps 3 for a complexity 3 challenge. It shouldn't affect the numbers too much if you take it out. If you want, subtract 1 from the DC when doing a complexity 3 challenge. Other than that, I wouldn't make any other changes.

Bold Recovery: Your idea for bold recovery is interesting, I haven't run any models on that variant but your idea is not a little change. The fact that players can use BR at any time is a HUGE increase in BRs power. The fact that a player can completely negate a failure instead of just adding a +4 is another increase in its power. The fact that you add a failure is a significant drawback. How all of these factors play together would have to be looked at in detail.


----------



## RaynerApe

Can we get a PDF of this system, please?


----------



## bardolph

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> If you prefer a clean system that does not have so much "crunch", I highly recommend my Obsidian system, which can be found here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4319615#post4319615.
> 
> It is very different from the standard skill challenge system, but you may find its simplicity to your liking.



Heh, you've certainly been keeping yourself busy, Stalker0!  I'll check it out.



> On to your questions and comments:
> Guiding Light is the biggest problem in the system, I'm pretty open about that. Unfortunately, its effect is so swingy in the math it has to be tightly regulated. Allowing multiple players to aid, even with a non-stackable bonus, can have a huge impact on the win rate, because your magnifying the players who have the high bonuses and are making all of the skill checks.



A high likelihood of success is desirable.  After all, PCs win combat encounters virtually 100% of the time.  However, I see what you're saying.  It's a tough problem to solve.

The fundamental difference between combat and skill challenges is that combat doesn't have a direct penalty for missing a roll.  Rather, it functions more like a race: can the PC's deal X damage before the enemy deals Y damage?  Because enemy creatures are expected to accomplish a certain amount of progress each round, it behooves the party to accumulate as many successes (hits) as possible per round.  This encourages an active role from each member of the party.

Skill Challenges are the opposite: the goal is to limit the number of failures, since the number of failures is what sets the end of the challenge.  This encourages caution, since everyone except the highest roller should bow out.

I can see how Guiding Light addresses this issue, since it forces positions 2-4 (in a 5-person party) to roll regardless of their skill.  In a sense, this creates a situation where players 1 (Skilly McAwesome) and 5 (The Guiding Light) are racing to accumulate the needed number of successes before the rest of the party accumulates enough failures to end the challenge.



> Heroic Surge: My system assumes players are usually using a surge or two, perhaps 3 for a complexity 3 challenge. It shouldn't affect the numbers too much if you take it out. If you want, subtract 1 from the DC when doing a complexity 3 challenge. Other than that, I wouldn't make any other changes.



My concern is that Healing Surges are the recommend penalty for failure in the DMG.  If Healing Surges are also the price for success, then the party is placed into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.



> Bold Recovery: Your idea for bold recovery is interesting, I haven't run any models on that variant but your idea is not a little change. The fact that players can use BR at any time is a HUGE increase in BRs power. The fact that a player can completely negate a failure instead of just adding a +4 is another increase in its power. The fact that you add a failure is a significant drawback. How all of these factors play together would have to be looked at in detail.



I disagree that using BR early would be an increase in power.  If BR is a "hard" roll, it really would only make sense to use it to prevent the final failure, since the penalty for missing the BR (an additional failure) is so much more punishing at any other point in the challenge.


----------



## Stalker0

RaynerApe said:
			
		

> Can we get a PDF of this system, please?




A pdf has already been posted in the thread, you can find it here: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4298314&postcount=62

It still needs a bit more formatting to clean it up, but its there. I intend to clean up the formatting so we can hopefully get a nice clean version ready to go.

Right now I'm working on my Obsidian system. My goal is to have pdfs of both, so that I can present DMs with different options for their group, as each system has its advantages.


----------



## Doc Aquatic

I'm really impressed by this system, Stalker0, and I can't wait to use it in the game I'm running. Even aside from the more balanced math, I love the tactical options you give player characters to help their skill checks, which helps make skill challenges in line with combat in terms of the options players are given. Great job!


----------



## Keenath

I'm heartily impressed, Stalker0!

How flexible is this system when you start throwing off-level PCs into it?  If I plan a level 4 skill challenge, and everyone's only level 3 when they get there, how does that alter their chances?  Could I offset that by dropping the complexity one level?  What about getting level 5 or 6 characters into a level 4 skill challenge versus bumping the complexity up?  Is a 2-levels-higher party appropriate for a complexity 4 or 5 challenge?


----------



## Stalker0

Keenath said:
			
		

> I'm heartily impressed, Stalker0!
> 
> How flexible is this system when you start throwing off-level PCs into it?  If I plan a level 4 skill challenge, and everyone's only level 3 when they get there, how does that alter their chances?  Could I offset that by dropping the complexity one level?  What about getting level 5 or 6 characters into a level 4 skill challenge versus bumping the complexity up?  Is a 2-levels-higher party appropriate for a complexity 4 or 5 challenge?




A regular party of two levels higher should be able to tackle a complexity 5 challenge and have a solid win rate.

In general, dropping the complexity one level will tighten up the win rate when your bumping up the difficulty. The challenge will still be a bit harder for the party than a standard skill challenge, but should work fine.


----------



## Keenath

Well, okay.  I built a quick little monte-carlo testing program in VB to try out some variable adjustments.

I built a level 10 party along the same lines as Stalker0's example party -- one awesome skill guy, two moderately-good ones, one moderate-low (-2 below the moderate-good ones, equivalent to an armor penalty or lower ability score), and one awful (untrained and using an non-focus skill).  The 'awful' guy always provided assistance (I really can't use the term "guiding light"...) to the second-lowest guy, so his checks don't count towards success or failure but might give the moderate-low guy a +2 to bring him up to moderately-good.

The program takes into account one Bold Recovery attempt per turn, made by the guy with the highest bonus.  Technically you could have multiple bold recovery attempts made by different players if you had multiple final failures in a single turn, but that would add a layer of complexity -- so just assume they always fail those attempts.  Also, this whole thing ignores the use of Heroic Surges, so the actual success rates will be slightly higher if the players want to spend resources, and it ignores any skill-boosting utility powers, which could theoretically convert a "moderate" to a second "good" skill user, or boost the low guy to a moderate.  Whatever.  Those are too situational to try to figure in.

In any case, this is what my little die roller came up with:

Given an on-level challenge the success rates were as follows:

Comp 1: 75% 
Comp 2: 66%
Comp 3: 60%
Comp 4: 55%
Comp 5: 50%

The last two don't seem too awful; a second good skill user or lots of surge use could easily kick those up quite a bit.

Adding 1 to the DC (or, equivalently, running into a challenge designed for a party 1 or 2 levels higher) has the following success rates:
Comp 1: 66%
Comp 2: 53%
Comp 3: 45%
Comp 4: 39%
Comp 5: 33%

So I definitely wouldn't recommend using the higher complexities against a lower-level party.  Adding 2 to the DCs (or using a party 3 to 4 levels lower) results in a massive drop in success rates, down to around 50% for complexity 1, so I really wouldn't do that.

Subtracting 1 from the DC (equivalent to hitting the challenge with a slightly higher-level party) provides these numbers:
Comp 1: 83%
Comp 2: 77%
Comp 3: 74%
Comp 4: 71%
Comp 5: 68%

So that's just fine even without any surges.


Given those numbers, I think it would be appropriate to calculate XP as X+1 monsters of that level, where X is the complexity -- thus complexity 1 is the same as 2 monsters, complexity 4 is equivalent to an on-level Solo (requiring significant resources and maybe some luck to beat), and so on.


----------



## EldritchFire

Stalker0 said:


> *Bluff (Daring):* You try to convince the other party using false pretenses. If you use a heroic surge with bluff, you gain an additional +1. You also gain a +2 to your roll if you use it with a Bold Recovery.




What does this Daring tag do?

-EF


----------



## Tellerve

So, which system are you going to use Stalker0?  This one or your Obsidian version?  And any chance you'll .pdf this version, or have you and I just missed it?

thanks,

Tellerve


----------



## Stalker0

Tellerve said:


> So, which system are you going to use Stalker0?  This one or your Obsidian version?  And any chance you'll .pdf this version, or have you and I just missed it?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Tellerve




My group will be using the Obsidian system. In fact, the reason I designed Obsidian is because my group liked the skill challenge idea, but they wanted a system that was more "invisible". They also really didn't like how failure works in the original system (and core system). So far, they have loved the new system, so they will be using that one.

As for a pdf, there is a pdf of this system within the thread. Work has ramped up for me a lot lately, so I haven't had time for much else, but if I get time I will make a cleaner pdf version.


----------



## Stalker0

EldritchFire said:


> What does this Daring tag do?
> 
> -EF




If you use a heroic surge with a daring skill, you gain an additional +1. You also gain a +2 to your roll if you use that skill with a Bold Recovery.


----------



## Gwarh

double posting error. See below for acctual content


----------



## Gwarh

Thanks and Kudo's Stalker0 for all your hard work. I am gratefull and will be trying out both your Skill Challenge systems soon enough in game.

Just a minor point and of course it's all a matter of opinion, but I felt some of the terminology used in your Alternate Core Skill Challenge System "ACSCS" would benefit with more intuitive name/titles perhaps. So here are a few ideas I was mulling over for my own printout of your system. Posting them more for fun really than in an effort to encourage you to change anything.

*Guiding Light* is now "THERE'S NO I IN TEAM" or "TEAM PLAYER"
*Heroic Surge* is now "HEROIC EFFORT"
*The Time of Trials* is now "LAST CHANCE" or "CRUNCH TIME"
*Bold Recovery* is now "BOUNCE BACK" 

I just felt for me at least, the names were not entierly intuative. And wanted my players to get a feel for what they did/represent with just a glance at there names.

Also

Like one or two others I like the idea of more than one person being able to aid a task. But also see it's rife for abuse as the rule stands in the Core DMG as written.

How about allowing *Aid Another* but making the DC equal to the "EASY" test at the given level, and setting a cap at *3* players aiding the Lead roller. With each Aid giving a *+1*. Might be a bit arbritrary, but 3 sounds like a fair number. To many Cooks in a Kitchen ruins a Cake so to speak.


----------



## Stalker0

Gwarh said:


> How about allowing *Aid Another* but making the DC equal to the "EASY" test at the given level, and setting a cap at *3* players aiding the Lead roller. With each Aid giving a *+1*. Might be a bit arbritrary, but 3 sounds like a fair number. To many Cooks in a Kitchen ruins a Cake so to speak.




The thing about aid another is its not the bonus that makes it so strong, its the fact that a person with a low skill can take themselves out of the skill challenge.

At the most powerful, a team of 5 with one guy having a very high skill, every other player "drops out" effectively and the one guy makes all the rolls. This actually has a tremendous impact on a party's win rate. Even with only letting 3 people aid, you still have that huge effect.


----------



## Gwarh

Stalker0 said:


> The thing about aid another is its not the bonus that makes it so strong, its the fact that a person with a low skill can take themselves out of the skill challenge.
> 
> At the most powerful, a team of 5 with one guy having a very high skill, every other player "drops out" effectively and the one guy makes all the rolls. This actually has a tremendous impact on a party's win rate. Even with only letting 3 people aid, you still have that huge effect.




Fart, I knew you'd say that  and it's as I thought. But this leads me to another question about your Skill Challenge systems. How do they handle "*AGAINST THE CLOCK*" challenges.

That is to say if the challenge has a time limit. Not real world time but game time, say in 3 rounds a party of 4 must acheive 7 sucesses before 5 failures. So in this scenario it would make sense (time wise) for each party member to roll for a success each round to try and reach the goal before time runs out, (_and the Temple guards come round the corner_)

In the above scenario, they could though use the "Aid Another" option but at there own peril. As sure it will increase the likelyhood of sucesses vs. failures, but also they are drastically reducing the chance at multiple sucesses in the time they have.

I'm guessing the entire Time thing is Abstracted in the first place so this might all be moot. And I totally understand the cause and effect by removing a party members from the rolls and how this effects the PWR, but it just rubs me wrong that more than one can't Aid Another. Or the idea some people seem to have that Aid Another may not even be allowed at all in Skill Challenges.

IMO Aid Another should be allowed (within reason, even if it's an arbitrary limit) but there should also be consequences for to many Party Members not making there own rolls as well. I'm sure you've Grok'd this all before Stalker0. It just seems natural and intuitive to me some party members would be allowed to assist another in a sense. 

One More Question though.

If I was to allow up to a max of 3 party members to "Aid Another" with each garnering a max of +1 to the aid (and an overall max of +3) the +3 part of the bonus doesn't throw the equation out of whack right. It's the fact that now 3 not just 1 are not rolling that throws off the math. I guess in a vs. Time & Successes scenario as opposed to a vs. Successes scenario I don't mind the math being thrown off a bit, cause there are consequences for said choice.


----------



## Stalker0

Gwarh said:


> Fart, I knew you'd say that  and it's as I thought. But this leads me to another question about your Skill Challenge systems. How do they handle "*AGAINST THE CLOCK*" challenges.
> 
> I'm sure you've Grok'd this all before Stalker0. It just seems natural and intuitive to me some party members would be allowed to assist another in a sense.




As you said, aid another is not as big a deal if time is a factor, in this case, you could easily allow an exception to the aid rules, as the real enemy at that point is the clock.

If you prefer "against the clock" challenges, you may wish to look at my Obsidian system, as that is designed specifically as an against the clock style. Check my sig for that link.


I understand your concerns about aid another. I'll be honest with you and everyone else, this is the biggest flaw in my system. I could not find a good way to keep aid another in and allow it more freely, its just so strong a driving force in the skill challenge. Take it out, low skill people drag the party down too much. Allow it more freely, parties that use it will win far far far more than parties that don't.


----------



## Keenath

This is how I explained it to my party:

You really can't use Aid Another in a skill challenge.  When you do that on a normal skill check, it means you're working together to accomplish the goal, whether that's lifting a rock or intimidating some thugs.

When you're doing a skill challenge, you're all working together _anyway_.  You can't decide to use Aid Another to help MORE; whatever you do is already trying to help.  A skill challenge doesn't restrict Aiding; it assumes that everyone is Aiding all the time and provides rules for how to determine whether the task is getting closer to completion or total failure.

Each turn, one person can concentrate on actually helping somebody else with their specific task, and that's the Assistance action (my name for Guiding Light), but that's only helping in a very limited way that doesn't meaningfully contribute to the group effort.



Stalker0:  So, what do I do if one of the players decides to "sit this one out" or "hang back this turn"?  Does he earn an automatic failure each round, as if he'd tried and failed?


----------



## Hadrian the Builder

Stalker,
Being an engineer and all, I have to say how awesome it is to see a quantitative design method applied to game design. I can't wait to use this system! Don't concern yourself with altering guiding light (at least not yet). Have faith in the mathematics. 

(I also have to say how disappointed I am that WoTC, who have been touting the math behind the 4E system, missed this one)

I'd like to echo the above poster from a different direction.

How does your system tolerate other party sizes?
Alternately,
How do I accommodate a party with more players?

Finally, this is an absolutely superlative effort. Kudos to you for developing a solution instead of simply talking about a problem.


----------



## blashimov

Great job Stalker0! I wanted to say that what's worked well for is self-regulation. Parties I've played with simply don't aid unless it makes good sense in the characters descriptions of actions, or especially when someone has low skills. This happens all the time because we avoid repeated the same skill like the plague, as it requires a new description of what you are doing. In addition, aiding doesn't take time - you can aid and still make a roll when your turn comes up. You tables on the core system match what I've experienced with this - parties often have a range of 5-12 at first level of skills they are attempting (12 is still rare), and the occasional aid makes up for people not using strong skills. Examples: Player almost never aid on perception when they don't describe their action as "searching". They might aid on a climb with rope - but not a jump, or when trying to dig your way out of cave. We've hit about 80% success - maybe a little higher.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Just a point of clarification: is this system intended to function in more or less the same way as the standard challenges--i.e. roll for initiative, each player must choose a skill to roll each round, etc.?  If that's the case, when do the players pick that round's Guiding Light?

The way I read this, if only one player is allowed to be the Guiding Light each round, then a player declares himself GL on his turn, and stays GL until the beginning of his next turn.  So then, he could declare himself GL again, or roll against the challenge, freeing up the GL position.  Now, let's say the next player in the initiative order wants to be the GL.  He stays that way for a round, and then goes back to rolling normally.  But now the first player wants to be GL.  So for the rest of the round until the first player's turn comes up, there's no GL, and nobody is getting the bonus, due to the initiative order.  Is this the intention, or am I reading it incorrectly?


----------



## Stalker0

Lonely Tylenol said:


> But now the first player wants to be GL.  So for the rest of the round until the first player's turn comes up, there's no GL, and nobody is getting the bonus, due to the initiative order.  Is this the intention, or am I reading it incorrectly?




The intention is that the party picks the guiding light at the beginning of the turn.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk

Is your system still necessary after the errata to the Skill Challenge system? Did that errata make skill challenges work?


----------



## Stalker0

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> Is your system still necessary after the errata to the Skill Challenge system? Did that errata make skill challenges work?




A good question.

I think overall WOTC made some good changes to its system, but there are still flaws. Now the rules encourage players to drop out of the challenge and let the skilled people do it, which is counteractive to the original point of the challenge. Further, it has now become much easier with utility powers to autosucceed at skill checks by gaining skill bonuses.

That said, the math is more solid (though the high variability is still there). The failure rate is now acceptable...imo, its a workable system. If this had been the system I had been originally presented with, I would never have taken all the time and effort to develop two systems on my own.


I think there is still a place for this system, it still offers a lot of benefit, but the gap has been narrowed.


----------



## jbear

Just a quick question Stalker,

Are you using this system with your game or the obsidian system. I used your Obsidian system in my last game session and everybody had a ball. 

Apart from that it is pretty straightforward. I guess that is where my curiosity lies looking at this finished version of a system more similar to original and at a glance a more complex system.

Which version do you prefer yourself?


----------



## Stalker0

My group prefers Obsidian. When I showed them my original system, they thought it fixed a lot of issues with the original system, but they didn't really like the concept of the original system. From that was born Obsidian. The playstyles of each meshes with different groups, for my group Obsidian was met with much more success.


----------



## CapnZapp

Stalker0 said:


> I think overall WOTC made some good changes to its system, but there are still flaws. Now the rules encourage players to drop out of the challenge and let the skilled people do it, which is counteractive to the original point of the challenge. Further, it has now become much easier with utility powers to autosucceed at skill checks by gaining skill bonuses.



The first point is a good one. 

That is, what were they thinking when they came up with you having to count failures? The whole point was to engage everybody, not just the skill monkey! I far prefer that even the fighter who needs to roll 19 is encouraged to make an effort. Just like in your Obsidian system!

The second point; I'm not so experienced with high-level play so I can't say for sure. But I see your point. Wasn't the purpose of the entire 4E powers overhaul to make sure powers didn't became mandatory?

Don't tell me skill bonus powers have become essential! (Or rather, I guess you just did. This calls for a solution that limits the number and utility of powers in skill challenges)...


----------



## Lakoda

The utility problem is easily solved by knowing your players.  If they take non-combat utility powers then reward them periodically with skill challenges that use the primary skill they can buff.  But do it once in a while.  As a general DM style, if you always do the same thing (even if it is to play to the players' strengths) things get predictable (and stale) and the players can more easily spec for your adventures.  If you keep it pretty balanced then they will too and it won't be a big deal.  No one remembers the big dumb fighter lifting the heavy object but they certainly remember how he managed to talk the gnome out of shiny - take them out of their element, just bring them back before they get frustrated.  Changing the primary skill between segments is a great way to keep them on their toes.


----------



## jbear

Actually I like both of your systems.

I'm really having fun threading encounters together with skill challenges and designing ways for the party to achieve victory without being forced into battle (if they so choose).

I actually find that I can be flexible with the mechanics of the challenge depending on the situation, as long as the players know what is expected of them. i.e everyone has to run so everyone needs to roll endurance: if 4/7 succeed it counts as one success towards one of the three segments (of your obsidian system) and 6/7 counts as 2. 

And still I can imagine challenges where I can see this more complex version of the system being more appropriate. My players are all new so the are accepting of everthing I put to them so I don't think they would have problems with the skill challenge mechanics differing from one challenge to another would bother them.
I'll have to sit down and study it.

Anyway, thanks again for your brilliant work and efforts. They are greatly appreciated.


----------



## Suicide King

Very cool and very useful. Thanks for creating this, it fixes a lot of issues I have with the original system.

A questions though - how do the different bonuses stack?
Let say a player is the guiding light, using a helpful skill and it's during the time of trials - does he then provide a +4 bonus? (+3 for guiding light during ToT, +1 for helpful skill)
What about using bold skills on a bold recovery roll while also spending a healing surge (during ToT, of course). Does that provide +5 in total? (+2 for bold skill on bold recovery, +3 for healing surge during ToT).

A few notes on how the different bonuses and mechanics interact might make this more immediately obvious


----------



## Stalker0

Suicide King said:


> Very cool and very useful. Thanks for creating this, it fixes a lot of issues I have with the original system.
> 
> A questions though - how do the different bonuses stack?
> Let say a player is the guiding light, using a helpful skill and it's during the time of trials - does he then provide a +4 bonus? (+3 for guiding light during ToT, +1 for helpful skill)
> What about using bold skills on a bold recovery roll while also spending a healing surge (during ToT, of course). Does that provide +5 in total? (+2 for bold skill on bold recovery, +3 for healing surge during ToT).
> 
> A few notes on how the different bonuses and mechanics interact might make this more immediately obvious




1) There is no guiding light bonus during TOT. So it would be +2 for guiding light, +1 for helpful skill.

2) If you spend a healing surge during the TOT, you get a +3 bonus to the skill. If you are using a bold skill, that increases by 1, so +4. If its a bold recovery roll, that's another +2, so +6.

Hmm...I'll have to check my math, I don't know if I intended the system to stack that much on the one roll, but as written, that is how it works.


----------



## Smeelbo

*Stalker0:* You are my new hero now, and may have saved _4E_ for me.  The combat system is good enough, and the character classes are largely geared towards combat, but the skill system as published was broken.  Upon reading the mechanics and the responses here and in a few other threads, it looks like you have developed a system that is fun, playable, and solid.  Thank you for putting the effort into both systems, especially the testing and modelling, which _Hasbro_ seems negligent regarding.

I have forwarded links to your systems to our DM, we'll see how it goes.  But thank you again.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## dammitbiscuit

jbear said:


> Actually I like both of your systems.
> 
> And still I can imagine challenges where I can see this more complex version of the system being more appropriate.



I am a much bigger fan of Obsidian, but that is because I think as a DM and Obsidian is much easier. This system, though, certainly has a lot more interesting options to it. I guess I could see, from a player's perspective, how this feels more intricate and "challenging" and might make it feel like the stakes are higher, or at least that the road to success on the skill challenge will be a longer one with more rolls being made.

Question for jbear and others who like both stalker systems:
At what times, or for which challenges, would you run this system instead of Obsidian, and why?


----------



## jbear

dammitbiscuit said:


> I am a much bigger fan of Obsidian, but that is because I think as a DM and Obsidian is much easier. This system, though, certainly has a lot more interesting options to it. I guess I could see, from a player's perspective, how this feels more intricate and "challenging" and might make it feel like the stakes are higher, or at least that the road to success on the skill challenge will be a longer one with more rolls being made.
> 
> Question for jbear and others who like both stalker systems:
> At what times, or for which challenges, would you run this system instead of Obsidian, and why?



Umm, good question. One I will have to look at more my game more closely to really come up with a good answer.

The first thing that springs to mind though, is a more one phase situation skill challenge.

With the Obsidian system its very easy to divide a series of events into the three phases of the challenge and make each part of the challenge different, i.e physical, social or mental or sometimes a mix of two kinds like social/mental because two differnet things are happening at once during that phase. This allows everyone to participate in the skill challenge and shine at different phases of it. The excitement building as a failure in the first phase makes everything that follows trickier, or vice versa.

I can see this system filling a very nice slot where the skill challenge is a one off thing, or you want the action to move more slowly. Lets say Stalker0's Negotiation with the Duke: You don't really have three phases for it but it's important enough to run a skill challenge for, or you want to make it a special moment of its own as opposed to a fast-motion 3 phase Obsidian challenge where part 1 was sneaking into the Duke's bedroom in the dead of the night and waking him without alerting the guards. Phase 2 maybe convincing him not to scream, that his life is in danger, that he's surrounded by spies and he should meet you in a certain place at a certain time to go into hiding for a while, and phase 3 being an escape a different way that you came, being chased or not depending on your success or failure during the other two phases.

If you wanted each phase to be more complicated or in depth you could just run 3 Obsidian challenges instead of the above phases, one after the other, now that I think about it. 

But what if the PC's are doing something that only involves talking to the Duke, chilled out during the day, as a one off negotiation that doesn't slide so easily into a sequence of events but the favorable outcome is important, or it's something that you haven't been able to come up with an interesting way to divide into three phases. 

Then you whip out this awesome system and its cool as well.

My main group is very new, 5 sessions. So in that time I've only run 3 skill challenges. Got plenty more on the horizon though as the PC's race across Faerûn trying to reach Loudwater before winter sets in and the trade routes close down. As I have imagined them, they are all Obsidian system. When they reach town to try and quietly discover the identity of Renacuajo (Tadpole), the contact they have to find to deliver a mysterious scroll. I'm going to have Loudwater attacked as per Rescue at Rivenroar adventure path. The guards will have a prisoner that the pc's may or may not interrogate. Its a one off skill challenge that doesn't flow straight into other events. So this style skill challenge perhaps fits the build better.

Also there are several ready made skill challenges offered by that adventure, as the heroes travel from the city to the villains lair for example. If you haven't had time to prepare you're own version, this system is far more similar to the official Skill system and perhaps easier to adjust the ready made challenge to on the fly.
Again I need to take a closer look with the material in front of me. I might be totally wrong.

I'm sure as my groups progress more situations will arise.

But both system are brilliant... if I knew how to give xp I would have given a stack to Stalker0 by now!!!


----------



## lgw

Thanks for the great work. After some gut approach to fix WotC's standard system, we instead opted to try yours (this or Obsidian) in next sessions.

Some questions for you, though:
1) Have you ever had a good idea how to incorporate Action Points (give the PCs a way to spend them in a helpful way) ?
2) Have you thought about a to incorporate critical successes ? We so far liked the simple rule that rolling a natural 20 gives the following PC a +2 to his next check.
3) While your math for level 1 looks very sound, I consider the increase of DCs till 30 levels to be a bit too low, based on my own calculations. I think you don't account for the bonuses people can gain from improvements via feats, powers, items and some random other sources. Eyeballing it the DCs at level 30 should probably be +1 / +3 / +6 for easy / medium / hard, if you want to keep chances about as even as at level 1, although that is surely difficult due the increasing spread over the levels. Could you clarify on that ?


----------



## Lord Welkerfan

I don't know how much any of you follow what Wizards publishes, but they seem to have made some progress in understanding what exactly a skill challenge is and how to implement it in games.

For example, they've recently moved towards using a series of low complexity skill challenges instead of one high complexity one.

So I ask, is this system still better than the (many times revised) core system?


----------



## dammitbiscuit

Lord Welkerfan said:


> I don't know how much any of you follow what Wizards publishes, but they seem to have made some progress in understanding what exactly a skill challenge is and how to implement it in games.
> 
> For example, they've recently moved towards using a series of low complexity skill challenges instead of one high complexity one.
> 
> So I ask, is this system still better than the (many times revised) core system?



I honestly don't have the patience to keep up with the (many times revised) core system. Whenever I play in a game where someone's using it, there's this feeling of "Oh, is that how they're doing it now? It's fascinating, what those rascally kids have gotten up to."
Last time I played with it, for instance, the one thing I noticed most was that it was nigh-impossible to fail at even a single roll, much less the whole challenge. (that was on PHB2 game day)

This system has solid math, good dramatic tension, and mechanics that players can easily grasp. You won't have to repeatedly check the WotC website to see what the Errata Of The Week is, for it. I'd say that makes it better than.... whatever the hell WotC is doing with skill challenges these days.


----------



## Keenath

dammitbiscuit said:


> I honestly don't have the patience to keep up with the (many times revised) core system.



I think if there's one problem with Stalker's system, it's just that it's fairly complex.  Not at complicated as combat, I admit, but it does put a certain set of limitations on skill challenges that you have to follow.

That said, the DC lists are definitely more appropriate IMO.  I may not use the rest of the system, but I'll borrow those every time.


----------



## Reyemile

Hate to necro a thread, but I've been using this system for a while and it's great. Only addition to had is that this system has no use for action points, even though it contributes to milestones, and thus grants them.  My solution:  Any player can spend an AP to Guiding Light on his turn, in addition to his regular action.


----------



## Hadrian the Builder

I have a house rule allowing players to spend an action point to re-roll the die, and this gets used in skill challenges as well.


----------



## Fluxx

Hadrian the Builder said:


> I have a house rule allowing players to spend an action point to re-roll the die, and this gets used in skill challenges as well.




What do you give to Characters like Kensai who have this ability as their PP-AP-ability? Do they get a bonus to their reroll?


----------



## Hadrian the Builder

I haven't had to deal with that yet. I'll probably just let them have their re-roll without modifiying it.


----------



## Reyemile

I found the straight-up reroll boring; it was entirely reactive, and the constant safety net removed some of the feeling of tension that challenges are supposed to create.  I developed my solution because I wanted my players to be spending their resources proactively.


----------



## eriktheguy

I like this. Thanks! I use both this and your alternate non-core system. That way some challenges require the whole party to participate and others focus on a few players and feel more dangerous.
I didn't see a one-page PDF version of this one though, like you have for your other skill challenge system. I made one for my own use.


----------



## Arlough

Hadrian the Builder said:


> I haven't had to deal with that yet. I'll probably just let them have their re-roll without modifiying it.






Reyemile said:


> I found the straight-up reroll boring; it was entirely reactive, and the constant safety net removed some of the feeling of tension that challenges are supposed to create.  I developed my solution because I wanted my players to be spending their resources proactively.




How one of these options on the AP.

 They can spend an action point to attempt a  Bold Recovery, if they get bonuses to attacks with an AP (+3 to attacks when you spend an action point, or whatever) then they gain that bonus to the Bold Recovery roll.
 Eberron style: They can spend an action point to roll 1d6 and add the result to their existing roll.
 They can spend an action point to reroll and take damage equal to the skill check result.


----------



## eriktheguy

Arlough said:


> How one of these options on the AP.
> 
> They can spend an action point to attempt a  Bold Recovery, if they get bonuses to attacks with an AP (+3 to attacks when you spend an action point, or whatever) then they gain that bonus to the Bold Recovery roll.
> Eberron style: They can spend an action point to roll 1d6 and add the result to their existing roll.
> They can spend an action point to reroll and take damage equal to the skill check result.




I like number 2, going to use this...
I may also make 'bold recovery' require an action point by default. Make the challenge risky and the 'Bold' recovery more dangerous/costly.


----------



## Arlough

eriktheguy said:


> I like number 2, going to use this...
> I may also make 'bold recovery' require an action point by default. Make the challenge risky and the 'Bold' recovery more dangerous/costly.




With the more difficult tables, I would think that the challenge is risky enough. I was suggesting that, similar to how an AP gives you an extra Standard Action in battle, it would give you an extra Bold Recovery in Skill challenge.

But, I may be off the mark there.  Please try out both ways and let us know how it goes.


----------



## Morfedel

oops, wrong thread, sorry.


----------

