[4E] talking skill challenges - bad for roleplaying?

[holywhippet]

Something occured to me regarding my groups last 4E session. Our DM gave us a skill challenge in the form of a guard patrol who were were trying to talk our way past. Problem was, only my warlord had trained diplomacy. The other players couldn't help themselves and chipped in with their contributions. So inevitably the DM would ask for their diplomacy/bluff roll which they always failed.

This is kind of a contrast to 2/3E where most talking was handled by roleplaying rather than using the dice. If you are facing a skill challenge the low diplomacy/bluff characters are best off shutting up - but you'd expect them to talk up under normal circumstances.

[Dairun Cates]

It's almost exactly the same. Nothing's keeping you from sweeping it under the rug with role-playing advantages. There's no rule for that in 2E/3.5 either. It's just common sense.

Edit: In short, if your GM is doing this in 3.5, there's no reason he would do it in 3.5, and if he does, that's REALLY weird.

[cupkeyk]

A better way this could have run is if your warlord made all the rolls and your allies made attempts to assist you(+2 to your roll, flat 10 DC)

[jmbrown]

This is kind of a contrast to 2/3E where most talking was handled by roleplaying rather than using the dice. If you are facing a skill challenge the low diplomacy/bluff characters are best off shutting up - but you'd expect them to talk up under normal circumstances.

You still had diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills in 3E and they had their place. Last time I checked, other players didn't have to participate in a skill challenge so like cupkeyk said they should assist the strong member by putting in their own two cents when called for.

[Crow]

Pretty much just ignore the part about party members helping and it works kindof okay, but still ruins immersion.

The problem I have with them in social situations is that they work better if nobody says anything in character. If the players explain themselves in character, they end up making a good case on the first one or two rolls, and then end up repeating themselves or not having anything good to say on the rolls that follow.

It almost only works if the character says "I try to talk my way past the guard.". Then the DM says something like "He's still not convinced.". "Okay, I will try to state our case in a different way."

Skill challenges for environmental challenges, elaborate traps, etc. work fine. Social skill challenges though are pretty clunky and really ruin the immersion. All you really need is one diplomacy roll in most cases. Just let the players state their case, and give a bonus or penalty to their diplomacy roll depending on their case/circumstances.

[cupkeyk]

I think we got the idea from V:tM and homebrewed it into our 3.5 games and now 4.0. Basically we talk in character, pc with best mods make the check, the rest assists, if what we had to say (if any, some people play dumb fighters because they aren't eloqent in RL, I like bard because I am unnecessarily verbose in RL) is effective/impressive/relevant in the given situation, we get an additional +2 circumstance modifer. We could also possibly get a -2 circumstance modifier if we say something stupid.

[jmbrown]

Pretty much just ignore the part about party members helping and it works kindof okay, but still ruins immersion.

The problem I have with them in social situations is that they work better if nobody says anything in character. If the players explain themselves in character, they end up making a good case on the first one or two rolls, and then end up repeating themselves or not having anything good to say on the rolls that follow.

It almost only works if the character says "I try to talk my way past the guard.". Then the DM says something like "He's still not convinced.". "Okay, I will try to state our case in a different way."

Skill challenges for environmental challenges, elaborate traps, etc. work fine. Social skill challenges though are pretty clunky and really ruin the immersion. All you really need is one diplomacy roll in most cases. Just let the players state their case, and give a bonus or penalty to their diplomacy roll depending on their case/circumstances.

Ironically (or maybe coincidentally) you just described how debates work. You present your case, the opponent rebuttals, you refute his rebuttal, the opponent presents his closing argument, you close and the judge decides the outcome. If you lose, you can't present the same case. It's like trying to plead not-guilty to a crime you were already convicted of. Debates lost 5-10 minutes and involve hours of research. Trying to debate a bored gate guard is asking for failure.

I agree that social skill challenges shouldn't be used or at least not in quick 1 minute encounters. A social skill challenge should be something lengthy like a trial or war meeting. When you present your case, you should have the most charismatic person speaking while the most knowledgeable person presents evidence, facts, and figures.

Trying to convince the guards to let you past the front gate should be a flat diplomacy roll, not a experience rewarding skill challenge. Trying to convince a tribunal that you're innocent on all counts of larceny and theft should be a skill challenge.

[Kurald Galain]

Something occured to me regarding my groups last 4E session. Our DM gave us a skill challenge in the form of a guard patrol who were were trying to talk our way past. Problem was, only my warlord had trained diplomacy. The other players couldn't help themselves and chipped in with their contributions. So inevitably the DM would ask for their diplomacy/bluff roll which they always failed.
It is commonly assumed for skill challenges that (1) all characters must participate, and (2) by "participate" we mean "use one of the skills on your character sheet". It is easy to see that if a character uses a skill that they aren't very good at, they significantly increase the chance of failure for the skill challenges.

It is easy for the above assumptions to lead to one of the following problems:
(A) The characters will fail most skill challenges, as you seem to be experiencing. This means the characters are penalized for roleplaying well.
(B) The skill challenge has trivial consequences for failure (e.g. "lose a healing surge"), and both success and failure will lead to the same event in the plot. This is extremely common in RPGA adventures, and it means the SC is meaningless.
(C) The skill DCs are lowered to the point that characters simply won't fail. This is a recent suggestion by RPGA staff; if most characters aren't capable of climbing a wall, make the walls easier to climb. This means that specializing in a skill is meaningless.
(D) Regardless of the situation, the players will invent an excuse (plausible or not) for why their highest skill applies to whatever the current situation is, and try to fast talk the DM into accepting this. This means the players are rewarded for metagaming; it works but breaks immersion.

It is by no means impossible to avoid these four pitfalls, but it does mean that the recommendations for how to do it "right" are much, much longer than the rules on skill challenges. Overall they're one of the biggest points of contention in the 4E rulebook, and this and the WOTC boards get weekly threads about how badly they allegedly suck. The best advice is that if they bother you, it is very easy to simply don't use them ever.

[Colmarr]

(A) The characters will fail most skill challenges, as you seem to be experiencing. This means the characters are penalized for roleplaying well.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If the players are failing, it generally means they are using skills their characters are not good at. If a player of a character that is not trained in Diplomacy and/or has a low Charisma purports to present a convincing argument to the town guard, how is that good roleplaying? Surely it's the antithesis of good roleplaying...

If such players must come up with those arguments, they should be funnelling them to the PCs with appropriate skills by way of aid another.

But that issue aside, I agree with the general feeling in this thread that complex skill challenges don't appear to handle concise discussions terribly well. I personally believe that a conversation-based skill challenge should never be more than complexity 1 unless there are numerous issues (across a wide field of topics) to discuss or the discussion involves long negotiations over a period of time.

[Katana_Geldar]

I've used skill challenges by accident in Star Wars saga and was very surprised when I read about them in the DM's guide months later, but I always took a multi-pronged approach.

1. I considered what skills my players were trained in and what skills they are willing to use. Relying on that one player trained in Diplomacy/Persuade is not always a good idea, particularly if everyone else has abysmally poor charisma.
2. About three alternatives to the skill challenge. They need to find information about the prison theya re going to break into. Okay...they Persuade an NPC to tell them, or they can get it off a computer, or steal uniforms and attempt to inflitrate the place itself. Give the players a few ideas and they'll choose the ones they know they can roll well with.

With skills in D&D, it's a little easier as there's not just one Charisma-based skill. The DMG talks about these alternatives with a talking skill challenge.

There's more than one way to kill a cat than hitting it with a horn porridge spoon and breaking the spoon into the bargain.

My favourite skill challenge I made involved swimming, a series of Endurance checks, and this was way before I read the DMG.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If the players are failing, it generally means they are using skills their characters are not good at.
Yes. The problem results from the assumption that all players must participate in the skill challenge.

This assumption is by no means universal, but at least one version of the skill challenge rules mandates that every player does something. If you must do something, and your character has no skills that actually apply to the situation, then you must either do something you're not good at (and likely fail), or fast talk the DM (which the SC rules strongly reward anyway).

[Leolo]

I believe that skill challenges are challenges for DMs.

Because they encourage them to find a way for all players to participate.

A Skill challenge where only one type of skill(s) may help is not a good skill challenge. In the encounter with the guard patrol there are multiple possibilities for additional skills.

Maybe the players could simple run away and changing the type of the skillchallenge to a chase, including skill checks for athletic or endurance? Maybe the players could also check if the guard is corrupt (a streetwise check would help), or superstitious (let the mage check for guarding talismans).

Of course: Diplomacy and Bluff (plus Intimidate) are key skills if you are negotiating with some person. But they are by far not the only ways to contribute to the success for the players.

As said above: To find these ways, to provide them to the players and to plan ahead with them means you have done your job well as a DM creating a skillchallenge.

In general, there have to be said some other thing: If your player characters are bad at bluffing and negotiating and neither are charismatic then maybe it is not bad roleplaying if they fail at it. And would only make the character concepts they are playing less meaningfull if the DM ignores this attributes.

If you want that role playing the negotiation contributes to the success of a skillchallenge as much as a good skillcheck does - skill challenges provide you some remarkable advantage, too.

Because you are not only doing one skillcheck (but many of them) you can grant access to some only by roleplaying or by raising the issue in the discussion. Imagine two kingdoms, treating each other as enemies. You are negotiating with one king for peace and talk about the history of both kingdoms, and the reasons for the war. That is not only far better than making only a diplomacy check without describing it. It also open up some new possible skill checks. Maybe your insight tells you that the advisor of the king seems to know more about this events? Maybe your history check allows you to go further and remind the king for his personal friendship with his opponent during their childhood?

If you encourage your players to search such additional skills in the skillchallenge they will have more fun with it. And more benefit from good role playing.

[dsmiles]

Skill challenges for environmental challenges, elaborate traps, etc. work fine. Social skill challenges though are pretty clunky and really ruin the immersion.

Agreed.
However, even in 4e, I still run my social skills primarily through role-play. Wanna talk your way past the guards? Talk your way through me (if the guards have a low "sense motive" ability, as most fighter-types do, it won't be very hard).
I use social skill challenges for "degree-based success." Want a discount on that "slightly used" longsword? Probably gonna roll for it. The better your check result, the more of a discount you'll get.

[Kurald Galain]

If you encourage your players to search such additional skills in the skillchallenge they will have more fun with it. And more benefit from good role playing.

Sure, as long as you consider "always using the skill with the biggest plus on your character sheet" to be good roleplaying.

[Leolo]

Sure, as long as you consider "always using the skill with the biggest plus on your character sheet" to be good roleplaying.

I would consider this as tactical stupid. Because of the skill difficulty may vary. And the skill with your highest bonus is simple not always the best solution for every problem.

And because - as said above - additional skills can be released by role playing in this proposal, so having a high bonus to one skill will not help without the right idea how to use it.

[lesser_minion]

I think skill challenges are a pretty difficult issue.

Talking your way past a gate guard isn't important enough for a skill challenge, as noted.

The implementation of skill challenges in the book is a little borked, mainly in the name of simplicity.

In many skill challenges, you are interested in how well the players do - there should be different degrees of success. A variant to handle that could be to have a fixed number of risks taken before the challenge is over, but the real issue is to get a feel for how well the party has done.

If you're rolling dice, there is no way to advance your goals directly without taking risks. If a skill check has no apparent risks, then it should not provide a direct benefit. If such skills seem crucial to your skill challenge, then you're actually dealing with general exploration, not a noncombat encounter.

If you've assigned a penalty like injury to a failed skill check, it shouldn't necessarily contribute to failure of the entire challenge. Only if you make the external situation worse - accidentally offending the duke, or alerting a guard - should you contribute a failure.

Risk-free skill usages are secondary - generally, they provide information (potentially allowing players to come up with new skill usages, or providing a bonus to certain skills) or other minor benefits. Generally, risk-free skills have their own limits - either they take up time that the group may not have, or there is only so much that can be achieved with them.

I haven't actually run 4e (or even played it), so this is pure theory, but I think those make sense. They feel like reasonable guidelines on how to avoid the main skill challenge issues, at least.

[Kurald Galain]

I would consider this as tactical stupid. Because of the skill difficulty may vary. And the skill with your highest bonus is simple not always the best solution for every problem.
Really? Because unless you know the skill difficulties in advance (and I've never had a DM tell those in advance) it strikes me as tactically sound to use the skill with the highest positive modifier.


having a high bonus to one skill will not help without the right idea how to use it.
Yes, you need to convince the DM that your highest skill does apply to the situation at hand. This, in a nutshell, is a fundamental problem of skill challenges: rather than encouraging roleplaying, they encourage fast talking your DM that your highest skill applies, regardless of what skill that is. Of course that's metagaming; but then, SCs are metagaming. The goal of an SC is not to solve the problem in a roleplaying fashion, the goal is to achieve X successes.


I haven't actually run 4e (or even played it), so this is pure theory, but I think those make sense. They feel like reasonable guidelines on how to avoid the main skill challenge issues, at least.
They are. In that, you have shown that (despite not having played 4E) you understand skill challenges better than several official adventure designers for 4E.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Skil challenges are overused. They're good for things like debates, as mentioned, where you consistently have to roll for more successes, and people might take offense to your teammates not debating. But for the vast majority of situations, you don't need to force a skill challenge in, and doing so just encourages metagaming.

[Leolo]

@Kurald: I believe you are thinking too much outgame.

You do not have to let your DM tell you exact DCs to assess what action will provide the most success - what action will be difficult and what will be easy.

You simple have to look at the situation. Swimming through the river might be more difficult than finding a ferry man or a ford. Negotiations with the husband to calm his anger about the beautiful woman (his) in my arms may be more difficult than running away.

It always depends on the Situation the player characters experience.

You say that you have to talk to your DM outgame to find out if you can use a skill. First - if you would try this, i would tell you:

"So you want to make a XYZ check? What exactly would your character do to get this check?"

If you want to do a check, your PC has to do something in the game.

Second: There is no reason why you have to ask the DM outgame. You want to know if you could climb the housewall to the open window instead of unlocking the door? Maybe your character should simple do this and look for such a chance.

Of course you could also ask: "Can i make a athletics check in this skillchallenge?" without explaining what you want to do. But you neither have to, nor does your DM have to allow it.

[Jack Mann]

Sure, as long as you consider "always using the skill with the biggest plus on your character sheet" to be good roleplaying.

Think about it like this: The skill with the biggest plus represents what the character is best at. It represents what they've put the most training in, what they have the most practice in. It is good roleplaying to use it whenever it's appropriate.

However, as has been mentioned, it's not always appropriate. And your DM is supposed to give you an idea of what skills apply best to a skill challenge (the primary skills). If you come up with an alternate idea, most of the time it's going to be a hard DC (unless your DM decides it's as easy or easier than applying the primary skills).

Granted, once a player figures out one of their better skills works perfectly for the skill challenge, there's a strong temptation to keep using that skill. A houserule I've seen to counteract that is to give a penalty (around -5) for using the same skill twice in a row. This helps get players to vary things up a bit.

I've found some fair success with skill challenges in my game, and my players seem to enjoy them. But they do take some work and finagling to get them to work well, and I don't think they're for everyone.

[Roderick_BR]

Hey, if Vampire: The Maskerade players can do it (2 whole pages devoted on how to flirt and take someone to bed, with all the proper skills and dificult to the dice results, in the Player's Handbook 2nd edition), and still claim their game have more roleplay than other "battle-based" RPGs, so can D&D players.

[Kurald Galain]

@Kurald: I believe you are thinking too much outgame.
Ah, let me clarify that: I'm seeing (and playing, and DM'ing) a lot of RPGA activity in my area. I notice a common tendency for players to want to use their best skills in a challenge. I notice this happening even if the skill realistically has no bearing to the task at hand. And I notice the DMs tend to accept it, because the alternative is either leaving that player out, or forcing that player to roll a skill he's bad at, and fail.

(Me? Yes, I sometimes do that. I also sometimes do the opposite. One of my characters has a tendency to use bluff/diplomacy tactics in city encounters even though he's pretty bad at that)



You simple have to look at the situation. Swimming through the river might be more difficult than finding a ferry man or a ford.
Here's the thing: it quite possibly isn't. Suppose that you're a fighter. Not counting level, you'll likely have a +9 in athletics, and a +0 in diplomacy. This means that regardless of the DCs printed in the adventure, swimming through the river will be less difficult than finding a ferry man.

But it isn't all that hard to do this task with any number of other skills. Nature and Perception can both be used to find a ford, but so can History. Athletics can get you across, but so can Acrobatics and Endurance. Talking to the ferry man can be done with Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Insight, and Streetwise, or by Stealth or Thievery if you want to steal his boat. Arcana and Religion get you across with magic or prayer, respectively, Heal does the same with breathing exercises, and Dungeoneering lets you cross the MacGyver way.

Point being, every skill can be interpreted as suitable to the task at hand, and because of the high differences in skill scores, and the lower differences in DC between skills, your highest skill will practically always give you the best chance of success.

It's natural, too. People want to succeed at the challenge (aside from that, I know at least one player who gets angry at players who cause the party to fail the SC, because it means less XP for his character). People can easily see that their +12 to Nature gives them a better chance of success than their +2 to Bluff. Therefore they will look for ways to use Nature in every situation that calls for a skill check. And the skills are broad enough to make this so.

[Yakk]

Be generous with bonuses.

A +5 to +10 bonus for a well thought out plan, idea, or bit of improvised roleplay goes a long way.

Next, skill challenges shouldn't have only one solution. "Talk your way past the guards" is one step and one method.

"Get into the tower" is a better skill challenge, with the guards being a single check in that challenge. A good check on them, before you have success, might get them to tell you to get permission from the captain, and not be alerted by your attempt to get in.

That could then segway into a thievery check to forge papers, together with a bluff... or, maybe they let something slip about another entrance.

[Kurald Galain]

However, as has been mentioned, it's not always appropriate.
No, but since, as Yakk points out, SCs shouldn't have "only one solution", it's only a small step to having pretty much every skill be appropriate pretty much every time.


A houserule I've seen to counteract that is to give a penalty (around -5) for using the same skill twice in a row.
That is useful.



A +5 to +10 bonus for a well thought out plan, idea, or bit of improvised roleplay goes a long way.
That is also useful.

[Leolo]

Here's the thing: it quite possibly isn't. Suppose that you're a fighter. Not counting level, you'll likely have a +9 in athletics, and a +0 in diplomacy. This means that regardless of the DCs printed in the adventure, swimming through the river will be less difficult than finding a ferry man.


This is one example. But it could also be +9 in athletics (because of +4 ST and trained) and +6 in Diplomancy (Because of +1 CH and trained).

If you compare your worst skills with your best - it will be always far more easy to focus on the things your character is really good at.

But that is not the same as "always use your highest skill bonus".

There is a difference of 10 points between an easy task and a difficult (and could be more). So even in your example where the difference is very high it might be better to try an easy diplomacy check instead of a difficult athletics check. And you will always find skills that are usefull even if they are not those with your highest bonus.

It simple depends on the situation. And of course sometimes not all options will have the same drawbacks. If you search for the ford you will have to spend time. More time than you will need to swim through it. And more time than you might have. In addition, the question is still open why the behaviour (to search for a way to resolve some issue with the things you can do) should be bad roleplaying at all. Is it bad roleplaying if my char tells the party that he is not able to swim through the river but able to find an other way? Or if my char tells them he is not able to bluff the guard, but to run from it?