# Skill Challenges:  Please stop



## amnuxoll (Feb 15, 2011)

I've given skill challenges a good shake.  I've run a lot of them, designed some goods ones and ultimately come to the conclusion that they are a poor idea.  Actually, let me frank:  Skill challenges are a black pimple on the ass of this game.  Show me a "well run skill challenge" and I'll show you a good roleplaying session wherein the DM managed to create a mapping of the player's decisions to skill checks.

Why are we bothering to do the mapping?  All the unnecessary dice rolling does is add awkwardness and break immersion.  It's akin to doing paint by number.  Yes, you end up with a more consistent result but in the process you've greatly discouraged creativity.

Worse, skill challenges encourage the "I diplomacize him" style of play where negotiation and conversation are condensed down into a single diplomacy check made by the most charismatic character in the party (inevitably being played by the least charismatic player at the table...)  In fact, it is my observation that it these rules-focused, munchkin players who are skill challenges' biggest fans.

Some of you will argue, that skill challenges are a "guide and not the law" and, using my analogy, you can ignore the numbered spaces on the paint-by-number canvas when it doesn't match what you want to do.  My answer is yes, of course you can.  But this is where it gets insidious:  inexperienced painters have a much harder time finding the will to do this.  Over time, they become dependent upon them and unable to play without the comforting presence of N successes before 3 failures.  It's far better to just use a blank canvas.  Yes, you will get less consistent and often bad results.  But it's also the only way to get a truly great roleplaying session.

Some of you will argue that skill challenges are not just for roleplaying and that they're a good mechanic for traps, difficult travel, unusual tasks etc.  Honestly, I'm not opposed to that and skill challenges of that form have been in the game for as long as there have been skills.  But by formalizing them you are only encouraging the DM to deny simple, innovative solutions and insist on slogging through a certain number of successful checks.  Again, I recognize that an experienced DM will be able to avoid that trap, but the majority of DMs won't have that maturity.  And, as before, these budding DMs will be warped by an urge to "stick to the script" because that's how they've always done it.

Ultimately, skill challenges are akin to that urge to put rules on a relationship ("Kiss on the first date, second base on on the second date and sex on the third date.")  It provides false comfort to people who can't bear to live in an unordered universe and annoys the piss out of the rest of us.

*In sum:* Skill challenges are a crutch.  Stop trying to add rules to something that doesn't need rules. Just play!

*28 Feb ADDENDUM:*  Boy, was I in a funk when I wrote this!  My opinion on SCs is unchanged  but I do apologize for the "bad wrong fun" tone that came off of it.  That was not my intent.   My intent was to try to be aggressive enough to wake up players who have been complacently using SCs without thinking outside the box.  And, in all honesty, I think I accomplished that!  Some really excellent comments came out of this thread and I'm grateful for them.  For the long term, I'm going to start thinking about a better format for the concept of a "skill-based encounter" that doesn't encourage stilted/scripted play.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 15, 2011)

So people who are introverted or perhaps a bit "less charasmatic" IRL should be penalized in game, and the raging barbarian with the 8 CHA, but happens to be played by the Used Car Salesman with the silver tongue can talk his way through anything? 

Anyone who maybe isn't the most verbose is automatically a munchkin? I play with many different players, one who suffered from a social disorder, but wanted to play as a bard, he loved music and stories. I could be a jerk and say "Sorry Timmy, until you overcome your problems you'll be in trouble at the table because you can't engage in a full out session long RP at the royal ball" or we can try to have fun and he can "diplomacize" as you say.


----------



## ggroy (Feb 15, 2011)

In my previous 4E games which did not involve going through a module, we ended up dropping the skill challenge mechanic after awhile and just did roleplaying the (old) way we did previously.


----------



## jbear (Feb 15, 2011)

I don't have to time to go into the why and why nots of my response at the moment, but I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that Skill Challenges are Crutch or pimples on posterior parts.

I run some awesome and memorable skill challenges of all kinds, both social, mental and physical. 

Love 'em.


----------



## The Human Target (Feb 15, 2011)

I think that skill challenges are wonky.

I also think that in a game with a Diplomacy skill and a Charisma ability score, one should be able to roll for things and have them happen.

If you want a "no rules for roleplaying" game, either house rule D&D heavily or switch to a new system.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 15, 2011)

jbear said:


> I don't have to time to go into the why and why nots of my response at the moment, but I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that Skill Challenges are Crutch or pimples on posterior parts.
> 
> I run some awesome and memorable skill challenges of all kinds, both social, mental and physical.
> 
> Love 'em.



Seconded.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 15, 2011)

A.  WotC's initial implementation of Skill Challenges was shamefully busted.  

B.  WotC has done a terrible to mediocre job explaining Skill Challenges, and the method that it uses to present them in published adventures sucks.

C.  I still like the idea of skill challenges, and I've had success using them in my game.

D.  Stalker0's Obsidian system pwns WotC's Skill Challenge system.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Feb 15, 2011)

I like encounter that have people use skills. I just am not always happy with the X successes before X failures way of keeping track.


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 15, 2011)

renau1g said:


> So people who are introverted or perhaps a bit "less charasmatic" IRL should be penalized in game, and the raging barbarian with the 8 CHA, but happens to be played by the Used Car Salesman with the silver tongue can talk his way through anything?




Well, ignoring your alarmist tone and hyperbole, yes.  I've seen many cases of socially inept players blossom under the opportunity to roleplay.  Please add the apparent decline of this benefit of roleplaying to the list of arguments against skill challenges.


----------



## Nullzone (Feb 15, 2011)

WotC hurt themselves with the delivery of skill challenges in the DMG; as a result, both sides of the table just don't really have a good grasp on them, so it makes them feel sloggish, obtuse, and unnecessary.

A skill challenge is a roleplaying scene, full stop. You're presenting the players with a scenario that they can't necessarily hack their way through (at least not without potentially dire consequences) and require them to think outside the box, acting out solutions rather than simply smashing their way through it.  Most written skill challenges include a set of skills to use not so that you can say "everybody make me one of these checks" but so you can nudge players in the right direction if they seem completely lost.


----------



## smtwtfs (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Ultimately, skill challenges are akin to that urge to put rules on a relationship ("Kiss on the first date, second base on on the second date and sex on the third date.")  It provides false comfort to people who can't bear to live in an unordered universe and annoys the piss out of the rest of us.




           ♪♫♪♫
  Let me sleep on it
Baby, baby let me sleep on it
Let me sleep on it
And I'll give you an answer in the morning  
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]  [FONT=&quot]          ♫♪♫♪[/FONT]

(seeing if the morning after will buy me time to respond).


----------



## billd91 (Feb 15, 2011)

Stoat said:


> A.  WotC's initial implementation of Skill Challenges was shamefully busted.
> 
> B.  WotC has done a terrible to mediocre job explaining Skill Challenges, and the method that it uses to present them in published adventures sucks.
> 
> ...




Are you referring to 4e D&D's treatment of skill challenges or do you also include SWSE's? *Galaxy of Intrigue* has a treatment of skill challenges far and away better than any I've seen in 4e. I don't know if you had looked into it or not.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 15, 2011)

I think a lot of people are married to their dice.

In both the PBP games I play, and the house games I play, there are invariably players who think that they can just roll dice, get a good result, and should be rewarded.

I prefer just roleplaying a scenario and if as DM I'm on the fence as to whether to give out a given piece of information based on how the roleplaying has worked so far, then I can ask for a skill roll.

I've seen a lot of terrible skill challenges in WotC modules.

I think skill challenges should not be played as encounters, rather they should be played as roleplaying with the players sometimes making a suggestion and the DM sometimes asking for a skill roll for that suggestion.

The mechanical aspects of "I do an Aid Another on Joe's Stealth roll (or Joe's Perception roll or whatever) because I have no skills that are good for this skill challenge" really detrimental to the flow of the game.

And if the DM doesn't allow Aid Another skill rolls for a certain challenge, then the player is still forced (according to the skill challenge rules) to come up with some skill to hack around into something reasonable. That too, to me, is forcing the issue into a direction that I as DM do not necessarily want to handle.

As an example, it's a player's turn in a skill challenge. It is a diplomatic situation and he doesn't have skills like that. So the player says "I use my Acrobatics skill to roll a coin back and forth across my fingers to distract these guys". The player then rolls high on his Acrobatics roll. The player rolled high, so he is expecting that the skill helped and to get a success. As DM, the scenario might be such that I'm slapping myself on the forehead thinking "This is going to tick these guys off because this PC isn't taking them seriously". The player expected the NPCs to be mildly amused or distracted by what he was doing, but as DM, I know that this is not the case.

If the skill challenge rules did not FORCE the player to try SOME skill, he wouldn't have done this off the wall stupid thing and I as DM wouldn't be forced to penalize him for doing it. Now, some DMs would not give him a failure. Other DMs might tell the player that this is not going to work before he even tries. Or another DM might give him a success for trying something unique and the dice roll was good.

But the problem is that the player is scratching his brain, trying to figure out SOMETHING to do, when it is perfectly reasonable for that PC to not do anything. If we would have just roleplayed the scenario, then he probably would not have come up with this lame idea.

On top of that, if we just roleplay the scenario, then the player will often have his PC talk to the NPCs without worrying about Diplomacy rolls. In a diplomatic situation, I want EVERY player talking to the NPCs, not just the one with the highest Diplomacy skill. A skill challenge will encourage players with low Diplomacy (in this type of scenario) to keep their mouths shut in case the DM asks them for a Diplomacy roll which they know will almost always be a failure.

The entire structure of a skill challenge is often backwards from what I as DM want the players to be trying to do. I want them to participate without having to worry about how high their skill modifiers for the PC are.

Another problem with skill challenges is that the players become more concerned with successes vs. failures instead of just going with the flow.

Round one:

Player: "I use Diplomacy to convince him to talk with us".
DM: "I need you to roleplay. What are you saying to him?"

Round two:

Player "Err, I want to use Diplomacy again." (the player not sure if any of his other skills are applicable)
DM: "Again, I need you to roleplay. What are you saying to him?"

Instead of the game just being a conversation between the PCs and the NPCs, it becomes a discussion of which skills to use, rolling dice, and it actually pushes some players away from the roleplaying aspects of it. It becomes more of an out of character meta-game exploration of how to handle the skill challenge instead of an in game roleplaying experience of the encounter itself.

I vastly prefer in character roleplaying with the DM occasionally saying "Joe, give me a Diplomacy roll" or "Joe, give me a History roll" to augment the roleplaying with additional information for the player(s).

I really cannot think of a scenario where either roleplaying with an occasional skill roll, or just a series of skill rolls (everyone rolls Athletics to Climb) doesn't work better than the 4E going around the table rolling the dice skill challenge structure.

I view skill challenges to be a bit of a dice rolling crutch for DMs that want there to be rules about what works and what doesn't work in non-combat situations.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> *In sum:* Skill challenges are a crutch.  Stop trying to add rules to something that doesn't need rules. Just play!




*In sum:* The need to declare that "I'm a _REAL_ roleplayer because I have no need for RULES and thus no one else should either!" is a crutch.  Stop trying to use your own personal likes and dislikes to make yourself seem "better" than other people who don't play the way you do.  Just play.  And let others do the same.

*Guys, it's fine if you don't agree with him, but please argue out the point without using personal attacks. Amnuxoll, on your part, please work to phrase opinions in a way that doesn't speak for everyone else. You'll find it leads to much better discussions. ~ PCat*


----------



## Mengu (Feb 15, 2011)

Skill challenges are what you make of them. If you and your group have a problem with them, don't run them by the book, I don't think anyone does. However, I'm not going to ask people to pick up shovels and show me how they are digging themselves out of a cave in, or quiz them on their knowledge of the structural integrity of a natural cavern. I'll be content with dice rolls to see how well their athletics, dungeoneering, and endurance skills are.

Personally I treat social skills much the same way. Sure we role play the social encounters. But when the 8 charisma shaman (with a player of 18 charisma) does all the talking, rest assured I'll ask for a diplomacy check and give NPC responses accordingly. For me the structure of a skill challenge, just gives me a rough outline of a script to go by, with branching points for success or failure. When people make compelling arguments, I'm perfectly happy giving them bonuses on their skill checks or even automatic successes (if I'm tracking successes which I don't always). But I'll always leave a little something behind, a piece of information, some secret they don't quite know about, until the last possible moment, so there is a consequence to failure.

As DM, skill checks in social situations help me with deciding NPC responses first and foremost. I might not always like what the player is saying, but asking for an insight check, I can give them some guidance on how to handle the NPC. When a PC lies, I as DM know that it's a lie, but does the NPC sense it too? That requires die rolls. I could run a diceless game where I make up all the results ala something like Storyteller, but that's not D&D. In D&D, players have skills, and they like to use them. So as DM I feel my job is to provide them with opportunities.


----------



## jimmifett (Feb 15, 2011)

I personally like skill challenges when they are run transparently to the player. When a DM says "Skill Challenge!" and then offers me primary and secondary skills, I roll my eyes and groan.

When I and some other DMs use skill challenges, we have the skills we think would be primaries picked out, as well as secondaries. We don't tell the players they are in a challenge, we just roleplay the scenes. If a player does something roll worthy, I tell them to roll and make note of the result. If a secondary or non listed skill is used in some form of awesome that makes sense, I will treat it as a primary.

I also like skill challenges to be larger than a single encounter, with maybe a battle in the middle, and certain features of the battle affecting the skill challenge. Example, evacuating prisoners before concluding a battle would count as a success, not doing so would not be a failure. Allowing a prisoner to be killed during battle would count as a failure.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 15, 2011)

I like the idea of skill challenges and have used a couple of them in my games that have worked out okay.  

However, I would much rather have a couple of skill checks in game that accomplish pretty much the same thing, rather than having the players roll the dice 10-15 times or more.  

To me, just doing it on an adhoc basis for Diplomacy or Intimidate or making a History or Arcana roll seems to flow better than stopping the action to roll a bunch of skill checks at once and scoring how many successes & failures you get.  I'm not one to judge that you need to impress the king 12 times before you un-impress him 3 times, or 9 times before 3 or whatnot.  I think it disrupts the flow of the role-playing if you have to make that many rolls - making it seem forced & not natural.


----------



## Storminator (Feb 15, 2011)

Way back when, we used to do dungeon crawls. "The hallway continues for 50' then comes to a T. Do you go left or right?"

There was a lot of exploration, tedious mapping, wandering monster rolls, etc. I've grown to hate all that. So when my PCs are in a cave complex, I turn all that into a skill challenge and break the challenge up at the major decision points, or set piece fights I want to have, or arrival at destination. The entire session is a skill challenge which forms the framework for the adventure. Seems to work pretty well.

PS


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Actually, let me frank:  Skill challenges are a black pimple on the ass of this game.  Show me a "well run skill challenge" and I'll show you a good roleplaying session wherein the DM managed to create a mapping of the player's decisions to skill checks.



Nope, I totally disagree. I've definitely run really fun, tense skill challenges that don't fit this description. My players like them enough that one player is tailoring his PC to be great at them, instead of at combat.


----------



## jdcash (Feb 15, 2011)

I think that one should first be able to define the box, before he/she can think outside of it.  The skill challenge system is a box.  Figuring out how to implement it and teach that to the players sets the base from which non-combat situations can be resolved.  This is of particular importance for new players or timid players.  Once the box is defined then start thinking outside of it.  

I know that sometimes (and definitely in the case of 4e skill challenges) I attack a mechanic or concept rather than than take the time to figure it out and make it work.  I now feel that I have a pretty good grasp.  If a player wants to RP through a situation I can reward that without eliminating dice roll mechanic for those who are not as comfortable expressing themselves.  Also, I found that if I accept a dice roll as the resolution without adding the flavor and putting it in context of the story then the experience is lacking.  However, taking a success a describing what that means to the story provides an example of how to RP and serves as a teaching point to the newer/less comfortable player.  This is only possible because I know what the box is.


----------



## SageMinerve (Feb 15, 2011)

Skill challenges are just a structure to guide the players's skill rolls.

If you're dead against skill challenges while roleplaying, by that same token you'd be deasdset against skills, period. Are you getting rid of them also?

And Storminator mentionned using skill challenges to sim dungeon crawls.

YES !!!!!!!!

That is, in my mind, the single best benefit. Me and my players hate dungeon crawls, and skill challenges allows us to quickly get the crawling out of the way and get to the interesting encounters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2011)

SageMinerve said:


> Skill challenges are just a structure to guide the players's skill rolls.
> 
> If you're dead against skill challenges while roleplaying, by that same token you'd be deasdset against skills, period.





I disagree with both of these premises.

(1)  The creation of a skill challenge (esp. when created as part of an adventure, rather than on the fly) implies a decision ahead of time as to how the encounter will be approached.  

The existence of skills does not.  In fact, an rpg with skill rules, combat rules, etc., that does not require the GM to pre-structure what can/will happen, implies the opposite -- that an encounter can be approached in many ways.

Of course, I find the combat set-ups in 4e modules to be equally rigid.

(2)  There are many potential structures wherein one can use skills; disliking one does not mean that one dislikes skills.  That is akin to saying that if one dislikes the Holmes Basic combat rules ("just a structure to guide the players's combat rolls.") that one dislikes all combat rules.

In general, I think the 4e ruleset is helpful for narrativist playstyles, and the antithesis of weal to more simulationist playstyles.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Riastlin (Feb 15, 2011)

@OP: I understand you dislike skill challenges, which is perfectly fine with me. However, my response would simply be "so don't use them in your game". Suggesting that nobody should use them is a bit silly in my mind.

@Karin'sDad: I may be mistaken in this, since I don't have my books in front me, but I believe it was only in DMG1 that they specifically stated every player had to participate in the SC. I believe that the subsequent updates have made it so that not everyone has to participate. In other words, sometimes the best thing that the dumb barbarian can do is to keep his mouth shut. I believe that the current rules recognize this, and even if they don't, as a DM I would certainly not require active participation in most (if not all) situations.

As for Skill Challenges and skill checks in general, I do think they are a good thing _if done right_. Here's why I think in the roleplay-oriented social encounter there should be skill checks involved: I'm a lawyer in real life and am in the courtroom nearly every day. As a result, I am pretty good when it comes to public speaking and thinking on my feet. Now, if in my games where I am a player, the DM determines all social interactions purely on the _quality_ of the roleplay (which is highly subjective btw), unless my character had a need for Cha for his attacks (say a Sorc, Warlock, Pally or Bard, etc.) then there would be absolutely no need for me to boost Cha or to train Diplomacy/Bluff/etc. After all, I'm pretty good when it comes to speaking because I have to do it every day. What's more, I can now take those resources that I might have used for Diplomacy, Cha, etc. and instead invest them in other attributes and skills. Finally, the other members of my party can do the same since they know that a) it won't help them anyway (sure they might roll a nat 20 on diplomacy but if they can't verbalize it they still fail under the subjective system) and b) I already have the social "skills" covered. As a result, we as a group, are now going to be a lot better at the other skills since we have that many more resources to invest in them. To me, I would say that this system is far more munchkiny than using actual skill checks would be. The party of 8 Cha orcs is suddenly the equivalent of world class shakespearian actors because we are subjectively good at roleplaying in real life.

Now, all of this being said, I think the biggest problem with most skill challenges is that we (as DMs) try to force skill challenges onto situations that are really just a simple skill check or two. If, for instance, there are only two skills associated with a skill challenge, it really shouldn't be a skill challenge. Just make a couple of skill checks and move on.


----------



## ehren37 (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Well, ignoring your alarmist tone and hyperbole, yes. I've seen many cases of socially inept players blossom under the opportunity to roleplay. Please add the apparent decline of this benefit of roleplaying to the list of arguments against skill challenges.




I agree. I also force people to roleplay out their combat swings, and do a bunch of situps to make an endurance check. Its ROLE play, not ROLL play people. Sheesh.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> *In sum:* Skill challenges are a crutch.  Stop trying to add rules to something that doesn't need rules. Just play!




Well, nobody's holding a gun to your head.  Don't like them? Then don't use them. But just because you, or the dms you've played under, haven't managed to make or run a good skill challenge doesn't mean it cannot be done.  Skill challenges, used well, are an awesome addition to the game, a formalization of stuff we've been doing for decades; and, especially if the dm stretches the skill challenge format, they can add a ton to the game. 

I understand that a lot of people don't like them... just as a lot of people don't like psionics.  And just like psionics, it's easier to simply leave them out of your game than to ask everyone that would like to use them to make up rules for them wholecloth.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> I agree. I also force people to roleplay out their combat swings, and do a bunch of situps to make an endurance check. Its ROLE play, not ROLL play people. Sheesh.




I disagree.  Players should simply have a Tactics skill, rolling X successes before Y failures in order to defeat a monster or group of monsters.  Pick the values of X, Y, and the DC of the roll based on the challenge you wish to represent.

In no case should the player have to determine what tactics or powers to use.  I mean, am I supposed to be as tactically brilliant as my 15th level fighter?  I think not!



RC


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 15, 2011)

"I am opposed to a system in which a socially inept person has no way to play a charismatic character!"
"I am opposed to a system in which all social interaction is resolved by rolling dice with no actual roleplaying!"

I'm opposed to both of those things. And you know what? Since D&D started using social skill mechanics, I've hardly ever seen either one.

In my experience, the way it usually works is that players roleplay what they're saying and doing, and then the DM runs their statements through a sort of mental "voice filter" based on the outcome of a social skill check. If the basic proposal is reasonable and the Diplomacy check is good, the PC is assumed to have made the proposal in a charming and convincing way, even if the player stumbled over every other word. If the basic proposal is unreasonable, it takes a really stunning Diplomacy check to pull it off, no matter how suave the player is.

The system is, of course, not foolproof; DMs are not immune to persuasion and a persuasive player will always have an advantage as a result. But hey--welcome to life. Persuasive players are going to do better at social interaction, just as tactically savvy players do better at combat.

Tying all this back to skill challenges... the skill challenge is a good framework for building a social or exploration encounter. The problem is that it's presented (at least, in the original 4E DMG) as a complete system, where in fact it's only a skeleton. DMs who go in expecting the same kind of support from the skill challenge rules that they get from the combat rules are going to be sorely disappointed, and so are their players.

4E's skill challenges are a lot like like Classic D&D's combats. If you stay strictly within the scope of the written rules, they're the most boring thing ever. If you use the rules as a jumping-off point and build on that, they can be awesome.


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 15, 2011)

Structure is structure. The structure of a skill challenge strikes me as generally equivalent to the structure of, say, rolling a random encounter from one of 1e's many tables and then sticking with it, no matter how off-kilter it might seem at the time, or of a self-chosen structure like "Each one of my council of villains is going to be secretly patterned after a heavy metal song." Some people flourish with a little structure; others don't. It's no real big thing.

Flawed as many of the published sample challenges may be, I highly approve of the fundamental idea behind them: that if combat is one of the things that engages everyone at the table at once, why can't certain non-combat situations be designed so that everyone contributes and is an active participant? Of course, you can't mandate that sort of thing with rules -- the only way for it to really work is by understanding the specific people at the table and engaging them accordingly -- but I highly respect the attempt to provide ways to get DMs to at least think about it.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 15, 2011)

jimmifett said:


> When I and some other DMs use skill challenges, we have the skills we think would be primaries picked out, as well as secondaries. We don't tell the players they are in a challenge, we just roleplay the scenes. If a player does something roll worthy, I tell them to roll and make note of the result. If a secondary or non listed skill is used in some form of awesome that makes sense, I will treat it as a primary.
> 
> I also like skill challenges to be larger than a single encounter, with maybe a battle in the middle, and certain features of the battle affecting the skill challenge. Example, evacuating prisoners before concluding a battle would count as a success, not doing so would not be a failure. Allowing a prisoner to be killed during battle would count as a failure.




Yes.  I have had skill challenges that stretched over _three sessions,_ because the party is doing other stuff at the same time. I have had skill challenges in the middle of a combat, skill challenges the party abandoned without succeeding or failing out, multiple different skill challenges at the same time, etc. 



Raven Crowking said:


> I disagree with both of these premises.
> 
> (1)  The creation of a skill challenge (esp. when created as part of an adventure, rather than on the fly) implies a decision ahead of time as to how the encounter will be approached.




In a poor skill challenge, this may be true, but a good skill challenge might read something like this (spoiler blocked on the off chance one of my current players takes a look at this thread, as they spent part of last session with it and aren't done yet):

[sblock]	The pcs should be able to hire a boat to take them out on White Lake for a couple of gold pieces, but the island itself is cloaked by a combination of illusions and weather magic (cloaking it in fog).  In order to find it, the pcs must defeat this magic by completing a skill challenge. 

*RUNNING THE SKILL CHALLENGE*

Finding the island is a level 11, complexity 3 skill challenge.  To successfully complete it, the pcs must achieve 8 successes before 3 failures.  Once the pcs get close (after they have achieved 5 successes), see Complications, below.

Since a combination of illusion and weather hide it, the pcs' possible approaches to finding the illusion include the following:

*Search Grid:* The lake is truly too large to divide and search without immense manpower, but the pcs can spend six hours to eliminate everything within a few miles of the Delphinate proper.  Doing this doesn't require any skill checks or gain a success or failure for the party, but gives all further checks in the skill challenge a +2 bonus. 

*Pierce Illusions: *A character that expresses the belief that illusions are involved may attempt to see through them with an Insight check (DC 27).  Success means that the character earns a success; though they cannot see through the veils of mist, they can make out which ones are illusory. Failure ensnares the characters further in the misty magic; they gain a failure. 

*Countermagic or Follow the Flow:* A character trained in Arcana may attempt to sense the presence and direction of flow of the magical energy that cloak the island (DC 19); doing this earns one success for the party, while failing earns the party a failure.  Once the presence of the magic has been sensed, a trained character may attempt to countermand the cloaking spells here in order to eliminate them, but doing so is very difficult (DC 29).  A character that makes this check earns two successes, while failing it gains only a single failure.  A character that uses dispel magic against the fog earns an automatic success for the party.

*True Navigation: *The characters may attempt to simply use their Perception (DC 23) or knowledge of Nature (DC 19) to navigate.  Using such a skill earns either a success or failure for the party.  Alternatively, a character could make a History check (DC 19) to remember details on the locations of the lake's islands; the party can earn only one success this way (although they could conceivably earn multiple failures!). 

*Watch the Ghouls:* During and after the attack of the sodden ghouls (see Complications), a pc could try to discern the direction of the island by watching their behavior using either Insight (DC 19) or Religion (DC 19).  A daring character might also swim in pursuit, using Athletics (DC 20).  The characters earn successes or failures for any of these instances.

*Rituals:*  Using a divination or weather control ritual earns the pcs one to three successes, depending on the ritual, its level and how cleverly the party uses it.

*Complications:* As the pcs get closer to the island, they enter a more active layer of the island's defenses.  After their 5th success, the party is ambushed by a trio of sodden ghoul wailers (OG 154; level 9 soldiers), who attack from the water, attempting to pull the boat's pilot into the water before dealing with the pcs themselves.  The round after they attack, two more sodden ghoul wailers grab the boat from under the water and attempt to tow the vessel away.  Each round until that the ghouls tow the boat, the pcs lose one success.  

As soon as the pcs defeat the three sodden ghoul wailers above the water, the other two retreat into the depths unless any pcs are in the water, in which case they attempt to drag them under and slay them.  If the pcs want to attack the two ghouls under the water, they must enter the water or hole the deck of the boat. 

Each time the pcs achieve a 5th success, they are attacked by another group of ghouls unless they are still dealing with the first group.  In practice, this means that they must continue to work on the skill challenge while fighting the ghouls, or they will end up fighting group after group of them without ever making headway. 

*Success:* When the pcs achieve their 8th success, read the following:

In the mist ahead, a rocky island starts to resolve itself.  A short pier, inexpertly constructed of wood, bobs above the waves, with three small rowing craft attached.  You can see the suggestion of a steep upward slope, but the thick vapor in the air makes it impossible to tell more. 

*Failure:* The pcs become hopelessly lost.  It is full dark by the time they finally find shore, and it takes until almost 2 a.m. to return to the Delphinate.  The pilot who took the pcs on this journey, if still alive, must be impressively compensated or he swears off the party thereafter.[/sblock]

Now, after an initial failed attempt- rarely have the dice counted so heavily against these players!- the pcs discussed using a ritual (can't recall the name) to function underwater and tie themselves to the bottom of the boat.  They also did extensive records searches, cartographic analysis, etc. They bought a compass (which I decided will let them remove a failure).  They've taken a bunch of actions not in my "likely to try this" list, and I've gone with those actions (although some are futile). 

Skill challenges are no more a straight jacket on an encounter than the fact that a monster has AC and Hit Points means the only way to deal with it is to kill it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2011)

Good example, TJ.  It makes me sad that I just XPed you for something else.


RC


----------



## Weregrognard (Feb 15, 2011)

I feel that saying "skill challenges suck" due to their basic structure is like saying dungeons "suck" because all they are is a bunch of rooms, connected by corridors, with a) monsters, b) traps, c) treasure, or a combination of these.  Sure, that's the basic structure of dungeon (adventure) design, but it's going to take a little work and creativity on the DM's part to make it into something great.  

Skill challenges are the same: you get what you put into them.  A DM should in no way feel constrained by their basic structure.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 15, 2011)

Admittedly, since skill challenges have less support (by about 35 years!) than combat, attaining real mastery of them takes a lot of work and, especially, experience. But a dm's job is full of things that take work and experience to do well- world designing, culture-crafting, prophecy writing, npc voices, etc, ad infinitum. It's just another tool in the box, albeit one that still has rough edges and you don't get to be proficient in it without spending a feat.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 15, 2011)

Folks,

I see some bits of people getting personal, and some sarcasm floating around.  Neither of these is appropriate when you're trying to actually get anyone who doesn't already agree with you to see your point of view.  

Keep it a discussion of reasoning, not a butting of egos, please and thank you.


----------



## mudlock (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Show me a "well run skill challenge" and I'll show you a good roleplaying session wherein the DM managed to create a mapping of the player's decisions to skill checks.




I agree completely with that, but disagree with...



amnuxoll said:


> in the process you've greatly discouraged creativity.
> 
> Worse, skill challenges encourage the "I diplomacize him" style of play
> 
> it these rules-focused, munchkin players who are skill challenges' biggest fans.




...all of this.

I never tell my players "this is a skill challenge" (and advise other DMs to do the same); it is always simply a way for me to eyeball the difficulty of a challenge and to structure the forces arrayed against the players, and they are awesome for that. It's precisely the same thing that xp budgets and monster roles do for combat encounters.

And for the same reasons (bit of a derail here) I really, REALLY, hate powers that refer explicitly to skill challenges (like the ones that say "you get a +2 to the check, and in a skill challenge, this counts as two successes") or explicitly to monster level (like "you get a +2 to hit enemies that are a higher level than you). That stuff needs to all stay on MY side of the screen.


----------



## lin_fusan (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Worse, skill challenges encourage the "I diplomacize him" style of play where negotiation and conversation are condensed down into a single diplomacy check made by the most charismatic character in the party (inevitably being played by the least charismatic player at the table...)  In fact, it is my obsevation that it these rules-focused, munchkin players who are skill challenges' biggest fans.




I've seen this kind of behavior pre-skill challenge. I don't think skill challenges should be blamed for what might be a problem with how skills are implemented. 

Not only are skills considered rather boolean (you either succeed or you fail), but the tendency is to max out one skill rather than have a "well-rounded" kind of character. There isn't an incentive to play a mildly skilled player, for example. 

So what are skill challenges supposed to accomplish or remedy in the D&D game? Is it to get all players involved specific non-combat scenario/encounter? I am personally all for that, especially when one player is hogging all the screentime with his Diplomacy or Stealth, while the other players are bored, watching TV, or playing on their iPhones. 

The errata eliminated the requirement that all players participate in a skill challenge which defeats that purpose. The real goal (which Stalker0's Obsidian system addresses) is that characters without the appropriate skills should be allowed to participate and be rewarded. 

I don't think the solution is to have games designed only so that Player A can shine while Player B waits, and then have another scenario for Player B to shine while Player A sucks it.

The other goal (maybe unintentional) of skill challenges is to soften that boolean effect of one roll to resolve a complicated situation. This either encourages players to choose their one good skill and thus turn the whole exercise into "I Diplomacy him again, and again, and again" or you might have to say "you can't use Diplomacy again, choose another skill" which might feel artificial.

I had thought that perhaps the die roll skill system could be removed and replaced instead with Skill Encounter powers. Perhaps a "Use Diplomacy Successfully" Encounter power could force a player to decide if convincing the one bandit to come to their side is more important than convincing the bandit leader from looting the church, for example. (I had wondered if a Daily Skill power would have been the way to go, but that might convince players to return to a 5 minute work day.)


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 15, 2011)

Mengu said:


> Personally I treat social skills much the same way. Sure we role play the social encounters. But when the 8 charisma shaman (with a player of 18 charisma) does all the talking, rest assured I'll ask for a diplomacy check and give NPC responses accordingly.




IMO, this is one of the traps that skill challenges lead you into.  When that player playing that Cha 8 shaman makes a clever or moving statement that is strongly in character, you want to reward him for it.  Immediately.  If you, instead, you ask him to roll a Diplomacy check then you're opening the possibility of punishing him instead.  Will that same player get into the game as much the next time there's a social encounter?  I say no.  Instead, he'll just roll his Diplomacy check like everyone else and the scene will die with a whimper...

Should the sorcerer with the 18 Cha get perquisites for investing in that stat?  Absolutely!  But punishing those with Cha as a dump stat doesn't reward the player with a big score in the same stat.  In fact, it's more of a punishment since the shaman's failure is the party's failure too.


----------



## Dedekind (Feb 15, 2011)

The most enjoyable Skill Challenges I have run have been decision points. As in, depending on the outcome, either A or B will happen. Yes, roleplaying can accomplish the same thing. But, rolling dice seems to add tension that wouldn't necessarily exist. For example, requiring a player to speak eloquently to convince the king to do something could be a roll or roleplaying. Roleplaying alone makes it a DM decision and the players are just waiting for you to decide. A roll involves some tension as a player evaluates whether or not they have the genuine capabilities to do something -- just like in real life, albeit with more certainty about your relative abilities. 

Similarly, there is an implied fairness here, where the dice in some way determine the outcome and not just the DM.


----------



## phoffman (Feb 15, 2011)

As a DM i have tried to run the Skill Challenges in the published adventures, and they just don't seem right.  It tends to break up flow of the game.  Instead I have modified what I think WoTC was trying to do with skill checks.  This makes it much faster for my group, and we aren't bogged down by who is going to roll what skill.

I now have "group skill checks" with Primary Skills.  As long as half the group makes the DC then they can move on with out a penalty, or they may gain a bonus for the next encounter.

If too many people miss the DC, i have a back up skill (a different one). that One Person can roll to negate a fail.  This check most often has a different DC. And after that the checks are over.

For roleplay events I figure just adjust the DC by the creativity of the players.  If they have been pretty clever the DC is lower for the group.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> IMO, this is one of the traps that skill challenges lead you into.  When that player playing that Cha 8 shaman makes a clever or moving statement that is strongly in character, you want to reward him for it.  Immediately.  If you, instead, you ask him to roll a Diplomacy check then you're opening the possibility of punishing him instead.  Will that same player get into the game as much the next time there's a social encounter?  I say no.  Instead, he'll just roll his Diplomacy check like everyone else and the scene will die with a whimper...




Or maybe he'll spend some skill points in Diplomacy.



amnuxoll said:


> Should the sorcerer with the 18 Cha get perquisites for investing in that stat?  Absolutely!  But punishing those with Cha as a dump stat doesn't reward the player with a big score in the same stat.  In fact, it's more of a punishment since the shaman's failure is the party's failure too.




Should the wizard with a 3 Strength be able to shove the giant boulder out of the way because his player lifts weights?

If you ignore the low stat when it's Charisma you have pretty much made it a meaningless stat.

In the example you mentioned in your post, the dm can always give an arbitrary +2 bonus or something, but even that makes players less likely to invest in social skills or Charisma.  And there's nothing wrong with that- until you have a guy who _does_ invest in them, where the player isn't a good speaker but the pc has an 18 Cha and +15 Diplomacy.  And he gets out-talked by the used car salesman playing a Cha 7 half-orc with no social skills, not even Intimidate.


----------



## BobTheNob (Feb 15, 2011)

To the OP. This is a forum, meaning a place of discussion. To be frank, your opening argument was started in a manner that was utterly dismissive of counterpoint, which is just inappropriate.

Personally, I find skill challenges great for some circumstances. For instance, someone earlier pointed out the "dungeon crawl" i.e. replace the stupidly large map with a skill challenge. It speed things up greatly, removes a real boredom factor and saves the DM ALOT of preparation time.

On another level I do agree that skill challenges can come off as artificial. An imposition of structure where it wasnt required. For the "Diplomatic" example, I almost always roleplay them out, but I do also ask for skill rolls at the "key" points. I think that skill rolls are still needed in this circumstance as the players chosen actions do need to reflect their character. I mean, if they dont play their character...they arent roleplaying : they are just being themselves!


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 15, 2011)

the Jester said:


> [sblock]	The pcs should be able to hire a boat to take them out on White Lake for a couple of gold pieces, but the island itself is cloaked by a combination of illusions and weather magic (cloaking it in fog).  In order to find it, the pcs must defeat this magic by completing a skill challenge.
> 
> *RUNNING THE SKILL CHALLENGE*
> 
> ...




Wow. What a lot of work putting this skill challenge together.

And then the players miss the rolls, fail, and it all goes to waste and they move on in search of a different adventure.


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> IMO, this is one of the traps that skill challenges lead you into.  When that player playing that Cha 8 shaman makes a clever or moving statement that is strongly in character, you want to reward him for it.  Immediately.  If you, instead, you ask him to roll a Diplomacy check then you're opening the possibility of punishing him instead.  Will that same player get into the game as much the next time there's a social encounter?  I say no.  Instead, he'll just roll his Diplomacy check like everyone else and the scene will die with a whimper...




That seems more like an argument against skill checks as a general rule than the concept of bundling them together into skill challenges. With a challenge, essentially you're providing some buffers against one failure meaning complete failure, and you're also providing ample room for mitigating rolls: for instance, making Insight checks to add to the next Diplomacy roll. 

That said, I do understand the worry about picking up the dice, betrayers that they are -- though when I see that kind of anxiety, I see it in regards to _everything_ involving dice, including combat. That's why I tend to frame skill checks like Diplomacy as generally a chance to get something better than roleplay alone would provide, complete with a smaller chance to screw things up worse than your roleplay alone could get you. So, for instance, roleplay may turn a wary and suspicious sheriff into someone willing to look the other way. If you're willing to use the skill set, you might turn him into an outright ally, or alienate him further. Of course, you can also achieve either of those latter goals "the long way" -- if you have time to work on his trust, or the inclination to deliberately offend the fellow.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 15, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Are you referring to 4e D&D's treatment of skill challenges or do you also include SWSE's? *Galaxy of Intrigue* has a treatment of skill challenges far and away better than any I've seen in 4e. I don't know if you had looked into it or not.




I'm talking about 4E only.  I wasn't aware of any skill challenge mechanic in SWSE.  In what ways is the presentation there better?


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 15, 2011)

I agree that skill challenges can work out really well in the right situations.  However, I would prefer to keep most social situations and other areas needing skill checks on an as needed/adhoc basis.


----------



## Riastlin (Feb 15, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Wow. What a lot of work putting this skill challenge together.
> 
> And then the players miss the rolls, fail, and it all goes to waste and they move on in search of a different adventure.




While I realize that there's a certain degree of sarcasm here, the same goes for combat encounters too.  We could spend several hours designing an excellent combat encounter only to have the dice utterly abandon the party, causing them to "fail" and it all goes to waste and they move on in search of a different adventure (or different characters in the event that they tpk).  At least with skill challenges, failure _shouldn't_ derail the adventure most of the time, but rather, make the adventure more difficult.

As to the 8 Cha shaman who hasn't trained diplomacy, the way I have always handled it is thus:  The Player makes a very eloquent, moving speech/plea/whatever in hopes of gaining something from the NPC.  The player then rolls and . . . its low.  I then say "You reason it out in your head and it sounds beautiful, unfortunately it comes out 'Grok likes king.  King help Grok!'".  Have you never been in a situation where you knew what you wanted say, but not how to say it?  Have you never actually been misunderstood or misinterpreted?  These things happen all the time where we say one thing but perhaps mean another, or the listener thinks we said something else.  The low Cha/no Diplomacy character is more likely to have this happen to him or her than the practiced tongue -- though even the bard with the silver tongue can come off arrogant and condescending.

Oh, and if that shaman with the 8 Cha were to make a beautiful and impassioned plea (i.e. the actual statement made by the player is great) I would absolutely give a +2 to the check.  Just as I would give a penalty to the player who says his bluff is "I'm here to check your satellite dish" (assuming traditional fantasy setting of course).

If you are going to do away with skill checks, so as to highlight good roleplaying (which is certainly the group's perogative), why not just do away with combat rolls too?  Should we not allow the fighter who eloquently describes his strike, or the wizard who gives a wonderful description of his spell, to auto-hit?  After all, this is just roleplaying and if we don't allow that, then next time they are just going to grab their die and roll "to hit".    Frankly, if that's how a group wants to play things, then by all means, go for it!  The point, after all, is to have fun and the rules are only there as a guide to having fun.  I would never suggest that somebody else MUST play a certain way as the only "right" way to play is the way that involves the most fun.


----------



## delericho (Feb 15, 2011)

I really like the concept f Skill Challenges, but Wizards' implementation leaves a great deal to be desired. In particular, the ones that I have seen have been uniformly poor.

I think a large part of the problem is that they tried to capture mechanics for "any kind of non-combat situation" with a _single_ Skill Challenge mechanism. And so, chasing down a bad guy, sweet-talking the baron, and navigating the trackless seas are all shoe-horned into the same pattern of rolls.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2011)

I much prefer games that set up situations, and allow the players to decide how to tackle them, than games that set up "combat encounters", "social encounters", etc.

That said, this thread has certainly broadened my view of skill challenges!


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 15, 2011)

Storminator said:


> Way back when, we used to do dungeon crawls. "The hallway continues for 50' then comes to a T. Do you go left or right?"
> 
> There was a lot of exploration, tedious mapping, wandering monster rolls, etc. I've grown to hate all that. So when my PCs are in a cave complex, I turn all that into a skill challenge and break the challenge up at the major decision points, or set piece fights I want to have, or arrival at destination. The entire session is a skill challenge which forms the framework for the adventure. Seems to work pretty well.
> 
> PS




How do you turn a dungeon crawl into a skill challenge?  Do you mean, make a series of dungeoneering rolls to see if they return the correct way to the surface?  And, then a new series to see if they find their way back to the same location?  I get the impression that it's more than that, however.

(BTW, I have been DMing for 30+ years and have rarely had players map their way through dungeons.)


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 15, 2011)

Androlphas said:


> I feel that saying "skill challenges suck" due to their basic structure is like saying dungeons "suck" because all they are is a bunch of rooms, connected by corridors, with a) monsters, b) traps, c) treasure, or a combination of these.  Sure, that's the basic structure of dungeon (adventure) design, but it's going to take a little work and creativity on the DM's part to make it into something great.
> 
> Skill challenges are the same: you get what you put into them.  A DM should in no way feel constrained by their basic structure.




I agree with "you get what you put into them."  My beef is with the structure itself.  Dungeons have rooms, monsters, etc. because that is a helpful paradigm.  My contention is that the _structure_ of skill challenges do more harm than good to the game.  A lot more.


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 15, 2011)

mudlock said:


> I never tell my players "this is a skill challenge" (and advise other DMs to do the same); it is always simply a way for me to eyeball the difficulty of a challenge and to structure the forces arrayed against the players, and they are awesome for that.




If everyone ran their skill challenges this way, then I'd be ok with it.  But the format of skill challenges *discourages* this style of play.


----------



## kaomera (Feb 15, 2011)

Skill challenges aren't "for" everyone, as tired as that saying is. I think they're a neat idea, but none of the people I play with really want to engage the mechanics in any significant way, so for me it's easier to just not run them as such. And IMO that's perfectly easy to do and it doesn't impinge on the many, many people I've seen here on enworld and elsewhere who just love them to death. (And sure, I'm a bit envious of their ability to have fun with something I just can't do anything with, but really - nobody cares. Let them have their fun, and I'll have mine!)

But I think if you're trying to do one thing and the players are trying to do another they can come off as a "crutch", or more specifically as an artificial and unwelcome limitation to play.



renau1g said:


> So people who are introverted or perhaps a bit "less charasmatic" IRL should be penalized in game, and the raging barbarian with the 8 CHA, but happens to be played by the Used Car Salesman with the silver tongue can talk his way through anything?



Wow, I'm sorry but that came off to me as a really jerky / trolly response. Yes, players who can't bring anything extra to the table should be "penalized" in the sense that I'm not going to omit rewarding good play. Yes this style of play can be handled unfairly, but the DM can _always_ be a jerk, sticking to the rules and dice rolls doesn't change that fact. Skill challenges should not preclude roleplaying, and making roleplay significant doesn't have to over-ride the rules. So, yeah, the player who can back up their characters actions should get a bonus, and you could look at that as penalizing the character / player who can't.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 15, 2011)

I like calamari.

But I find that calamari is easy to do wrong.  Some restaurants overcook the squid, making it rubbery or too chewy.  If an inexperienced chef undercooks it, it can be slimy and inedible.  Some folks only expect calamari in rings, while others like the tentacles, as well.  I prefer mine with marinara sauce, though ground up squid-ball in tonkatsu or soy is great, too.

Skill challenges are, to me, like calamari.  They're easy to do poorly.  They can be poorly executed or used when a simple skill check might be more appropriate.  They can be used in place of role-playing.  They can be dull or lead to meta-game abstractions.  Just like calamari, they have the potential to fail to deliver the tasty meal that was hoped for.  But that's not really the calamari or the skill challenge's faults.

Certainly, the core issue from a skill challenge CAN be that it can be used in place of role-playing.  Whether that's a strength or a detriment is up to the individual group.  Some groups can view that as a bonus; they don't have to bother with lengthy discussions and faux-acting...they can make a few rolls and get back to the dungeon.  Other groups can view that as a weakness; they want to act out the motivations and discussions, in character and with nuance as often as possible.  Neither approach is wrong, at least not to the group in question.  Most groups will probably fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.  

As some people like only the rings and some folks like the tentacles as well, so to do skill challenges have different kinds and approaches.  Some prefer anonymous challenges, whose success is only revealed upon completion or failure.  Others present them as minigames, with set rules and bonuses that are clearly established from the start.  Some make it clear a challenge has begun, but the parameters are vague.  All are valid approaches and I've had success with all three.  Some folks don't like calamari at all and that's OK, too.  They view skill challenges as a detriment.

IME, skill checks in general can engender these issues...skill challenges have the capacity to alleviate some of the meta-gamey nature of skill checks, though there is no guarantee that they will in a game.  That responsibility lies with the group itself.  I have used skill challenges in a variety of ways:


A 1st level party engages 60 pirates while fighting alongside 20 NPCs, their goal to drive them off and recover a stolen item.  Instead of running it as a straight combat, we ran it as two simultaneous skill challenges.  The players LOVED it.
The players had to hunt down another party of adventurers in a competition, over the course of a few days, through the wilderness.
Stealing into an enemy camp, the players needed to foil the bad guys plans; they destroyed a dangerous device, rescued some prisoners, hijacked a boat and killed the enemy leader stealthily...as part of a single skill-challenge
The players had a sailing ship split in half beneath them; a challenge required them to escape alive, rescue other crewmen if they could and retreive valuable equipment before she went down
A clockwork automaton carrying a tremendous magical bomb was racing to town hall.  The players needed to catch it, evacaute the mayor and deactivate it if they could.
These are just a few of the challenges I've used.  Piratecat has used a bunch more interesting ones than me (see his heroic tier thread for details).  They have been all well recieved, though I've learned important design choices from each one.  I learned lessons on what worked for my group, what did not work and when skill challenges were either unnecessary or got in the way of the game.

Skill challenges can certainly be used a crutch or poor framework for player interaction.  This is, however, true of skill systems in general.  It was true before skills or even proficiencies became a part of the system.  For as long as the game has a social component and a mechanical representation of that component, the potential has existed for abuse, misuse or poor gaming implementation.  I don't personally see skill challenges as being responsible for that particular trend nor do I see them as the solution to remove that trend.  Calamari can be cooked technically well, but if the players don't enjoy tonkatsu sauce on their squid or don't prefer it with chiles in its own ink, then it doesn't much matter how well prepared it actually is.  (For the record, I certainly don't like it that way).  WotC's extremely poor examples of skill challenges certainly don't argue in their favor.  Many articles and modules treat it as a very bland mechanical exercise, simply assigning some numbers to some skill uses, with little finese to their use.  I have seen very few illustrations of the concept as compelling as anything Piratecat has shared in his thread, for example (though there have been a few Dungeon modules that rose to the challenge).

One aspect I like about skill challenges is that it offers two enhancements to skill usages in previous editions.  First, it removes the 'keep trying until I get it' idea from some skill uses....or rather, makes it more meaningful.  'Take 20' did something similar, but IMHO with less success.  Second, it recontextualizes the usage of skills in a greater framework and _intends_ to make the interaction more interesting than a simple binary success or failure.  Whether it succeeds at this goal is up to the individual DM or group.  

Simply put, I don't agree with the OP's feelings.  For my group, Skill Challenges work and have presented us with some fun and unique gaming experiences.  For my money, they are one of the best things about 4E.  They are the Panko on the calamari to me.  

And I find them DELICIOUS.


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 15, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Or maybe he'll spend some skill points in Diplomacy.



You've been playing this game too long.  I'm sure you know better than that!



the Jester said:


> Should the wizard with a 3 Strength be able to shove the giant boulder out of the way because his player lifts weights?




YES!!!  Yes, this is my point.  The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him.  He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is.  He makes an empassioned plea to Kord.  Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here.  The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock.  As the DM, do you:
a) say, "Roll a strength check.  It's DC 20."
b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."

If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice.  There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 15, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I much prefer games that set up situations, and allow the players to decide how to tackle them, than games that set up "combat encounters", "social encounters", etc.




Well, the skill challenge mechanic is pretty much like a block of combat stats: it's a tool that you can use to resolve some sort of question or conflict. If you decide that the only way for the players to tackle a situation is through a particular scripted skill challenge, that's not too unlike setting up a riddle that unlocks the only known entrance into the dwarven mines on this side of the mountains, or placing a monster with the notes "It attacks immediately, and will fight to the death." In all cases, it's an appropriate way to handle a situation so long as you don't overuse it. 

That said, a good skill challenge is often aiming to do exactly what you describe: letting the players decide how to tackle a situation, and then keeping a running tally of their various successes and failures (some of which might not be skill checks, technically) until some sort of resolution is clear. It simply adds some structure, which may or may not be what the players want; some may prefer to leave it up to the DM's judgment when they've done sufficient undermining of the tyrant's position that his troops are on the brink of rebellion, and others may prefer the clear target of "15 successes, and the fire ignites." Just another way of defining win conditions, really.


----------



## Riastlin (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> YES!!! Yes, this is my point. The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him. He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is. He makes an empassioned plea to Kord. Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here. The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock. As the DM, do you:
> a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
> b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."
> 
> If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.




First off, it's perfectly fine to play this way if the group enjoys it.  However, at this point, I have to ask, "Why have stats at all?"  Why not just have players roleplay all their actions?  I agree with you that the great roleplay should be rewarded but there are plenty of ways to reward it other than just an "auto-success".  You can give a bonus to the check result (remember that a 1 on a skill check is not an auto-fail), you can give bonus XP, you could even have Kord help the character out, or have the character inspire his fellow PCs to help out.  

But if the only rewards that come from good roleplay are auto success, then you've created a situation where either you don't need dice ever, or the players just might not try to roleplay if they feel they are inadequate at it.  More to the point, there is little to no incentive for them to think "outside the box" for creative uses of their skills, powers, and abilities.  After all, it doesn't really matter if they are skilled or not because if the player (not the character) is introverted, then he or she is already at a disadvantage in every situation in the game to the more extroverted players.  Don't get me wrong, this is perfectly acceptable in some groups; but in my personal experience, it goes against the core of what makes RPGs so great in the first place:  namely, the ability to "be" the person or character that we can't be in real life.  I can't cast spells or slay dragons in real life.  If a massive boulder fell on my buddy, I wouldn't be able to budge it.  But in the game, I MIGHT be able to provided I invested in the right skills, attributes, powers, and abilities.  If all those choices can be negated by a simple "real world" application of a particular skill (diplomacy/bluff) then there is a) no longer much point to making the choices in the first place and b) a dissolution of verisimilutude.


----------



## delericho (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock.  As the DM, do you:
> a) say, "Roll a strength check.  It's DC 20."
> b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."
> 
> If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice.




Says who? Isn't it equally appropriate to have the random d20 represent the fickle whim of the gods? Kord _is_ Chaotic, after all (well, classically; he becomes Unaligned in 4e).

Plus, the comical failure after all that is just as likely to be a memorable event as the DM giving the PCs a free success for hamming it up.

And anyway, you haven't actually addressed his question. He didn't ask "should the wimpy Wizard be able to lift the boulder because the player roleplays a bit", it was "should the wimpy Wizard be able to life the boulder because the player lifts weights"?

Otherwise, you've just shovelled yet more bennies on to the fast-talking player. Now he doesn't just have Charisma as a dump stat - he can dump Strength as well.


----------



## jbear (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> IMO, this is one of the traps that skill challenges lead you into.  When that player playing that Cha 8 shaman makes a clever or moving statement that is strongly in character, you want to reward him for it.  Immediately.  If you, instead, you ask him to roll a Diplomacy check then you're opening the possibility of punishing him instead.  Will that same player get into the game as much the next time there's a social encounter?  I say no.  Instead, he'll just roll his Diplomacy check like everyone else and the scene will die with a whimper...
> 
> Should the sorcerer with the 18 Cha get perquisites for investing in that stat?  Absolutely!  But punishing those with Cha as a dump stat doesn't reward the player with a big score in the same stat.  In fact, it's more of a punishment since the shaman's failure is the party's failure too.



Only that a character with 8 Charisma, when they say things, speak or attempt to have people listen to them, they are weak at it. Maybe they mumble, speak too quietly or too aggressively. Perhaps when you 8 CHA Shaman speaks he does it with such a freaky spirit world look on his face, eyes bulging, tongue flicking out licking badly cracked lips and with a freaky ghostly otherworld echo of the spirits in his voice that surround him that even if he says something valid, his message may not get across because of the way he projects that message.

If it is particularly to the point, if he hits the bullseye you can just notch up a success without rolling anything. If you insist on a roll give him a bonus and drop the DC to easy. 

Personally I don't run Skill Challenges on the fly. I do a lot of prepartaion for them, I often sketch them out. I think this is vital in order to make a skill challenge worth the while. 

Failures are points where I get to add a complication to the situation that the PCs must immeadiately resolve before they can progress. So even with a single failure in a challenge something exciting happens to twist the situation and add to the tension.

I also use a lot of group skill checks where either the majority need to succeed to notch up a success. Partial success is neither a success or a failure, but a complication arises that has to be dealt with. Group failure means that the complication is more severe. Even with a group success, even a single individual failure during a group success leads to a minor dramatic complication that the group needs to resolve.

The other way I involve everyone and avoid the 'best skill use' syndrome is to have a main PC make the skill check (the speaker for example). Let's say the Sorceror wants the Hobgoblin Captain to swollow his Fishy Tail. No sweat, with that High Bluff score, not a problem. But I'm not having everyone just sitting back while she does her stuff. No way in hell. Besides, the Captain is no fool, he's checking out the rest of the group's body language as the Sorceror speaks, listening to their side comments to see if her story rings true. So everyone has to make a moderate bluff roll; of course i actually want to see and hear what your character is doing while the sorceror speaks, +2 to the roll if I like what I see. Every failure adds a +2 to the DC on the Bluff check that the Sorceror has to make. 

Hell you should have seen how fast the chairs went scraping back as my players scrabbled to their feet to build a living portrait around the player running the sorceror, striking their best in character convincing poses and adding comments to support her lies. Awesome moment. 

Anyway, I could go into different elements I involve in my challenges that makes them work but what i really want to say is that the challenge provides a great structure for me to adjudicate when a situation changes direction, for better or for worse, when things get complicated, how complicated things get, when the group gets to the goal, when things have gone so terribly wrong that some serious unforseen complication changes the situation and sends the adventurers in a new unforseen direction. For me failure doesn't mean things end, for me it's when something dangerous happens.

But they require a lot of thought and preparation in my opinion. I probably spend more time working on my skill challenges than I do my combat encounters. Although there is nothing like adding a simultaneous challenge during a combat situation. But simply put,  like someone up page said, you get out of them what you put into them.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> You've been playing this game too long.  I'm sure you know better than that!




Nah, actually that's the way of things. When you want to be good at specific things you pick the things to be good at. Other things you're probably not so good at. Some things you may even be downright poor at, though most heroes can at least fail with style. This is a core element of the game. It was a bit less central back in the days of rolling stats and you get nothing but the features of your class with few to no choices, but even then there were things you were good at and things you weren't.



> YES!!!  Yes, this is my point.  The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him.  He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is.  He makes an empassioned plea to Kord.  Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here.  The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock.  As the DM, do you:
> a) say, "Roll a strength check.  It's DC 20."
> b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."
> 
> If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice.  There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.




There is a 'rule of cool' argument, but that is only one possible situation. Much more often the character simply wants to do something that requires some STR. Usually they'll do it poorly with a low STR. Beyond that maybe it isn't the wizard's place in the grand scheme of things to be lifting the rock. Maybe the barbarian should be doing that, or even the modestly strong bow ranger. It isn't ignoring the rules that makes the game great. It is knowing how and when to use them for best effect and when and how to ignore them or modify them.

In terms of raw skill checks I find that by far the best way to use them is to first ask the player what they are going to do in general. You now understand what action they are taking and why (just like they would announce the power they are using in combat). Once you've determined what skill or ability score should govern that situation you can ask for a check. The character may now narrate the results in keeping with what they tried to do and whether or not the check succeeded. Again this is just exactly how it is always done in combat. You don't describe chopping the orc's head off before you roll to hit do you? That deals with the issues surrounding "made a great speech and failed the check" because the player won't describe it that way. The DM may also supply some explanation the player can use.

In a skill challenge this can flow very naturally. The party face negotiates with the NPC, but a complication comes up, he's misunderstood what the NPC wants and his effort goes awry (failed check). This may create an opening for another character. Perhaps someone with some Insight can make a check "As I watch the bard negotiate with the wizard I try to ascertain his goals and attitude." Bingo. 

SCs should always be dynamically evolving situations, not static barriers you bang on until you overcome them. A social SC should involve moving through a series of situations. Maybe with a more difficult one they involve dealing with different people. Simpler ones can just include an unexpected twist or two. Doing it in the style I'm suggesting I've had plenty of these sorts of SCs and they usually work pretty well.

For other types of situations SCs are generally very straightforward as long as again you make sure there is progress and an evolving situation with each check. The SC framework gives you a good quick way to gauge progress. Suppose the PCs need to navigate down a river in a boat. How many checks are required to succeed? Well, you can do this without an SC, but you're just doing the same thing, the party rolls a few times until the DM is satisfied they've done enough to succeed or mucked up badly enough to have failed. Nice to have a system for that which will give you an appropriate difficulty.


----------



## aurance (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> YES!!!  Yes, this is my point.  The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him.  He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is.  He makes an empassioned plea to Kord.  Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here.  The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock.  As the DM, do you:
> a) say, "Roll a strength check.  It's DC 20."
> b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."
> 
> If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice.  There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.




I disagree with the premise that (b) is necessarily making the game great. Secondly, there's nothing preventing you from awarding ad hoc bonuses in skill challenges for RP that you think is fantastic, or for whatever reason you want. (Personally, as a DM, just making an impassioned plea to a god in and of itself wouldn't strike me as particularly special or interesting RP.)


----------



## Mengu (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> IMO, this is one of the traps that skill challenges lead you into.  When that player playing that Cha 8 shaman makes a clever or moving statement that is strongly in character, you want to reward him for it.  Immediately.  If you, instead, you ask him to roll a Diplomacy check then you're opening the possibility of punishing him instead.  Will that same player get into the game as much the next time there's a social encounter?  I say no.  Instead, he'll just roll his Diplomacy check like everyone else and the scene will die with a whimper...
> 
> Should the sorcerer with the 18 Cha get perquisites for investing in that stat?  Absolutely!  But punishing those with Cha as a dump stat doesn't reward the player with a big score in the same stat.  In fact, it's more of a punishment since the shaman's failure is the party's failure too.




For the record, the 8 charisma shaman's player thoroughly enjoys playing the low charisma. Whatever talking he does, he makes sure to have an abrasive tone about it, so when he fails the check I have an easy time disputing his argument, and hopefully someone with better charisma will jump in and offer further input to salvage the situation. I find this to be "fun" as DM.

I've had my 8 wisdom warlord ask for untrained insight checks even though I know I'm terrible at them, just because I like giving the DM a tool to mess with me should I roll dismally low, or occasionally gain some benefit with a lucky roll.

I realize it's not all black and white, and you don't want to punish players for being involved in the game, you want to reward them, but it's also the player's responsibility to play to their strengths and weaknesses. I play a half-orc barbarian with high charisma, low int, and he walks around with a big dumb grin on his face all the time, acts friendly and a bit naive, which gains points for simply being likable and honest, even if what he had to say was the dumbest idea. I tend to make a lot of diplomacy assist rolls to help the bard, often providing terrible ideas that basically make the bard's idea shine. While one could do the same thing with a sarcastic rogue or a devious warlock, the naive barbarian works just as well. And if I fail an assist check, the DM/NPC can look at the bard and say "the company you keep is not exactly inspiring." And my barbarian will just smile like he got a pat on the head, while providing the bard with a -1 penalty.

Making dice rolls, or even failing at them, doesn't necessarily mean people aren't involved or invested with their actions, or that they aren't enjoying their actions. Yes this will be the case for some newer players, or in awkward situations where occasionally the DM can't quite portray the encounter well, or the players don't understand it. And in those cases, something has to keep the game going, so roll some dice, call it a day, move onto the next fun thing.

One other thing to keep in mind is, dice don't tell you what to say. Everyone knows that guy, who rolls a diplomacy check, natural 20, turns to the DM and says "I rolled a 20 on my diplomacy, I ask the ambassador, the exact right questions for him to tell me everything." And I hate that guy as much as every other DM.

Skill checks and skill challenges are simply a resolution method, much like every other mechanic in D&D, removing part of the responsibility of being a bad guy from the DM's shoulders, and placing it on a bit of luck, and a bit of savvy party building and cooperation.


----------



## jbear (Feb 15, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Wow. What a lot of work putting this skill challenge together.
> 
> And then the players miss the rolls, fail, and it all goes to waste and they move on in search of a different adventure.



This is why I always build into my challenges what happens at each fail point and what happens when only partial success or total failure is achieved.

If I want them to get to the island 'cos that is where i've prepared lots of awesome adventure but I want getting there to be a challenge a partial success might have them arrive on the island but under very disagreeable even deadly conditions. 

A failure wouldn't have them expulsed from the illusion surrounding the island, giving the PCs the easy option to simply say 'screw that, lets hit the tavern and do some wenching'. Getting out at that point would be as difficult as going deeper in and attempting to finally pierce the barrier. Lost in the mists facing a a deadly illusion that twists the PCs sense of reality, until they can break free of that situation (which I would have prepared beforehand in case of this eventuality) they can't try to leave or continue onwards.

Hell, the more I think about it I might even prepare for the eventuality that having failed they try to abandon. So why not give the PCs the illusion that they can easily leave the mists and return wherever they came from, only things strat getting gradually wierder and wierder, until those they know and love go freaky and things get deadly until they realise they are still battling the illusions of the mist and they have been sailing in circles lost and delusional. New challenge, they don't know what direction they are going, whether out or in. Success at this point could easily have them arrive on the island even if they were trying to get out.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> Well, the skill challenge mechanic is pretty much like a block of combat stats: it's a tool that you can use to resolve some sort of question or conflict.





I have to admit that I find a lot of the WotC 4e adventures to be very heavy-handed as to how things should play out; I tend to think that the Delve Format encourages that heavy-handedness.

The Jester put up a really cool example of a skill challenge; the only thing I would question about it is the infinite number of sodden ghouls.  At some point, I would allow the PCs to persevere simply by dispatching them -- doing so makes the situation tJ describes in his skill challenge perfectly in light with what I am calling "fiction-first".

In this particular case, though, there is no real difference (except format, obviously) between the kinds of DM's notes early modules would contain about what characters might try, and what the results might be.  Of course, not all of those older module set-ups were "fiction-first", either........ 


RC


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 15, 2011)

Generally speaking, I like the idea that my NPCs do things I wouldn't do. In fact, I like the idea that they might do things that I think they wouldn't do. Unlike a PC, who's every action is filtered through the player's "would my character do this?" prism, NPCs provide a chance for characters who wholly unplanned for things.

Consider a situation that's come up fairly regularly in my games.

I used to have a group of players who, for whatever reason, love to go to the highest authority in the area and look for work. Sure, they'll take work from other people, but left to their own devices, they'll ask me where the baron or king lives and then seek an audience with them. I try not to leave them to their own devices, but their a crafty bunch. So I'm left trying roleplay the various people one has to go through to get to these people, and sometime even the noble.

Now, I could just make it impossible to get to the noble. I sometimes do that. You know, so and so is out doing important things. But I like the idea that, even though I don't think the noble would bother with my pitiful party, if the _party is good enough_ and lucky enough, the noble will aqueous to the request. 

IOW, the game is more interesting to me when the party has a chance of success independent of my expectations.

Of course, this means that the we have a chance to enter into terra incognito, but it's a risk that I'm often willing to take.



amnuxoll said:


> As the DM, do you:
> a) say, "Roll a strength check.  It's DC 20."
> b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."
> 
> If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice.  There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.



I think that, generally speaking, option a creates more meaningful choices. It also creates more excitement. The players can calculate the odd (or at least estimate them if their bad at math) and they know that both outcomes are possible. Having the outcome based on a die roll means that the wizard's choices are meaningful, by choosing to make Str a dump stat, he's made it so that this situation has a low likelihood of success, while other situations have a higher chance of success.

Of course, not everyone likes this. Some people do like randomness. I've certainly had my issues with it. But I like the idea that, should the wizard succeed, it's special. The odds were stacked against him, but he pulled though. That makes for a more compelling story to me because I know it wasn't pre-ordained by the DM, or based on my own skills in interactions with the DM, but on the choices I made about the PC.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 15, 2011)

> IMO, this is one of the traps that skill challenges lead you into. When that player playing that Cha 8 shaman makes a clever or moving statement that is strongly in character, you want to reward him for it. Immediately. If you, instead, you ask him to roll a Diplomacy check then you're opening the possibility of punishing him instead. Will that same player get into the game as much the next time there's a social encounter? I say no. Instead, he'll just roll his Diplomacy check like everyone else and the scene will die with a whimper...




Sometimes the eloquence, essence and truth of the message is obscured by the personality of the messenger.  To get extreme, how much attention would you pay to a stinking, seemingly insane man who is standing on the corner saying something loudly?  Would you listen attentively enough to ascertain that he's doing a passionate recital of The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám?



> As the DM, do you:
> a) say, "Roll a strength check. It's DC 20."
> b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."
> 
> If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice. There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.



There is nothing wrong with praying to Kord for help, but there's nothing wrong with option A either (nor are they mutually exclusive).  It may actually encourage the player to use his PC's better attributes to solve the problem.

Knowing that he is weak and the boulder is large, he should use his *Int*.

Perhaps he can grab a board and a smaller rock to use as a fulcrum and lever and use his body weight to move the boulder.
Perhaps he can lift or shift the boulder enough and cast Grease upon the body of his ally and the boulder itself will squeeze him out.
Perhaps he props smaller rocks under the boulder to keep it from shifting and uses a shovel to dig _under_ his pal to free him.
Does he have Reduce, Enlarge, Bull's Strength or Shrink Item on his spell list?  Each could help.


----------



## Storminator (Feb 15, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> How do you turn a dungeon crawl into a skill challenge?  Do you mean, make a series of dungeoneering rolls to see if they return the correct way to the surface?  And, then a new series to see if they find their way back to the same location?  I get the impression that it's more than that, however.
> 
> (BTW, I have been DMing for 30+ years and have rarely had players map their way through dungeons.)




Most recent example: the PCs find an old map to the Khyber shard mine deep in the Underdark. They can use Dungeoneering to figure out where they are or are going, History to use the map to navigate, Arcana to guess where the shards would naturally grow, Streetwise to find old miners' marks. After a stage there's a group Endurance check. At any time the players can convince me that something I didn't think of is appropriate and make a check.

Each check is narrated by the players and me in conjunction.

Success and they arrive at the mine in good shape. A failure might mean they get lost for a while, or the miners are alerted, or I give some misinformation that will affect the outcome when they arrive.

PS

P.S. We used to map all the time in the old days. Good lord, never again!


----------



## jbear (Feb 15, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> You've been playing this game too long.  I'm sure you know better than that!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Err ... not buying it.

A wizard with 3 Strength should consider leaving Kord out of this. They've never talked before. Why would kord listen to him now.

He'd be better served trying to get that rock off the barbarian using his arcane skills and powers because he might have a chance of success. 

To be honest the game wouldn't be as fun if player description automatically resulted in success. The group had a roof collapsed on their head two sessions ago. The ranger was the only one on the outside clearing rubble. You would adjudicate that regardless of the ranger's strength and skill she would have done so successfully if she had offered a prayer to an appropriate god and expressed her desire to save her fellow adventurers. Meh. This wasn't even a skill challenge but I allowed the PCs to make checks to speed up the rubble clearing because time is an issue at the moment. The archer rolled a critical 1 and so I ruled that she had caused a secondary collapse catching herself in the falling debris and the old man they had recently rescued who had come to help her clear the rubble. She quickly got out from the blocks but the old man was pinned and unconcious. 
At this stage again by your method she would have offered a second prayer and described how badly she wanted to rescue the poor old codger to avoid dealing with her 10 Strength. Actually the second collapse never would have happened by your method. Well as she lifted the heavy stone from his chest she rolled a second critical 1 and dropped it down on his already damaged ribs, crushing him and killing him. I assure you this was fun. So far the PCs have rescued 3 NPCs (minor quest on present mission), one is in a catatonic state, another is a complaining old bag who criticises everything they do and the only useful one the archer crushed beneath a rock. So now they have a dead body to lug around. 

So how would your 'don't roll dice' method have added to anything be it for better or worse to the situation? How would it have been more fun?

If you simply said 'as you dig at the rubble the roof begins to collapse in on you again, you and the old man are struck by the falling rubble and are trapped beneath their crushing weight'  (whisper* sorry mick, your prayer to Kord wasn't very convincing) i might feel a bit annoyed but i'd deal with it. But when the stone slips out of my hand and crushes the life out of the old fullah (whisper* need to work on your descriptions Mick, things will go better for you) I'd be beyond frustrated.

I guess the dice rolling helps randomly control my meddling with player actions and the results achieved by their best intentions. That is a great element of fun for me. Things don't always go the way the players want or expect, hell, not even I know what is going to happen. And that keeps things fun for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2011)

jbear said:


> Err ... not buying it.
> 
> A wizard with 3 Strength should consider leaving Kord out of this. They've never talked before. Why would kord listen to him now.




This is also my first thought.

My second is that Kord might be actively *displeased* with the presumptuous mortal who dared call on him now, but never acknowledged him before.

"We've known each other many years, but this is the first time you ever came to me for counsel or for help. I can't remember the last time that you invited me to your house for a cup of coffee, even though my wife is godmother to your only child. But let's be frank here. You never wanted my friendship. And, uh, you were afraid to be in my debt.....I understand. You found paradise in America, you had a good trade, you made a good living. The police protected you and there were courts of law. And you didn't need a friend like me. But, uh, now you come to me, and you say: Kord, give me strength.  But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me Godfather."

(with apologies to the original.)


RC


----------



## MarkB (Feb 15, 2011)

Playing and running LFR, I've seen skill challenges running the gamut from great to terrible, and when they're good they can enhance the playing experience greatly - but when they're bad, they can kill it just as readily as a badly-designed combat encounter.

At the last convention I attended, I got to experience two LFR scenarios. In the first, the skill challenge - involving pursuing an escaping suspect - was truly terrible, requiring everyone to roll initiative, then act in order, and choosing to miss a turn or even Delay for another player to act was considered a failed check. Options were limited, substituting powers or other actions instead of skill checks was disallowed, and everyone generally felt pressured into trying to do things they weren't good at. Nobody was surprised when the party failed the encounter, but the results of failure were poorly written up, leaving the DM flailing for some way to bring the characters back to the plot.

The second scenario presented a skill challenge to investigate the location of an elusive criminal. This time, the presentation was entirely different - the challenge was broken down into stages as the party progressed in their investigation, with multiple alternate paths at each point to accomodate any of several lines of investigation they might pursue, and ways to accomodate other options if players took them. It was broken up with two encounters to keep things interesting, and failure was accommodated in the form of a third encounter which would provide clues to put them back on track (not that it was needed in this case).

This is where skill challenges stand or fall. Depending upon who's putting them together and how they do it, a skill challenge can be a constraint upon player creativity, forcing them into taking actions by rote that they don't feel invested in - or it can provide the structural narrative support in which players' creativity can be allowed to flourish, whilst still guiding them towards some defined goal.

Basically, skill challenges can suffer from poor encounter design, just like combat encounters. What it takes to make a good one is experience and some good examples to show what works, and what doesn't.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2011)

I am 100% okay with mechanics giving structure to the vagaries of RP experience. This is how it is a game. There are arbitrary restrictions on you accomplishing the goal. The arbitrary restriction I accept in D&D is _you need to roll dice and add your modifiers in order to friggin' do anything_. 

I can't just _describe_ how well I hit the black knight with my intimate knowledge of medieval swordplay. That's not a game, that's a trivia quiz. "Parry! Dodge! Shield length! Thrust!"

Similarly, personal interaction should not be a "personality quiz." Can I convince the barmaid to give up her secrets? I shouldn't have to convince _the DM_, I should be able to roll a few dice around and see what happens. 

I like this. I enjoy this more. I want this.

I have issues with the skill challenge mechanics, but they're mechanical problems, design problems, problems with how the system is employed at the table, problems with the lack of variety in 4e outside of combat encounters in general. 

They're not this problem.

This, for me, is not a problem. 

This, for me, is why even social interaction in D&D is part of _gameplay_.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 16, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Wow. What a lot of work putting this skill challenge together.
> 
> And then the players miss the rolls, fail, and it all goes to waste and they move on in search of a different adventure.




Actually, the pcs failed, spent a day doing research and set out to try again with the results of that research for help.  

Just because the pcs took an approach that I didn't anticipate doesn't make it a valid approach, nor does the fact that I am open to creative solutions and approaches to a skill challenge make my approach unique. I suspect that a lot of 4e dms that have used skill challenges a bit have evolved good open approaches that their groups really enjoy (I'll cite Piratecat as another example, based on his campaign discussion threads).

So in this case, the pcs start off with a couple of bonuses and "gimmes" that will help them, but they can't find the island without getting in the water.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 16, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There is nothing wrong with praying to Kord for help, but there's nothing wrong with option A either (nor are they mutually exclusive).  It may actually encourage the player to use his PC's better attributes to solve the problem.
> 
> Knowing that he is weak and the boulder is large, he should use his *Int*.
> 
> ...




Forgot an option: amputate the pinned limb and then get him to a powerful Healer...like the guy whose RW story was brought to movie theaters in _127 Hours_.  Only better, 'cause of magic.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 16, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> You've been playing this game too long.  I'm sure you know better than that!




Actually, in my campaign, a character who wants to be the talky guy _will_ put skill points in Diplomacy or Bluff or what have you, because otherwise he doesn't get the benefits of having done so.



amnuxoll said:


> YES!!!  Yes, this is my point.  The wizard sees the boulder on the unconscious barbarian, crushing the life out of him.  He knows he is weak but he knows how critical this is.  He makes an empassioned plea to Kord.  Every player (not character) at the table is moved by the rp that is going on here.  The wizard cries out for his dying friend and, then, darn it he pushes for all he's worth on that rock.  As the DM, do you:
> a) say, "Roll a strength check.  It's DC 20."
> b) say, "For an instant, the Strength of Kord flows into you..."
> 
> If you pick option a, then you're doing your players a disservice.  There is a difference between ignoring the rules and letting them prevent you from making the game great.




I totally disagree.  

What you say is true _for a certain playstyle._ That isn't the style I prefer, and while a lot of groups do- and in their case I think doing as you suggest is fine- I'm more of a mind that if the dying friend can be saved by impassioned roleplaying, you've just cheapened death and taken away the sense of risk.  

I know, I know, there are a million exceptions and circumstances that change this based on the particulars (maybe the party is on a mission of vital importance to Kord, maybe the barbarian is one of Kord's bastards, maybe...), but in general, in my campaign, if the dice say you die, you die. 

The worst thing about your proposal (to my taste, that is) is that once the dm has bitten this "save a pc through roleplaying alone" hook, he has set himself up with a devil's choice.  The next time a pc is at serious risk, he must either allow a roleplaying-only lifesaving move again or else risk being perceived as highly unfair- having let Bob's pc live but not Joe's.

Again, it's a matter of style and taste, and there is nothing wrong with your playstyle- but it is not the kind of game I will ever run or that I find enjoyable.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 16, 2011)

jbear said:


> Hell, the more I think about it I might even prepare for the eventuality that having failed they try to abandon.




I guess I wasn't clear about this in the text regarding the skill challenge I posted, but the pcs are absolutely able to say, "Ehh, forget this, we're done here" and walk away.  They must beat the skill challenge to have the particular adventure on the island, which is a follow up to an attack that killed one of the pcs earlier in the campaign.  They are motivated, but never required to follow the bait. The consequence for doing so is... they do something else instead. (They have about half a dozen pending threads they could follow up on, or they could do something else entirely if they want.)



Raven Crowking said:


> I have to admit that I find a lot of the WotC 4e adventures to be very heavy-handed as to how things should play out; I tend to think that the Delve Format encourages that heavy-handedness.




God yes. The delve format sucks donkey balls.



Raven Crowking said:


> The Jester put up a really cool example of a skill challenge; the only thing I would question about it is the infinite number of sodden ghouls.  At some point, I would allow the PCs to persevere simply by dispatching them -- doing so makes the situation tJ describes in his skill challenge perfectly in light with what I am calling "fiction-first".




I suppose it could happen.  There is an actual theoretical maximum based on the number of them in their lair, but it's high enough that I didn't worry about it in writing up the skill challenge.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2011)

Dammit, Jester.  I still can't XP you....and the donkey balls comment deserves it!


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 16, 2011)

Well a fast and interesting thread!  While I might make some individual responses later, I'm more likely to spread some XP with little notes.

I can't help but noticing that every person who says "Skill Challenges are bad, yadda yadda" seems to be playing the mechanic in the open.  IME this invariably leads to the kinds of problems everyone cites.

Announcing an SC and bringing the mechanic out onto the table, like we do with combat, is incredibly negative IME.  At best your players typically hunt through their best skills and try to figure out how they can apply them to chug up successes with a modicum of RP on the side!  And at worst they simply pick through a set menu of skills and results.

I prefer the transparent approahc - using the mechanic as an accounting tool and a way to measure and guide progress.  So I play it pretty loose and instead rely on adlib and roleplaying and it works incredibly well and seamlessly for us.

I also love designing an SC that branches based on the player choices   I make veritable bushes, trees and even forests sometimes!

My groups seem to find my skill challenges very memorable and, besides the very first one with a group, I never make the mechanic visible to them *at all*.  And I think that's the key to making SCs meld and flow with the whole story.  That smooth flow is something I also try to achieve with combat, which is a different subject.

A few of our recent memorable challenges:
 * The Dwarf Paladin getting jailed on a murder charge, the party proving his innocence.
 * Travelling to find info relating to the McGuffin.
 * A raid on a caravan of 75+ orcs/half-orcs/humans to destroy an arcane device.

I think it's important to remember that SCs aren't just limited to skills.  DMG2 is very clear that you can open this up to many more things.  In other words the roleplaying is the important part, the mechanic is a tool for the DM.  So framing is incredibly important.

It's funny.  If folks allow their players to misuse or abuse skills then I think that's an issue that group has with skills.  It's only natural that group will also have issues with skill challenges.  particularly if they are non-transparent SCs.  I mean, why allow folks to go "I intimidate him! A 20! Pwn3d!"?  In a sense that's really got nothing to do with SCs, but with allowing poor roleplaying.  Don't get me wrong I don't get my players to RP every word, and that would be unfair on less eloquant players.  But they need to at least give a sense of how they are being intimidating and there's no reason the rest of the players can't help them work that out.

Consider my sig from rpg.net.  It's intentionally a little provocative, but please don't be offended:


			
				My rpg.net sig said:
			
		

> -doug
> _DM since '81... Loving my new FR 4e campaign Rhedden!_
> 
> "I hate skill challenges! They are too deterministic! They feel artificial! Blah blah!"
> ...



*Not* intended to upset of inflam, but intended to point clearly to my own beliefs on the topic.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 16, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Mengu said:
> 
> 
> > ...Personally I treat social skills much the same way. Sure we role play the social encounters. But when the 8 charisma shaman (with a player of 18 charisma) does all the talking, rest assured I'll ask for a diplomacy check and give NPC responses accordingly...
> ...




I agree with your overall point, but disagree with the assumption that it has to be this way.  There's nothing that says you have to follow the Skill Challenge system rigidly.  There's nothing that says you can't chalk up an automatic success for good roleplaying by a player, without ever having them make a skill roll (an immediated reward, regardless of actual stats).  I think the above situation falls under one of my general rules: Good roleplaying by a player always trumps any weakness of the character.  But also, within the Skill Challenge system, a player doesn't have to use a charisma based skill.  Skills based on other stats not only can be used, but are encouraged to be used.  It's a system that when used correctly promotes creativity rather than limiting it...

I use Skill Challenges in my 3.x games to wonderful effect.  They are great way for me to add a bit of behind-the scenes structure to non-combat encounters - so I don't have to adjudicate _everything_, and so there's a feeling of consistency and fairness for the players (as opposed to purely my subjective decisions).  I like to old-school-DM encounters also, and I think I do it quite well (at least my players tell me I do), but I've found Skill Challenges to be a very beneficial addition to my DM toolbox.  But, like most in this thread have said, I almost never run them as written in the rules, and I've houserule in much of the advice I've already heard here in this thread.  Especially: I never announce a Skill Challenge.  I prefer them to be more transparent and less gamist (not that _gamist_ is a bad thing, just not the style I like to use).  I never tell players how many success or failures they need, and never provide them with a running score of their successes and failures.  I prefer it to be a structure that's only apparent to the one behind the screen.

But above all, I follow the advice that Mengu said in the same post you quoted:



Mengu said:


> Skill challenges are what you make of them. If you and your group have a problem with them, don't run them by the book, I don't think anyone does.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 16, 2011)

Stoat said:


> D.  Stalker0's Obsidian system pwns WotC's Skill Challenge system.




Actually once you properly understand the RAW SC system as presented in DMG, DMG2 and the Rules Compendium it's incredibly flexible and open.  A real RP encourager... And it's a cryign shame WotC did such a terrible job of communicating the system.  They should be lashed to death with tiny whips made of their own pubic hair for that.

Where I think Obsidian is stronger is if you want a highly visible mechanic that's in the player's face, rather than a mechanic not directly visible to the players.


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have to admit that I find a lot of the WotC 4e adventures to be very heavy-handed as to how things should play out; I tend to think that the Delve Format encourages that heavy-handedness.




Sure. That's definitely a problem of the delve format; they're set up to be linear and easy for novice DMs to use with a minimum of ad-libbing. But what I like about skill challenges lies in the potential, rather than in the specific examples. It's sort of like dark elves to me: sure, there are several things about drow-as-presented that I find problematic, but the concept of outcast elves turned all bitter and Unseelie and coming for you in the night, that's worth figuring out some new implementation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2011)

You know what?  While I still believe that the 4e ruleset is pro-rules-first, I have changed my mind about the value and usefulness of skill challenges.  I admit fully that the Jester's example was the tipping point.

Bravo, Sir!


RC


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 16, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I agree with your overall point, but disagree with the assumption that it has to be this way.  There's nothing that says you have to follow the Skill Challenge system rigidly.  There's nothing that says you can't chalk up an automatic success for good roleplaying by a player, without ever having them make a skill roll (an immediated reward, regardless of actual stats).  I think the above situation falls under one of my general rules: Good roleplaying by a player always trumps any weakness of the character.  But also, within the Skill Challenge system, a player doesn't have to use a charisma based skill.  Skills based on other stats not only can be used, but are encouraged to be used.  It's a system that when used correctly promotes creativity rather than limiting it...




Actually the Skill Challenge rules _themselves_ (as per DMG2) very clearly indicate that many things can be used to chalk up successes or precipitate failures, not just skills.  This can be use of powers, logic and many other things - spelling out "roleplaying and innovatiove thinking".


----------



## jdcash (Feb 16, 2011)

There have been a few times when a player has been really creative in a situation that did not have a lot of bearing on the overall story.  All of these situations were outside of actual skill challenges.  I asked for a skill check as a way of making their efforts seem important to the story and that it was a meaningful contribution.  A couple of times I gave them a bonus to a future skill check.

 - I should probably note that these were all in LFR and the player's idea was not even close to the story, so I could not let them go to far down the path at all and de-rail the whole thing.

Anyway, the point is I used the mechanic as a reward for RP.

EDIT:  I sincerely hope that someone understands what I am attempting to communicate.  After re-reading it a couple of times, I am doubtful.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 16, 2011)

Riastlin said:


> If you are going to do away with skill checks, so as to highlight good roleplaying (which is certainly the group's perogative), why not just do away with combat rolls too?  Should we not allow the fighter who eloquently describes his strike, or the wizard who gives a wonderful description of his spell, to auto-hit?




I never said to do away with skill checks. I never said to do away with skill challenges.

I like skill checks at appropriate times. I think it is important to make some skill determinations via dice rolls.

I'm not too keen on skill challenges. Most of the ones I've experienced have been fairly lame and have taken up a lot of time to accomplish something that I thought could be accomplished a lot easier and faster with just a few skill check rolls (or even with common sense and sometimes zero skill check rolls).

I also think that skill challenges are sometimes ways for some DMs to try to force their players to come up with imaginative solutions. The players are rewarded if they come up with good ideas that the DM likes and penalized (one way or another) if they don't (as opposed to combat encounters which tend to be cut and dry unless the DM goes out of his way to fudge the scenario for or against the PCs mid-combat). Skill challenges feel more subjective ("hmmm, that's a good idea, +2 to your next Perception roll") whereas combat feels more objective.

Not everyone's brains are geared towards imaginative solutions. That's not fun for every player. Some players don't want to try to figure out how to part the illusionary mists with their Arcana skill. They want to get to the darn island and cut to the chase. Some people like more tangible challenges and not abstract ones or ones that require more extreme out of the box thinking.

Skill challenges are sometimes like puzzles. If your brain is geared towards puzzles, the DM throwing out a puzzle is enjoyable. If not, it might not be. One part of skill challenges that is not always enjoyable is that they are kind of like an encounter: they continue on until the PCs either succeed, partially succeed, or fail (typically). Sometimes when I am in the middle of one (considering that they are usually not life or death situations), I sometimes just want my PC to say "Screw it. This is too much of a pain in the butt to figure out. Let's just go back to the tavern and drink. The mayor can track down his own clues to rescuing his daughter and when he finds out where she is, he can come tell us.".


----------



## Wyckedemus (Feb 16, 2011)

*On making skill challenges entertaining...*

Something I'm interested in trying in my game is give the characters different types of role-playing opportunities _created_ by their skill checks. In a "round" of a skill challenge, I'd ask each of the players how they want to contribute to the situation at hand, essentially choosing a skill that they want to implement.

I will then ask them to roll their check, and I will determine how successful that roll is. If it successful or very successful, I would tell those players that they did (or are doing) a good job, and for them to roleplay appropriately. Hopefully they will do their best to roleplay the result, and my DM filter will adjudicate the attempt appropriately.

For whoever rolls poorly, or very poorly, I will ask them to roleplay an appropriate unsuccessful attempt. They get to choose how they foul up, despite their best intentions.

I'd like to see a social interaction occur between the party and the NPCs after each player has an idea of how they contribute. In a "meet the noble patron family" scenario, let's say the flirtatious bard rolled poorly for Diplomacy, and so chooses to roleplay the inability to avoid staring at the the Baroness' chest as he's expounding upon how useful the heroes will be if the Baron would hire them. The Baron looks like he's getting pissed.

The rogue however knew he rolled well on Bluff, and so uses it to successfully distract the Baron from the bard. "Psst, my friend Llellewyn the Loquacious here has lazy eyes. Two of 'em in fact. Four, when he wears his spectacles. Poor crooked-eyed bastard has a voice like a dwarven metal band though. Now how much is the reward for the gnoll demon cultists? We sent them straight to their underlords. What to you mean, what gnolls? You didn't know? Boy, do I have a story for you." (Success)

The low-Cha, Low Int barbarian chose History (he's a role-player!), and accidentally rolled very well on his History check. So he gets a chance to portray how he thinks his arrogant, vapid warrior helps out. He says he remembers a battle that his grandfather spoke of. "Hey. You are of Clan (House) Hartmaster? A Hartmaster clan-chief led many warriors, including my grandmother to slaughter the orcs at Vangerdeth Vale 40... or 80 winters ago. Something like that. My grandmother said he had mighty thews. So are you him? You don't look too old for an old guy. You look tough, though. We should break staves later, cuz I think I can take you. Where is the food?"

The Wizard botches his Arcana check to impress everyone, and therefore he decides that he is going attempt to light the noble uncle's cigar, and accidentally catch the uncle's robes on fire with a particularly explosive flamefinger. "Wow! That was not supposed to happen. Here, let me clean that off with my mystical presti- oops. Nope. The water just does _not_ make it better. My most sincere apologies. I'm rather used to destroying bloodsucking vampires and malevolent, baby-stealing scarecrows with cascades of fire. I'll stand over here, and instead use my immense talent for the Art against your foes. It's better this way."

I like the idea of giving the players some variety in role-playing opportunities. Instead of saying. "OK, give me your best shot to try and convince the Lord to hire you." Then he belts out an impressive speech, and then roll a 1 on his Diplomacy check. Come on, where is the verisimilitude in that? So I say...why not roleplay the roll? What do you think?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> The Jester put up a really cool example of a skill challenge; the only thing I would question about it is the infinite number of sodden ghouls.  At some point, I would allow the PCs to persevere simply by dispatching them -- doing so makes the situation tJ describes in his skill challenge perfectly in light with what I am calling "fiction-first".
> 
> In this particular case, though, there is no real difference (except format, obviously) between the kinds of DM's notes early modules would contain about what characters might try, and what the results might be.



RC, agreed.

I've been posting for a few weeks now that the example skill challenges in a module or the DMG have to be seen as analgous to a GM's prep notes.

Of course, they may not be notes to an adventure that you have any interest in GMing, but they're not about railroading or force-feeding something to the players.

I was just re-reading some of the other posts on that thread, in light of some of the more recent discussions about 4e, mechanics vs fiction etc. And that only reinforced my view, that the differences between 4e and earlier editions, as far as action resolution and encounter design are concerned, are in many ways quite subtle.

I don't think it's about the sequence of resolution and narration, which is in practice often rather fluid in both games. Nor do I think it's about whether narration matters to resolution - I think it does in both systems. I think it's about whether there is also a strong metagame element in the injection of complications into a situation as its being resolved, in the GM's framing of situations in the first place, and so on.

That is, it's about "fiction first" as you defined it in one of your recent posts on the General board.


----------



## Goonalan (Feb 16, 2011)

I heard there was a skill challenge in this thread to make the perfect calimari?

Is that right... uh, I don't see it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 16, 2011)

> I like the idea of giving the players some variety in role-playing opportunities. Instead of saying. "OK, give me your best shot to try and convince the Lord to hire you." Then he belts out an impressive speech, and then roll a 1 on his Diplomacy check. Come on, where is the verisimilitude in that? So I say...why not roleplay the roll? What do you think?




Nothing wrong with RPing a situation, but if you- the DM- have asked for a roll, you should stand by the results (with appropriate bonuses) or risk seeming arbitrary & playing favorites.

That speech coupled with a botched Diplomacy roll ...perhaps he closed by saying, "...and lets give our gracious host a great-big hand!"...forgetting for that brief instant that the host lost his right hand in a freak carriage accident just last year.

Or he drank a toast, raising his goblet using the LEFT hand, which as all the locals know is the symbolic hand of _EEE_eeeeeeeevil.

Maybe he showed up for dinner in the colors & preferred symbology of the deposed Tyrant who was recently overthrown.

Or, like a past US President, he barfed.

There is your verisimilitude: RP matters, but the roll controls.

It doesn't take much to botch a diplomatic situation.  A professor of mine was sent to negotiate a deal in a foreign country that was very elitist and classist.  His polish, wit, intellect and charm got him the assignment, and it seemed like it was going to pay off.  Negotiations were going excellently.

The night before the signing, he revealed that his father had been a blue-collar worker who had worked hard to help his kids have a better life.  A very typical American story.

The deal died.  Those on the other side did not wish to associate with the son of a laborer- to them, the entire negotiations process had been tainted.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 16, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Stop trying to add rules to something that doesn't need rules. Just play!



Yay for freestyle roleplaying! Forget rules! All you need is your imagination anyway!

To which I can only say: I'm glad this approach works for you - have fun!

I'll just go back and follow an approach that is working for me and that happens to be an approach that includes skill challenges. Cheers!


----------



## Iron Sky (Feb 16, 2011)

Just read this on pretty much the same subject last night. Seems appropriate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 16, 2011)

> Just read this on pretty much the same subject last night. Seems appropriate.




Interesting, and with good points...but not 100% accurate.  Several things that are now gathered into Spot or Search checks were once class or race abilities in AD&D.

Just sayin'.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2011)

> Just read this on pretty much the same subject last night. Seems appropriate




Hm...



			
				ars ludi said:
			
		

> How did those primitive gamers survive, you ask? Simple: players listened to the GM’s description of the game world. Then they asked questions. Then the GM (ahem, DM) told them the results.
> 
> Rolling dice is not supposed to replace your brain. Making Spot checks all the time is just a lame way of saying “well, you haven’t asked anything that would really tell me if you would notice this or not, so we’ll just roll and let the dice decide.”




AKA: "Mother-May-I" Gameplay. 

"Oh wise and powerful DM, I check the room for traps."
"You don't see any."
"I move through the room."
"A trap is sprung!"
"WTF?! I CHECKED!"
"You checked the _room_. This trap was technically on the ceiling."
"The ceiling is part of the room!"
"No it isn't, you would've had to specificially check the ceiling."
"Well, that sucks, and now I am dead, and this game blows."

...etc.

This works fine if the DMs are universally good, skilled, fair, accurate judges 100% of the time (or even 90% of the time with adequate player trust). But DMs are human, DMs make mistakes, DMs can be biased or needlessly specific. DMs can be rules lawyers going by RAW instead of RAI, both from the books and from what players say. 

I prefer dice. I also prefer dice as a DM, since that means I don't have to parse what the players are saying as if I was the _King's Quest_ computer.

>LOOK AT ROCK
"There is no rock here."
>LOOK AT BOULDER
"There is no boulder here."
>LOOK AT STONE
"The stone is unremarkable."

...I can just say, "How observant are these characters in this situation? DICE! TELL ME!"

Easier, faster, less messy, moar dakka....er...more fun.



			
				ars ludi said:
			
		

> And if the information you may or may not notice is pertinent to the plot, it is asinine-by-design to decide whether to reveal it with a die roll. Scene from a GM lynching: “well if you had rolled better you would have seen that the tribe had red banners instead of black and that whole game would have probably made more sense to you, but hey, you failed your Spot check…”




VALID POINT ALERT.

It is never a good idea to stick something essential behind a wall that the players may not pass through. It's also a bad idea to bottleneck so that there's only one way to ever learn something. If it's essential, jam it in their craws, either directly, or with multiple, disparate opportunities to discover the same thing. 

This isn't a problem with spot checks, though, it's a problem with adventure design (which, I'll fully admit, future DMGs need to do a better job on -- though 4e's is not bad). 



> The trick is that dice are supposed to improve the game, not replace the gamer. What’s the final outgrowth of resolving more and more things with dice instead of brains? The one-roll adventure: if you make the roll you win! Game over. No player decision making needed.




Oh slippery slopes, you are my favorite thing to slide down!

This is like saying that if you just have to ask the DM, you will never roll dice, and every game will turn into Amber Diceless.

There is a broad middle ground.

D&D is firmly rooted in that middle ground, and doesn't seem likely to go off the edge into one-roll adventures any time soon, since those things don't seem like very much fun to very many people, I'd wager.

Of course, really, this just points out that all the rules we abide by are arbitrary, which, yeah, we're playing a game, so they are.



			
				ars ludi said:
			
		

> What are dice supposed to do? They’re supposed to resolve things that cannot be resolved in the polite confines of a kitchen table or in the physics of our world. Does my car explode when I crash into that tanker truck? Does my broadsword cut off that dragon’s head? Does my magic spell levitate the castle?




As diceless systems prove, you can do this pretty easily without dice. You can do all of this without dice. 

No, dice are there to be an impartial arbiter, to improve trust between the DM and the players, to help the players feel like they have some agency, to help the DM feel like he can make a clear ruling, to resolve things that have a chance of failure. Dice are also there because rolling dice is fun -- the risk, the fear of the unknown, the thrill of a 20 and the agony of a 1. 

Dice are a useful tool for when you want to bring a character's abilities to bear on a particular task that might not succeed. You can do that without dice, too, but dice are fast useful and impartial and random and all of those things add (to me) significant amounts of fun.



			
				ars ludi said:
			
		

> Here’s the challenge: if it’s not a combat situation or about to become one (aka checking for surprise or attacks at unawares), don’t use Spot checks. At all. None. Zero. Let players describe what they look for or how they are behaving and just arbitrarily decide what they see or don’t see.
> 
> Once your players get the gist of it, see if they become more inquisitive, interactive and basically just play more instead of falling back on the Spot check crutch.




Here's a challenge: go play some Amber. Either have fun and enjoy your diceless world of thoughtful, inquisitive players, and don't worry too much about injecting that into D&D, or get back to me when you figure out why it's not quite as fun for you to play as D&D, and tell me why. 

For me, I don't like Mother-May-I gameplay, either as a player, or as a DM. I prefer to play a game using randomness, luck, chance, and chaos, one that depends on the _character_ rather than the _player_ to be successful (but relies on the player to use the character's abilities in the first place). 

Depending on the DM's judgement alone causes all sorts of problems and complications. Like any tabletop game, when the DM is an awesome, great, superb, 90th percentile DM, it'll work great anyway. But when the DM is merely average, or only kinda good, or even a little bad....yeah, you've got problems. Dice help solve those problems.

Plus, rolling dice is fun so  .


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 16, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> AKA: "Mother-May-I" Gameplay.




At its worst, yeah. I tend to see it as "gaming the DM", which is kind of unavoidable. 

Well, lemme back up a bit. I think that most every RPG out there hinges on the players and the GM being in some sort of accord. The more that the players can anticipate what the GM is looking for and trying to enforce, the better shape they're in. I don't mean this in a bad way (though it can go there, depending) -- for instance, in a James Bond game, the players who are thinking in terms of an espionage movie and its tropes will theoretically be doing well, because that's what the GM is looking for. Similarly, if the GM says "I'm running a four-color superhero game based on Astro City" and the players decide to all create grimdark '90s antiheroes made of gun-katanas, it is not unfair of the GM to say "guys that is totally not what I was talking about." So yeah, this accord is pretty pivotal.

The sort of play Robbins describes strikes me as ideal when you have a play group that's been together for a while, and when everyone knows and anticipates the GM and the way he tends to set up information dumps. However, some players are still going to be better at it than others. For instance, my wife talks to me all the damn time, frequently about gaming. She knows some of my foibles inside-out, like "Ethan is highly critical of hereditary rulership" or "This Gormenghast vibe means NPCs are highly tradition-minded, so appeals for a new way of doing things are not as successful." This gives her something of an advantage when knowing what questions to ask and what details to look for. So in a game where she's playing alongside someone who doesn't know me as well (which is probably anyone else), rolling dice helps level the playing field a bit.

TL;DR version: It's valid advice, but I think it's advice that's of variable utility depending on your gaming group. Some groups may do better with dice as an equalizer.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 16, 2011)

Stoat said:


> I'm talking about 4E only.  I wasn't aware of any skill challenge mechanic in SWSE.  In what ways is the presentation there better?




*Galaxy of Intrigue* expands on many of the elements of skill challenges initially presented in 4e with plenty of sample skill challenges developed right from the movies so it's really easy to see how the concept of a skill challenge could play out. There is also a fairly extensive example of play that, I think, makes it clear that the players can be driving the use of skills while the GM decides, based on their input, whether or not a use of a skill contributes to the success of the challenge. There's also a number of options for what successes and failures really mean in a skill challenge. Successes could ameliorate previous failures rather than add to the number of successes, for example, which might be really useful if failures were causing the loss of resources (such as when the number of failures may mean the number of ships lost from a convoy navigating through a treacherous region of space).

If you think that the skill challenge structure is too rigid or contrived, I think *Galaxy of Intrigue* may well have the power to change your mind.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Oh slippery slopes, you are my favorite thing to slide down!




Please remember the Eric's Grandma rule when responding to this post!


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 16, 2011)

I've found a great balance with a successful check that tells the player something odd, but lets them figure out what.



			
				Example said:
			
		

> "We search the library for hidden treasure. Perception check 32."
> 
> "You find something a little odd. You find a book that's obviously been thumbed and used a lot, judging from the binding, but it's on the top shelf corner - too high to easily be grabbed."
> 
> ...




I do the same for traps. Tell them something is odd after a successful roll, let them consider that a bit, then only require more rolls if they can't suss it out themselves. We're having more fun doing it this way, even if it means an occasional automatic success in the skill challenge.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2011)

Thanks for the XP re: being open-minded.

Be aware, though, that being open-minded doesn't just mean that you accept the potentials of something, but also that you can see the pitfalls.  Open-mindedness works both ways.


RC


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 16, 2011)

Wyckedemus said:


> Something I'm interested in trying in my game is give the characters different types of role-playing opportunities _created_ by their skill checks. In a "round" of a skill challenge, I'd ask each of the players how they want to contribute to the situation at hand, essentially choosing a skill that they want to implement.
> 
> I will then ask them to roll their check, and I will determine how successful that roll is. If it successful or very successful, I would tell those players that they did (or are doing) a good job, and for them to roleplay appropriately. Hopefully they will do their best to roleplay the result, and my DM filter will adjudicate the attempt appropriately.
> 
> ...




Right, exactly what I've been saying. Do it just like combat. Pick an action, roll a check, narrate the results. In an SC this will be more back-and-forth than using some standard power in a combat, but the general concept works fine.

And call me old school if you want, but I want dice in my peanut butter. Remember, there are static DCs and passive checks for "the perceptive cleric spots something" that doesn't need dice, that's exactly what it is there for. Active checks OTOH are the players driving the game through the agency of their characters. Sure, fate is involved. There are also a lot of unquantifiable factors in any reasonably complex action. Like I said above, you can definitely work a success or failure in a lot of different ways, and it can spin into all sorts of possible new avenues. 

One thing that helps a lot is for the DM to have a fair amount of detail to his notes about a situation, especially a social one. There should be a number of NPCs potentially involved, different motivations, various little details that the players can latch onto and use to hang narrative off of, etc. For example, in Convincing the Duke:

Put a painting on the wall. Describe the rather threadbare condition of the room's furnishings. Have a priggish advisor that doesn't like the cleric's patron god. Have the Duke's daughter burst in to complain about her wardrobe for the big ball tomorrow. Any of that plus a sentence on the other 4 people in the room's personality and one on their motivations or needs. Then you will have a LOT less problems with the SC. It will just FLOW if you let it.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 16, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> DR version: It's valid advice, but I think it's advice that's of variable utility depending on your gaming group. Some groups may do better with dice as an equalizer.




This is an important point.  Folks tend to forget that different groups work differently and enjoy different styles.  I'm sure some of my skill challenges wouldn't work for some groups, at all.  But that's also true of our play style.  We abandoned XP a few levels back, for example...and haven't missed it.  We don't mind saying '_whoops, he had a -2 there, didn't he?  Guess he missed, after all._'  Some groups would see this as destroying the narrative.

Some weeks, we barely roll a die, due to the role-playing.  Other weeks, we barely utter dialogue while we calculate how to set up flanks and who should get their mark.  Most weeks fall solidly in the middle.  That's who we roll.  Literally.  Every group is different...which is why there are and should be multiple approaches to skill challenges.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Thanks for the XP re: being open-minded.
> 
> Be aware, though, that being open-minded doesn't just mean that you accept the potentials of something, but also that you can see the pitfalls.  Open-mindedness works both ways.




Oh, absolutely!   And skill challenges are a good example of a mechanic that needs a certain amount of finessing to avoid a really artificial feel.  Several of the early skill challenges that I ran kinda sucked; but by learning from them (and the article series about them, and published examples, etc), I really improved my mastery of skill challenges. Just like I have over the years by learning from sucky npcs, encounters, plotlines, etc.

The thing with skill challenges, like just about everything else in the game, is that some groups will like them and some won't.  For those that do, I think it's worth the effort that it takes to get good at designing and running them in a way that you and your group enjoy. Unlike combat, we haven't had much of a mechanical framework for group non-combat challenges in the past (short of the dubious example of encounter traps in 3e's _Dungeonscape,_ which were really a preview of how traps and hazards would work in 4e anyhow). Because of this, as well as the skill challenge system's own warts as originally presented, there has been a learning curve with skill challenges. 

I think I actually put more into designing many skill challenges than I do into designing a lot of combats- and this despite the fact that I usually take a very "tell me what you're doing" approach rather than the "here are your primary and secondary skills" approach.

One trick that I have found makes the skill challenge mechanic as a whole work better with my group is to run them differently depending on the circumstances. Often I don't announce that the party is in one, though they might easily pick up on it if they are paying attention (I track successes and failures with dice). Once in a while they even get a handout with the whole thing on it (well, unless I leave out some complications or surprises!). It depends on the nature of the challenge- if it's a diplomatic encounter, I don't announce it, and I call for skill checks as the characters interact, while if it's a challenge to build a raft from Underdark fungus, they'll know how many successes they need to succeed (though the pcs might think they succeed even if they fail, despite the contrary knowledge of the players).


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 16, 2011)

Jester, I'll be yoinking a variant of your island ship challenge for my own 11th lvl party. That's great.

In fact, I'm surprised and delighted that this thread has gone from complaints to incredibly creative solutions and ideas. Thank you, you guys.


----------



## Riastlin (Feb 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Thanks for the XP re: being open-minded.
> 
> Be aware, though, that being open-minded doesn't just mean that you accept the potentials of something, but also that you can see the pitfalls. Open-mindedness works both ways.
> 
> ...




Absolutely, as Jester indicates every group and every game is different.  By being open minded we can all improve our games, wether as players or DMs.  It can be hard, but sometimes as a DM we just need to say "Well, that session sure sucked."  Its one of the reasons why I always encourage players to talk to their DM if they are dissatisfied with something that is going on because a good DM will absolutely take that dissatisfaction into consideration and should at least discuss the issue with the player.

And yes, while I love SC as a concept, I have to agree that they can be very difficult to pull off well (in part due to their being so new).  This only compounds the problem if you are running a group that really isn't into the SC mechanic in the first place.  (i.e. they are dubious of SC's to begin with, then they get a lousy SC thrown at them, odds are their opinion of SC's won't improve any).


----------



## ehren37 (Feb 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I disagree. Players should simply have a Tactics skill, rolling X successes before Y failures in order to defeat a monster or group of monsters. Pick the values of X, Y, and the DC of the roll based on the challenge you wish to represent.
> 
> In no case should the player have to determine what tactics or powers to use. I mean, am I supposed to be as tactically brilliant as my 15th level fighter? I think not!
> 
> ...




Frankly, that sounds better than the "woo me" style of DM'ing. Why not do away with the dice entirely, and just have them describe their attacks, and if you approve, they get to hit, and if they dont, they miss?

Dice are what separates the game from "guns" kids play, where one yells "Bang! I hit you", and the other yells "no you didnt". Certain styles of DM's seem to crave the ability to say "no you didnt" just based on their position in the DM chair alone. The rules provide structure to assist in adjudicating that. 

IMO, the end result of a skill roll should typically outweigh the player's description of said action, be it an attack, hide or diplomacy check. If someone gives a masterful description, but rolls poorly, the end result is they dont hit, hide, or persuade the king. Perhapd their opponent was lucky, perhaps a patrol rounds the corner unexpectedly, perhaps the local reeve is in a foul mood or tired of hearing honeyed words of people day after day.

I'm all for giving a circumstaqnce bonus for effort, but really, role playing should be its own reward. Its why I DM, because I get to jump into lots of different personalities, not because I need to hold 5 others captive to my whims every week.

Some DM's havent moved past the whole "guess what I'm thinking/tell me what I want to hear/one true way" petty tyrant DM'ing of yesteryear. If you hve rules for skills, use em. Those players willing to engage the game more are likely getting mroe out of the experience anyways. Skill challenges are far from perfect and could use a re-do, but skill checks free me from having to over analyze myself for bias and just sit back and enjoy the game more.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 16, 2011)

Piratecat said:


> Jester, I'll be yoinking a variant of your island ship challenge for my own 11th lvl party.




Hey, cool! I'm honored!

Especially since, last session, inspired by what may be the most frustrating moment in your dming history, I pointed the pcs at the Great Modron March.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> Frankly, that sounds better than the "woo me" style of DM'ing. Why not do away with the dice entirely, and just have them describe their attacks, and if you approve, they get to hit, and if they dont, they miss?




Conversely, of course, why not do away with the players entirely, and have the dice determine their attacks?

My point in the bit that you quoted was that the players do make important decisions in combat that shape the outcome -- challenging the player as well as the character.  Ideally, the same occurs outside of combat:  Both the character's abilities and the player's choices matter.  Resolving things like diplomacy with only rolls is like resolving combat without player input for tactics.

In other words this is the fallacy of the excluded middle, and, IMHO, the middle is where the best rpg design strives to be.


RC


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 16, 2011)

Wyckedemus said:


> Something I'm interested in trying in my game is give the characters different types of role-playing opportunities _created_ by their skill checks. In a "round" of a skill challenge, I'd ask each of the players how they want to contribute to the situation at hand, essentially choosing a skill that they want to implement.
> 
> I will then ask them to roll their check, and I will determine how successful that roll is. If it successful or very successful, I would tell those players that they did (or are doing) a good job, and for them to roleplay appropriately. Hopefully they will do their best to roleplay the result, and my DM filter will adjudicate the attempt appropriately.
> 
> For whoever rolls poorly, or very poorly, I will ask them to roleplay an appropriate unsuccessful attempt. They get to choose how they foul up, despite their best intentions...




We've been playing a variation on this, in any system with skills, for over a decade.  It might be closer to 2 decades, as we gradually morphed into this style, and I don't remember exactly when it became the default.

It works great, and it removes at once a whole chunck of the issues discussed in this topic.  My favorite part, though, is how it affects player interaction and roleplaying awards.  You roll a 1 on your athletics check.  Now you narrate how the events are in-game.  What before was either a plan crushing failure or a complete reversal from a pre-roll description of a "graceful leap"--is now an opportunity for you to get some benefits!  It's hard to roleplay well, say, a diplomacy check of 8 when you needed 12.  It's a rather vague failure.  But 1s (total fail) are easy.

With player interaction, we let people jump in on the narration when they have something to contribute.  So you roll a 5, needed a 15, and your failure narration is rather blah.  But the guy next to you has a better idea as to what you said to the fence in the bad neighborhood, while trying to tack down the crime lord.  He throws it out there, and your character so said it.  It's memorable.  We don't have anyone that takes offense at this kind of ribbing.  And the very next roll, they may be helping you sound more impressive with your 19.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1) The creation of a skill challenge (esp. when created as part of an adventure, rather than on the fly) implies a decision ahead of time as to how the encounter will be approached.
> 
> The existence of skills does not. In fact, an rpg with skill rules, combat rules, etc., that does not require the GM to pre-structure what can/will happen, implies the opposite -- that an encounter can be approached in many ways.




I really like skill challenges, but now you've got me wondering how one would do a replacement mechanic that answered this objection. It would not be so much a skill "challenge", as a way for a party to collaborate, prior to the challenge, in the development of a resource that could then be sprung as needed to meet an appropriate situation.

TIA, if this causes me to lie awake designing it in my head, tonight.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 16, 2011)

*heh* I've made two apparently contradictory posts on this topic.  Noone seems to have noticed yet tho... Wonder who will spot it first?



pemerton said:


> I've been posting for a few weeks now that the example skill challenges in a module or the DMG have to be seen as analgous to a GM's prep notes.




I think that's one of the problems folks have with SC definitions.  They figure they are supposed to be implemented the way they read! As though they are some kind of hard structure that must be adhered to in the format presented.  That's always going to be really ugly.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, exactly what I've been saying. Do it just like combat. Pick an action, roll a check, narrate the results. In an SC this will be more back-and-forth than using some standard power in a combat, but the general concept works fine.



It works _*very*_ well   I like to remember that all kinds of things other than skills can and should come into play.  Because I like to encourage that I almost ever announce the challenge.  Instead I give them a hook and see if they take it.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> And call me old school if you want, but I want dice in my peanut butter. Remember, there are static DCs and passive checks for "the perceptive cleric spots something" that doesn't need dice, that's exactly what it is there for. Active checks OTOH are the players driving the game through the agency of their characters. Sure, fate is involved. There are also a lot of unquantifiable factors in any reasonably complex action. Like I said above, you can definitely work a success or failure in a lot of different ways, and it can spin into all sorts of possible new avenues.



Ahmen. 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> One thing that helps a lot is for the DM to have a fair amount of detail to his notes about a situation, especially a social one. There should be a number of NPCs potentially involved, different motivations, various little details that the players can latch onto and use to hang narrative off of, etc. For example, in Convincing the Duke:
> ...snip...



Kind of agree *but* I'd suggest it's sometimes more about putting some thought and imagination into it, rather than writing actual notes.  My notes are more memory triggers than definitions and I find this also encourage me to adlib.  If you can get some good adlib roelplaying working with your group you can tweak and change the SC on the fly to accomodate whatever left-field ideas and actions the PCs pull out of their sleeves.



the Jester said:


> Oh, absolutely!   And skill challenges are a good example of a mechanic that needs a certain amount of finessing to avoid a really artificial feel.  Several of the early skill challenges that I ran kinda sucked; but by learning from them (and the article series about them, and published examples, etc), I really improved my mastery of skill challenges. Just like I have over the years by learning from sucky npcs, encounters, plotlines, etc.



Gotta agree here   Experience is a big help.  So is persistance and and open mind.



the Jester said:


> I think I actually put more into designing many skill challenges than I do into designing a lot of combats- and this despite the fact that I usually take a very "tell me what you're doing" approach rather than the "here are your primary and secondary skills" approach.



I definately put more into many of my SCs than I do into the equivalent combats!


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2011)

As far as the "Mother-May-I" issue goes: The problem is that there's really no decision-making involved in searching a room. I mean, in the absence of a time constraint, you're gonna search everything you can think of to search, in every way you can think of to search it. Since the DM is providing a description of the room, the logical thing for players to do would be to copy down that description word-for-word, then read through the description looking for nouns. Each time you find a noun, announce, "I examine the <noun>." Whatever the DM says in response, write it down--there may be more nouns in it. Repeat until all answers are variations on, "There's nothing else interesting about the <noun>."

Next, repeat this process with other verbs. "Move," "lift," "push," "pull," et cetera.

This ensures that the room is thoroughly searched and no bit of data the DM has provided is missed. It's also fantastically boring. It's game balance by tedium, in which the player with the highest tolerance for boredom gets the biggest reward.

So, instead, we just assume the characters are searching to the best of their ability and roll a Search check to see how good that ability is. Social interaction is another kettle of fish. There are decisions and consequences involved there which typically do not crop up in a room search. (To be fair, a room search _can_ have decisions and consequences. If there's a trap, you may risk triggering it if you poke the wrong thing. But my experience is that most room searches lack such threats.)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 16, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> As far as the "Mother-May-I" issue goes: The problem is that there's really no decision-making involved in searching a room. I mean, in the absence of a time constraint, you're gonna search everything you can think of to search, in every way you can think of to search it. Since the DM is providing a description of the room, the logical thing for players to do would be to copy down that description word-for-word, then read through the description looking for nouns. Each time you find a noun, announce, "I examine the <noun>." Whatever the DM says in response, write it down--there may be more nouns in it. Repeat until all answers are variations on, "There's nothing else interesting about the <noun>."
> 
> Next, repeat this process with other verbs. "Move," "lift," "push," "pull," et cetera.
> 
> ...




Right, which is of course why DMG1 suggests you give the PCs the results of rolling a 20 on their Perception checks for a situation where they can simply examine every square inch of an area in detail without any real consequences or hard time constraint. This can be extended to a few other situations as well, though there isn't an official take 20 rule. 

[MENTION=84774]surfarcher[/MENTION] Yeah, I could put 'notes' in quotes. Mine are often just some random chicken scratches, lol. Those details could also be riffed in play, but I do like to think about each point for a minute and try to come up with some way each element might come into play, even if I don't write it down.


----------



## Saagael (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm probably coming into this a little late, but I figure I'd my take on making interesting skill challenges.

First off, in the two and a half years I've run my 4e campaign, I think I've only had one skill challenge that was solely a social encounter. Aside from that one, the social aspect to the skill challenge was only part of it.

For example, probably the most memorable skill challenge I've ever done (taking three 3-hour session to resolve) was a siege skill challenge. It started with the players convincing a dwarf king that there was a legitimate threat (skill challenge number 1). Success resulted in the players having a faster response time to incoming forces, failure meant the players couldn't get to work until the enemy was on their doorstep.

Part two involved 3 skill challenges occuring at the same time. Each player chose which challenge they wanted to do based on skills, and not every player had appropriate skills. This forced them to try skills they weren't so good at. Then the siege started. Every round the players who were acting generals commanded the troops, and their result affected the players commanding artillery, and their result affected the players defending the gate.

This was also mixed in with combats. At 2 successes, 4 sucesses, and 6 successes a "milestone" in the combat was reached and something would change, and the players were forced to adjust their tactics to accomodate.

Probably my favorite skill challenge, however, started as a really simple social encounter with a brown dragon. Now, I wanted to throw the players a curve ball since they were used to fighting dragons and had done it before, so the social encounter turned into a skill challenge whereby the players tried to get the dragon's trust by cooking it a meal.

This was more straight-forward. Players would look around the oasis they were in and decide what they wanted to do to aid in the cooking process, be it gathering herbs, hunting wild behemoths, slaving over a firepit, or fishing.

My next task is making a skill challenge to represent the players leading an army cross-country and attacking a well-fortified city. Can't wait to see how it turns out.

TL;DR: Skill challenges are meant to model complex non-combat encounters. You can't expect good results unless you put some work into making the SC more complex as well, otherwise it turns into "I attack with my sword", but with skills.


----------



## Iron Sky (Feb 16, 2011)

I don't agree with everything in the articles on the ars ludi site I linked before, but there is alot of brain food there. This one also seems appropriate to the discussion here as well.

The short version is - if a player is excited about something their player does or describes/roleplays something cool, you either let them succeed and add a complication to represent the failure ("The Duke agrees to the Treaty, but demands that you marry his daughter") or the environment fails ("You parkour your way up the wall as the thugs stare up at you in wonder, but when you get to the top the wall crumbles under your feet and you fall into the fast-flowing river on the other side!")

In contrast, if the PCs just say "I'll make a Diplomacy check" then they can "just fail it". This rewards PCs describing what they are doing and give the DM fun opportunities to make the PCs lives more interesting, throw plot twists, or even spark whole adventures!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> The problem is that there's really no decision-making involved in searching a room. I mean, in the absence of a time constraint, you're gonna search everything you can think of to search, in every way you can think of to search it.




And in the absence of wandering monsters and resource management, there is unlkiely to be a time constraint.  In games where spending longer means spending resources and possibly increasing danger, this problem simply doesn't exist.


RC


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 17, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> @surfarcher Yeah, I could put 'notes' in quotes. Mine are often just some random chicken scratches, lol. Those details could also be riffed in play, but I do like to think about each point for a minute and try to come up with some way each element might come into play, even if I don't write it down.



I figured you'd say something like that   I think we are probably at very similar places in terms of SC planning and prep.  TBH I mainly wanted to clarify for the wider audience 



Saagael said:


> First off, in the two and a half years I've run my 4e campaign, I think  I've only had one skill challenge that was solely a social encounter.  Aside from that one, the social aspect to the skill challenge was only  part of it.
> ...snip...
> TL;DR: Skill challenges are meant to model complex non-combat  encounters. You can't expect good results unless you put some work into  making the SC more complex as well, otherwise it turns into "I attack  with my sword", but with skills.



I think variety is the spice of life with many skill challenges!  Unless you are using the SC mechanism in the background to track success over an extended period of time you need the SC to be dynamic and you need spice.

Here's an example.
The PCs in my regular game were confronted by a Silver Dragon.  She was close to a tier above their level...  And accusing them of stealing some of her eggs.  A little negotiation (no SC here but some skills were used) and they realised she was bluffing. They realised she wanted their help but was too proud to ask outright.

Turns out a caravan the party had passed going the other way, with over 75 humans, half-orcs and orcs guarding it, had the eggs.  And an arcane device that prevented her from getting within several hundred feet.  The SC became getting to and destroying the device so the Dragon could wreak her vengance, regain her eggs... And become a powerful ally for the PCs at some stage in the future when they are in great need.

The SC ran on a large full-colour map, like a combat.  I made it clear this *wasn't* a combat and that the PCs should consider it more of a skirmish. Terrain, traps, the placing of guards, etc made it an exercise in the tactical application of movement, skills, powers and more.

I ran this about four months ago and it still gets mentioned as a campaign highlight.  So mix it up kids!



Iron Sky said:


> I don't agree with everything in the articles on  the ars ludi site I linked before, but there is alot of brain food  there. This one also seems appropriate to the discussion here as well.
> 
> The short version is - if a player is excited about something their  player does or describes/roleplays something cool, you either let them  succeed and add a complication to represent the failure ("The Duke  agrees to the Treaty, but demands that you marry his daughter") or the  environment fails ("You parkour your way up the wall as the thugs stare  up at you in wonder, but when you get to the top the wall crumbles under  your feet and you fall into the fast-flowing river on the other side!")
> 
> In contrast, if the PCs just say "I'll make a Diplomacy check" then they  can "just fail it". This rewards PCs describing what they are doing and  give the DM fun opportunities to make the PCs lives more interesting,  throw plot twists, or even spark whole adventures!



Yep. That's very similar to how I like to run things


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 17, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> And in the absence of wandering monsters and resource management, there is unlkiely to be a time constraint.  In games where spending longer means spending resources and possibly increasing danger, this problem simply doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> RC




 heh 

But I like wandering monsters and still use them sometimes 

Just not "random monsters"

The devil's in the details


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2011)

surfarcher said:


> I'd suggest it's sometimes more about putting some thought and imagination into it, rather than writing actual notes.  My notes are more memory triggers than definitions and I find this also encourage me to adlib.



Agreed with this.

When I run a skill challenge, I like to have a general backstory in mind - for a social encounter, that would be some basic info about the NPCs (who are they, where are they from, what have they been doing), for a travel encounter that would be some basic info about the terrain and possible inhabitants, etc etc - but I like to leave the details pretty loose, so that I can inject interesting stuff into the encounter in response to the decisions that the players make. I find this is a good way to drive a situation forward.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 17, 2011)

Yeah that's exactly the kind of thing I like to chew over and scribble the odd reminder about!

I *also* like to brainstorm some peripheral odds and ends.  So for a social encounter I might try to com up with some bystanders and a few environmental thoughts.  For a travel scenario I might try to think up a few ideas about who or what they might run into or see along the way.

Often those odds and ends don't get used during that particular encounter/SC/whatever -you-like-to-call-it.  But that's fine too!  If that happens I'll often type in a few more notes later, to jog my memory and imagination a bit, then file it all away in my "unused ideas" folder.

I find an "unused ideas" directory, along with files of random thoughts, unused NPCs, unused names, unused places, unused encounters, unused situations, etc... These things all leave me in a place where I can quickly and seamlessly adlib.

For me preparing to adlib is a big part of the whole game.  Sure I make plans, but things often unfold in a way quite different to those plans.  Thats where a set of unused stuff comes in handy!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 17, 2011)

> In contrast, if the PCs just say "I'll make a Diplomacy check" then they can "just fail it". This rewards PCs describing what they are doing and give the DM fun opportunities to make the PCs lives more interesting, throw plot twists, or even spark whole adventures!




It also penalizes people who enjoy playing RPGs with their buddies buy aren't strong role players.

I've played with a LOT of gamers just like this, and enjoyed their contributuions enough that I wouldn't want to penalize their lack of thespian ability and drive them away.  If all they can do is tell me what their PCs do in the language of game mechanics, so be it.


----------



## Iron Sky (Feb 17, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It also penalizes people who enjoy playing RPGs with their buddies buy aren't strong role players.
> 
> I've played with a LOT of gamers just like this, and enjoyed their contributuions enough that I wouldn't want to penalize their lack of thespian ability and drive them away.  If all they can do is tell me what their PCs do in the language of game mechanics, so be it.




There is no penalty. The uninspired/shy/new players get the rules as written - Player: "I try X, I rolled Y" DM: "You fail/succeed." They loose nothing by allowing other players' great ideas to stand and just adding complications for failed rolls - maybe it will inspire the other players to try it too.

Or it won't. Either way, sometimes letting good ideas work in spite of bad rolls probably makes your game more fun for rewarding action rather than punishing poor mechanical choices at character creation. It's just another way to say "yes" to your players while still having a consequence for the mechanical (roll-playing) part of the game.

On the other hand, game mechanics can penalize people who have great ideas without the mechanics to back it up. Ever had a player that had the perfect plan for the situation at hand, everyone at the table is grinning, nodding their heads, and saying "awesome" then have your roll fail and it doesn't work? 

I have - and I've probably done it to my players while I was running games out of ignorance of a way to do it better. 

I now have an extra tool in my tool-belt so I can be a better GM and run more interesting games. I don't know that I'll use it all the time, but at least its an option now.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 17, 2011)

> There is no penalty. The uninspired/shy/new players get the rules as written - Player: "I try X, I rolled Y" DM: "You fail/succeed." They loose nothing by allowing other players' great ideas to stand and just adding complications for failed rolls - maybe it will inspire the other players to try it too.




My apologies- I misunderstood what you meant by your phrase,



> they can "just fail it".




as meaning they would simply fail, as opposed to what you seem to _actually_ mean is you won't grant them any leeway based on food role-play...since they aren't doing any.

My bad!


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 17, 2011)

A few people have written down some skill examples (i.e. not really a full blown challenge, more of just a few rolls for a specific goal) and some skill challenge examples for larger scale combat related stuff.

But, could we get a lot of examples from a lot of people (with some details) of actual skill challenges in their games that they thought were good? Not necessarily the skill challenge DC setup by the DM and not just a few dice rolls, but the overall outcome of what happened in the game itself. The skill DCs are all fine and well, but they are merely the skeleton. They don't flesh out the player interaction in the game, especially player interaction where the DM set the DC as X and the player used that same skill totally differently where the DC should be y instead. Unexpected uses of the skills is just as important as the pre-determined uses. With the skill challenges that I've seen from WotC, they don't seem to have a good knack for creating them. Or, maybe I still just don't get it. And, it's one thing to say that skill challenges are so great, but I'd prefer some illustrations that demonstrate the point. Thanks.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 17, 2011)

KD, I have a bunch in my campaign analysis thread, but it's huge and I don't have time right now to track 'em down. I'll do so later and post them here.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 17, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> And in the absence of wandering monsters and resource management, there is unlkiely to be a time constraint.  In games where spending longer means spending resources and possibly increasing danger, this problem simply doesn't exist.




Fair point. This does require a more proactive DMing style than many people are used to, however--it's always easier to sit back, let the players do their thing, and respond to them than it is to track their time usage and interject new elements.

But then, that's why 1E had all those wandering monster charts, isn't it? To simplify "active DMing."

*has small epiphany*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 17, 2011)

Bingo.  And congrats on the small epiphany!


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 17, 2011)

I would really recommend going to Piratecat's Heroic Tier campaign analysis thread and skimming through to read the various skill challenges listed therein, as well as the discussion about them after the fact (what worked, what did not).

Here is the first big 'Mini-Game' skill challenge I presented to my players, at the conclusion of their first adventure.  I present it to you, warts and all.  [Note: I haven't changed the 'number of failures/successes' here.]  This is the hand-out I provided to my players, after the setup for the battle.  I learned a few things from this, but this worked extremely well for my group.  I'd be glad to answer any questions you have about it.  

Again, this uses what we nicknamed 'Mini-Game' style.  The players are operating under a set of mostly known parameters towards a goal.  Unlike a normal skill challenge, they are totally aware of the parameters and the of what their actions can be used for...though you'll note the text calls out them doing other things.  Which they did.  

When I have a chance, I'll post a different kind of skill challenge later.

[sblock]*Into the Fire - Stormwrack Assault!*
Player Skill Challenge

_Arriving at the rendezvous point, it becomes clear to you that the Stormwrack Corsairs have a sizable force in tow, outnumbering your force by at least three-to-one.  You have the element of surprise on your side, but not a lot of time, a fact illustrated when the Captain yells to his men to prepare to get the ship underway.  It is clear he feels that they have waited long enough.

Sergeant Draymond signals you that the time to strike is now.  The corsairs must be taught that the islands are inviolate, justice must be acquired for the slain and answers to how the corsairs managed to penetrate the veil must be found.  You steel yourselves for the assault.

It begins NOW._

Details:
Each round after the first, a corsair will attack each player, buying time for the ship to depart.  If hit, you will take damage and possibly be poisoned. Healing a character, using a transition skill or using a secondary skill, does not count as a success toward the challenge.  Note that some skills have both primary and secondary uses.  Multiple successful uses of a primary skill will result in the difficulty of success for that skill going up, as the corsairs adapt to your strategems.  Primary skills will become more difficulty immediately, secondary skills will become more difficult to execute gradually, while transition skills will remain at a fixed difficulty.

If you win the Skill Challenge, you will prevent the Stormwrack Corsairs from escaping.  If you lose the Skill Challenge, the Corsairs ship will successfully set sail and depart.  Regardless of the success of the Skill Challenge, there are two secondary goals that may be accomplished.  These are:

1.	Apprehend the Corsair Captain for justice at Castle Arbok.
2.	Retrieve the copy of the Ritual of the Silver Veil from their ship.

    All skill checks are standard actions.


The DM may award you a challenge success for a skill use not listed here, if a creative use of a skill, feat or power is offered by a player.  Action points may be spent during the Skill Challenge, but not for additional actions during a round, except for healing, stunts or second winds.  *Unless the DM thinks that it is cool or fun, in which case ROCK ON.*

The assault takes place on two fronts.  The Shore and the Ship.  Skill uses have different applications towards the challenge depending on where the players are located.  The attacking ArbokGuard force starts by rushing out of the trees into the corsair force on the beach.  Players must perform one of the ‘transition skills’ to move between one location to another.  No one can be moved from one front to the other using methods such as slides, forced shifts or similar movement powers unless it can move a unit a minimum of two squares.

*Primary Skills:*

*Acrobatics* – Moderate Difficulty (Scale the ship’s rigging and cut her sails)
*Athletics* - Moderate ()
*Dungeoneering* – Hard Difficulty (_find the secret hiding place of the stolen Guard Ritual Tome; can be completed only once and only attempted on the Ship; worth two successes_)
*Insight* – Hard Difficulty (_Pierce the veil of the WindSeeker’s protective Glamour, allowing him to be attacked normally_)
*Religion *– Hard/Moderate (_invoke a blessing of Nuidos to cause the sea to hamper the Ship’s departure; lower difficulty is for an adherent of Nuidos or one who has recently made an offering to her, can only be completed once_)
*Arcana* – Hard Difficulty (_Use Knowledge of Rune Magic to weaken Captain to normal strength_)
Any Combat Power – Moderate  Difficulty (take down a corsair.)
*Thievery* – Hard Difficulty (_Steal the Windseeker’s components pouch, preventing the ritual, only one success possible_)

*Transition Skills:  *
*Acrobatics* – Moderate Difficulty (Character runs up/down mooring lines)
*Athletics* – Moderate Difficulty (Character scales the side of the ship up or down)
*Intimidate* – Moderate Difficulty (Run shouting on the gangplank, forcing corsairs aside)
*Endurance* – Moderate Difficulty (Swim through water to reach/from jetty ladder)
_*Any push, pull, or slide power*_ – Moderate Difficulty

*Secondary Skills: *
*Acrobatics *– Moderate Difficulty (avoid an attack or protect an ally from attack this turn)
*Perception *– Moderate Difficutly (give an ally +2 on any Primary skill check. Max of two people can aid an ally on any one check.  Ally must be on same front.)
*Stealth *– Hard Difficulty (_do not draw an attack next turn._)
*Aid another *– Moderate Difficulty (_give an ally +2 on a shared skill’s check. Max of two people can aid an ally on any one check.  Ally must be on the same front._)
*Bluff *– Moderate Difficulty (Draw an attack from the Captain or Windspeaker onto yourself).
*Heal *– Moderate Difficulty (Remove a poison-dazed condition from another character)



Each round, one hero on deck or ship may be subject to the attack by the Captain or Windspeaker.

*Corsair Attack:* +5 vs AC, 1d6+3 damage and possibly dazed for one round
*Captain Attack: (normally Shore)*: +10 vs. AC, 1d10+3 damage (Blood Moon Cutlass)
*Windspeaker Attack (normally Ship):*  1d6+4 vs. Will  (Slash of Ill Wind )


The regular corsairs are minions and will fall quickly at first, but will quickly use group tactics and caution as their brothers fall.  The Captain bears the Blood Moon Cutlass, a vicious curved blade of Red Steel, which shines with an evil glow.  The Captain’s armor appears to be a patchwork of loose metal scales, but inscribed with ancient runes, granting him more resistance than his fellows.  The Windspeaker is enshrouded in a glamour of ghostly winds and mists swirling about him, making him virtually unassailable until dismissed.


To win the Skill Challenge, players must accomplish 12 successes before they obtain 6 failures.  _Remember that successes at secondary or transition skills do NOT count towards this number, only primary skills._[/sblock]


----------



## the Jester (Feb 17, 2011)

Okay, so here's another "find the hidden dungeon" type skill challenge I used a few months ago for a trip through the swamp.

[sblock]TO THE ZIGGURAT
Level 8 Skill Challenge
XP 1750

*Setup:* The pcs attempt to reach the ziggurat, moving through the Lithski Fens. Moving into the swamp is slow, landmarks are hard to find, swamp gas severely limits visibility and insects constantly bite and sting.

Every three days is a round for this skill challenge. Each round, every pc must make one check of their choice. At the end of each round, each pc must also make an Endurance check to avoid exposure to disease; see Complications, below. Note also that certain of the possible random encounters in the swamp may also have an effect on the skill challenge. 

Because of the harsh environment of the Lithski Fens, it is typically very difficult to take an extended rest. Doing so takes a full three days of time (finding a suitable place, managing to stay dry and comfortable and then returning to the trail of the yuan-ti), during which time random encounter checks will be made as normal. There simply aren't many safe places to hole up; however, after three, five, eight and ten successes, the pcs pass by one of the landmarks on the map, which offers them a bit of a better resting place. See Landmarks, below. In short (assuming the pcs gain one success per round):

Rounds 1-3: Standard
Round 4: Split willow
Round 5: Standard
Round 6: The Algae-Choked Pond
Round 7-8: Standard
Round 9: The Cranberry Bog
Round 10: Standard
Round 11: The Blue Mud
Round 12: Standard

The pcs should have an explicit understanding of the mechanics of this skill challenge before it begins.

Level: 8

Complexity: 5 (requires 12 successes before 3 failures) 

Primary Skill: Nature

Nature (DC 20 or 30; 1 success or 2 successes; only one character per round can earn successes): The character manages to keep the party headed in the right direction. Slowly but surely, the party makes progress. Alternatively, the character can attempt to find shortcuts and use a more direct route than that indicated on the map, choosing the higher DC but a chance of gaining two successes.

If the characters have the map and follow it (using the lower Nature check DC), they gain a +1 bonus from it. Failure on either check results in a single failure accruing.

When the pcs find the landmarks, they have certain other options; see Landmarks, below.

Secondary Skills: Athletics, Endurance, Heal, Nature, Perception

Athletics (DC 19): The character pushes hard into the brush and muck, helping to clear a path. The primary Nature check for the day gets a +1 bonus. Only one character may grant this bonus each round.

Endurance (DC 8): The character focuses on avoiding filth, keeping dirty water out of his eyes and mouth and so on in order to avoid exposure to blinding sickness. A successful roll means that the character need not make an Endurance check at the end of the round, although a natural 1 is a failure even if the end result is above 8.

Heal (DC 16 or special): The character ministers to one ally, helping her avoid exposure to blinding sickness. Success means that the character need not make an Endurance check at the end of the day, although a natural 1 automatically fails this check. 

Alternatively, a character can use a Heal check to help someone already suffering from blinding sickness, in which case the character's Heal check replaces the victim's own Endurance check against the disease.

Nature (DC 20): The character aids the primary Nature check. Success grants a +2 bonus; failure indicates that the primary Nature check takes a -1 penalty. As many characters can aid the primary check each round as wish to; all modifiers are cumulative.

Perception (DC 14): The character attempts to aid the primary Nature check by spotting landmarks, watching for troublesome terrain and similar things. Success grants a +2 bonus to the primary Nature check for the round; failure inflicts a -1 penalty. Any number of characters may attempt this check each round.
	L
Landmarks: When the pcs reach the map's landmarks (a huge split willow, a large algae-choked pool surrounded by three rock piles, a cranberry bog and an area of blue mud) they have several additional options. First, at a landmark the pcs can stop and take an extended rest in a single day, and there are places to rest safe from random encounters (located on a single Nature check, DC 20). Second, each of the landmarks offers the pcs other options. 

The Split Willow: This landmark is a large split willow on a high mound of dirt and swamp grass. It is relatively dry. On the round during which the pcs pass by the willow, they have the following additional option:

Athletics (DC 12): That willow sure is tall! If a pc climbs it, they can see which direction the land falls in, which (according to the map) leads to the second landmark. The 	pcs can earn one success this way; a failure results in the pc falling when 40' up, suffering 	4d10 points of damage, but does not count as a failure for the skill challenge.

The Algae-Choked Pool: This large pile, surrounded by piles of gravel and rocks, is in a wetter area. The pcs must really slog to make progress, and their speed of travel slows to a crawl in this area. However, a bunch of herbs useful in healing poultices and similar things grow around  the pool. Additionally, there is a rickety boat  On the round during which the pcs pass by the algae-choked pool, they have the following additional options:

Heal (DC 15): The character gathers herbs that will help protect against the various 	bugs, swamp foot and other challenges of swamp travel. This allows the pcs to move 	faster, earning them one success on the challenge. A failure does not count against the 	challenge and carries no penalty.

Thievery (DC 19): If characters wish to take the boat, they can speed up their 	progress. However, it is old and in terrible shape. Characters skilled with their hands can 	try to repair and improve it with the materials available. Making the boat usable at all 	requires two Thievery checks, DC 19; until the pcs make two such successful checks, the 	party cannot take the boat. (Note that these checks count as the pcs' checks for the 	round.) Once the boat is usable, the characters get a +2 bonus on their primary Nature 	checks until they reach the cranberry bog, where they must disembark.

The Cranberry Bog: This area is tangled with cranberry bushes, which grow in shallow, swampy water. The boat cannot move through these; the pcs are back to slogging on foot. The cranberry bog goes on for a mile, which is a full six days' travel (two rounds in the skill challenge). It is full of small poisonous snakes, which are a constant hazard while the pcs travel through it. Unless they take steps to avoid the snakes, each pc loses a healing surge during this journey and gains a sensitivity to venom (vulnerable 5 poison). Each character gets a saving throw at the end of each additional round of the skill challenge to throw this off. During this period, the pcs have the following extra options available to them:

Acrobatics (DC 19): The character avoids being snake bitten. 

Athletics (DC 20): The character helps cut a trail through the bog, making 	everyone's journey slightly quicker. The party gains a success. Failure carries no penalty. 	The party can gain one success with this skill in the cranberry bog.

Endurance (DC 21): Although she is bitten like everyone else and loses a healing 	surge, the character avoids gaining venom sensitivity.

Heal (DC 19): The character treats one ally, removing its venom sensitivity.

Nature (DC 14): The character avoids being bitten by snakes.

The Blue Mud: The characters reach a higher area of bluish clay and mud. Those areas above the water hold tracks quite well, and almost immediately the pcs spot an area that has obviously been cleared of vegetation and rocks have been set up to provide firmer footing or perhaps seating. A large stone altar topped with an enormous serpent's skull dominates the scene. The blue mud goes on for miles; although travel is quicker here than in most of the wetter areas, it is also quite treacherous, sucking at boots and feet. The pcs have the following additional options while in this area:

Athletics (DC 20): If the group makes a group Athletics check this round and 	succeeds, they earn a success by moving quickly through the mud. The group earns one 	success this way; failure does not earn a penalty, but the party wastes the round. The 	party may delay one day while one pc makes a Thievery check instead (see below).

Endurance (DC 20): Likewise, the party may make a group Endurance check to earn 	a success, although in this case it is sheer perseverance that does the trick and swamp 	shoes do not aid the party.

Thievery (DC 10): The character lashes together branches to form swamp shoes 	(think snow shoes for a marsh). This gives the primary Nature check for this round a +2 	bonus. Alternatively, one character can make a Thievery check to aid a group Athletics 	check (see above), in which case the party is delayed one day but each pc gains a +2 	bonus on their Athletics check. However, the character that makes this Thievery check is 	considered to fail the group Athletics check.

Complications: At the end of each round of the skill challenge (every three days), each pc must make an Endurance check, DC 8, or be exposed to blinding sickness. (A natural 1 on this check results in exposure even if the final result is above 8.) Make an attack: +12 vs. Fortitude; Hit: the target suffers the initial effect of blinding sickness (DMG 49). However, rather than making an Endurance check each day, the character need only make one per round of the skill challenge (three days).

Success: The pcs find the Ziggurat of a Thousand Serpents- but did they find it in time? Take note of how many primary checks the pcs had to make in order to determine how many days it took to find and reach the pyramid and consult the Timeline (see above).

Failure: If the characters accrue three failures on the skill check (and note that only failures on primary Nature checks count for this purpose), they cannot find the ziggurat and become hopelessly lost in the swamp. See Lost! below, for details.[/sblock]

You'll notice one thing about both this and the "find the island" skill check that I posted earlier that violates all the skill challenge advice you normally get- they are actual real challenges to getting to the dungeon, and if you fail- you don't get there. One thing about many skill challenges that I find annoying is that they are meaningless.  The whole "a skill challenge should never be an impediment to finding the adventure" approach is fine, but it's like the secret door that leads to the hidden dungeon level: if the pcs are automatically going to find it, it's hardly hidden! Since I run a sandbox with lots going on in the world, sometimes the exploration component of _finding that one place_ is as much a part of the adventure as actually _delving into that one place,_ and I absolutely do not mind if pcs miss that hidden dungeon level- because it may come up later, with the same group or another. It's like the search for the Fountain of Youth; if anyone can find it first time out, it's not much of a search.

In contrast to the one I posted above, this SC was explicit, with a handout holding most of the details given to each of the players.  They didn't get the details on the landmarks, though.  

How this played out- the pcs basically made every possible check and IIRC never failed a one! What made this challenge cool was the amount of roleplaying along the way. The challenge took about 1/3 of a session because of the exploration component and all the rp; that's fine by my group, we sometimes have several sessions in a row with no combat (albeit rarely). 

There were a couple of random encounters interspersed along the way, and IIRC there were a couple of extra bonuses picked up when they negotiated their way through some bullywugs.  

Mostly the pcs did as expected, though I do recall the warden using _form of eagle's splendor_ or whatever it's called to gain some air in order to get a look around a few times. And that's okay- I don't mind if I predict the pcs' approach pretty well, it makes my job easier!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 17, 2011)

Yeah, I agree there's nothing inherently wrong with an SC having quite serious consequences. I wouldn't generally kill a party outright with one, and in MOST cases you don't want the consequences to halt the adventure outright, but the "SCs only grant some advantage/bypass some disadvantage" concept seems too weak to me. One of the issues is it encourages players to simply optimize for combat. Sure, passing SCs is nice, but if you never HAVE to overcome them you can just basically ignore even trying to up your chances. I think that contributes to the 'arms race' I see in some games with 4e where the PCs optimize, the DM throws on harder encounters, etc. 

This is also a problem with any technique which doesn't give you some actual mechanical reasons to up your skill bonuses etc. Seems to me another reason for a good dose of mechanics in non-combat situations.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 17, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I agree there's nothing inherently wrong with an SC having quite serious consequences. I wouldn't generally kill a party outright with one, and in MOST cases you don't want the consequences to halt the adventure outright, but the "SCs only grant some advantage/bypass some disadvantage" concept seems too weak to me.




On the other hand, this is _fantastic_ newbie-DM-to-Skill-Challenges advice.

With experience, you learn not only why the rule is there to start with, but when and how to break it, as well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 17, 2011)

[MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION]:  I don't personally care for 4e, but I bet your game would be a strong counter-example, were I able to play in it.  It sounds like it rocks!


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 17, 2011)

I unfortunately don't have any typed-up examples of skill challenges to share, because I treat them, well, kinda like combats. Where a published adventure may show a tactical map with the starting positions of every monster denoted, I sketch something on the battlemat (often improvised) and place some monsters down in a pattern that looks interesting. Frequently when a challenge comes up that looks like it's best resolved with a pile of cumulative successes instead of a roll or two, I jot down some notes about what skills may provide easier target numbers and which would be more peripheral, and then make adjustments in-play as the challenge plays out. Someone made a critical Insight check? Okay, that'll lower an appropriate Bluff DC by about 5.

(This isn't to say that I don't pre-plan a few, but often my notes will be something like "DC 18: Bluff, Dungeoneering, Diplomacy, Intimidate; DC 24 History, Arcana, Religion, Nature; DC 18 (secondary) Insight, Perception; 24+ Per roll detects smell of absinthe, opens Streetwise approach". Same as my notes on a planned encounter are frequently things like "L4 Battle-Sergeant, 2 L3 poleaxers, 2 L1 archers, 6 minions?", and then I dig out the appropriate index cards when the time comes to run the conflict.)

The more important the skill challenge may be, though, the more skills can come into play. A lot of skill challenges favor one type of character: you know, like the ones where all the primary skills are Int-based, and the most anyone else can hope is to make a roll that gives someone else a +2, possibly at a much higher DC. To my mind such a challenge isn't fulfilling the primary design goal of getting everyone around the table involved. So if a skill challenge has dread consequences, I'd like there to be physical, social and mental ways to contribute in some meaningful fashion. It's really the counterpoint to the design goal that gives every class something interesting to do in a combat -- they should all have something interesting to do in an encounter that is as important as a combat.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> could we get a lot of examples from a lot of people (with some details) of actual skill challenges in their games that they thought were good?



There are some actual play examples, and discussion of them, here.


----------



## mudlock (Feb 17, 2011)

Critical Hits has collected a bunch of examples (and other SC advice).

I haven't looked through them all, so I can't say which are the best examples.

Skill Challenges : Critical Hits


----------



## the Jester (Feb 17, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> the Jester:  I don't personally care for 4e, but I bet your game would be a strong counter-example, were I able to play in it.  It sounds like it rocks!




Thanks! I bet it would too, just based on my firm belief that a good dm can take any system and make it sing given adequate experience and motivation, and on the fact that we seem to have considerable overlap in our playstyle preference.

Back to the skill challenge discussion...

I run a lot of skill challenges off the cuff; I am a firm believer that the pcs should be able to initiate a skill challenge through their actions when appropriate. (Sometimes they know they have done so, sometimes not so much). The reason I mention this is because the very first skill challenge I ran in 4e was initiated by the pcs and I don't have any details written down for it- basically, they stole a boat and attempted to escape a doomed city before the enemy fleet arrived and cut them off, but they failed it and were run aground on a mudflat and had to fight their way free across country.

Which led, second session, to my first pre-written skill challenge:

[sblock]Evading the Hand (Level 1 Skill Test- 100 XP/Character)

XP: 100 per character.

Setup: The pcs must evade the Six-Fingered Hand for a week to make it to the xvart tunnels, using their knowledge of the terrain and their skills at avoiding detection. 

Level: 1. 

Complexity: 5 (requires 12 successes before 3 failures).

Primary Skills: Athletics, Endurance, History, Nature, Perception, Stealth.

Athletics (DC 15): The character is able to push his companions on more quickly. They travel hard and fast. 

Endurance (DC 15): If no pcs make a successful Endurance check in a given turn, everyone in the party loses a healing surge until the first extended rest after the skill test is completed.

History (DC 15): A character can use his knowledge of history to predict where the safer travel routes will be. Only one History check, successful or not, can be made during this skill challenge. 

Nature (DC 15): A character can use his nature skills to aid the party by helping them travel along more hidden paths, as well as to help forage for the group along the way. If the pcs are out of food and no pcs make a successful Nature check in a given turn, everyone in the party loses one healing surge until the first extended rest after the skill test is completed.

Perception (DC 10): Using his perception skill, the character can spy the enemy before they spy him. This skill does not generate a success but can be used to aid the next character’s roll.

Stealth (DC 10): Obviously, using this skill helps prevent discovery. 

Complications: After the party’s first failure on the skill challenge, they have the encounter entitled The Burned-Out Village. After that encounter, continue the skill challenge to its conclusion.

Success: The pcs reach the mountains, and the tunnel into it. Go to the encounter entitled Into the Mountain.

Failure: The pcs reach the mountains, but cannot find the tunnel. Go to the Deadly Cliff Dweller encounter. [/sblock]

As you can see, this is a much 'stiffer' skill challenge, with much less built-in flexibility. The characters failed this challenge too, which left them exposed for another encounter before they finally found their way into the xvart territories beneath the mountains.  I now see this as a cardinal sin for skill challenges; failure should never simply mean an extra encounter. 

Note that both of these first two skill challenges used harder DCs, per the original DMG advice, which made them rather wonky.


----------



## Primal (Feb 17, 2011)

It's true that not all of us are as eloquent as others; however, there are plenty of published articles that emphasize the fact that roleplaying helps develop social skills. I should know, because I used to be *VERY* shy before I discovered roleplaying. What shy players need is an understanding group with a good DM, who encourages them to roleplay. If you'll always let them roll instead of roleplaying -- just because they might feel uncomfortable with speaking up in character -- they'll never get a chance improve on their social skills. And if you ask me, it's not wise to give them high CHA characters to play until they feel confortable with the concept. Also, I feel I must point out that while naturally social players may find CHA 18 paladins easier to roleplay, I'm gonna slap heavy penalties if their CHA 8 half-orc barbarians or dwarven fighters speak just as eloquently.

Anyway, in my opinion skill challenges, as written, do not encourage roleplaying, unless the DM understands how conflict resolution works in indie RPGs (such as Dogs in the Vineyard). They are presented in a very complex format, i.e. they're time-consuming to design and write down (which skills are primary, which skills lead to automatic failure, which penalties there are for failure, etc.). Considering that the intention behind skill challenges most likely was that you could improvise them on the fly, it's surprising how painful it's to draft up one. Now, I'm aware that WoTC has published tips and instructions in DMG 2 and Dragon articles on applying and  designing skill challenges, but since I haven't read them, I can't comment on how helpful and informative those are. 

Regardless, I think skill challenges shouldn't be run as static encounters; instead, they should feel as organic as the rest of the game, and merge naturally with the story. First of all, don't tell your players they're involved in a skill challenge; I've seen many posters complain (over here and other forums) that skill challenges feel artificial and forced because players may start metagaming and thinking OOC about who should use which skills. Don't present your players with a list of options, or ask them what they want to do to contribute to successes. Let them decide. Secondly, divorce skill challenges both from the time constraints and the mechanical framework. Describe the scene and let the players decide how their characters respond; treat each roll as if it were a "normal" skill or ability check, and decide on the fly whether each skill is appropriate or not, and if it's a primary or secondary skill. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself: "Can the player justify the use of this skill?" and "Does this contribute to the story in a positive way?". A good example of the latter would be the skill challenge I read about (I think it was in one of the LFR modules?) in
which the PCs had to flee the city, and someone's PC escaped via sewers; at my table this would lead to improvised encounters,
if not even further adventures (e.g. the PC might find a mysterious door leading to a small dungeon complex or hideout).  

To give a concrete (and off the top of my head) example let's pretend the PCs want to find NPC X. Now, the DM might start by telling the players they need to roll History or Streetwise. If that fails, the DM might say that PCs could ask around using Diplomacy, or even describe a scene involving obviously shady characters that the PCs recognise as X's underlings; they could be followed or tricked into (Stealth or Bluff) revealing X's location. Or, perhaps one of the players suggests that his PC wants to try Acrobatics and Stealth to climb on top of a building to eavesdrop on these minions, gaining a third success with a Perception check. Or maybe the PCs just want to fight the minions, and beat the information out of them (gaining one or two successes, or perhaps hints that lead to further skill checks with other NPCs?). In the end, this process (the skill challenge) might take days or even weeks to accomplish, and there might be several combat encounters hindering or benefiting it.

A good DM knows how to shuffle things around on the fly, and reacts to the situation at hand. Maybe an Arcana check feels a bit cheap -- or even outright "wrong" -- for the task, but then again, couldn't it be possible to magically "sniff out" the rituals NPC X has been using in the city? Perhaps this leads the PCs to a dusty cellar of an abandoned building, with a bound demon guarding the ritual site? Maybe there could be more clues right there? And so on.  

As for the price of failure, throwing combat encounters at players for failing a skill challenge may be a bad idea. I know a lot of combat-oriented players who see this as a *reward*, especially if you give them treasure as usual. IMO a penalty for failure should always be something the player's don't like; personally I think losing healing surges or having in-story consequences (good examples have already been given by other posters on this thread) is a better way to underline that failure _has_ a price, and maybe engage the players even further in the story.


----------



## kaomera (Feb 17, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> A few people have written down some skill examples (i.e. not really a full blown challenge, more of just a few rolls for a specific goal) and some skill challenge examples for larger scale combat related stuff.



IMO one of the things that skill challenges could use would be a "challenges book", in much the same vein as the Monster Manuals.

One other thing: I've seen a number of suggestions to simply not announce a skill challenge / run the mechanics in the background, and I'm not sure I see the point of going through all of the extra work to make an actual skill challenge if the players aren't going to engage the thing in a direct mechanical way. It seems more efficient to just run a skill- and roleplay-based encounter, and let the flow of the story determine the outcome, rather than rely on a strict count of successes and failures. I know that when I've tried to run skill challenges this way we seem to either end up running out of avenues the players actually want to explore before the skill challenge is over (or they just get involved in unrelated stuff), or else it ends and there's still related (but now kind of redundant) stuff that the players want to do. And I've ended up just giving the PCs a pass on a few occasions because the players came up with something that should just work, or wrote the thing out of the story when they just never got interested in what was going on in the challenge.


----------



## Riastlin (Feb 17, 2011)

kaomera said:


> One other thing: I've seen a number of suggestions to simply not announce a skill challenge / run the mechanics in the background, and I'm not sure I see the point of going through all of the extra work to make an actual skill challenge if the players aren't going to engage the thing in a direct mechanical way.




Well, this will obviously vary from group to group.  For me, the reason I try to run it in the background so to speak rather than announcing it and the mechanics is that if I were to say:

"Okay, this is a Skill Challenge.  The primary skills are Athletics, Endurance, Nature, and History.  Secondary skills are Religion, Insight, and Perception." (just as an off the cuff example).  Even assuming that we had been roleplaying and staying in character up to this point, my players would go "Okay, I roll Athletics.", "Hmmm, I'll try history."  "Shoot, I'm not trained in any of those, I'll pass", etc.  

It's sort of like in combat, my players rarely, if ever, say "I call upon the power of Bahamut, saying a prayer that he'll help my companions and hinder the snarling orc beating on Brack."  Rather, they say "I'll cast Astral Seal on Homecheese over there."

Certainly though its absolutely possible to stay in character even after being advised of the mechanics, so if your players are willing and able, by all means go for it.  Though I think the other fear is that when you state the actual mechanics, it tends to limit outside the box thinking with regard to other skills not already mentioned.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 17, 2011)

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]


Dannyalcatraz said:


> It also penalizes people who enjoy playing RPGs with their buddies buy aren't strong role players.



Sorry but I disagree here.  IMHO it's the DMs repsonsibility to encourage roleplaying.  And IMHO that'[s relative to each player's experience and ability.

My current group has some very strong roleplayers and some very new roleplayers.  I don't expect the latter to RP out every role... But if they say "I try to use diplomacy to get past him" I ask them what, in rough terms, their character is trying to say diplomatically.  They don't need to be a diplomat.  But they do need to outline in very rough terms how their character is approaching the issue.  I think anyone can do this.

And, as I've come to expect of you, you understood the idea here...


Dannyalcatraz said:


> My apologies- I misunderstood what you meant by your phrase,
> 
> as meaning they would simply fail, as opposed to what you seem to _actually_ mean is you won't grant them any leeway based on food role-play...since they aren't doing any.
> 
> My bad!




[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]


KarinsDad said:


> A few people have written down some skill  examples (i.e. not really a full blown challenge, more of just a few  rolls for a specific goal) and some skill challenge examples for larger  scale combat related stuff.
> 
> But, could we get a lot of examples from a lot of people (with some  details) of actual skill challenges in their games that they thought  were good?...
> ...snip...



Hi KD!  I provided I high-level outline of one of the SCs I ran that went over well.  Are you asking for more details or was that sufficient for you?  You can also find so very detailed information on the way I design and assemble Challenges at my [ALL Editions] Workshop: Non-Combat Game Structures (Skill Challenges, etc) thread on rpg.net... There's *far* more detail on there than I usually go into!

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]


Dausuul said:


> Fair point. This does require a more proactive  DMing style than many people are used to, however--it's always easier to  sit back, let the players do their thing, and respond to them than it  is to track their time usage and interject new elements.
> 
> But then, that's why 1E had all those wandering monster charts, isn't it? To simplify "active DMing."
> 
> *has small epiphany*



LOL! You know you *can* use "wandering monsters" in 4e. The thing is 4e encounters are supposed to be more consequential and story related than say 1e.  What I do is specifically design two or more encounters that take place randomly when the PCs are in transit between other events.  If they are slow or dally or the moon crosses venus I pull one of them out.  And sometimes I play one to stall for time   Done right it's pretty cool.

@the Jester and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]
See this is something I never understood.  I mean I get the point of not railroading the PCs or stifling everything just because one SC was failed.  But I don't see an SC as having any point if it's outcome isn't meaningful.  There's always a tradeoff.  Sometimes the party loses resources of some kind.  But other times failure *has* to have a larger impact.  Otherwise you lose emotional buyin and without that your players just aren't going to be engaged in the game for very long.

Other comments OTW via XP assignment...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2011)

> IMHO it's the DMs repsonsibility to encourage roleplaying.




You can lead a gamer to the Globe Theater, but you can't make him act.  Some of the most hardcore hobbyists I know- dudes who have been gaming 1-2 decades- play PCs with personalities that echo their own 99% of the time, regardless of class, race, campaign, setting, system or genre.

They are not now nor will they ever be role-players.  They do, however, play RPGs with skill and gusto, and are generally a boon to the party...AND the gaming table.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 18, 2011)

Yeah I know the type and I agree.  
Cut my teeth on the game with some of them in 81.  Hell one of those guys now runs the local game store and we reminisce about the day when I'm there.

I said _encourage_, not _force_.

And you know what?  You can still ask how they try to intimidate or whatever.  And if they refuse point blank then they'll be happy enough to chew on their cast die, they won't want leeway   But I find most folks will "Er? How do I intimidate him?  I scowl and wave my sword at him!"


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 18, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Okay, so here's another "find the hidden dungeon" type skill challenge I used a few months ago for a trip through the swamp.
> 
> [sblock]TO THE ZIGGURAT
> Level 8 Skill Challenge
> ...




Ok, here is a fairly decent example of what I guess I don't understand about many skill challenges.

The DM goes to a LOT of trouble setting up this swamp travel skill challenge.

The players get to decide what skill each of them tries. The Nature skill is the skill that really counts in this particular skill challenge, so as a general rule, the rolls of one player more or less makes or breaks this skill challenge. Sure, the other players get to help, but if the primary Nature PC is rolling 1s and 2s on the dice, the other players probably are not going to help this. On the other hand, if the Nature check of the primary player are so good that he can make a 20 DC easily, then what's the point of the entire challenge?


Another issue is, what happens when the PCs get lost on day one and have no clue where they are on their map? The first Nature skill fails on day one.

The implication of what the Nature skill is doing is that the first failed Nature check would result in:

"The character DOES NOT manage to keep the party headed in the right direction."

From a plausibility perspective, the PCs should already be in trouble with just this one failure. They shouldn't know that they are heading in the wrong direction based on how the skill challenge was set up "landmarks are hard to find, swamp gas severely limits visibility", etc.

But if they fail that first Nature roll, no worries. We haven't yet reached 3 failures, so it's all good. The next successful Nature roll automatically gets you back on track. Huh?

To me, this is a bit nonsensical. And I'm not criticizing this particular skill challenge, most skill challenges look this way to me.

Say that the first landmark is to the southwest on the map. If they make 3 successes in a row, they find the first landmark. They fail and are actually headed south.

If they fail, succeed, fail, succeed and succeed, they STILL find the first landmark. There is no "we failed twice, so we should be further away each failed day and it should take longer to get to the landmark". No. Instead, a failure means that although we are lost, we are still just as far away today as we were yesterday because we still need the same number of successes today as yesterday to get to a landmark.


In addition, the PC that has History and Religion and Arcana, he just flat out sucks at this challenge. He's sweating the Endurance checks. So while one player is making or breaking the entire encounter, there are a few players whose PCs are struggling just to survive against the disease. They aren't really contributing that much as far as skill checks are concerned. They can contribute a lot to the roleplaying aspect of it, but even then, it seems a bit limited.

Player 1: I can't help much here, but I'll try to help Freddy by leading and pushing through the muck. Athletics check, 22. Woo Hoo!

DM: Ok, the Nature check is now +1.

Player 1: +1? That much? Oh boy!

The player of this PC might not feel empowered and helpful here. Sure, if the Nature check ended in a 19 or 29, yeah, his roll made the difference. What's the chances of that?


I'm not sure if I am clearly indicating my confusion as to why this sounds like a lame skill challenge to me, but that's how it seems (and note: I'm not trying to dig on this particular challenge, it obviously has a lot of thought and effort put into it).

One player shines, the rest all sit in the back seat and just make dice rolls. If one player comes up with a really good idea and makes a roll, sure, the DM gives the Nature roll a +2, but most of the time, that +2 doesn't do much. It's the result on the actual Nature check that makes or breaks most of this.


And granted, most of this confusion has got to be on my end. A lot of players like skill challenges, so it must be something about my grognard nature that prevents me from seeing how this works. To me, this seems like a bunch of exercises in dice rolling where one or two players are the superheroes and the rest are the sidekicks. Unlike a combat encounter where everyone has the potential to be a contributing hero in one way, shape, or form.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 18, 2011)

surfarcher said:


> See this is something I never understood.  I mean I get the point of not railroading the PCs or stifling everything just because one SC was failed.  But I don't see an SC as having any point if it's outcome isn't meaningful.




I'm not entirely certain what you mean here. Then again, you are missing context with these skill challenges I've posted.

For the "find the dungeon in the swamp" skill challenge, if the party had given up on finding it (or had taken too long in doing so) the yuan-ti excavating said ziggurat would have been further along in their excavation, until eventually they uncovered the snake pit that was required for them to perform their freakadelic, pro-serpent ritual called _plague of serpents,_ which wouldn't have ended the world or anything but would have led to a drastic increase in the number of snakes in the area.

For the "find the island" skill challenge, if the pcs fail or give up, they don't learn the information available there, which means they fail to gain a couple of leads on one of the bad guys on their list- which means his plans continue to advance sans interference. This is meaningful in the long term in the campaign, but won't have any immediate consequences. However, in a strong-continuity, long-running campaign, long-term consequences are fine (imho). 



			
				Karinsdad said:
			
		

> The players get to decide what skill each of them tries. The Nature skill is the skill that really counts in this particular skill challenge, so as a general rule, the rolls of one player more or less makes or breaks this skill challenge. Sure, the other players get to help, but if the primary Nature PC is rolling 1s and 2s on the dice, the other players probably are not going to help this. On the other hand, if the Nature check of the primary player are so good that he can make a 20 DC easily, then what's the point of the entire challenge?
> 
> 
> Another issue is, what happens when the PCs get lost on day one and have no clue where they are on their map? The first Nature skill fails on day one.
> ...




Well see, the "find the ziggurat" skill challenge is more about _how long it takes_ than about absolute success or failure.  In the adventure, I had a timeline that said, "If the pcs get to the ziggurat by this date, it is excavated to room x."  The deeper rooms were detailed as if excavated, including having additional bad guys in there- the result of the evil yuan-ti bringing more of their numbers to the area, called by their holy site's increasing power. 

So in your "we got two failures along the way" example, the consequence is "the yuan-ti have excavated to room 6 and there are more of them."  Eventually, if it takes long enough, the consequences are "there sure are a lot of snakes around here!" 

Your point about Nature being the absolute primary skill in that challenge is very valid. In this case the non-Nature options serve to give other pcs ways to be cool. Additionally, the nonstandard rounds of the challenge serve to mix it up a little. But yeah, if your party is good with Nature checks, you will probably do well in this challenge overall- and that's okay, it's like a party with a paladin, a cleric and a warlock with radiant at will attacks running into an all-undead encounter. Or a party with three tieflings that fights a fire elemental. Sometimes you just have the right tools for the job.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 18, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Well see, the "find the ziggurat" skill challenge is more about _how long it takes_ than about absolute success or failure.




Yes, I understood that.

But, I don't seem to be making myself clear (which is not unusual these days).

Your players might have found this challenge awesome. It's obvious that you put a lot of time and effort into creating it.

But as a player, I would be falling asleep at the table over this unless my player was the one with the good Nature skill and even then, it would be pretty much a snooze fest.

Maybe it's the way my mind works, but I prefer that everyone shine at the table. I would prefer a few exciting combat encounters along the way here with only a handful (maybe 2 to 4 per player) for the actual skill challenge portion of it so that everyone can contribute. That challenge had approximately 24 skill rolls per player (1 endurance, 1 other, 12 days), a good portion of them Endurance rolls. zzzzzzzz

As a player, I might be partially labeled as a combat monster. I enjoy tactics. I enjoy kicking the snot out of the NPCs. I enjoy coming up with something that prevents the party Leader from going down. I enjoy saving the day.

Rolling 24 skill rolls over an hour and a half. I don't get it. I don't see how this is fun. I don't see how after the first 2 "days", the players don't run out of ideas of how to use their Nature skills, and their Athletics skills, and their Perceptions skills in yet ANOTHER unique and interesting way.

That's either too much brainpower trying to keep coming up with cool ways to use the skills, or too much repetition and the players keep doing the same things over and over again ad nauseum for several hours.

I really don't get the appeal. I'll have to go read some of the other skill challenges that people are posting here to see if there is something else there.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 18, 2011)

the Jester said:


> I'm not entirely certain what you mean here. Then again, you are missing context with these skill challenges I've posted.
> 
> For the "find the dungeon in the swamp" skill challenge, if the party had given up on finding it (or had taken too long in doing so) the yuan-ti excavating said ziggurat would have been further along in their excavation, until eventually they uncovered the snake pit that was required for them to perform their freakadelic, pro-serpent ritual called _plague of serpents,_ which wouldn't have ended the world or anything but would have led to a drastic increase in the number of snakes in the area.
> 
> For the "find the island" skill challenge, if the pcs fail or give up, they don't learn the information available there, which means they fail to gain a couple of leads on one of the bad guys on their list- which means his plans continue to advance sans interference. This is meaningful in the long term in the campaign, but won't have any immediate consequences. However, in a strong-continuity, long-running campaign, long-term consequences are fine (imho).



I wasn't talking about a particular challenge and especially not yours.   From what I've seen yours go out of their way to ensure failure and  success are both meaningful in some form - whether relatively immediate or more long term.  I applaud this.

My concern is that a lot of SCs seem to go out of their way to ensure failure means very little.  By all means ensure there's a way for the PCs to go ahead and do _something_ if they fail.  But if success and failure amount to the same thing then I think there's no reason to actually have a challenge there in the first place.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 18, 2011)

Well, if it makes you feel any better KD, I have found that higher complexity SCs usually are too long. I rarely go past complexity 3. Those times where I have either involved a situation that was quite interesting and engaging in other ways or where the SC involved different sections where there were quite different things to do. That last category is fairly rare because usually there's no logic to carrying success/fail counts forward through significantly different activities (IE what does it matter if you got a failure bomboozling the gate guard when you arrive at the vault and start tinkering with the lock). You can tie things together by using the count to represent a time factor, which is reasonably common. It is possible to use it as say an overall measure of how suspicious people are of you or something now and then but such abstract measures can often derail.

I think the sweet spot is around complexity 3 really. You get 11 checks maximum, so each player will have maybe 2 chances to do something. Even someone lacking the key skills can probably find ONE way to contribute in a decent challenge, and even the super ace primary skill guy is only going to be getting maybe at most 3 uses of his good skill, and chances are you can switch up a bit as the SC evolves so it isn't all one guy doing it all. Advantages help here too, you get to toss 2 of those in and you can use them to give one of the 'off' players a shot at something interesting.

Honestly I'm moving more towards a style of listing resources and obstacles instead of skills and a general problem statement in general. This is especially good for the more extended challenges. By listing the things present in the situation which the players can use you know what to describe and basically what tactics are likely to be advantageous. It also defines a lot of the useful skills. The obstacles define what the successes and failures mean in terms of the scene and usually suggests the primary skills that will apply. The conditions under which each resource or obstacle comes into effect should be defined.  Of course the players may often turn these on their heads, but since they are defined in terms of narrative elements and not mechanical elements they are more helpful as guidance in running the challenge.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 18, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Yes, I understood that.
> 
> But, I don't seem to be making myself clear (which is not unusual these days).
> 
> ...




Ahh, gotcha.  Fair enough- that's probably a matter of playstyle. 

Let me ask you, though- would you find an hour or two of old-school swamp exploration, roleplaying and stuff on the way to the dungeon a snoozefest?  Personally, I love that stuff (and my group seems to as well), and I think the skill challenge in question is pretty close to that, with the skill challenge part as an additional factor.



surfarcher said:


> My concern is that a lot of SCs seem to go out of their way to ensure failure means very little.  By all means ensure there's a way for the PCs to go ahead and do _something_ if they fail.  But if success and failure amount to the same thing then I think there's no reason to actually have a challenge there in the first place.




Oh, yeah- again, gotcha.  I agree; a lot of published SCs make failure virtually meaningless. I had an early SC or two like that; afterwards, I scratched my head and said, "Now why was that so flat?"


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 18, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Ahh, gotcha.  Fair enough- that's probably a matter of playstyle.
> 
> Let me ask you, though- would you find an hour or two of old-school swamp exploration, roleplaying and stuff on the way to the dungeon a snoozefest?  Personally, I love that stuff (and my group seems to as well), and I think the skill challenge in question is pretty close to that, with the skill challenge part as an additional factor.



Could be they tend to use visible challenges too.  If it's narration and interaction and it's broken up by an encounter or four on the way that's quite a different kettle of fish to "rolling 24 skill checks". 



the Jester said:


> Oh, yeah- again, gotcha.  I agree; a lot of published SCs make failure virtually meaningless. I had an early SC or two like that; afterwards, I scratched my head and said, "Now why was that so flat?"



LOL! Yup! Me too!  Just like you I wised up fairly quickly tho.


----------



## kaomera (Feb 18, 2011)

Riastlin said:


> It's sort of like in combat, my players rarely, if ever, say "I call upon the power of Bahamut, saying a prayer that he'll help my companions and hinder the snarling orc beating on Brack."  Rather, they say "I'll cast Astral Seal on Homecheese over there."



I wish you could do that in skill challenges (or do it more). They made a big deal of "siloing" the 4e design, but it doesn't seem to have actually panned out - different classes have different numbers of skills, and taking a cool SC-related power means missing out on something more useful in combat...

But I find that when a player says "I call upon the power of Bahamut..." they have a specific power in mind that they're using, and they'll correct you if you get it wrong. Same thing with skill usage. I'm running a Dark Sun game and the PCs needed to get some info on some undead. Religion is the skill you would use for that, but this being a Dark Sun game no-one in the group has any real ability with that skill. So when I called for a Religion check my players "corrected" me that, no, they wanted to roll Arcana...

And generally my players _always_ want to roll Arcana or Nature. I've found that the way PCs are built they usually have really big bonuses at one or two things each, moderate ability at a small handful more, and not much more than +1/2 level at anything else. And they really don't want to make checks that they might fail... I think with the worst skill bonus possible my 13th level PCs are making easy checks on a 9+, but they never actually roll for it... And we have one character who can make a difficult DC on a 1+ if aid another is available (from the other PC with a bonus high enough that she can't fail at Aid Another...) and another who makes difficult Nature checks on a 4+ and gets to roll twice and take the highest... And the other PCs mostly don't ever make SC-type checks, deferring to the group "skill monkeys".

So my players are "gaming" the skill challenges whether I tell them they're in one or not (and they've asked me not to). I don't think there's anything horrible about that - they made these PCs to be good at what they're good at because that's what interests them and that's where the PCs attention is going to focus. I'm planning on asking them to see if they can spread some of their bonuses, etc. around some (even if it means free retraining), I'm not too happy with them needing better than a 5+ for a difficult check with Aid Another...

So what I was trying to do with my skill challenges was to let them use their awesome skills, but just not for every check. And I tried to set stuff up where they would at least be tempted to get some of the other characters / players rolling stuff, for Aid Another or whatever. The other players tend to just look over their sheets and say "well, there's really nothing I can roll..." because they might rack up a failure. I even tried making the "any other skill with a good explanation" checks at lower DCs to encourage them, but players just seem to like having the biggest numbers...


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 18, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Let me ask you, though- would you find an hour or two of old-school swamp exploration, roleplaying and stuff on the way to the dungeon a snoozefest?  Personally, I love that stuff (and my group seems to as well), and I think the skill challenge in question is pretty close to that, with the skill challenge part as an additional factor.




Actually, not so much.

There was a survey in a Dragon magazine about 30 years ago. It asked the multiple choice question, "What type of PC do you want to play?".

One of the answers was:

In real life, I can trip over a garbage can. I want my dwarf in plate to not be a klutz.

Or something to that effect.


Fighting bugs in a swamp?

Not so heroic. This entire skill challenge could be replaced with a single Nature roll and an Endurance roll from each PC and they either get lost or they don't. They either get diseased, or they don't. The DM could describe the harrowing journey through the swamp in a few minutes and the players could cut to the chase and be at the adventure site.


To me, the journey can be exciting, but not with skill rolls. And, it's not just about combat. The journey can be exciting by meeting and interacting with NPCs in the swamp.

But interacting with bugs and just the fellow PCs for an hour and a half of real time at the gaming table? Meh. Sorry, but I don't get the attraction.


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 18, 2011)

kaomera said:


> I wish you could do that in skill challenges (or do it more). They made a big deal of "siloing" the 4e design, but it doesn't seem to have actually panned out - different classes have different numbers of skills, and taking a cool SC-related power means missing out on something more useful in combat...




The different numbers of skills definitely have an impact; for my part, I wound up making sure that all classes have at least 4 trained skills, and adding one or two to the list for those that only had 3, so there's still an equivalent level of choice. Powers, though... it must be a playstyle thing, because I was honestly astonished after a couple of years of warlocks in play when my wife actually _didn't_ take Beguiling Tongue for her new warlock. In our group, that was almost the Come And Get It for warlocks.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 18, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, not so much.
> 
> There was a survey in a Dragon magazine about 30 years ago. It asked the multiple choice question, "What type of PC do you want to play?".
> 
> ...




I don't understand why a series of skill checks would make it less exciting. It might not make it more exciting but I'd prefer to at least be able to showcase the fact that I'm good at X, Y, or Z now and then. Sure you could make a couple skill checks and call it a day, but personally I find it more exciting when the players get to experience the trials and tribulations of the struggle with fate a bit and have some chances to decide if it is worth using up significant resources to change the course of things, etc. It is hard to do that with one or two tosses of the dice. 

Now, do I think the_jester's SCs are the best or exactly the way I would write them? Maybe they're a bit different in style. I'd probably structure them a little different, but I certainly think his examples are worthy of being SCs. Every group and every situation is a bit different, so it is rarely easy to criticize specific example SCs taken out of the context of the game and table they were designed for. DMing style makes a huge difference as well.

Now, see, if I were say building the 'Get to the Island' SC, I'd probably make fighting the ghouls the failure consequence of the challenge and have the party make it to the island either way. That's just me though. The parameters of the challenge and its appropriateness? Seemed very solid to me. 

Likewise I'd probably do the 'Traverse the Swamp' a bit differently. I'd first of all probably expand the SC to include researching the route. This would involve some knowledge skills to come up with a map, references to landmarks, etc. Then I'd emphasize the ticking time clock. Each failure at any stage would represent time wasted getting to the ziggurat. Maybe the ritual goes off at the full moon, so you could describe the time passing day by day as the PCs move closer to the goal. Failures would then represent time wasted by losing the trail or a bad shortcut, or people becoming exhausted, mired in the mud, equipment being lost and needing to be recovered or replacements crafted, failure to spot a landmark, running into some lizard folk that could have been avoided (thus forcing the party to backtrack, fight, or spend time negotiating with them). Still, the structure of the thing is good and I have no doubt it was an entertaining and successful SC as written. Just different styles for different DMs.

I don't doubt that the style some groups prefer isn't really conducive to using a lot of SCs. I get the impression that tactical encounters are something your fond of, so maybe these other out of combat type things are generally less exciting and you want them to be short and perfunctory. That's cool.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 18, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't understand why a series of skill checks would make it less exciting. It might not make it more exciting but I'd prefer to at least be able to showcase the fact that I'm good at X, Y, or Z now and then. Sure you could make a couple skill checks and call it a day, but personally I find it more exciting when the players get to experience the trials and tribulations of the struggle with fate a bit and have some chances to decide if it is worth using up significant resources to change the course of things, etc. It is hard to do that with one or two tosses of the dice.




I still don't get it. It's not exciting to talk about dreary walking through the swamp and rolling the dice 24 times each or 120 times in an hour and a half.

Player: "I rolled a 16."
DM: Ok, that's +1 to the Nature roll. Sally, what are you doing?
Player 2: "I guess I'll try Athletics again."

Do people layer this effort with a lot of significant worthwhile roleplaying? They might stay in character a bit more, but then again, maybe not.

And sure, a few jokes will be told and there can be some fun involved, but 120+ rolls??? Seriously? And the players have very limited decision making insight involved? The problem is that there are no real choices here. The players are going through the pre-selected motions. A few players might come up with a new idea once in a while, but not for 12 rounds in a row.

That's exciting to you?

Could you imagine a combat encounter where the players roll a D20 120 times? With saving throws, that would be like a 15+ round encounter.

The only player really highlighting his skill set is really the Nature PC. The rest are just giving a bonus to that roll or to the Heal vs. disease roll here and there.

And since each "round" is a day, no significant resources (other than food/water) should be used up.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Now, do I think the_jester's SCs are the best or exactly the way I would write them? Maybe they're a bit different in style. I'd probably structure them a little different, but I certainly think his examples are worthy of being SCs. Every group and every situation is a bit different, so it is rarely easy to criticize specific example SCs taken out of the context of the game and table they were designed for. DMing style makes a huge difference as well.




I'm not criticizing his effort. I'm criticizing the entire concept. I think his idea had merit, but the implementation was based on the WotC framework and I see the same weaknesses and wonkiness in his that I see in the ones that I have seen in a WotC products.

A dozen skill rolls spread over the group, 5 to 10 minutes of gaming time, sure. 120 rolls? Not so much.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't doubt that the style some groups prefer isn't really conducive to using a lot of SCs. I get the impression that tactical encounters are something your fond of, so maybe these other out of combat type things are generally less exciting and you want them to be short and perfunctory. That's cool.




There are SO many different ways to enjoy the game, but rolling a bunch of dice to get from point A to point B for an hour or two seems pointless.

Combat is cool.

Puzzles are cool.

Interacting with NPCs is cool.

Problem solving can be cool.

Walking through the swamp, that's not heroic. Does that really highlight the Nature skills of a given PC? Or just show that he can make the roll over and over again?

SCs are typically not problem solving (although some can be, at least for the first skill or so per player), at least SCs set up like this one are not. Each player is more or less railroaded into a few skills and some players have PCs that have ZERO trained skills that are applicable. So that player tends to make nearly useless rolls for an hour and a half of real time.

Rolling skill checks is not a lot different than the 1E through 3.5 version of "I roll to hit. I roll to hit. I roll to hit." . 24 times in this case per player.


To me, this is not much different than roleplaying any other pedestrian type of event. Walking through the swamp and fighting off bugs is pedestrian. For example, some players get a thrill out of roleplaying their PC trying to get a date with a barmaid. zzzzz. Not only is barmaid chasing mostly worthless for the overall story (although a good DM would still find some way to pull something out of this dross), it's often pretty darn boring for some of the rest of the players who actually do want to get to a real storyline.

Sorry, I still don't get the SC appeal. I'm sure that some groups find this to be a wonderfully fun experience. But I don't see the appeal at all.


When I have time later tonight, I will be checking out some of the other SCs posted here. I went off to that link, but the few I saw there weren't that impressive either. I'm trying to have an open mind because I think there are probably good, clean, fast ways to run SCs where the players aren't pigeonholed in their skill selection and the SC can be run in 5 to 15 minutes, but I haven't seen it yet. I do think that the potential is there, but so far I haven't found what I personally am looking for with it.

Fast. Exciting. Personally satisfying for each player and highlighting their skill selection.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 18, 2011)

I think you're casting it as 'pedestrian' and making it about "fighting off bugs". I don't think that's the way it went at the table, though I obviously wasn't there. Personally I think if the swamp itself is a serious bad-assed thing then spending 5 or 10 minutes on it and make 2-3 skill checks doesn't really convey that at all. It sounds to me like there were interesting things that happen along the way, some encounters, etc. I don't get the impression that it was 90 minutes of making endless die rolls. 

Personally I'd find running it in old school fashion with wandering monsters and a hex map where the party wanders around trying to find their way with random encounter checks and rolls to see which way you blunder along would be boring after a while. Making it a bit more abstract and leveraging the SC framework to do that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Sure makes things easier to track without materially changing the narrative.

I'd note too that the loss of resources could be quite significant. The SC specifies that resting is difficult and only possible in certain situations, so losing HS etc could be a problem for the party.


----------



## MrMyth (Feb 18, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> I still don't get it. It's not exciting to talk about dreary walking through the swamp and rolling the dice 24 times each or 120 times in an hour and a half.
> 
> Player: "I rolled a 16."
> DM: Ok, that's +1 to the Nature roll. Sally, what are you doing?
> Player 2: "I guess I'll try Athletics again."




Well, sure, if you describe it like that, and make it about swatting mosquitos and not dying of swamp fever... sure, not the most exciting thing. 

But that's... generally not the goal, here. It's about providing a framework to give ways to resolve more unusual encounters in the swamp. I mean, you describe things that are cool - interacting with NPCs, puzzles, problem solving. Skill Challenges aren't intended to replace those things, they are just another medium through which _those scenes can happen_. 

You encounter a group of lizardfolk. You don't _need_ any skill checks involved, but having some to figure out if can communicate with them, if you can manage to convince them you are friendly, and even persuade one of them to guide you - I see room for interesting things, there. 

Or you find yourself hindered by the curse of the Swamp Witch (an ancient fen hag escaped from the Feywild), and the party is wandering through the same region of swamp over and over again. Eventually the ranger realizes he's seen the same broken tree several times. The wizard starts to realize what happened, and they need to work together to figure out how to break the curse and escape. 

Or the heavily armored paladin finds himself stuck in a tarpit. Finding a way to get him out - sure, you can just make it about one or two strength checks. Or it can involve finding some well-rooted trees, securing rope to the branches, and then getting him out that way. Or figuring out alternate approaches as well!

Or simpler stuff - the party needs to cross an especially treacherous area of swamp. The halfling rogue tries jumping across via several logs - but looks like one of them is a crocodile! Sure, you can resolve this as a combat instead, but a skill challenge to get around it and calm it down or drive it off (while still dealing with getting across the swamp area)... well, it can often be more exciting than some attack rolls in difficult terrain. 

What about the classics? Will-o'-the-wisps floating in the dark. Maybe they lead a hireling astray - maybe PCs are drawn into their lure. This seems the exact sort of extended scene that is ideal as a skill challenge, rather than a combat. I suppose you could reduce it to just a description of what happens, but what is the advantage to removing player influence over the results? Getting out of the swamp faster? 

Sure, if you don't find any of these encounters interesting, you can just fast-forward straight to the next region. But if the idea is that there is adventure to find everywhere, I imagine there are plenty of possible encounters in the swamp for which a Skill Challenge seems perfectly suitable to me.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 18, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> I'm not sure if I am clearly indicating my confusion as to why this sounds like a lame skill challenge to me, but that's how it seems (and note: I'm not trying to dig on this particular challenge, it obviously has a lot of thought and effort put into it).



I like to make mundane skill challenges (such as "cross the swamp with the minimum of fuss") more interesting through the use of quirky penalties for failure, for example:

First failure: the company ventures hopelessly off track, losing sight of landmarks and applying a -2 penalty to all skill checks until the next success.

Second failure: the PC's fail to recognise they have entered the sacred grounds of the marshbogpeatmud tribe. They attract a marsh spirit, which will haunt them (randomly attack/scream out their location/attract vermin/whatever) until it is appeased.

Third failure: the PC's emerge from the swamp at pretty much the point they went in, much to the derision of those who saw them to the fringe of the marsh.

Other than that the main benefit for me, as a DM, in designing skill challenges is that they force me to build interesting skill synergies into the encounter, which I can then have fun hinting at during the narrative.

Longer SC's must also be punctuated with events which might change the nature of the challenge completely (e.g. "After a second successful Nature check, the party realises that the rain which has been following them is anything but natural."), giving other members of the party than the survival expert a chance to shine.

These events can easily be entire encounters in themselves (e.g. the party encounters a group of bandits who have deliberately tampered with markers mentioned on their map in order to lead them astray), and can also lead to other interesting branches in the challenge (e.g. "if the party makes three successes before any failures, they realise something is suspicious about the placement of the landmarks they've been told to find.")

But yes, a task which allowed those trained in Nature to simply make six rolls and "win" is the worst kind of Skill Challenge. Unfortunately for all of us that's exactly the kind of design that the DMG1 and early adventures propagated (but which was mostly expunged by Mearls and subsequently in the DMG2).

No doubt about it, creating a rich, textured, and engrossing skill challenge is every bit an art as creating a memorable combat encounter.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 18, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'd note too that the loss of resources could be quite significant. The SC specifies that resting is difficult and only possible in certain situations, so losing HS etc could be a problem for the party.



I did enjoy building overland journeys back in the days of the Wilderness Survival Guide, and there was something very primal about hex crawling through randomly-generated weather and holding your breath every time the "% chance of encounter" was rolled. Not only that but a party could be thoroughly tested by its ability to prepare for and survive long journeys through the wilderness. Despite how much I like 4E and the Skill Challenge idea, this is a loss to my own style of game which I might have to redress in my next campaign.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 18, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Sure, if you don't find any of these encounters interesting, you can just fast-forward straight to the next region. But if the idea is that there is adventure to find everywhere, I imagine there are plenty of possible encounters in the swamp for which a Skill Challenge seems perfectly suitable to me.




Well, I agree that there are plenty of possible encounters. But that's not how the SC was set up.

Meet some NPCs. Negotiate with them. Fight them. Flee them. Meet some monsters. See some interesting swamp feature. There's plenty of options.

The only monsters in the SC that I was discussing were a few snakes on one day out of twelve. There were some herbs to find one day. And a boat to find one day.

Now, a given DM might just throw other interesting encounters on top of the SC that was presented, ad hoc. He didn't have Lizardmen in the SC, but now he does. He didn't have an old man with a coon hound listed in the SC, but now he does.

To me, ad hoc encounters are fine, but they are similar and only a tiny bit preferable to the random monster generator tables from earlier editions. Most ideas that the DM comes up with pre-game tend to be better thought out and fleshed out on average than ad hoc ideas that he comes up mid-game. To me, ad hoc ideas are a further fleshing out of the overall adventure set up, not a way to introduce multiple new encounters on the fly. Those tend to be less satisfying overall. IMO. YMMV.


For this particular scenario, I would think that it should be designed like a dungeon (or a flowchart). There are x number of encounters, some roleplaying, some combat, some environmental. If you go from one encounter to the next, a few skills might or might not be rolled. The overall swamp has a few required skill rolls at certain points in time between encounters, Endurance for disease, Nature for navigation.

But if there are not going to be any significant encounters in the scenario, then yes, a few skill rolls to determine how long it took and any disease acquisition and whether the PCs get hopelessly lost. If successful enough, the PCs take X number of days to get through the swamp, and they are there. If they took 9 days, then the temple is 60% inhabited. 10 days? 75% inhabited. A lot of this type of cause and effect can still be done, just most of it is done off camera with just a few skill rolls total.

If the scenario has encounters, then it is a lot more interesting. It is still not a skill challenge, the swamp itself is a dungeon with some skill checks involved and some encounters involved. And Jester's idea that the PCs just do not find their way through the swamp is still viable.


If there are not going to be any enjoyable encounters (combat or not) in the trek, then why waste the time with 120 skill rolls and a few hours of pontification of what minor things happen to the PCs while they are in the swamp based on their skill check rolls and how they try to interact with the swamp. Is interacting with a swamp that doesn't have a single NPC or neat puzzle or other real challenge listed really fun and heroic?

This is the wonkiness I see in most SCs that I have read. And it's probably part of the reason that the OP wrote the post here.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 18, 2011)

wedgeski said:


> I did enjoy building overland journeys back in the days of the Wilderness Survival Guide, and there was something very primal about hex crawling through randomly-generated weather and holding your breath every time the "% chance of encounter" was rolled. Not only that but a party could be thoroughly tested by its ability to prepare for and survive long journeys through the wilderness. Despite how much I like 4E and the Skill Challenge idea, this is a loss to my own style of game which I might have to redress in my next campaign.




Yeah, I think hex crawling can be interesting. It is more useful when the party is wandering around in a sandbox type wilderness area vs say making their way from point A to point B. 

The PF AP Kingmaker Part 1 Stolen Land for instance is organized as basically a hex crawl where the PCs get a charter to clear out an area of roughly around 20 12 mile hexes. Most of the hexes have an encounter area in them, and there are random encounters to boot. There is a specific plot the PCs will deal with as well, but they'll probably take a while to execute it and it isn't at all linear, just more like a bunch of the encounters have a thread linking them. There are a couple other lesser threads that pop up here and there. 

The thing is, there's no provision for the players to focus on the main plot and use their skills to go to the specific encounter areas where it can be pursued. It isn't necessary to the adventure for them to do that, but IME most parties will probably want to focus on that. Structuring that process with an SC could be an interesting approach. Anyway I don't think hex crawling and travel SCs are incompatible. You'd just want to structure things so that they work together in some fashion. The SC could govern something other than the travel aspect. 

For instance an SC could govern how aware the main threat is to the party in the above mentioned AP. So the party could keep a low profile and gain some level of advantage. It might for example open up an opportunity for infiltration or something like that.


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 18, 2011)

Like making an omelette, skill challenges should start with good ingredients, but how well they turn out depends mostly on technique.  

A skilled DM can make and run skill challenges that are fun and memorable, just as a skilled chef can make a delicious meal out of basic ingredients.  Given the same basics, a novice in either art can easily wind up with a big mess on their hands.  

The initial presentation of skill challenges was really bad, leading to an overly mechanized system that imposes artificial constraints on character action.  They had to roll multiple times to accomplis the same thing.  They had to roll when they had no applicable skills.  Everyone had to participate even when it was counter-productive for them to do so.  

WotC has sinced changed the rules and published more information on how to run skill challenges, and it is better.  Still, it is much harder to learn how to DM (or cook) just from a book.  The best way is to see a master in action, and lean from him.  Most of us will never have that opportunity, unless WotC makes some videos of Mike Mearls running cool skills challenges.  Or we can always ask Piratecat to do it.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 18, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> This entire skill challenge could be replaced with a single Nature roll and an Endurance roll from each PC and they either get lost or they don't. They either get diseased, or they don't. The DM could describe the harrowing journey through the swamp in a few minutes and the players could cut to the chase and be at the adventure site.
> 
> To me, the journey can be exciting, but not with skill rolls. And, it's not just about combat. The journey can be exciting by meeting and interacting with NPCs in the swamp.
> 
> But interacting with bugs and just the fellow PCs for an hour and a half of real time at the gaming table? Meh. Sorry, but I don't get the attraction.




Fair enough. It sounds like a difference in tastes. However, there is- I think- an issue of missing context here. I am starting to realize, based on some of your later posts, that I haven't been clear about something. The skill challenge here goes along with other stuff. There are random encounters, as well as planned encounters, that occur as the pcs move through the swamp. They are parallel to and at the same time as the skill challenge, but not included in the skill challenge itself. So when you say:



KarinsDad said:


> Well, I agree that there are plenty of possible encounters. But that's not how the SC was set up.
> 
> Meet some NPCs. Negotiate with them. Fight them. Flee them. Meet some monsters. See some interesting swamp feature. There's plenty of options.
> 
> The only monsters in the SC that I was discussing were a few snakes on one day out of twelve. There were some herbs to find one day. And a boat to find one day.




...you are missing that context. Which is my fault, because I didn't think to mention it- because it isn't part of skill challenge itself. 

Within the swamp there was indeed a crazy swamp hermit trading with bullywugs and lizardfolk, all of whom had been intimidated by the yuan-ti.  He wasn't part of the skill challenge, per se, but if the pcs made a good Diplomacy check and paid him 20 gp/day they could gain his aid and get an automatic success each day. There was Yngmar of the Willow, a fey spirit within a willow tree who had been hurt by the blood and venom the yuan-ti brought and, while not part of the skill challenge per se, could get the swamp to aid them, reducing random encounters and giving a bonus to skill checks. There were the aforementioned lizardfolk and bullywugs, who were potential allies against the yuan-ti (and again, creative pcs could have gotten their aid in the SC). There were other, more strictly combat encounters possible too- giant wasps, ghouls, water moccasins and other snakes (a preview of what they might find at the ziggurat), shambling mounds, etc.

But see, those aren't part of the skill challenge, so I didn't mention them in that. The "find the island" skill challenge is more straightforward, not taking days to attempt and including the ghouls as a complication within the framework of the challenge itself.

Again, though, I get that our tastes differ and there is nothing wrong with that. 



KarinsDad said:


> Do people layer this effort with a lot of significant worthwhile roleplaying? They might stay in character a bit more, but then again, maybe not.




I am fortunate to have a group that generally enjoys the rp aspect of the game approximately as much as I do, so yeah, generally they do in my group. Obviously, that's one of the things that makes a good skill challenge stand out- it flows as part of the game's narrative, if you will, rather than standing out as an exercise in dice rolling. If it's feeling clunky, we'll accelerate through it.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think you're casting it as 'pedestrian' and making it about "fighting off bugs". I don't think that's the way it went at the table, though I obviously wasn't there. Personally I think if the swamp itself is a serious bad-assed thing then spending 5 or 10 minutes on it and make 2-3 skill checks doesn't really convey that at all.....
> 
> ....I'd note too that the loss of resources could be quite significant. The SC specifies that resting is difficult and only possible in certain situations, so losing HS etc could be a problem for the party.




Right- the badassitude of the swamp is one of the things I wanted to capture in that SC. Back in the 3.5 days, my group's halfling campaign had a near-tpk while wandering around in the jungle after a bunch of them got blinding sickness, and the whole jungle adventure was exceptionally memorable. If the party goes into a harsh, difficult environment, I like to make it actually harsh and difficult.

And I know a lot of groups don't track food and water and arrows and stuff, finding it boring and unfun, but I like it. It doesn't come up much, but when it does, it can be a major factor. "Oh crap," the ranger says, "I'm down to 10 arrows and we're 10 days from home!" To which the paladin says, "Worse than that, we're down to only 4 days rations!" And the dwarf replies, "Worse yet, we're out of ale!"


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 18, 2011)

the Jester said:


> ...you are missing that context. Which is my fault, because I didn't think to mention it- because it isn't part of skill challenge itself.




Ok. Cool.

But with this idea in mind, it's now a dungeon with some skill rolls. The skill rolls occur sporadically over time in the game between the other encounters, not in a 1.5 hour non-stop marathon (which is what I had a problem with). It's 2 rolls per PC per day, possibly punctuated with an encounter or two.

The difference with our POVs here then becomes one of the skill challenge itself. Why is it a skill challenge at this point? For the XP? The real fun and the real adventure here is in the interactions with the hermit, the yaun-ti, etc. The swamp skill rolls and descriptions are flavor and mood at this point, not adventure. Why is it an encounter all its own?

You didn't use it as a single encounter. You interspersed bits of it between other more interesting and fun encounters.



the Jester said:


> Again, though, I get that our tastes differ and there is nothing wrong with that.




I'm not convinced that our tastes do differ that much. A SC is just a mechanical way of accomplishing some goal and in this case, getting through the swamp and not getting diseased.

I have zero issue with that.

As you describe it now, the Swamp is just a big dungeon. The PCs go from encounter to encounter, making a few skill rolls in between.

You as DM decided to make those skill rolls a skill challenge, but there is no real major reason that you should or should not do it that way (except maybe as an additional XP tracker).

Personally, I just see the Nature and Healing skills for this (viewing this scenario from this perspective) as a few extra rolls, no different than a Thievery roll or a Perception roll in a normal dungeon. Skills are used. They either help out the PCs or they do not. Success in them are their own reward, so no need for a SC and no need for extra XP for a SC.

Failing the Nature check is no different than failing a Perception check and not finding a secret door that leads to the next room in a normal dungeon. The skill failure limits one choice option of the PCs.


From one perspective, the entire D&D gaming experience is just going from one room in a dungeon to another room. In other words, a flowchart of going from one scene in the story to the next scene.

So to me, using a SC for moving through a swamp is ok, but not necessarily required or desired. It's not an individual "encounter" where combat isn't an option, so skills must be used. It's a collection of skill rolls based on the environment between one scene and the next scene that give some flavor and might add a bit of disease.

No real difference than the Athletics skill rolls made in a dungeon where the PCs have to climb to get from one room to the next.


So my confusion remains for a more typical use of a skill challenge (i.e. the players make decisions, rolls skills, and the skill challenge itself IS the encounter) and I'm still looking for a good example of it (PC said that he would post some). The wonkiness remains. Some PCs tend to be excluded because they don't have the required skills. They become the sidekicks to the superheroes of the skill challenge who are the ones with the primary skills. And even the superheroes are straightjacketed into a few skill options, no matter how well they try to describe their actions, they are still limited to rolling the same skills over and over.

The mechanics and the spotlight on the PCs just seems to be wrong.

In combat, every player can contribute, every player can shine, and every player has multiple viable options.

In roleplaying, every player can contribute, every player can shine, and every player has multiple viable options.

In puzzle solving, every player can contribute, every player can shine, and every player has multiple viable options.

Not necessarily so with skill challenges.

Skill challenges just seem so restrictive in options and only one or a few PCs shine. Yes, a different player can come up with a cool idea, but it's like watching Family Feud. Just because the other players clap their hands and say "Good answer, good answer" doesn't mean that the idea is really worthwhile. And when rolling skills, the greatest idea in the world doesn't mean much if the player rolls a 1 on the die.


----------



## mneme (Feb 18, 2011)

FWIW, Karinsdad, I really enjoy skill challenges, and I'm not enthused by the swamp challenge.

I don't think it's the "trudging through the swamp" thing -- sure, that would be dull, day in, day out, but it's fun for a lark.  But the tiny bonuses to a central skill thing just leaves me cold.

Were I building it,  if I kept the "Central Nature Check" gimick -- which -is- an interesting gimmick--I'd bump -up- the bonuses you get for helping, not drop them.  Make the target number 35 or so; then use something like the following:

Primary Skill: Nature (special: only one Nature check may be used per turn).
Primary Skill: Endurance (Special: All players must make an endurance group check every turn; success matters nothing, but a failure is a failure on the overall challenge.)
[Keep track of Nature failures and Endurance failures separately.]
Secondaries: (by default, secondaries can neither produce a success nor a failure in this challenge, but modify it in other ways.  Narration may change this).
Arcane: There are magical current in the swamp that may be used for navigation.  With a moderate check, you can make a compass (or equivalent), giving a +2 to all subsequent nature checks in this challenge. [this may only be done once; further Arcane checks require original ideas]
Social skils: Social skills (diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, insight) may be used to raise the group's spirits, granting a +2 to all characters in the endurance challenge for this round.
Heal: Heal may be used to bolster a single character against the elements (+5 to the endurance check for one, moderate difficulty).  Or it may be used to repair damage done by the swamp (hard difficulty, erases an endurance-based failure).
Nature: Nature may be used as a secondary check -- to erase a nature failure (hard difficulty) or to find food and avoid more troublesome areas (+2 to the endurance check for all characters)
Religion: Can once be used to gain guidance from the gods or ghosts in the swamp, gaining a +5 on the nature check for this round.
Perception: Can be used to aid the nature check for this round, granting a +4 to the nature check for this round (1/round).  If your Aid grants more than +2, add the difference to this bonus (actually, a good general rule for special Aid rules combining with Aid bonuses)
Acrobatics: May be used twice to avoid hazards in the swamp -- hard difficulty, if you succeed, you count as having passed the group Endurance check; if you fail you take a -1 penalty to that check.

And so on, really; the only skills I can't see making use of are Streetwise (though in a game that isn't half-urban I'd be tempted to houserule SW to be more useful overall), stealth, and thievery (ok, I could see using theivery as a "raise spirits" skill using juggling or whatnot).

That said, even with this (which I think would improve the challenge, as even with a couple of primary skills, the secondary skills would be providing enough of a bonus to be worth using, and to make it feel like they had an impact (+2 to multiple rolls or +4 or +5 to one roll, not just a +2 to one roll), and you could differentiate between success, failure due to exhaustion (endurance checks) and failure due to getting lost), it's a fairly static challenge.  The situation doesn't really change until you succeed or fail.

IMO, a really good skill challenge is like a really good boss fight.  You've got your opening situation, and the skills that best apply there.  But success or failure in that opening challenge (and the choices you make there) will change the situation, and suddenly completely different skills will be more important, and more choices will be unlocked.  The skill challenge is still there; it establishes that there's opposition, or a clock is ticking, or otherwise that there's a framework driving failure as well as success.  But there's no reason a skill challenge has to stay static--and every reason for it not to.

For instance, the clue chases in the LFR Pain/Agony games (and probably the follower, Dispair, but I haven't played the P3 one yet) are mysteries, but technically they're skill challenges too.  Very big, very complicated skill challenges (and when I ran one, I totally underprepared; you have to prepare this stuff as much as you prep a clue chase in CoC -- and probably prepare the players to be in a mystery chase, and not really an action adventure for most of the game), with a variety of things to investigate, clues to track down, and npcs to question.  And each has their own piece of info, which they'll divulge when asked (and more if you can get on their good side).  

The skill challenge is still there, though, keeping track of how many failures you have (how many successes isn't so important; when you know the answer to the mystery, you know the answer to the mystery and what to do!) and making sure that if the players -are- flailing around, the secondary plotline activates instead (the bad guys who -do- know who the killer is attack the PCs and leave them enough clues that they can get back on track--if a little worse for wear from the combat).

But this isn't "ok, I roll arcana again" -- instead, it's more "do you head down to the apothecary to ask him about the paste you found?  Or do you go to the merchant you heard of to ask him about a illicit drug smuggling ring?  Or do you head over to the city's official necromancer and see if you can get something useful from him?"


----------



## MrMyth (Feb 18, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Well, I agree that there are plenty of possible encounters. But that's not how the SC was set up.
> 
> Meet some NPCs. Negotiate with them. Fight them. Flee them. Meet some monsters. See some interesting swamp feature. There's plenty of options.
> 
> The only monsters in the SC that I was discussing were a few snakes on one day out of twelve. There were some herbs to find one day. And a boat to find one day.




Ok, if your comments were intended mainly for that SC in particular, I admit to being much more able to understand where you are coming from. 

But I dunno. Even then, it seems like exaggeration. The group has scenery to interact with and remember - a rickety boat to tinker around with, an algae-filled pond to explore, snakes erupting forth out of the bog. 

I admit that it may not be for everyone. But many people do like that sort grounding the world in this sort of flavor, to feel like traveling across the countryside is a genuine task, and you aren't just fast-forward teleporting to the next stop in the game. You could handle it in various ways - simply description, intersperse it with combats and random encounters, etc - but the skill challenge approach also seems a viable one. The players get to feel their characters dealing with the dangers of the swamp and overcoming them. 

It at least seems like a good option to have, for those who thrive on that sort of in-depth exploration. 



KarinsDad said:


> For this particular scenario, I would think that it should be designed like a dungeon (or a flowchart). There are x number of encounters, some roleplaying, some combat, some environmental. If you go from one encounter to the next, a few skills might or might not be rolled. The overall swamp has a few required skill rolls at certain points in time between encounters, Endurance for disease, Nature for navigation.




I actually tend to like a combination of the two, an overall 'exploration' skill challenge that breaks down into mini-scenes along the way, some of which could be interaction, or combat, or the like. And it sounds like that is what the 'swamp expedition' ended up being overall, between the skill challenge and the other possible encounters along the way. 

EDIT: For myself, I probably wouldn't go with quite as generic pieces of scenery as seen in the 'Finding the Ziggurat' skill challenge. Or rather... one thing I like to do is make sure that every mini-scene serves a second purpose. Whether that is providing some background for the setting, or providing useful clues or tools for future plot, I've found that having that second layer can really help players thrive on the RP opportunities of such things. 

What sort of things am I talking about? Well, let's take that boat they found, for example. Why is it there? Did it belong to some earlier explorer looking for the Ziggurat? Or a native of the swamp? 

Later, we have the blue mud with the stone altar. Who worshipped here, and what was worshipped? Now, these are all sorts of questions the Jester probably has some answer to if the PCs do investigate deeper, even if there wasn't a need to flesh them out in the Skill challenge itself. But it is the sort of thing I find that players like - finding markers of lost civilizations or wild tribes. 

You can even support it with other elements elsewhere. If it does belong to swamp tribefolk, maybe the party were warned about them before entering the swamp. Throughout their journey, they run across other signs of them, like the altar. Even if they never actually encounter them, having those details build together helps give the feeling of being in a living, breathing world. 

That can be the advantage of the 'swamp expedition' - even if it features no other encounters at all, it helps ground the PCs in the setting. Again, you don't need to run it as a skill challenge in order to do so, but it certainly is a viable framework for this sort of exploration.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 18, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> The difference with our POVs here then becomes one of the skill challenge itself. Why is it a skill challenge at this point? For the XP? The real fun and the real adventure here is in the interactions with the hermit, the yaun-ti, etc. The swamp skill rolls and descriptions are flavor and mood at this point, not adventure. Why is it an encounter all its own?




I mentioned this upthread, but perhaps I did not clearly articulate it. In this particular case, the main point of the skill challenge is to see how far along the yuan-ti excavation is and thus how many of them there are.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 18, 2011)

There is definitely a sense in which some GMs could benefit from using skill challenges in thier preparation--and then throwing the skill challenge away while keeping the material in it.

I mentioned already that sometimes for me a skill challenge is just a convenient way to record my notes (and it is a lot less work than writing it out in pure text, sometimes).  Those notes may or may not inform a skill challenge at the table.  It could just as easily turn into an interesting scene with a skill check or three.

But there is also the sense in which skill challenges are a check list, regardless of how you record the prep material.  Do you have interesting and fun things that can happen on failure?   Does failure matter?  What does a partial success mean?  Will this interest most or all of the players at the table?  Are there things that their characters can do, if they are so inclined?

To the extent that you've already internalized these questions in your prep, and your players are proactively making things happen, then this aspect of skill challenges isn't helping you much.  If you've got that player that will always find a way to make Streetwise matter every game--even on an overland trek, then you don't even worry about it anymore.  For you, a skill challenge is merely a structure to the action, and will only be useful if you want/need that structure or are driving towards a particular style that benefits from it.

In my case, I've got some players that aren't that proactive (though not completely reactive), and also having a large group makes it hard to juggle.  Even though I know all the questions I want to check, it is still easy to miss something useful.  Working on a skill challenge during prep, for me, is a conscious statement that this scene matters as a scene that drives the action and takes a certain amount of time (aka pacing).  Might not turn out that way, but that is what my initial plan says.  Contrawise, if I start putting together such a scene, and I'm struggling, this tells me that at least one of two things is true:

1. The scene just isn't worth a skill challenge, and I'm trying to force it.  Rethink my priorities and pacing goals.

2. The scene is worth a skill challenge, but my material going into it sucks.  Broaden, deepen, expand that material to make it rich enough to deserve a scene.

I roomed with a guy in college that did all of the above naturally, often winging it.  But he was a communication/theatre major and worked as a DJ on a call-in radio show.  He lived and breathed this stuff.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 19, 2011)

OK now I've skipped a whole pile of  because it's the weekend here and I have to work overtime tonight (yeah I start 2am on a Sat->Sun night lucky me).  If I get something out of context please do let me know and please do try to assume it's because of that skipping.

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]
I say if it's not meaningful don't do it!  I mean really! *Anything*, combat included, will destroy your storyline if it's irrelevant.  That's a *huge* amount of what 4e is about. Why have less combats? Why have SCs? Why have anything?  Because you should only have what's relevant!

In this case the swap SC seemed relevant to TJs party. So he put it in. It worked. They were happy. Life was good.

If it's not relevant don't put it in!

Laying in bed last night I asked my wife "What's the most memorable thing that's happened in our current campaign?".

Her unhesitant answer? "When we raided that caravan to help the Silver Dragon!"

That one was an SC and it keeps coming up like a bad penny. I mean every single time I ask that question of one of my players, that's the answer.

So done right I'd say SCs are pure gold.  And done wrong they are pure detritus.

And I think the number of rolls is irrelevant.

I think it's about engagement and buy-in.

But that's just my 2cp. YMMV.

I think a big part of your problem with what TJ is presenting is that you take issue with what he is implementing.  Because it's not to your tastes and not to your group's taste.  That's fine and I'd say it's actually perfect.  But it doesn't invalidate his concept.  Another application of that concept may be ideal for you.

At the risk of redundancy...


If it's not important there shouldn't be a skill challenge.
If it's not engaging  there shouldn't be a skill challenge.
If it's not relevant to your players there shouldn't be a skill challenge.
I'm sorely tempted to add "if the mechanic will be visible there shouldn't be a skill challenge" but that seems contentious so I'll just float it as my opinion.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 19, 2011)

the Jester said:


> I mentioned this upthread, but perhaps I did not clearly articulate it. In this particular case, the main point of the skill challenge is to see how far along the yuan-ti excavation is and thus how many of them there are.




That doesn't exactly answer the question as to why these particular set of (a lot of) skill rolls rate an entire encounter.

The main point of the number of days it takes to get through the swamp is to see how far along the yuan-ti excavation is. That's not a reason to have a skill challenge. That's a reason to track the number of days.

I do understand that you set it up as a skill challenge and that's fine.

The only point I am making is that it works ok by NOT being a skill challenge. In fact, based on the fact that the players succeeded without a single Nature failure (IIRC what you wrote), it didn't sound like much of a challenge at all.

You chose to use the game mechanics of a skill challenge, but you could have gotten the same overall result (feel, atmosphere, threat, number of yuan-ti present, etc.) without making it a skill challenge.

Three years ago before you had heard of the concept of a skill challenge, you could have run the same adventure with the same criteria without even the thought of those skill rolls being anything other than skill rolls (i.e. no XP for doing so).

Anyway, I think I've discussed your challenge too much as it is. I do want to go read others. Thanks for discussing this.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2011)

KarinsDad

In general I'm not a big fan of overland travel SCs for the sake of it.

The last overland SC I ran was complexity two (6/3). Main skills were Nature (to find a good path), Stealth (to keep out of sight of the pursuing gnolls), Athletics (to climb mountains and/or cross the river), Endurance (to avoid fatigue). I had particular encounters placed which were to occur at 3, 5 and 6 successes. Failures prior to those encounters had effects like being surprised by the manticore-riding gnoll scout, or failing to get an extended rest overnight.

I think the skill challenge worked. It introduced some tension into the overland travel, without making it take too long at the table. And because of the consequencs of failures for extended rests, it helped reduce the nova-ing/15-minute aspect of the encounters, without having to introduce a verisimilitude-threatening number of encounters per day.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2011)

As with everything in the game -- 

*There must be consequences for failure*.

Else, there is no game -- it's just a rail-riding exercise of collaborative storytelling.

This is no less true for an SC than it is for combat. 

To me, it means that if you're doing an overland journey SC, there has to be a real chance that you might not ever make it.

You might die on the way. Or you might get lost and never have a chance to find it again. 

That's not so much a problem with SC's as it is a problem with adventure design, though SC's do little to encourage smart adventure design (forex: the RAW doesn't mention much as a consequence of failure, and has no risk/reward setup, either).


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 20, 2011)

pemerton said:


> KarinsDad
> 
> In general I'm not a big fan of overland travel SCs for the sake of it.
> 
> ...




This sounds interesting, but I have some questions on it:

1) When were the 4 primary skills rolled and by whom? At set locations? By the best PC with the skill?

2) What happened if 3 failures occurred before 6 successes.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 20, 2011)

I am not the best at running skill challenges, but have no real problems with them as long as the successes and failures are not huge, and certainly not enough to derail the module or plan of adventure. 

Outside of combat, I do not want a handful of rolls to derail a game. In combat, well, it is mroe likely to happen in my games.


----------



## Primal (Feb 20, 2011)

I just realized something; I've often compared SCs to conflict resolution in indie games, saying that the biggest difference between them is that SCs are too vaguely written. And based on this thread alone, it appears I'm not the only one who thinks that way. However, I'm not so sure about SCs being that vague anymore. You see, my library has _Conspiracy of Shadows_ in its RPG collection (several copies of it, in fact), and a few days ago I decided to borrow it. 

First of all, I know how conflict resolution works, and I've tried some of the first-generation indie games, but I didn't get _CoS_ at all. The mechanics are not very complex, but they're presented so horribly that it's a mess. Mechanics are glossed over pretty quickly to get to the "juicy" parts; it's as if the author expects you to be already intimately familiar with the rules, or at least the innermost principles of the Forge-style game design. Instead of concrete examples this game is all about flavour, with over half the book describing the default setting, Polian. No ready-to-run material, except for a single high-powered villain. No NPCs, confusing mook rules, not even coherently written guidelines to running conflicts (for example, the game doesn't even tell you which attributes to use for physical attack rolls). My head was swimming with questions after reading it, but in the end I decided to return it the next day. Alright, I'll better stop right there, because I'm about to go on an endless rant on how vague the rules are for an "uninitiated". I just think it's a bit ironic that this was supposed to be the revised edition, released because the author thought the original rules were confusing and poorly presented.  

To repeat my point above: compared to _CoS_, skill challenges are not that vaguely presented after all!


----------



## Storminator (Feb 20, 2011)

We game today, and I've got 3 skill challenges on the docket. I'll chime in tonight or tomorrow and let yall know how they went.

PS


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> This sounds interesting, but I have some questions on it:
> 
> 1) When were the 4 primary skills rolled and by whom? At set locations? By the best PC with the skill?
> 
> 2) What happened if 3 failures occurred before 6 successes.



(1) I can't remember all the details now. I know that it actually started with an Arcana check, which I hadn't anticipated - the PCs had just stopped a demonic ritual in a temple on top of a mountain, and were fleeing the temple as it collapsed behind them. The wizard PC used Arcana to stop the arcane energey spreading any further out of the temple and collapsing the mountain-side, because he didn't want the pursuing gnolls to be alerted by such a dramatic event.

I think there was probably a group Endurance check in there somewhere - the rationale may have been that no one used Athletics to facilitate the climb down the mountain. I can't remember if Stealth was used.

In between checks, I was describing events for the players - the descent down the mountain, the travel to the river. I had predetermined that after a certain number of success they would find themselves in the river valley, with a heavy fog, and stumble into the gnoll funerary grounds, where they would have to deal with the gnoll shaman and followers. Because there had already been a failure at this point (can't remember what it was), the manticore-mounted gnoll joined this fight with the benefit of surprise.

After the fight, which was a fairly tough one, I remember multiple checks were made to cross the river - again, I think this may have a group check, with overall success (3 out of 5 PCs) meaning that they all made it across, but some sort of minor penalty (maybe a HS, or a piece of equipment lost - I can't remember now) for each individual failure.

After that the ranger PC rolled Nature to try to find a suitable sleeping place, and failed. The wizard then rolled Nature and succeeded - but (given that I had decided that failure meant no extended rest) I described the result as being one of finding a clearing where they could tie there horses, but that the night was a restless one, with noises, swamp insects, rain etc meaning that they failed to get the benefit of an extended rest.

Another success took them to the next predetermined encounter - a ruined manorhouse occupied by witches - and at this point things branched off in a different direction, and several sessions later the final check of the travel challenge hasn't been resolved yet.

To try and answer your question more succinctly - in this sort of SC, I am fairly relaxed about who makes what checks - which means that the players tend to organise that (for example) Nature checks are made only by those with good Nature bonuses. But once a check has been made in a given situation and failed, I don't generally let the same PC make another check. So once the ranger has failed to find somewhere to sleep, the onus falls onto another party member.

Also, as the above description indicates, when the course of action that the party describes means the whole group is involved - "we're all climbing down the mountain path" or "we're crossing the river using techniques XYZ" - then I will generally require a DMG2-style group check.

And the other thing that I think is important is to narrate the consequences of each successful or failed check in such a way as to set up the next complication. I also fit the narration to the checks - so if the players had chosen Stealth rather than Nature after they'd crossed the river, then rather than empahsising the difficulty in finding a place to rest, I would have linked the outcome to finding a hiding place - "you eventually find somewhere concealed - but it's too cramped/swampy etc for you to get a good rest overnight".

The reason I do this sort of travel via a skill challenge rather than more freeform is that it sets some parameters around the number of checks required, as one aspect of that reduces check-mongering by either GM or players, and also gives me a simple structure in which to locate the consequences of failure.

(2) A final failure means that, when they get to where they are going, they are so exhausted that they are surprised by the attacking humanoids (the encounter I have in mind combines two encounters - "Fire on the Water" and "Village Showdown" - from the 2008 Dungeon module "Heathen").



Kamikaze Midget said:


> *There must be consequences for failure*.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To me, it means that if you're doing an overland journey SC, there has to be a real chance that you might not ever make it.



I agree that there have to be consequences. As to whether or not this includes not making it, I think that depends. In the case of the challenge I've described above, the PCs are following a river on their left with foothills on their right. So they can't get lost. And I'm not interested in a situation in which they find terrain - a cliff or waterfall or something - that they can't successfully cross.

I think exhaustion upon arrival such that the next encounter is more challenging can be sufficient. The skill challenge has produced a story that the players are engaged in - of a difficult rather than an easy trip - and the players can see from the narration in response to their skill checks how their successes and failures led to this result.

In some skill challenges the consequences of failure could be more drastic, I agree, but I tend to think of travel SCs as means to an end rather than ends in themselves.


----------



## Fox Lee (Feb 21, 2011)

Loooongass overdue response. Excuse me if I reiterate anything that has already been thoroughly trod.

We've had lots of interesting Skill Challenge examples in our games so far - interesting in particular because they have been so very, very varied.

Our first GM ran the Keep on the Shadowfell module, but because he wasn't comfortable with speaking in-character yet (he's fully aware that this is his one big GM flaw) the encounter with Sir Keegan went over a bit flat. As the module advised, he targeted each check toward the PC with the highest modifiers, but in more than one case this meant they went to the party Warlock, who also was totally not comfortable role-playing yet. What should have been some of the most poignant moments in the story were reduced to matter-of-fact explanations, and the two characters who were actually being roleplayed (my fighter and the party shaman, who were trying for a sort of tough-love "man up and earn your redemption already!" approach) were mostly ignored.

Our second GM ran a fantastic skill challenge, which involved getting us to re-activate what was essentially a giant magitech gun to shoot down an undead dragon. With the group's girl-genius Artificer in the lead, all the characters came up with cool, relevant ideas on how we could use our skills to help the situation - even the Warlock from the previous game, who is still very hard to interest in skill challenges, actually thought of her own actions and used them well. In the final round, my Paladin taunted the dragon with an intimidate check and jumped on its back; the party's Avenger used his high perception to act as a spotter targeting her shiny plate armour, and the Artificer blew that sucker out of the sky. It was EPIC.

However, the first skill challenge of that same game was a chore for everyone involved. The PCs had to get over the walls of a city wall that was beseiged by an undead army - you know, without actually fighting our way through - and it just all went wrong. The players didn't really understand what was required, and nobody had any creative ideas, and a couple of the players were very short-tempered with the idea of something getting between us and combat... one player just made her own Athletics check and assumed she was over, leaving the rest of us to whatever. The exasperated GM eventually just informed us that it was a skill challenge, we needed to roll X, X or X, and let's just get it over with. Definitely a low point of the game, especially for the first session :\

Anyway, I guess the point I'm coming around to is that there are a lot of factors at work here (at least that one player is getting far better at thinking creatively) the "Duck Hunt" encounter (as the GM named it) went over so well in part because it had way more _options_. We had a big area to work - a sort of forge tower with lava at the bottom - and plenty of jobs to be done. The core of the challenge was the engineering aspect, but the more physically-inclined party members also had options, like climbing the tower to reach particular items/areas or enduring the tremendous heat in the forge area. I think the key to making a decent skill challenge may be "trying to say yes" - thinking of as many potential skill uses as you can, and working with the players if they have other ideas.

That's _not_ the same as being unnecessary or a bad idea. I _want_ the players to succeed in combat, too - I've no interest in a story where the heroes die to bad rolls and the bad guy wins. The use of characters' bonuses and the randomness of die rolling are valuable to both of these scenarios because that's what D&D _is_; it's a game where you try to make your character good at what they do, but you still roll a dice so there's an element of chance. Just saying that those fundamental rules shouldn't apply to anything outside of combat is as detrimental to the game as a purely flavourless skill challenge is, IMO.

_Of course_ roleplay has value, and I do agree that skill challenges are hard to grasp, and require work in presentation. But a skill challenge doesn't get in the way of roleplay unless the group approaches it that way. Approached correctly, they encourage creativity (you need to think about what your character will do, and how) and add that aspect of challenge (just saying it isn't enough - you have to get a good enough result to pull it off) that makes us play D&D rather than freeform.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2011)

> I think exhaustion upon arrival such that the next encounter is more challenging can be sufficient. The skill challenge has produced a story that the players are engaged in - of a difficult rather than an easy trip - and the players can see from the narration in response to their skill checks how their successes and failures led to this result.
> 
> In some skill challenges the consequences of failure could be more drastic, I agree, but I tend to think of travel SCs as means to an end rather than ends in themselves.




But, you see, the exhaustion has no meaning in and of itself. 

Now, if the DM rules that failure means that you have no healing surges left when you have the next combat encounter, that's effectively the same as a "YOU DIE" consequence, but with one extra step. Which is fine. Dying as a consequence sucks, and rolling to avoid that fate is good. 

But if the DM just rules that you're "exhausted," the players just go "I take an extended rest," and it doesn't matter. 

The consequences need to be drastic -- TPK drastic -- or else the skill challenge risks just being a speedbump, or the equivalent of rolling Perception to notice that the room has four walls.

I think it's better when the consequence comes directly from the SC itself (since then you don't need an extra moving bit to inject in there), but as long as that consequence is possible, that's a suitable risk. 

One thing I like doing for overland journey SC's is saying that in order to make a skill check, you need to spend a healing surge. Getting from point A to point B is exhausting, even if you do it right. An especially good role might give you a healing surge (or more) back, and an especially lousy role might cost you more healing surges in addition to not making progress. 

The risk can be more or less solely narrative, too. "Complete this SC successfully or hundreds of innocents die," or "If you don't succeed on this SC, the town guard finds your hideout and arrests all your allies," or "If you don't persuade the nobles at this dinner with this SC, you cannot gain the army needed to defend the town, and hundreds of untrained peasants will die when the red dragon comes calling," or something similar. But they do need to be solid, dire, problematic consequences, not just the equivalent of rolling dice to fill time. If there's no chance of failure, there's no point on rolling, since the game is railed from Point A to Point B anyway. 

SC's without any teeth are fairly meaningless, just as a combat of 30th level demigods vs. a solitary level 1 kobold minion is meaningless. If there's no risk, there's no purpose, and it certainly makes no one feel heroic.

I don't think we're really disagreeing, but I really want to make the point strongly, since I don't think the RAW makes the point very well at all: if the SC has no consequences, the SC might as well not exist. Combat has consequences by the very nature of healing and risk of death. SC's need to have consequences (which can include death) injected into them more strongly by the DM. DMs cannot be afraid to f*ck their players' stuff up. DMs develop affection for the characters like a writer develops affection for their characters, but you must go Joss Whedon on them, you must _break the cutie_, you must try and crush them, fairly, because if you don't, it's just not any fun.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 21, 2011)

I agree SCs should have a chance of failure and consequences. The examples above are very good.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 21, 2011)

I'm not sure ANYONE is disagreeing with SCs need consequences. The degree of the consequences is negotiable and we can argue about what a consequence IS, but fundamental agreement seems to exist. After all a trivial combat encounter by itself has few consequences. In some situations even a fairly stiff fight might have no real measurable consequences. Those really don't generally need to exist either.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think we're really disagreeing, but I really want to make the point strongly



Agreed. There's a point I want to make too, which is different from what you've said but adds to it and doesn't (as far as I can tell) really contradict it.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> But, you see, the exhaustion has no meaning in and of itself.
> 
> Now, if the DM rules that failure means that you have no healing surges left when you have the next combat encounter, that's effectively the same as a "YOU DIE" consequence, but with one extra step. Which is fine. Dying as a consequence sucks, and rolling to avoid that fate is good.
> 
> But if the DM just rules that you're "exhausted," the players just go "I take an extended rest," and it doesn't matter.



In the example I gave upthread, I gave examples of what "exhausted means" - in one case, failure to get an extended rest; in another case, being so tired that the attacking monsters get the benefits of surprise. I also use healing surge attrition as a fairly standard consequence for failed skill checks, both in and out of skill challenges.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> The risk can be more or less solely narrative, too.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I just wanted to add - sometimes, even if success is guaranteed, the skill challenge can still have consequences - particularly narrative consequences - as a result of the way that it unfolds.

Suppose, for example, a social skill challenge in which success is guaranteed, but _only because_ one of the PCs is prepared to go all out and intimidate the NPC in question. Running the skill challenge isn't a waste of time, because (i) it forces the player of the PC in question to confront the question - "Do I want my PC to be this sort of person?" - and (ii) because the narrative consequences of the intimidation might be important and/or interesting in themselves - at a minimum, they might affect the reputation of the PC.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think the RAW makes the point very well at all



I agree with you. And I don't think they make my point very well, either, namely that _the stuff that happens in the course of resolving the challenge_ can sometimes be just as important as the result at the end.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In the example I gave upthread, I gave examples of what "exhausted means" - in one case, failure to get an extended rest; in another case, being so tired that the attacking monsters get the benefits of surprise.




Unless the PCs are having multiple combat encounters, failing to get an extended rest means little.

As does surprise. PCs in the games I play in get surprised fairly regularly and it rarely means that the encounter is more threatening.

Also, say that I have a highly skilled perception PC. By surprising the PCs because they are exhausted, you are penalizing that player. What you should do is give a reasonable penalty to the perception roll, like -2 to -5 at most depending on severity, so that some PCs are more likely to be surprised whereas others may or may not be.



pemerton said:


> I also use healing surge attrition as a fairly standard consequence for failed skill checks, both in and out of skill challenges.




Yeah, I'm not too keen on this idea. I've seen it mentioned before. It's the "Well, I have nothing else I can penalized PCs with, so I'll penalize them this way".

This can become a healing surge arms race when the DM targets healing surges. The players instead of taking interesting feats and bumping up ability scores that they want to bump up start taking Durable and bumping up CON because the DM is targeting their healing surges out of combat.


I prefer consequences to be scenario affecting, not resource affecting.

For example, the PCs do not arrive in time. Or the NPCs are distrustful of the PCs. Or some other in character situational disadvantage, not a game resource mechanics penalty.

As for exhaustion, something as simple as stating that all PCs are at -1 for all D20 rolls if tired, -2 if exhausted, is better than wiping out healing surges. This makes serious fatigue similar to a disease or poison.

Losing a healing surge because I didn't convince the Duke to protect the gates with more guards just seems inherently wrong and backwards. I have unaligned PCs that would say "Oh well, the Duke's an idiot. No skin off my nose if his kingdom gets invaded.".


----------



## Retreater (Feb 21, 2011)

In last night's session we had 2 skill challenges (though one of the skill challenges was presented in 3 stages, so it probably felt more like 4 skill challenges) as well as 4 combat encounters.

The session started off with a short, almost comical skill challenge (we're playing Gamma World). Even though this wasn't our first skill challenge ever, everyone looked around, confused. No one suggested skills they could try; when I made suggestions, no one wanted to take the initiative and do anything. My wife wrote me a sign (literally) that said "I want to kill monsters. Where are they?"

I took this as a hint to get the ball rolling quickly, and sped through that skill challenge. After about five minutes of narrative description (and pausing to get refills on snacks and beverages), the group was facing down a combat and having a blast.

After that I started the staged skill challenge. The first was a roleplaying encounter. The group again didn't know what to do. To make matters worse (my fault), I made Interaction a primary skill - and none of the characters had Interaction [but cut me a break, some people brought in new characters that night]. The group did okay with it, but it seemed more subdued than the combat encounter.

Since that skill challenge was successful, they bypassed a combat encounter and went on into the second stage of the skill challenge... Crossing difficult terrain. The group explained that (for different reasons) the terrain could be  crossed without skill checks. One character was immune to the radiation damage, another couldn't take damage from falling, another could climb on vertical surfaces, etc. It was obvious that the group didn't want to do this skill challenge, so I let their reasoning skills count as automatic successes.

This led into another combat encounter, which they seemed to enjoy. They were trying all kinds of interesting manuevers, including jumping off balconies to squash opponents, pushing creatures off ledges, etc. They saved two NPCs and seemed to have a pretty good time RPing with them without the framework of a skill challenge (or any skill checks). Since they had no ranks in Interaction, I let the characters bribe them with treasure to count as successes to be able to enter their HQ for the evening (not to mention having just saved them from monsters).

Once at the group HQ, the party volunteered for a side quest and ended up fighting a white dragon in a cyrogenics lab. The fight was fun, but over really quickly. (It's funny that 3rd level PCs in Gamma World can easily dish out 100 hp of damage in one round.) 

The final leg of the skill challenge was over with two die rolls, and I sped through it.

Another combat encounter and another roleplaying encounter (though no skill challenge) and some exploration throughout a village (though no skill challenge) and the session ended.

Here's what I discovered from my last session, as far as my group is concerned.

- The players think skill challenges are boring.
- They prefer reasoning things out and roleplaying without the skill challenge framework.
- If I include them, perhaps I should put them in a combat with a complexity 2 and make them entirely optional. 
- The consequences of a failed skill challenge (in the case of Gamma World, there's no point in taking away Healing Surges because they're infinte) are not usually severe enough to add any gravity to the encounter (such as granted a surprise round in a combat in the future) to warrant spending time on them.

I still like the idea of skill challenges. I just think my group doesn't care for them. Therefore, I will limit how many (and what kinds) I run.

Retreater


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 21, 2011)

Retreater said:


> Here's what I discovered from my last session, as far as my group is concerned.
> 
> - The players think skill challenges are boring.
> - They prefer reasoning things out and roleplaying without the skill challenge framework.
> ...




I think this is true for many groups. The groups I play in at home games are a lot less receptive to skill challenges than the players who play in LEB PBP.

I do know that my home groups prefer things like puzzles (e.g. we once had a magical colored gem sudoku puzzle that controlled a magical force wall where the players had to both find the colored gems and put them in the proper slots) to skill challenges (and prefer combat to puzzles), but that may be because some skill challenges tend to focus on very few skills where some players are left out (e.g. the skill challenge to get the magical portal to open tends to be mostly mental skills like Arcana, Religion, and History, so the brawn over brains PCs feel a bit left out) and some skill challenges have too many successes until total success. Some skill challenges also don't make sense. For example, Nature and Perception rolls in Hammerfast (IIRC) to walk 100 feet through a non-threatening set of woods was just awful.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 22, 2011)

Well the last two posts simply confirm my belief that SCs where the mechanic is out in front of everyone are rarely enjoyable.

Use it as an accounting mechanic... The player's don't know it's there... It doesn't force anything... RP is more important... Bingo! Winner!


----------



## the Jester (Feb 22, 2011)

I want to give another example of a skill challenge that I think was particularly successful, although I don't have a write up of it that I can find.

My 1st 4e campaign's climactic bad guy was a death knight named Arawn. (If I hadn't moved a couple hundred miles, there was plenty of room for more bad guys later, but this is how it panned out.) Arawn was one of those undead haunted by the lost love etc etc. To (over)summarize, his love, Dawn, had been murdered by his bishop (he had been a paladin) to cover up some important corruption, and when Arawn found out he fell and fell hard, ultimately becoming a blackguard death knight (in 3e terms- he was around in the background for quite a while). 

When the pcs confronted Arawn and battled him, they slew him, but he just laughed and began to reconstitute himself over about a minute. At this point the pcs put together a bunch of clues they had accumulate and figured out that, in order to kill Arawn, they had to lay Dawn's spirit to rest.

This led to them spending their minute of grace rushing to Dawn's chambers (where Arawn had centered his lair, creating several freaky shrines to her) and trying to lay her to rest even as they were beset by hordes of minion zombies that reanimated the round after being killed unless you hit them with fire or radiant (from Open Grave, they are technically Strahd's, but hey, a lot of Arawn's story is based on the same archetypical story as Strahd, so why not?). In addition, there were some other, non-minion bad guys that arrived, and of course, several rounds into the whole thing, Arawn himself rolled in and things got even uglier.

The non-fighting-the-bad-guys part of this encounter was, of course, a skill challenge- a high-complexity, high-difficulty skill challenge. Starting with _finding Dawn's chambers,_ then moving to _figuring out where her remains are,_ then _figuring out how to lay her to rest,_ and finally _laying her to rest._ 

It could have gone any number of other ways, too- it wasn't predetermined that they would take those steps to lay her to rest, only that they had to lay her to rest and the skill challenge would be high-complexity and high-difficulty.

As far as how it went- fantastic.  It made for a great climax to a great campaign. The players really enjoyed it, the added complexity of having a running battle while performing a skill challenge meant that the pcs had important tactical decisions to make (attack and move? double move? skill check and move?) and the addition of the skill challenge meant that it took a lot of work to win. And when the party did, they gave each other some high fives and cheered.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2011)

the Jester said:


> The non-fighting-the-bad-guys part of this encounter was, of course, a skill challenge- a high-complexity, high-difficulty skill challenge. Starting with _finding Dawn's chambers,_ then moving to _figuring out where her remains are,_ then _figuring out how to lay her to rest,_ and finally _laying her to rest._




We had a partial skill challenge partial combat on Sunday. It was in one of the encounters in Keep on the Borderland where the two PCs with Arcana were attempting to stop a magical effect (I won't mention what it was so as to not be a spoiler) while the other PCs fought the NPCs. It actually worked out ok, or at least the two players with Arcana didn't seem to mind using it for multiple rounds. Not as complex as yours, but still, not total combat either. I suspect that some skill challenges mixed with combat might be preferable to some people than some skill challenges by themselves.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 22, 2011)

I can certainly get behind some of the conclusions in this thread: that a SC should primarily be used as an accounting mechanic for complex challenges, for one.

But it should also be noted that some well-known DM's such as Piratecat have presented Skill Challenges as complex mini-games where the players are given all the information they need to "game" the challenge, seeking synnergies and strategising over when best to use their primary skills (that thread has been linked before).

This was quite an eye-opening idea but I've stopped short of presenting it to my group because I don't know whether they'd enjoy it or not.


----------



## kaomera (Feb 22, 2011)

The pity, to me, is that skill challenges are an awesome concept, but I just can't see any actual benefit to applying the rules. Piratecat's examples brought me back around to being hopeful of skill challenges (as such) again (at that point). However, none of the players I game with are willing to buy into the explicit skill challenges, and without that kind of mechanical involvement there's no way to create a situation where they would willingly use skills other than their best few. As such I continue to see no actual benefit from the work of setting up an actual skill challenge - it's much easier just to deal with skill checks and individual passes / fails as they come up in a scene.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 22, 2011)

kaomera said:


> However, none of the players I game with are willing to buy into the explicit skill challenges, and without that kind of mechanical involvement there's no way to create a situation where they would willingly use skills other than their best few.




You can't climb a mountain with Bluff.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 22, 2011)

Sure you can. "OWww... my ankle, I think I sprained it. Oh burly fighter, can you please carry me?" the half-elf bard says. 

Bluff.


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2011)

the Jester said:


> You can't climb a mountain with Bluff.




You mean a zen monk could't bluff a mountain to let him climb it? 

FWIW, Chuck Norris can climb mountains without any skill checks.


----------



## kaomera (Feb 22, 2011)

the Jester said:


> You can't climb a mountain with Bluff.



Right, so if the PCs are heavily invested in bluff, to the detriment of their athletics then they won't engage the challenge of trying to climb a mountain. They'll either move on to things that they can bluff or else it's "OK, we make a bunch of athletics checks and fail, what happens?"


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2011)

the Jester said:


> You can't climb a mountain with Bluff.




No, but just because the DM set up a skill challenge to climb the mountain shouldn't prevent the players from saying:

"Ok, Fred and Barney are the best climbers. Let's have them co-climb up (x number of Athletics skill checks based on distance), roped together. Then, they drop ropes down to the rest of the team to pull up all of the gear and all of the team members who are lousy at climbing."

Instead of a skill challenge, the players change it to few skill rolls for the strongest skilled PCs and the rest is mop up.

I once convinced our DM to do this for a river crossing instead of the skill challenge she originally had set up (one of the WotC SCs btw). 40 feet or so across, the first PC swam it and then each PC after that was roped over (swimming, but pulled over quickly by the PCs on the far bank so that they did not end up drifting downstream too much). The DM didn't bother with rolls beyond the first PC.

Cut to the chase and the more exciting parts of the game. Crossing a river can be made more exciting and a skill challenge can be enforced, but that tends to be an artificial exercise in "How can I make this more challenging and a reason for a skill challenge?" instead of "It makes sense for pygmies to be shooting at the swimming PCs in this encounter". In the name of "excitement" or "fun" or "I want to use a skill challenge", some DMs just throw a lot of extra stuff at players, even if it seems a bit forced (this is often seen in trap layout as well).

Just because something is an obstacle in the game system shouldn't mean that one and only one mechanical solution should be used. Even combat should sometimes be allowed to be avoided.

Instead of climbing the mountain, maybe the PCs will walk around it. If the players come up with a way to avoid the meat and potatoes of a massive skill challenge, the DM should be flexible enough to just let a few skill rolls suffice and move on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

Good post.  

Fred and Barney?  Yabba Dabba Doo!

I've given out too much XP in the last 24 hours, apparently.  Sorry.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2011)

> Just because something is an obstacle in the game system shouldn't mean that one and only one mechanical solution should be used.




Like a wizard using his intellect rather than brute force to get his barbarian buddy out from under a boulder that has trapped him.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 22, 2011)

kaomera said:


> Right, so if the PCs are heavily invested in bluff, to the detriment of their athletics then they won't engage the challenge of trying to climb a mountain. They'll either move on to things that they can bluff or else it's "OK, we make a bunch of athletics checks and fail, what happens?"



Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect there is more than one way to get up a mountain. You don't have to climb it. It's like combat, I may write a combat scenario up, but the players don't necessarily fight NPCs. It's the same thing with skill challenges, just because I prepare a skill challenge doesn't mean the players approach the problem that way. 



KarinsDad said:


> No, but just because the DM set up a skill challenge to climb the mountain shouldn't prevent the players from saying:
> 
> "Ok, Fred and Barney are the best climbers. Let's have them co-climb up (x number of Athletics skill checks based on distance), roped together. Then, they drop ropes down to the rest of the team to pull up all of the gear and all of the team members who are lousy at climbing."



That's a skill challenge. It may not be the skill challenge the DM prepared, but it's still a skill challenge. Again, it's like combat. The DM may prepare for one kind of combat, but the players do another. And that's a problem that likely goes back to Dave Arenson's Blackmoor campaign.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 23, 2011)

Interesting.

My group once decided they wanted to scale a cliff, get around anticipated enemies and attack them from behind.  This became a little adhoc (complexity 1) skill challenge.

Group: Bugbear Ranger, Dwarf Paladin, Eladrin Sorcerer and Human Cleric

So who had all the cool skillz for this SC?  Well from memory there were only a couple of skills used!

The Sorcerer was key to their whole strategy.  They come up with a plan planned based on using Sorcerous Sirocco (mainly chosen for RP and out-of-combat applications).

DM: But it's too high for Sirocco
Sorc: I'll really concentrate, it's outside of comabt, right?
DM: OK make an Arcana check
Sorc (rolls 17): 25?
DM: OK you falter a bit on the way up, but you make it to the top.
(2 successes)
Sorc: OK I'll tie off my rope and throw it down.
Ranger: And I'll climb it.
DM: Athletics check please.
Ranger (rolls): OK plus bonus is... 17?
DM: Well it's a fair climb but with the rope you make it to the to easily enough.
(3 successes)
Cleric: I tie the rope off around my waist and hold one.
Ranger: We start pulling her up.
DM: OK given her weight that isn't going to be a problem.  Shemakes it to the top easily enough.
Cleric: I untie myself and we lower the rope down for the Paladin.
DM: You are going to haul a Dwarf Paladin in full Plate, with all his gear, to the top?  He's heavy and he's not very good at climbing!
Paladin: We'll give it a shot!  I tie it off around my waist, hold on and close my eyes!
DM: Hhmmm... OK group strength check for everyone except the Paladin.
(3 successes, one failure as the Dwarf drops 20 feet = 2d10 = 11 damage.)
Dwarf: I call up "I'm ok! Try again!"

This time they pass the group strength check, accumulating 4 successes and succeed.

So this little problem-solving event was interesting and fun to RP.  The player's enjoyed it and their success ultimately gave them a surprise round with monsters arrayed for defence against approach from the opposite direction.

It was pretty small so yes two players broke the back of it.  But it was group planning, group effort and group creativity that solved it.  There was no boring "two players making 24 rolls to succeed".

I reckon I could do something similar, of higher complexity, with a mountain climb challenge that would be similarly interesting.  But it would be more a matter of deciding how several obstacles and problems intrlock in regards to success and failure.  More the tree approach.  I like to present situations and see how the players resolve those situations.  The mechanic is useful for tracking and planning but if it's used as an accounting tool I think that's when it's most useful.

That's not to say that an "out there, fully visible mechanic, mini-game skill challenge" can't work or will be boring.  But it will take a lot of thought and planning to ensure that it's engaging, interesting... Captivating.

Anyway just my 2cp and I'm aware I've probably rambled a bit.  But hopefully it's of some us to folk.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Feb 23, 2011)

Surfarcher, that's is an example of one of the things that I think is an unsung benfit of the SC system - it provides a structure that can be invaluable to DMs to improvise a challenge for the party that is a little more interesting that a couple of skill checks.  

I start every session by checking the most-recent-update to the skill DC table and writing down the DCs at easy, medium, and hard -- and with just those three bits of data I can improvise a whole variety of things for the party when they try to go off the rails and do something creative. 

I know the original poster and a lot of us in these forums are experienced DMs who could just as easily come up with a complex skill check of some sort without the scaffolding of the SC structure to work with.  But for a less experienced DM who suddenly has to come up with a way to handle a situation like this one, the SC mechanic is invaluable.  

I run a huge variety of skill challenges in my games -- I use them for travel, for some RP interactions, for investigative legwork, for mass battles, and anything else I can think of.  I love 'em. 

-rg


----------



## the Jester (Feb 23, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Just because something is an obstacle in the game system shouldn't mean that one and only one mechanical solution should be used. Even combat should sometimes be allowed to be avoided.
> 
> Instead of climbing the mountain, maybe the PCs will walk around it. If the players come up with a way to avoid the meat and potatoes of a massive skill challenge, the DM should be flexible enough to just let a few skill rolls suffice and move on.




Sure. I don't think anyone is arguing that you should use a skill challenge for every out of combat action.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2011)

surfarcher said:


> Interesting.
> 
> My group once decided they wanted to scale a cliff, get around anticipated enemies and attack them from behind.  This became a little adhoc (complexity 1) skill challenge.
> 
> ...




The difference is that as DM, after the Sorcerer and Ranger got up, I wouldn't have bothered with the rest. The obstacle would have already been overcome.

The Dwarf would have never have fallen because his other gear would have been pulled up first and the 250 to 300 pounds of the Dwarf with armor is easily within the lift capability of the other 3 PCs. No rolls necessary.


It's interesting to me how many times DMs throw in extra skill rolls, just to see if someone will actually fail or to see if the plan works to the nth degree, and if they do fail, some penalty (like falling and damage) gets thrown in there.

To me, that's not heroic. The heroic part was coming up with a plan that worked after the first two rolls. There is no enjoyable tension with the possibility of the Dwarf falling. It's just an either / or of a die roll.


To me, this is no different than finishing a fight and there are 3 minions still on the board. I just take them off and say "Ok, you kill the other 3 quickly" and move the game on. Sure, the minions could get lucky and survive a few rounds and do a little damage (just like the Dwarf fell and took some damage), but it's anti-climatic at that point and doesn't really add to the story.

And so, I don't consider a few skills to be a skill challenge and worth any XP. I consider it to be using a few skills. The benefit the PCs got, in your example here, was that they surprised the foes who were defending from the wrong direction.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 23, 2011)

OK so in your opinion we shouldn't have RPed that through?

That's fine if it works for your group.  My group were enjoying the problem solving and the RP.  We kept playing it through well past that.  There were a few other checks at those later points too.

Where did I indicate I gave them any XP for that challenge?  I just used the mechanic to measure where it went - as I said it's a great accounting mechanic.  Their reward was the surprise round and disarray of the opposition.

I was winging it and I like playing it loose and flexible with SCs... I like adlib in many areas, in point of fact.

So what would they have "lost" if they failed?  Well I probably would have had the little ledge at the top run out short of going around their enemy.  This would have meant spent HP (from the one fall) and them reaching the final encounter after dark - which could have been disadvantageous for the Cleric (human, in a ravine, no moonlight to speak of and no low light vision).

Likewise with your combat. I will often cut combat short at that point you indicated.  Most of the time in fact.  But there are times the players don't show any inclination towards that.  Who am I to cut their fun short?

Or do you prefer to force your will on your players regardless of what they want?

Is it possible your problem lies with an inflexibility towards certain aspects of the topic?  I'm reading it as though you are taking it extremely RAW and don't want to look past what you have decided.  Which is fine by me, but then I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I'm merely offering my opinion and sharing my experiences for those who have some interest in the matter.  I grew tired of trying to force folks to agree with me years ago.

Cheers!
Doug


----------



## kaomera (Feb 23, 2011)

fanboy2000 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect there is more than one way to get up a mountain. You don't have to climb it. It's like combat, I may write a combat scenario up, but the players don't necessarily fight NPCs. It's the same thing with skill challenges, just because I prepare a skill challenge doesn't mean the players approach the problem that way.



What I was replying to was the "you can't bluff your way up a mountain" comment. When I write up a combat encounter, the players might choose to avoid it, and that's ok, but they fight their way through most of the ones I come up with. It's kind of a base expectation that D&D has combats, and if things aren't in the PCs favor to start with then the players try and come up with ways to tilt them in their favor, which largely involves mechanics.

When I design a skill challenge, I have basically two options: I can aim it at their good skills, and they'll probably attempt it (they might avoid it, just like they might an encounter). Alternately, I can not aim it at their good skills, and they aren't going to attempt it because that's "not something their characters would do". The idea of them actually using the SC mechanics to get an advantage on the SC, and therefore win anyway, never comes up because they don't want explicit skill challenges and they don't want to know any of the mechanical stuff (beyond what their bonus on their character sheet is).

So, to me, it's like all of the real mechanical interaction happens during character creation (including leveling up), and not at the table where it might actually matter or be interesting to anyone else (or, well, maybe it's just me). There's RP and non-mechanical stuff, which is great, I just don't need to keep a tally for that. So I don't feel like there is ever any real benefit, to me, in using the SC mechanics. Tracking successes and failures behind the screen isn't fun for me and it doesn't even really work.

Typically I find that SCs hit a point where they have "grind", or even "anti-grind". Either the players have done all of the stuff that they wanted to try with their characters, and haven't gotten enough successes, and either just give up or want to know why their cool plan isn't working - and I can't point to the tally and say "well, you need two more successes..." Or, alternately, they succeed in whatever their goal was (or was supposed to be) by achieving enough successes, but they still want to do more stuff, and they want it to matter.

So it's just easier for me to break complex goals up (when the players come up with them, although I may lay the seeds), say "well, how are you going to go about accomplishing that?", and adjudicate a small, specific success or failure for a skill check. IMO SCs are supposed to feel like that, anyway, right? I know I had some confusion about that when first trying my hand at SCs out of the PHB1, and I wasn't prepared to have the individual checks seem significant in and of themselves, and it kind of sucked.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 23, 2011)

kaomera said:


> What I was replying to was the "you can't bluff your way up a mountain" comment. When I write up a combat encounter, the players might choose to avoid it, and that's ok, but they fight their way through most of the ones I come up with. It's kind of a base expectation that D&D has combats, and if things aren't in the PCs favor to start with then the players try and come up with ways to tilt them in their favor, which largely involves mechanics.



That might depend on who's involved and how's it's presented.  If you present and open-ended situation with an objective... Doesn't it become creative problem solving?



kaomera said:


> When I design a skill challenge, I have basically two options: I can aim it at their good skills, and they'll probably attempt it (they might avoid it, just like they might an encounter). Alternately, I can not aim it at their good skills, and they aren't going to attempt it because that's "not something their characters would do". The idea of them actually using the SC mechanics to get an advantage on the SC, and therefore win anyway, never comes up because they don't want explicit skill challenges and they don't want to know any of the mechanical stuff (beyond what their bonus on their character sheet is).



There's a third option and I think part of the problem is that you don't see that option.  


Create a scenario with an abjective
Make some notes on how the PCs could use their resources to achieve their objective
Define meaningful consequences of success and failure
Let the PCs decide what their actions are, you tell them the result
Use the mechanic to figure out where they end up
To make it more complex figure out several scenarios and how those scenarios interrelate.



kaomera said:


> So, to me, it's like all of the real mechanical interaction happens during character creation (including leveling up), and not at the table where it might actually matter or be interesting to anyone else (or, well, maybe it's just me). There's RP and non-mechanical stuff, which is great, I just don't need to keep a tally for that. So I don't feel like there is ever any real benefit, to me, in using the SC mechanics. Tracking successes and failures behind the screen isn't fun for me and it doesn't even really work.



Have you tried not defining what they can do?  Instead define the scenario and simply track key things you think are of value to determine some results?


----------



## kaomera (Feb 23, 2011)

surfarcher said:


> That might depend on who's involved and how's it's presented.  If you present and open-ended situation with an objective... Doesn't it become creative problem solving?



There's some limit on what the PCs will / can do (or should be, I think?) in a given situation. From a strictly RP standpoint, "My Guy's A Righteous Paladin" shouldn't be punching random old ladies on the street. "My Guy's A Learned Wizard" is going to try to find ways to make use of the stuff he's read in all those weird old tomes. Ideally, IMO, "My Guy's Kind Of A Klutz" is going to try to find ways to make that relevant without annoying the rest of the group with it.

We've got mechanics to try and encourage all but the last example, I just think that maybe they've gone a bit too far (especially given the absence of that last one being in there). When the players thing "What would My Guy do?" they look in part to their character sheets for guidance. When we get to the point that the players choose an action for their characters I'm not seeing tons of variety in the choices. And without visible mechanics I can't think of many good ways to encourage them to try something different. (I've come up with mechanics that did that, but they made it clear they just weren't interested.)

I brought up the example of undead, elsewhere. The game I'm running is Dark Sun, and as a result none of the PCs have religion trained (kind of a reasonable assumption, but IMO flawed). Religion happens to be the skill you use for knowing stuff about undead in 4e. The players where a bit upset when I called for Religion checks, which I really didn't expect. I don't think it was a matter that they just didn't want to roll on a low skill, it was the whole basis of the decision no to train religion in the first place, which led them to believe that on Athas undead should be Arcana or something. I think in a way it broke the idea that their character-building decisions actually mattered.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2011)

surfarcher said:


> OK so in your opinion we shouldn't have RPed that through?




Was there much roleplaying at that point?

Or just some die rolls to finish it up?



surfarcher said:


> Who am I to cut their fun short?
> 
> Or do you prefer to force your will on your players regardless of what they want?




Players have fun doing a lot of things. Like, cutting it short and getting back to the real adventure, just as much as continuing on and being railroaded by the DM to finish up a bunch of unnecessary skill checks.

Both can be fun, so your POV here is mistaken. Having the players continue extra dice rolls to finish it out to the nth degree is forcing your will on your players just as much as not doing so.

I personally think that the extra rolls are mostly meaningless and LESS fun for most players, but YMMV.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 23, 2011)

kaomera said:


> There's some limit on what the PCs will / can do (or should be, I think?) in a given situation. From a strictly RP standpoint, "My Guy's A Righteous Paladin" shouldn't be punching random old ladies on the street. "My Guy's A Learned Wizard" is going to try to find ways to make use of the stuff he's read in all those weird old tomes. Ideally, IMO, "My Guy's Kind Of A Klutz" is going to try to find ways to make that relevant without annoying the rest of the group with it.



Sure I'd agree with that.  And generally I'd say you can't force an SC on them with good results.  It's got to be an objective they want to take on.  And good SCs should make it possible for everyone to contribute.  That's part of why I prefer to put it to the players and determine success on more than just skills.  It's their choices and actions that really do the work.



kaomera said:


> We've got mechanics to try and encourage all but the last example, I just think that maybe they've gone a bit too far (especially given the absence of that last one being in there). When the players thing "What would My Guy do?" they look in part to their character sheets for guidance. When we get to the point that the players choose an action for their characters I'm not seeing tons of variety in the choices. And without visible mechanics I can't think of many good ways to encourage them to try something different. (I've come up with mechanics that did that, but they made it clear they just weren't interested.)



I'd say the last example isn't that hard to include!  OK he's a clutz but _he's good at something_ or he is going to dye pretty soon.  Play to everyone's strengths, don't exclude anything unless it's patently irrelevant.  Again, let their actions and choices decide the results.  Whether they use a skill isn't really the point.



kaomera said:


> I brought up the example of undead, elsewhere. The game I'm running is Dark Sun, and as a result none of the PCs have religion trained (kind of a reasonable assumption, but IMO flawed). Religion happens to be the skill you use for knowing stuff about undead in 4e. The players where a bit upset when I called for Religion checks, which I really didn't expect. I don't think it was a matter that they just didn't want to roll on a low skill, it was the whole basis of the decision no to train religion in the first place, which led them to believe that on Athas undead should be Arcana or something. I think in a way it broke the idea that their character-building decisions actually mattered.



To be pefectly honest I would have simply let them work around the absence of religion.  And if it's a planned SC I would have intentionally provided alternatives.  But I often don't flesh mine out in that much detail.  I like to let the players come up with something inventive and use that.



KarinsDad said:


> Was there much roleplaying at that point?
> 
> Or just some die rolls to finish it up?



Very few die rolls.  A lot of dialogue... They *wanted* to sneak along the top of the cliffs and see what they could see.  IIRC there were two die rolls amongst this additional discussion and interaction.



KarinsDad said:


> Players have fun doing a lot of things. Like, cutting it short and getting back to the real adventure, just as much as continuing on and being railroaded by the DM to finish up a bunch of unnecessary skill checks.



So I railroaded them by adlibbing and letting them explore a course of action that I hadn't planned for?

I guess we have different definitions of the term "railroad" 



KarinsDad said:


> Both can be fun, so your POV here is mistaken. Having the players continue extra dice rolls to finish it out to the nth degree is forcing your will on your players just as much as not doing so.



OK so my extra one die roll for overall success was "going to the nth degree? Railroading? OK well w/e.

So what do you make of the many numerous examples where I decide the PCs actions and roleplaying are sufficient to definitively close the SC, even though the mechanic isn't satisfied?

Yeah I'm a bad, railroading, overly mechanically oriented DM who just doesn't get anything. Thanks mate.



KarinsDad said:


> I personally think that the extra rolls are mostly meaningless and LESS fun for most players, but YMMV.



Oh if you were actually right and not talking off on some unrelated tack you might be right!


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 23, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> I once convinced our DM to do this for a river crossing instead of the skill challenge she originally had set up (one of the WotC SCs btw). 40 feet or so across, the first PC swam it and then each PC after that was roped over (swimming, but pulled over quickly by the PCs on the far bank so that they did not end up drifting downstream too much). The DM didn't bother with rolls beyond the first PC.



Which was probably the right thing to do with a relatively still river on a warm day. but it's dangerous swimming a cold, fast-flowing river (although I would probably allow Take 10, depending on the depth and speed), and at some point the first PC might be holding the second PC against the current (Strength or Endurance check); if the water is frigid, a simple Endurance check to avoid losing a Healing Surge or getting a penalty to your Athletics seems logical as well. You could effortlessly couch such a thing in a simple Skill Challenge and run it in five minutes.

Heroic or not, these are the day-to-day travails of an adventuring sort, and it allows those who have high scores in physical skills to shine at the table (which is very important in-and-of-itself).



> In the name of "excitement" or "fun" or "I want to use a skill challenge", some DMs just throw a lot of extra stuff at players, even if it seems a bit forced (this is often seen in trap layout as well).



Well, is this D&D or not? I kind of get that you would rather hand-waive what you see as non-heroic adventure, and that you see Skill Challenges as artificial padding around things you would rather roll one d20 for and move on? My response to this is simply: SC's should meet your definition of heroic, else don't use them.

For example before the PC's even reach the river you make things much more interesting (whitewater, flooded with debris racing downstream, at the bottom of a gorge with a rotting tree for a bridge, getting smacked in the face by migrating trout, etc.!). As in your previous "roll 5 Nature checks to cross a swamp" complaint, mundane obstacles make for mundane Skill Challenges, so don't make them mundane.



> Instead of climbing the mountain, maybe the PCs will walk around it. If the players come up with a way to avoid the meat and potatoes of a massive skill challenge, the DM should be flexible enough to just let a few skill rolls suffice and move on.



I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that a Skill Challenge can't be avoided or worked around. They represent an obstacle, if the PC's avoid that obstacle or surmount it in unexpected ways, then so be it.



the Jester said:


> Sure. I don't think anyone is arguing that you should use a skill challenge for every out of combat action.



Absolutely not, and yet there are still people out there in other threads who think that Skill Challenges actually replaced skill checks in 4E.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2011)

surfarcher said:


> Yeah I'm a bad, railroading, overly mechanically oriented DM who just doesn't get anything. Thanks mate.




Just like you implied that I force my will on my players regardless of what they want. Thanks mate. The point is, all DMs force their will at points on their players and unless the DM does something really heavy handed, cutting a skill challenge short when it's obvious that with proper tactics, there is no reason for more skill rolls is no more heavy handed than continuing on with the skill challenge.

Yes, having additional skill checks will allow for additional dialog, but it's often mostly meaningless dialog.  There's no deep discussion here at this point. There are no NPCs to have deep discussion with. The players had already solved the problem.

Yes, the players can tell jokes and have fun and maybe even solve some minor little additional obstacles that the DM continues to throw at them. But after the first two PCs got up to the top of the cliff, were the minor additional little obstacles really worth it to continue the skill portion of it?

Isn't it possible that some of the players felt at that point that it was basically over? That they had solved it? Was it necessary to have the last few climb rolls and "Opps, the dwarf fell and took 2D10 damage"?

As a player, I would say "Wait a second". There are 3 of us at the top of the cliff. We can lift without being encumbered 350+ pounds and lift with being encumbered 700+ pounds, but the 300 pound dwarf who has ropes tied to him and is assisting in his own climb is a problem?" To me, that's +15 to the climb skill per PC assisting and an auto-success mate.

And isn't it possible that getting to the next more important portion of the adventure would have been just as much fun or more fun for the players? Are you positive that "Nope, the players had more fun doing it my way" is actually true?

Cause I know that as a player, there sometimes becomes a point in the game where the "set up" to the real adventure is taking too long and I do just want to cut to the chase. This often happens for me when pedestrian things are happening like minor side discussions with unimportant NPCs is occurring, or when players are hashing out multiple ways to accomplish the same thing for a long time, or quite frankly, when the DM explains a skill challenge that seems like it's blown out of proportion or when the DM squeezes out the last few skill rolls for a skill challenge.

The WotC skill challenge of making Nature rolls to walk less than 100 feet north through a woods was a prime example. The first level module actually stated word for word "Any time a character makes a skill check as part of a skill challenge, another character must simultaneously attempt a DC 15 Nature check. If the Nature check fails, the party loses its way and gains 1 failure." I stopped the DM mid-explanation and asked if it was really necessary to have a SC to walk through less than 100 feet of woods. Were we really going to get lost doing that? She more or less realized that just because the SC was in the adventure module didn't mean that it added to the gaming experience.

Walking 100 miles through a wood? Sure, the PCs can get lost. 100 feet???

It was unfortunate that such a BAD SC was in this module because this was a first time DM who didn't have the experience to realize a bad one from a good one. Not that all experienced DMs would have caught it either. I suspect a lot of experienced DMs played that SC exactly how it was written in the module. And a lot of DC 15 Nature skill rolls are bound to be missed at 1st level if the players have to roll Nature each time they roll a different skill, especially if nobody in the party trained the Nature skill. That's a terrible mechanic even if it was 100 miles through the woods.

My opinion is that if WotC modules can have such blatantly bad SCs in them, that many ad hoc and designed SCs from DMs probably have elements in them which players scratch their heads over as well. Your example of forcing the last two PCs to roll the Climb checks when there is enough physical strength above them to just pull the PCs up (plus the PC is climbing as well) is just such an example. IMO.


Another aspect of skill challenges is the "high level" pedestrian challenge. Is it really necessary to have any skill rolls for 10th level PCs to climb that same cliff? These PCs are local heroes. They have climbed half a dozen cliffs by the time they got to 10th level. As DM, a cliff is no longer a challenge. I don't even bother with rolls and I don't bother with an explanation by the players of how they are going to do it. The PCs just say that they are doing it and it's done.

But I suspect that because the skill challenge mechanism is in the game system, many DMs go out of their way to create the 10th level equivalent of the cliff climb challenge.

DM: "The rock on this cliff is really crumbly. It adds +5 DC to the normal climb roll."

I would never do that to my players. At 10th level, they have better things to do than a SC to get over a cliff. A cliff challenge is for low heroic tier.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Feb 23, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> It was unfortunate that such a BAD SC was in this module because this was a first time DM who didn't have the experience to realize a bad one from a good one.




So, there ARE good skill challenges.  I agree with that, but I'm interested to hear how you would define a good challenge?


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2011)

Radiating Gnome said:


> So, there ARE good skill challenges.  I agree with that, but I'm interested to hear how you would define a good challenge?




I think the vast majority of challenges with skills can be handled via a few skill rolls and cut to the chase. Having said that, I do think that there are some elements that most good skill challenges have in common.

1) They have to involve all of the players. There should be at least 4 primary skills in them and the 4+ primary should be a mixture of at least two of the four types of physical, mental, awareness, and interactive skills.

2) They should be designed for the party makeup in mind. When the SC has Endurance and Religion as primary skills and one group has a Paladin with both of these two skills and nobody else has them, whereas the second group has a Fighter with Endurance and a Cleric with Religion, the SC is better designed for the second group than the first. Occasionally, one PC might be left out in the cold with regard to a primary skill, but that should be the exception, not the rule.

3) The SC should be pertinent to the overall adventure and exciting/new for the players. A lot of SCs that are used are more mundane like "sneaking into the town" or "trampsing through the swamp". These are less exciting uses of SCs. Yes, SCs can be used for that, but I think that SCs should be reserved for cool and interesting encounters, not more mundane ones. It's possible to run more mundane SCs at lower levels and more exotic ones at higher levels once the PC's skills start to really improve, but mundane uses of SCs can be boring at low level as well. Exotic SCs should trump mundane SCs because the former is interesting whereas the latter can be boring.

4) SCs should not be used for one specific obstacle of one specific type. For example, they shouldn't be used to climb a cliff. Or cross a river. Or bribe the guard. These should be handled with a few dice rolls. Move on.

5) SCs should not be used just to have X number of SCs per level.

6) SCs should have a significant penalty for failure.

7) SCs should be doable. Since they shouldn't be used a lot, the average dice roll of 10 or even as high as 12 for a primary skill should succeed for most primary skills.

8) The number of dice rolls in SCs should be relatively short. The 12 successes before 3 failures model should rarely be used. 6 successes before 3 failures is better. 9 successes before 3 failures is 11 rolls max for 5 players or 2 per player. That should be the upper end. The roleplaying aspect of SCs can be lengthy, but the number of rolls until success or failure should be relatively few.

9) SCs should be rewarded with XP. If it's important enough to have an SC, it's important enough to reward.

10) SCs should have few Aid Another opportunities. If there are enough primary skills to go around, then most every player has something to do other than just try to help out someone else to shine. Aid Another should be possible in most SCs, but it shouldn't be the only option for some of the players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Radiating Gnome said:


> So, there ARE good skill challenges.  I agree with that, but I'm interested to hear how you would define a good challenge?





Thus far, "the Jester wrote it" is high on my list.

It is part of LostSoul's "Fiction First" hack is also on there.


RC


----------



## Balesir (Feb 23, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> 4) SCs should not be used for one specific obstacle of one specific type. For example, they shouldn't be used to climb a cliff. Or cross a river. Or bribe the guard. These should be handled with a few dice rolls. Move on.
> 
> ...
> 
> 9) SCs should be rewarded with XP. If it's important enough to have an SC, it's important enough to reward.



Several good points in this post, but I would make a small point on these two.  I have used the SC framework for very short, informal rolls in situations where a single roll really doesn't quite cut it, and I think there is scope there for this.  The most recent example was during a much longer, formal skill challenge when one of the PCs wanted to climb a "very tall tree" (to see as far as they could).  A single climb check here would have (a) shortchanged the moment, in that there was some scope for an impressive accomplishment, here, and (b) skewed the probabilities too much - even with pretty good chances the probability of a single failure can be too high - and then what consequences do you impose, given that a 100'+ fall would be plausible?  What I did was a "quick and dirty" SC, 4 success before 3 failures, all on Athletics from the same character.  I would have accepted ideas that used other rituals/powers/skills (another character flew up on an Ebony fly), but all that was really required was "a few dice rolls".  I just found that the simple, basic structure of the SC gave a model to grab for to decide what those "few dice rolls" might mean.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Feb 23, 2011)

Awesome, Karinsdad.  I love skill challenges, and here's how I line up with your points:

1. Agree mostly, unless they will be very quick challenges meant to sketch out a bit of action that only one PC can reasonably get involved with (the rogue scouting out an enemy camp, for example -- a quick SC can make that easy to manage and run in a matter of a minute or two, make it more complex than a single skill check, and let that individual character shine for a moment with his unique skills.) The key is to be mindful of the other players at the table -- they're sitting there blowing spit bubbles while you run the rogue through this, so keep it short and sweet. 

2. Agree 100%, although it's difficult to write customized skill challenges for a print publication meant to serve hundreds of different gamer groups.

3. Agree 100%

4. Agree 100%

5. Agree 100%

6. Agree 100%

7. I almost agree.  I think, just like combat encounters, there's room for skill challenges  that are not a nailbiter every single time.  If you're the sort of DM that doesn't put his players up against combat encounters that are not Level+2 at least, then you probably don't agree that there's a design space for easier skill challenges, either. 

8. My only reservation about this is that I would like to reserve the right to use a much longer skill challenge if I come up with a way that it makes sense... but in 95% of cases skill challenges should be short.  

9. Agree 100% -- I think there should be XP rewards for all kinds of things other than combat.  Doesn't have to be a lot of XP, but there should be some.  If, as DM, you think that's pushing your PCs through the levels too fast, then house rule the XP system and double the amount of XP require to reach each level.  Or something. 

10. I almost agree.  What I would say is that aid another should be allowed in limited ways/occassionaly, and the DC for each skill check should be adjusted if you are going to allow for aid another -- and aid checks should use appropriate DCs.  (I usually add +1 to the DC for every PC that I'll allow assist on a given check).  I also like the idea of using group skill checks instead of a single check with a lot of aid checks if I need a group effort for the scene I'm trying to create. 

So, I agree with you about 90-95%.  I'd add a few conditionals to your black and white rules, but I mostly agree with you.   

What's interesting to me is that we're on opposite sides of the issue.  If I had started this thread, I might have called it "please stop bad skill challenges".  

I use a wide variety of challenges -- some where the PCs see the structure, some where they don't.  Some big, mostly small.  Some handle big plot elements, some handle small tasks.  And, because I'm human and make mistakes, some are better than others, and every once in a while I drop a real stinker on the table.  I start from scratch when I create each challenge, and think about the game and story effects I want to try to create, and I customize the challenge for that. 

I pay attention to the party's skills, but I'm not afraid of pitting the PCs against a challenge for which they must find a creative solution because their skills don't match up exactly with the obvious requirements of the challenge -- of course, that means being flexible and accepting enough of player creativity to allow for those solutions. 

Bottom line, what makes any sort of gaming interesting, IMO, is the idea of giving players choices. The essence of everything is making choices -- even combat.  Which power do I use, which enemy do I attack, do I heal the fighter now or later ... those choices are where player engagement is working. The player and the character's personalities are expressed in those choices.  

So, skill challenges should be built around the idea of creating the same sort of individual and party choices.  If there are no choices there, the skill challenge is dull. If the player has the opportunity to make hard choices, they're engaged.  If the player has the opportunity (and DM acceptance) to make creative choices, the player will remember that skill challenge a year later. 

-rg


----------



## Storminator (Feb 23, 2011)

Last Sunday's session had 3 skill challenges and 2 combats.

The PCs are a bunch of goblins and they're on their way to the rival clan's headquarters to kidnap a weaponsmith. 

Last session the group figured out the general area the smithy is in, so this session was trying to get there without tipping off the clan. I let the group know up front that no matter what the results of the skill challenge, they would get to the smithy - the challenge is to get there with surprise in tact. In previous skill challenges I had given out the list of skills I thought appropriate, with the caveat that I can be convinced to add skills/powers/etc. This time I just said "I have a list of skills I think appropriate." I didn't tell them the list, and instead asked "what do you want to do?" The bard talked a pass phrase out of a local (streetwise), the monk snuck a head and scouted routes (stealth), the cleric inferred the best way from foot traffic patterns (insight), the warden found the exhaust vents from the smithy (dungeoneering), the ranger rigged some ropes to climb down the tunnels around the vents (athletics), the wizard calculated the location of the supply entrance (dungeoneering), and the assassin scouted the door guards (stealth). They arrived at the door without any failures, meaning few and lax guards.

I didn't even announce the second challenge - getting in the front door, navigating the tunnels and entering the smithy. The group RPed out a combination of using the pass phrase, bluffing the guards, killing the guards and navigating the halls, while I kept track of successes and failures and called for the occasional skill check or attack roll.

In the smithy there was a big combat with the smiths, the guards, the reinforcements and the forge fire brought to life. When the bad guys were defeated and the smiths convinced to join the PCs' clan I started the last skill challenge, which was escape the entire clan when the full alarm goes off.

This challenge was complexity 5 (12 successes) as the group ran thru the goblin city escaping their enemies. Again, I didn't suggest any skills, but there was athletics, acrobatics, bluffing down side tunnels, endurance, attack rolls, stealth, thievery to set traps and others I've forgotten. At various points group endurance checks were called for, there was an ambush which I ran as a group attack check, and a trap that made attacks against the PCs. In the end they made it out to "civilization" where they got attacked by a 3rd clan, which stalled them long enough for their enemies to catch up and chase the PCs away.

I'm really liking building the sessions around skill challenges. As an added benefit, with SCs and quests it pads out the XP without forcing me to send fight after fight after fight at the group to get them to level.

PS


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 23, 2011)

Saturday's game had a three-stage skill challenge, run mostly free-form, though using some skill challenges grabbed from around the intarwebs.

The session began with the players emerging from a chamber under the castle reserved for a guarded teleport circle.  They were returning from a lengthy assignment and opened the door to the courtyard to see the castle in flames and panic everywhere.  Before they could do much of anything, the entryway collapsed, leaving flaming rubble and debris blocking the only exit.  The first stage of the challenge?  To escape before burning to death or suffocating from the smoke.

A challenge beaten extremely quickly, as it happened.  The party's illusionist eladrin asked to burn an action point and teleport the entire party 15 feet, which would put them in the courtyard.  DING.  Phase I beaten.

The party was now presented with chaos.  The Lord Captain's house, the barracks and the infirmary tower were all aflame.  Recruits were running around, unsure what to do.  Guardsmen were locked in combat with...something?  The air was smoky and visiblilty low.  Worse, servants were trapped in one of the structures, yelling for help.  The knight immediately took control of the situation and used Intimidate to organize a bucket brigade from the well.  Only problem?  No Buckets!  That's where the rogue ran-off, using his Streetwise skill to retrieve as many as he could find and locate the quartermaster to help.  Quickly they set about fighting the fire.  Meanwhile, the Tiefling Warlock took advantage of her natural fire resistance to get inside the burning building, to try and calm and direct the trapped servants.  Diplomacy, however, failed.  After quickly joking that she could Bluff by saying that it was actually safer outside, she used Intimidate to send them running out the now-safe back entrance where the fire brigade was.  Phase II - Partly Completed.

While they were doing this, the illusionist and shaman managed to catch of glimpse of the attackers: creatures called Madfire Elementals.  Seeing that there were many and defenders were already engaging they made a perception and religion check to figure out how these creatures had breached the castle's magical defenses.  Reasoning that it would have to be outside the castle walls and guessing a location using Nature to judge the origin of the fires, they quickly ran to the main entrance.  Attempting to use a slide power to move one of the creatures and failing, they accepted Opportunity Attacks to reach the main portal and use Arcana to shut it down.  Phase III completed.

The rest of the party managed to use Endurance and Athletics to rescue the patients from the Infirmary.  The rogue retrieved ladders while the warlock leaped through the flames, jumping from building to building.  The knight directed her team and they all helped carry the wounded.  Then they caught up with the other two and the captain, while fighting one of the creatures, dispatched them to the village below.  Phase II completed, Skill Challenge now beaten.

Consequence I: they saved the lives of a great number of the castle's servants and fellow guardsmen.  By saving them, they also freed up the guard's half-fey phsyicker and senior guardsment to the fight, preserving most of the castle structures.   This will have long-term affects.

Consequence II: because they managed to relieve the burden at the castle, the captain was able to spare more than just their squad to protect the village, effectively halving the difficulty of their next encounter, which was to fight and defeat a madfire elemental before it killed any villagers or burned down any structures.  With a second squad of equal ability to take on the the other elemental, they were able to concentrate fire entirely on one and defeat it (and then help the other group finish theirs off).

It was a great deal of fun and we all enjoyed it.


----------



## Kannik (Feb 23, 2011)

surfarcher said:


> Create a scenario with an abjective
> Make some notes on how the PCs could use their resources to achieve their objective
> Define meaningful consequences of success and failure
> Let the PCs decide what their actions are, you tell them the result
> Use the mechanic to figure out where they end up




Which is pretty much how I run my SCs.  KD, this ought to also fall into your request of some actual in-play examples of SCs...

This was an ad-hoc on the fly skill challenge I created for my game this past Sunday: 

The party of three was walking to the docks, when two humanoids jumped down from the rooftops above them and blinked the Monk/Priest and themselves out of existence.  This left the Paladin and the Feylock gaping at what just happened.  (what just happened was the Monk/Priest had been gated/teleported into a pocket dimension of shadow)  I let the players react.  

The Paladin scanned the area (perception) but could find nothing (poor die roll).  The Feylock tasted the air… and tasted magic (arcana roll success).  He could tell something was there, and with his help the paladin could see the shadow (no rolls, no successes).  The feylock pulled out his special magic dagger (one that deals with teleportation, don’t remember the name ) and jammed it into the hovering shadow, attempting to wrench it open (arcana roll success +1 for cool idea).  The paladin channeled one of his radiant encounter powers into the small gap made by the dagger (religion roll for paladin, arcana roll by feylock to guide it, +1 for great use of an encounter power), widening the gap and pulling himself in (second religion roll).  The feylock followed with a teleport (arcana) and the battle was joined inside the pocket dimension (already in progress for the Monk/Priest).

So it looks like there were 8 successes and 1failure.  Similar skills were rolled throughout (perception, religion, arcana) but each use was different, that is, they were called for by me in response to the actions the characters were taking, in this case, searching, tasting (a search of a different way), using a magic item in a way that made sense, using an encounter power that made sense and channeling the power against the shadow walls, climbing or teleporting into the shadow dimension.  So it didn’t feel at all like the same skills were being used repetitively and boringly.  The players were engaged and tense and excited, and felt a good accomplishment when successful.  (and this was considering there were only two PCs participating at the time... I was happy myself it came off well, usually there are more participants)

I didn’t announce it was a skill challenge, and I put it together on the spot using the framework to get a sense of how long to let it go, how difficult to make it (I figured around 8 successes) and what DCs to set the skill checks (they were going against equal level opponents, sometimes what they were doing was either easy, med or hard).  So I created a scenario and, in this case, adjudicated what the players said they were doing, sometimes calling for skill checks, sometimes just letting it be an auto success (or no success), and going for a certain number of success that was at least 7 and ended logically, and avoiding the 3 failures.  

SCs I think have ended up as one of those rules frameworks that can be great or poor, depending on how they’re used in the moment.  Which is why these threads are great – I’ve learned a lot from everyone’s great SC examples.  }:>

Peace,

Kannik


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

I am jumping off this thread, because I don't think I have anything more to add.

I would like to thank everyone, though, for expanding my understanding of skill challenges, and for allowing me to actually appreciate some uses of them (which I did not before).

I would also like to thank the participants for the degree of rational, respectful discourse in the thread.  Sometimes it might feel as though these threads are just bitching and moaning, or that they serve no value.  Well, this thread has value for me, and will remain in my bookmarks.  I expect to steal many future ideas from the Jester and others!

Again, thanks!


RC


----------



## Iron Sky (Feb 23, 2011)

In our group we use a variety of skill challenges depending on the circumstance:

Climbing a cliff? Each player makes an _individual _Complexity 1/2 skill challenge to get up. People who complete theirs before other people can Aid Another to help people that haven't. Fail, you fall.

The thief is breaking into a house and sneaking past the guards? _Individual_ skill challenge with a mix of Thievery, Stealth, Athletics, and attacks to breaking, sneak, climb things, and kill guards without setting off an alarm. Fail, you set of the alarm.

The party is on a disintegrating asteroid-sized ball of magma covered with ice in the Abyss and trying to get to the slowly collapsing tower(and planar gate inside) on the other side of it? Obsidian skill challenge.

Party is trying to hotwire the imperial magitech airship before the elite Dragoon squad that owns it comes back? A Complexity 2 Thievery/Arcana challenge. Fail, the Dragoons come back before its hotwired and you have to fight them.

I've also come up with my Composite Skill System to attempt to make skill challenges more interesting, if anyone is interested in checking it out.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 24, 2011)

I wonder if skill challenges work best when the obstacles faced and the results of actions are necessarily abstract.

Crossing a 50' wide raging river isn't abstract.  You know how wide it is, you can set the current (by giving it a level and an attack modifier against Fort), and what will happen based on different actions is pretty obvious.

Climbing a cliff is easily covered by the Athletics skill and movement rates.

Wilderness travel is covered by a map.

On the other hand, combat is pretty abstract because we're not swinging swords at the table.  I tend to think of social conflict being abstract on the DM's side because I don't always know - or rather, want to know - how a given NPC is going to react to a given PC's words or actions.  (If the DM does know, it's not abstract and there's no reason for skill checks in the first place.)

If I were to say, "This forest hex is haunted; the forest is alive and wants to trap PCs within its twisted paths", and I don't have a map of the entire forest, I think I'd have to handle it in an abstract manner.  I could see running a skill challenge that way.

Something like creating a magic item is also abstract since I don't know how magic works!  A skill challenge could work.

Overland travel can be abstract if you don't have a map.  If I know that crossing the Mountains of Dread is dangerous but I don't have a map of the mountains, I could see using a skill challenge.


Just a thought.


----------



## surfarcher (Feb 24, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> Just like you implied that I force my will on my players regardless of what they want. Thanks mate.




Hang on, here's how I saw it...


I gave an example of how I ran a very small "SC" as a result of party actions.
You said I overdid it and would have called things off as soon as 2 PCs got to the top of the cliff.  That I was throwing in extra rolls and making them play through a mechanic they didn't want to play through.  That it's like forcing a fight to finish even tho there's only 3 mionions on the board.
I responded that it's what the group was intent on doing and they were being enthusiastic about that.  I tried to make the point that "cutting it short" here would, effecively, be railroading.
*In retrospect I seem to have offended you at this point by asking a rhetorical question.  That wasn't my intent and I unconditionally apologise for the inadvertant offense.*
You continued to indicate that I was forcing rolls on the players and invoked "railroading".
I was mildly miffed at your response to my last post and it showed.  *Apologies again.*
I guess you can't identify there but I can live with that. Let's just put it behind us.



KarinsDad said:


> The point is, all DMs force their will at  points on their players and unless the DM does something really heavy  handed, cutting a skill challenge short when it's obvious that with  proper tactics, there is no reason for more skill rolls is no more heavy  handed than continuing on with the skill challenge.



I think you see SCs as very hard and visible structures.  As a simple tracking and accounting mechanic it can be very powerful for adlibbing and building the story on the fly.

You didn't like the way I made one or two rolls.  Fine.  Pretend they didn't happen.  Go onto the skills, actions and whateverthat the PCs used.  It's no big thing.

It's a tool.  There was a dialog.  We had fun.  The PCs enjoyed it.  At least I assume they enjoyed it based on the comments afterwards... Continuing comments. It was out of the box.  The way I used the mechanic was a massive factor in stremlining and directing all of that.

Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on that one.



KarinsDad said:


> Yes, having additional skill checks will allow for additional dialog, but it's often mostly meaningless dialog.  There's no deep discussion here at this point. There are no NPCs to have deep discussion with. The players had already solved the problem.



Overall the player's objective was to get behind expected enemies and surprise them.  They employed certain things including skills but also other actions, such as the creative use of powers and out-of-the-box thinking, to achieve their successes.

TBH I don't know why you are so hooked up on the "skills" aspect.  It's only on way to count a success or failure.



KarinsDad said:


> Yes, the players can tell jokes and have fun and maybe even solve some minor little additional obstacles that the DM continues to throw at them. But after the first two PCs got up to the top of the cliff, were the minor additional little obstacles really worth it to continue the skill portion of it?
> 
> Isn't it possible that some of the players felt at that point that it was basically over? That they had solved it? Was it necessary to have the last few climb rolls and "Opps, the dwarf fell and took 2D10 damage"?
> 
> As a player, I would say "Wait a second". There are 3 of us at the top of the cliff. We can lift without being encumbered 350+ pounds and lift with being encumbered 700+ pounds, but the 300 pound dwarf who has ropes tied to him and is assisting in his own climb is a problem?" To me, that's +15 to the climb skill per PC assisting and an auto-success mate.




Maybe. Maybe they could have been discarded.  There was a stealth check  and other actions after that that I could have used instead.  Criticise  my implementation if you like.  

To be honest it really just seems you just aren't interested in the point I'm trying to make.  That you want to be heard to the exclusion of any alternative.



KarinsDad said:


> And isn't it possible that getting to the next more important portion of the adventure would have been just as much fun or more fun for the players? Are you positive that "Nope, the players had more fun doing it my way" is actually true?



That might be true if I was driving it.  But I wasn't. They were.



KarinsDad said:


> Cause I know that as a player, there sometimes becomes a point in the game where the "set up" to the real adventure is taking too long and I do just want to cut to the chase. This often happens for me when pedestrian things are happening like minor side discussions with unimportant NPCs is occurring, or when players are hashing out multiple ways to accomplish the same thing for a long time, or quite frankly, when the DM explains a skill challenge that seems like it's blown out of proportion or when the DM squeezes out the last few skill rolls for a skill challenge.



Sure.  And there are times when you are in the middle of the adventure.  Like when you are past the initial encounters in an outdoor adventure.  And you decide to climb a cliff to surprise the next bad guys.

But you are obviously right.  When they got to the top of the cliff and asked "What do we see?!? Is there a path leading that way?!?"  

I should have said "Oh forget about that of course there's a path.  You get around behind them and have surprise. Combat on!"

Obviously answerring "There's a ledge leading in that direction. What do you guys want to do?" was a horrible, terrible railroading thing to do.



KarinsDad said:


> The WotC skill challenge of making Nature rolls to walk less than 100 feet north through a woods was a prime example. The first level module actually stated word for word "Any time a character makes a skill check as part of a skill challenge, another character must simultaneously attempt a DC 15 Nature check. If the Nature check fails, the party loses its way and gains 1 failure." I stopped the DM mid-explanation and asked if it was really necessary to have a SC to walk through less than 100 feet of woods. Were we really going to get lost doing that? She more or less realized that just because the SC was in the adventure module didn't mean that it added to the gaming experience.
> 
> Walking 100 miles through a wood? Sure, the PCs can get lost. 100 feet???



I agree with you there.



KarinsDad said:


> It was unfortunate that such a BAD SC was in this module because this was a first time DM who didn't have the experience to realize a bad one from a good one. Not that all experienced DMs would have caught it either. I suspect a lot of experienced DMs played that SC exactly how it was written in the module. And a lot of DC 15 Nature skill rolls are bound to be missed at 1st level if the players have to roll Nature each time they roll a different skill, especially if nobody in the party trained the Nature skill. That's a terrible mechanic even if it was 100 miles through the woods.



I agree with you here too.



KarinsDad said:


> My opinion is that if WotC modules can have such blatantly bad SCs in them, that many ad hoc and designed SCs from DMs probably have elements in them which players scratch their heads over as well. Your example of forcing the last two PCs to roll the Climb checks when there is enough physical strength above them to just pull the PCs up (plus the PC is climbing as well) is just such an example. IMO.



As I said you can criticise my implementation all you like.  It's unfortunate that you don't care to listen to what I am trying to say and instead picking at details.  Some people are like that tho.



KarinsDad said:


> Another aspect of skill challenges is the "high level" pedestrian challenge. Is it really necessary to have any skill rolls for 10th level PCs to climb that same cliff? These PCs are local heroes. They have climbed half a dozen cliffs by the time they got to 10th level. As DM, a cliff is no longer a challenge. I don't even bother with rolls and I don't bother with an explanation by the players of how they are going to do it. The PCs just say that they are doing it and it's done.
> 
> But I suspect that because the skill challenge mechanism is in the game system, many DMs go out of their way to create the 10th level equivalent of the cliff climb challenge.
> 
> ...



Anyone who has done that hasn't read DMG2. Honestly. It's terrible.





KarinsDad said:


> I think the vast majority of challenges with  skills can be handled via a few skill rolls and cut to the chase. Having  said that, I do think that there are some elements that most good skill  challenges have in common.
> 
> 1) They have to involve all of the players. There should be at least 4  primary skills in them and the 4+ primary should be a mixture of at  least two of the four types of physical, mental, awareness, and  interactive skills.
> 
> ...snip...



A lot of good stuff in there.  But I honestly think you've missed the boat in using the mechanic as a tracking mechanic.

Keep using your big SCs in the way you've described.  You have a good handle on that aspect.  When your mind is open to being more flexible to using the mechanic as a tracking and accounting tool that is a great help with adlibbing I'm here waiting to talk to you about it.

I'll be switch to lurk mode on this one soon folks.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 24, 2011)

surfarcher said:


> I guess you can't identify there but I can live with that.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




I didn't realize that I was the subject of the discussion.

The word "you" can be overused, just like skill challenges.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 24, 2011)

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] and [MENTION=84774]surfarcher[/MENTION], please drop it? This has been a great thread, let's not book-end it with a pissing match.


----------



## Balesir (Feb 24, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I wonder if skill challenges work best when the obstacles faced and the results of actions are necessarily abstract.
> 
> Crossing a 50' wide raging river isn't abstract.  You know how wide it is, you can set the current (by giving it a level and an attack modifier against Fort), and what will happen based on different actions is pretty obvious.
> 
> ...



This is an interesting conjecture, but I think I would modify/detail it a bit as follows:

"Skill Challenges are useful where you have no map _that adequately represents the difficulties the characters will face_".

As an example, I can have a topographical map of a swamp or forest, but that does nothing to indicate precisely how the view that travellers get from the ground while traversing it misleads and confuses them into wandering off course.  The social case is clear, since mostly we don't have 'maps' of the phsychological "terrain" that must be navigated to 'win' the situation.  Climbing a cliff is also pretty banal if the map just says "this is cliff face" when real cliff faces present a whole array of difficulties to select a route through.

For hybrid cases, running Skill Challenges on a grid with tasks required at various locations (whatever these might represent) seems a good option.  Monstro, on the Wizards Community site, has written a nice blog about doing just this.


----------



## That Darn DM (Feb 24, 2011)

First post here, so here goes.

I, myself, are against skill checks in general, because I enjoy the theatrics and role-playing that it creates, but I do understand someone who does not enjoy the idea of role-playing every single encounter.  I'm in a Legend of the 5 Rings game right now, and I know nothing of the setting and the game requires a seriously proactive style of play, where role-playing and reading up about a person's role in Rokugan society is instrumental to his success in the game.  I'm not comfortable with everything I say, but my DM can see the effort and the sometimes "zen" moments I have.

Drawing back to the first reply to this thread, about the "Barbarian played by a car salesman" I think that is a very weak conclusion.  I don't think a player should be punished for merely rolling dice, but I don't think a player should be rewarded either.  There's no effort or thinking in rolling dice.  I do think if said "car salesman" is not playing his Barbarian properly, he should not be rewarded either.

Players should only be rewarded when that 20 appears, when they are clever, or when they work together.  If it does not fall into any of these three occurrences, then Mr. Car Salesman shouldn't receive any reward.  This isn't what the argument has roamed to, I understand, I just wanted to get that out of the way from the get go, but to be fair, I understand where that poster was coming from and I think if a person is not comfortable getting into the role, they shouldn't have to.  If they think of something clever and say it detached from the role to the DM, such as:

"I mention the bandits we slain to the guard a month ago."

Things like that, coupled with skill checks should get rewarded (such as a bonus to skill checks; and role-playing with skill checks can be an answer as well, whatever feels comfortable), but the effort still needs to be there.  Lack of trying and relying on numbers is what really breaks the game for me.

About the Skill Checks system in general: I still haven't seen a skill system that really makes me jump with joy, but 4e's is pretty much the best I've seen.  Granted, most of it is from the Star Wars game, but not a bad thing, and this skill challenge idea is a welcome original.

If I ran a 4e game, I would think the best way to use the Skill Challenge system would definitely be the above "abstract" ideal largely taking into account the fourth dimension (*Snort* Nerd joke... since it's 4e with the 4d... what?).  When passages of time are detrimental to know--fill your own situation here--that's when I see this system really shining.  Otherwise, I think it really would be a good excuse for those DMs that want to aid the players in moving a game along or when dice don't like them.

"Roll"

"I got a 3"

"Uh, skill challenge, you get two more chances."

It's the archaic "Best two out of three" joke, but it works.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Feb 24, 2011)

Since we're sharing examples .... here's something I've done once in a while to leverage the basic skill challenge mechanic to represent a variety of challenges as the party makes their way on a complex journey -- and makes choices along the way.  I'll warn you now this one is on the "mechanical" side of the fence, designed to give the players some tough strategic choices and a way to strategically game the system.

The basic idea works like this.  Each "round" in the skill challenge represents 12 hours.  The PCs can make a single skill check, with a specific skill (or choice of skills) to succeed on that check and advance one step on their journey.  

Failure on that skill check just means delays that prevent them from completing that leg of the trip. Usually there's a ticking clock -- the party has a week to complete a journey that will require about 8 successes, etc.  

In each round there are a handful of other skill checks that the party has to make.  And, in each round each PC can only make one skill check.  I've created a blank form I use (attached) to represent each round of the challenge.  It uses big enough spaces for me to write in things like the skill options for primary skill checks, a single possible assist skill check for each primary skill, and then some secondary skills (I'll explain those below). The form is big enough that I can have the PCs place their minis on the sheet on the skill check they'll make in that particular round. 

Primary skill checks include the navigation skill check (do you complete this leg of the journey), a check to avoid combat (I'll specify the typical of risk along the way -- bandits, monsters, pirates, etc) and a check to overcome specific hazards (cliffs, fording rivers, enduring elements, discovery by enemies looking for pcs traveling incognito, picking up some nasty disease, etc).  There's a possible assist check on each, usually using a different skill.  As the DM completes each form, he also describes the estimated difficulty of the check - based on the general information the PCs can be expected to have about the path ahead.

Consequences for failing primary checks try to be steep.  Obviously, the PCs don't advance if the navigation check fails.  If the PCs fail a hazard check or a combat check, they suffer some sort of abstract loss of resources or abilities.  They might lose some healing surges, have to make saves to keep each of their dailies, etc.  These losses are only recovered if they take a round off in the journey to take an extended rest (see below on the map discussion).

Secondary skill checks are skill checks that PCs can decide to make that might win them some sort of extra benefit along the way -- a new clue, maybe a cache of consumables they can use, unlock a short cut in the next leg of the journey, etc.  Anything I feel like throwing in. Also, once you get the players used to the concept of this type of travel challenge, you should also encourage the PCs to define their own secondary skill checks.  What are they hoping to pick up along the way? Information? Resources? Support?

So, in each "round" the pcs get a sheet to work with, figuring out which PC will make the skill checks available to them on the sheet. They get to make stratgic choices as a group that way.  

To finish the whole thing off, though, I build an abstract map of the region the PCs are traveling so that, for each round (or perhaps sequence of rounds) the PCs have choices to make as to which set of challenges to take on as they try to make their way.  Also on that map are locations where there are key locations the PCs can arrive at along the way -- villages where they might be able to take an extended rest safely, choke points where they can be sure to face some sort of combat encounter with forces that want to prevent them from reaching their goal, etc.  

So, in play, the PCs get to study the map and decide which road they would like to take, based on the descriptions and rumors they pick up along the way.  Do they take the roads, where the navigation checks are easier, but it's damn hard to avoid being spotted by the enemies looking for them?  Do they go offroad, through the swamps, and risk malaria and crocodiles along the way?  Looking ahead down the paths they choose, do they take the short path through the mountain choke point where the enemy is certainly lying in ambush for them?  Or do they take the long way around, sacrificing opportunities to rest and recover so they can reach their destination in time?  

I usually salt the map with encounters along the way to break up the challenge -- the party can make their way through a few checks, reach a village, and then run into a party of imperial guards hunting for them who have chosen the same tavern to rest in.  Or something like that.  

So... it's very mechanical, very much a game to play, rather than RP and narrative.  That's something that my group really likes (we're a somewhat low-RP, high-strategic gamer group, usually).  What I like about it is that it does an excellent job of two things:

1. Giving the players a variety of meaningful choices to make in something other than combat
2. Creates a very real sense of the distance and the environments the PCs are traveling through.  

That sense of distance thing is huge.  The last time I used this, it was a structure to represent the party's quest through the underdark to strike three locations and capture three artifacts in fortnight, so the artifacts could be used to stop some big bad ritual the bad guys were doing.  It became clear, after a few failed checks and problems along the way, that they didn't have enough time -- even pushing it and traveling for 24 or 36 hours at a time between rest breaks. So they hard to start using secondary checks along the way for an alternative way home.  As DM, I had to add another location they "discovered" along the way where there was a prepared teleportation circle they could use to short cut their journey home -- it was enough to let them still succeed, but they still had to push it.

I think this whole idea is best used fairly loosely.  

So, as an example, lets imagine a journey the PCs are taking across unfriendly (but not hostile) territory to reach a distant city with a pair of jeweled charms necessary to protect the reputation of the queen (Three Musketeers Fans, anyone?)

The challenge starts with the PCs having disembarked in a small port town.  They have two choices at this point -- the main trade road towards the capital, or cutting overland through coastal swamps.  

Here's how I'd fill out the sheets for the two options for the first round of their challenge (note that I don't usually let the PCs see what the actual penalty for failure is until they fail, but the rest is shared with the PCs):

*The Trade Road*

Primary Checks:
Navigation: Staying on the main road isn't hard. 
  Check: Easy History or Nature
  Assist: Medium Streetwise of Bluff
  [Fail: The party doesn't reach the next town. (Repeat this challenge or try the alternative, in this Cut through the Swamps)]
Avoid Combat: The Cardinal probably has agents looking for you on the roads.  You'll need to avoid them. 
  Check: Medium Stealth or Perception
  Assist: Medium Intimidate
  [Fail: You are ambushed by the cardinal's agents. Each PC loses 1d8 healing surges.]
Hazards: Avoid being cheated by hostlers along the way.  
  Check: Medium Intimidate or Diplomacy
  Assist: Streetwise or Athletics
  [Fail: Lose Lvl x 5 GP each]

Suggested Seconary Skill Checks:
Streetwise or Insight: Pick up some clues about where the cardinal's men are waiting in ambush along the road ahead
Reltion or Arcana: Look for a way to confuse magical efforts to track the party.


*Cut Through The Swamps*

To evade the cardinal's men, you cut overland through a mosquito-infested swamp to reach another town, and another road towards the capital, one the Cardinal won't expect to find you on. 

Navigation: You pick your way through the swamp, along game trails when you're lucky, and through the much when you're not.
  Check: Hard Nature
  Assist: Medium Perception
  [Fail: The party gets lost. (Repeat this challenge)]
Avoid Combat: You avoid encounters with the nastiest monsters in the swamp
  Check: Medium Stealth 
  Assist: Medium Nature or Perception
Avoid Hazards: This place is a haven for all kinds of diseases.  
  Check: Medium Heal
  Assist: Medium Endurance
  Fail: Each PC catches Trench Foot (disease, initial condition = -1 speed)

Suggested Secondary Skill Checks:
Nature - Find some helpful alchemical ingredients
Streetwise - find a bandit's hideout and find out some rumors.


----------



## Fox Lee (Feb 25, 2011)

That Darn DM said:


> Players should only be rewarded when that 20 appears, when they are clever, or when they work together.  If it does not fall into any of these three occurrences, then Mr. Car Salesman shouldn't receive any reward.




That seems awfully inappropriate to me. By reading that as written, a character basically can't acheive anything on their own unless they get a natural 20 or do something "clever". What if this isn't a circumstance that requires "clever"?

For example, what if my barbarian is trying to uproot a tree by sheer amazing power? All I want to know is whether or not she manages to yank that sucker out of the ground. I don't want her to do something "clever", because she's not here to be clever; I just want her to show off her strength. Of course I want her to succeed, but I don't want the GM to just say "yes", since the whole point of a game _system_ is to have a random element provided by dice. The chance to fail is what makes success interesting. So, I'd like to roll a strength check, please.

This situation is both in-character, and within the scope of the game rules. But, by your words, she shouldn't be rewarded unless she rolls a natural 20, since she is neither working with the group or being clever. Now, that may be how you want to play a game, but it isn't how D&D works.


----------



## That Darn DM (Feb 25, 2011)

Fox Lee said:


> That seems awfully inappropriate to me. By reading that as written, a character basically can't acheive anything on their own unless they get a natural 20 or do something "clever". What if this isn't a circumstance that requires "clever"?
> 
> For example, what if my barbarian is trying to uproot a tree by sheer amazing power? All I want to know is whether or not she manages to yank that sucker out of the ground. I don't want her to do something "clever", because she's not here to be clever; I just want her to show off her strength. Of course I want her to succeed, but I don't want the GM to just say "yes", since the whole point of a game _system_ is to have a random element provided by dice. The chance to fail is what makes success interesting. So, I'd like to roll a strength check, please.
> 
> This situation is both in-character, and within the scope of the game rules. But, by your words, she shouldn't be rewarded unless she rolls a natural 20, since she is neither working with the group or being clever. Now, that may be how you want to play a game, but it isn't how D&D works.




"Clever" is more critical on the player than the task.  It isn't about the character being a clever person, but the player being a clever participant.  

A tribe of barbarians is not without the most basic forms of technology (not space-age and such.  Technology as in the most original term.  Such as apes using plants and sticks to get ants out of antmounds.  This is a form of technology.), a barbarian shouldn't be rewarded, in my mind, for merely saying "I use my raw strength to pull the tree out of the ground".

That's a knee-jerk reaction and merely a roll.  But should a player inquire about a digging utensil or use her magic sword to push the tree out of the ground via leverage, that's being clever.  Using simple and basic forms.

I suppose, one could argue that the Barbarian, if of simple mind, would not use this method and that the "role-playing" takes priority, but the action described is neanderthal level.  Heck, surprising to me is that two of the most famous barbarians, Conan and Tarzan, are well known for being quite crafty.  I am speaking about the books of Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs, respectively.  (Although, Conan was more a Rogue/Thief than a Barbarian.  That's me rambling and discrediting myself at the same time.)

And yet, I'm plagued with the idea of "what if?".  If the Barbarian was tearing the stump out of the ground as a show of strength to put the fear of death in a evil henchman for information.  Yes, that's clever.  If the Barbarian tore the stump out of the ground to create a hiding place and to put the tree back somehow, that's clever.  

Simply put: "Clever" is in the application of the players using the characters, not how the characters act.

EDIT: Oh!  And reward does not mean success.  I mean reward as in a +2 to the roll or Ad-Hoc XP bonus.  Success can always be gained by the character's innate skill, but rewards and greater chance of success ought to be handed out when the player thinks.


----------



## Fox Lee (Feb 26, 2011)

That Darn DM said:


> And yet, I'm plagued with the idea of "what if?".  If the Barbarian was tearing the stump out of the ground as a show of strength to put the fear of death in a evil henchman for information.  Yes, that's clever.  If the Barbarian tore the stump out of the ground to create a hiding place and to put the tree back somehow, that's clever.



That's more what I'm getting at; the point of the example was that using brute strength was the goal of the exercise _as well as_ the means to move a tree. Though, it's worth noting that if somebody makes a big strong barbarian, it may be because they _want_ to be able to approach strength-related problems in a very physical manner, which is neither bad nor wrong per se.

I guess my basic point is that creativity is extremely valuable, but characters built under a system like 4e act in a mechanically reliable fashion, and this is often important to the players. I would go so far as to say that if the rules become _un_reliable, it can hurt roleplay and especially enthusiasm; if you feel like the rules (or the way the GM is using them) are undermining your character, it can really bring down your desire to interact with the game world or play that character in an interesting fashion.

That's not to say that characters should always succeed, of course, but they should generally understand their odds. If I make a character who's supposed to be an unshakeable monolith, but I screw up building her and she's no good at resisting mes effects, my roleplaying her as a stoic badass is going to seem like false confidence at best - a very different character to what I wanted to play. Of course, in that case it would be my fault, but that same thing can also happen - quite easily - if the rules stop working the way the book says they work.

*TLDR:* Creativity has value, but a predictable baseline is essential to this system.



> EDIT: Oh!  And reward does not mean success.  I mean reward as in a +2 to the roll or Ad-Hoc XP bonus.  Success can always be gained by the character's innate skill, but rewards and greater chance of success ought to be handed out when the player thinks.



Ahh, _that_ does change things considerably. Success in my mind is part of "reward", but if you meant it as a distinctly separate term, what you said seems much more reasonable.


----------

