PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Excerpt: Skill Challenges



illathid
2008-05-04, 11:28 PM
New article is up on Wotc.

link is here: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080505a

Full text is here:

Excerpts: Skill Challenges
4th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide

This time, Bill Slavicsek introduces us to skill challenges, which can form the basis of an encounter all by themselves, or can be combined with a combat encounter to make a really memorable part of any adventure.

From the first discussions about D&D 4th Edition, we knew that we wanted a mechanical subsystem as robust as combat that could handle the other things PCs do in an adventure—namely, social encounters and challenge encounters. We didn’t want a system that reduced all the intricacies of a situation to a single die roll; we also didn’t want a system that failed to add to the fun of an adventure. What we did want, for the situations that called for it, was a system full of tension, drama, and risk… the very essence of any D&D encounter.

The Skill Challenges system leaves plenty of room for roleplaying, while providing a sound mechanical rules element that allows for die rolling and the tension of a random element. It’s a robust system that can be used for any social encounter that includes real consequences for failure, as well as for other skill challenges that don’t involve combat—from finding your way out of a mysterious jungle, to taming a savage beast, to researching an ancient spell, and more.

What follows is the opening section of the Skill Challenges chapter, a few key sidebars, and a skill challenge template right out of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

An audience with the duke, a mysterious set of sigils in a hidden chamber, finding your way through the Forest of Neverlight—all of these present challenges that test both the characters and the people who play them. The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions.

Skill challenges can account for all the action in a particular encounter, or they can be used as part of a combat encounter to add variety and a sense of urgency to the proceedings.
--Bill Slavicsek
The Basics

To deal with a skill challenge, the player characters make skill checks to accumulate a number of successful skill uses before they rack up too many failures and end the encounter.

Example: The PCs seek a temple in dense jungle. Achieving six successes means they find their way. Accruing three failures before achieving the successes, however, indicates that they get themselves hopelessly lost in the wilderness.

Is This a Challenge?
It’s not a skill challenge every time you call for a skill check. When an obstacle takes only one roll to resolve, it’s not a challenge. One Diplomacy check to haggle with the merchant, one Athletics check to climb out of the pit trap, one Religion check to figure out whose sacred tome contains the parable—none of these constitutes a skill challenge.
Encounters Have Consequences

Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do. When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat—experience and perhaps treasure. The consequences of total defeat are often obvious: no XP and no treasure.

Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure—the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure. If the characters get lost in the jungle, that leads to further challenges, not the end of the adventure.
Sample Skill Challenges

Use the following skill challenge templates as the basis for skill challenges you design for your adventures. The level and complexity values are suggestions only; adjust as necessary to meet the needs of your adventure.

The Negotiation
The duke sits at the head of his banquet table. Gesturing with a wine glass, he bids you to sit. “I’m told you have news from the borderlands.”

This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader or other authority figure. The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to earn the NPC’s favor.

Setup: For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way.

Level: Equal to the level of the party.

Complexity: 3 (requires 8 successes before 4 failures).

Primary Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight.

Bluff (moderate DCs): You try to encourage the NPC to aid your quest using false pretenses. Characters can cooperate to aid a lead character using this skill.

Diplomacy (moderate DCs): You entreat the NPC for aid in your quest. First success with this skill opens up the use of the History skill (the NPC mentions an event from the past that has significance to him).

Insight (moderate DCs): You empathize with the NPC and use that knowledge to encourage assistance. First success with this skill reveals that any use of the Intimidate skill earns a failure.

History (easy DC): You make an insightful remark about the significant event from the NPC’s past. This is available only after one character has gained a success using the Diplomacy skill, and it can be used only once in this way during the challenge.

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Success: The NPC agrees to provide reasonable assistance to the characters. This could include treasure.

Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent by the NPC out of anger or antagonism.

Be sure to return Wednesday for a look at weapons!

Mewtarthio
2008-05-04, 11:50 PM
From looking at the picture, I see they left out an important skill check:

Nature (hard DCs): You sneak up behind the NPC and make a bird call, thereby distracting him at a crucial moment.

But making fun of artwork is ultimately unproductive. I wish they'd given us a bit of detail in this. This really isn't anything we haven't seen before, except for the inclusion of a mysterious "Complexity" rating. I'd have preferred it if they'd given us a chart or something to show what the Complexity rating represents.

EDIT: Does anyone else look at this and see a Bioware-esque CRPG system?

"What you are asking me to do would be tantamount to treason. Tell me, why should I risk all this to help you?"

1. [Bluff] Emis is using you. Once the situation with the orcs is resolved, one way or another, he intends to dispose of you.
2. [Diplomacy] Think of the reward involved. Once Emis is dead, we will have no use for his lands. Perhaps they would pass to someone more worthy...
3. [Insight] I can tell that you're dissatisfied with the current situation. Emis should not remain in power any longer, and you know this as well as I do.
4. [Intimidate] I don't care either way. The choice is yours, really: When the revolution comes, would you rather be leading the charge or up against a wall?

"[Diplomacy success] You do have a point. This could be my chance to restore my family's good name."

1. [Bluff] And don't think Emis has overlooked that. He knows that you've got everything to gain from his death, and it's only a matter of time before he tries to preempt you.
2. [Diplomacy] Yes, and we will spread the tales of how you aided us in our heroic quest. Once word has spread, travellers will flock to you to see the renewed shrine, and this town will see glory once again.
3. [Insight] Your family would be very proud. You've seen firsthand the damage Emis has done to your people. Can you really stand for such a legacy?
4. [History] Indeed. Your family led this region in its glory days, and you will continue their tradition!
5. [Intimidate] You were a fool to mention that in front of a stranger. If you will not aid us in this task, then perhaps Emis will... Once I offer him the name of a traitor in his court!

"[History failure] What? Who told you that? Even *I* will admit that family's actions are a blight upon this state's history. I will not entertain flatterers and charlatans in my chambers, so you'd better change your tone!"

etc

Xefas
2008-05-04, 11:52 PM
Well, nothing we didn't really already know.

I am of the mind that it's a vast improvement over 3rd edition's skill system, which was in turn a vast improvement over 2nd edition's non-weapon proficiencies. I've never played 1st edition, so I dunno if 2nd edition improved upon it or not.

illathid
2008-05-04, 11:53 PM
From looking at the picture, I see they left out an important skill check:

Nature (hard DCs): You sneak up behind the NPC and make a bird call, thereby distracting him at a crucial moment.

But making fun of artwork is ultimately unproductive. I wish they'd given us a bit of detail in this. This really isn't anything we haven't seen before, except for the inclusion of a mysterious "Complexity" rating. I'd have preferred it if they'd given us a chart or something to show what the Complexity rating represents.

It seems fairly clear to me that the complexity rating is just a shorthand for how many success one has to have before gaining too many failures.

Draz74
2008-05-04, 11:56 PM
It seems fairly clear to me that the complexity rating is just a shorthand for how many success one has to have before gaining too many failures.

Maybe also for the ratio of the two that is needed before one result or the other occurs?

tyckspoon
2008-05-04, 11:57 PM
Complexity: 3 (requires 8 successes before 4 failures).

That's mysterious? Isolated, maybe; we don't know if Complexity 3 represents a high or a low challenge. The function of it seems apparent, however.

RTGoodman
2008-05-04, 11:57 PM
I like the idea of Skill Challenges that require various skills and different successes. It just sort of seems common sense (besides the cementing of "Complexities" and such) with the way the Skills system works anyway.

This isn't, as Mewthario says, the first time we've heard of it. Back during the D&D Experience thing, I believe someone mentioned a Skill Challenge that involved escaping from guards or something in a crowded city. Some got to use Stealth, some Bluff, some Athletics (to climb), and stuff like that, and that sounds great to me.


But making fun of artwork is ultimately unproductive. I wish they'd given us a bit of detail in this. This really isn't anything we haven't seen before, except for the inclusion of a mysterious "Complexity" rating. I'd have preferred it if they'd given us a chart or something to show what the Complexity rating represents.

Well, if "8 successes before 4 failures" is a Complexity 3, I'd say it's probably a scale of 0 to 4 or 5, with 0 being non-challenges (just one skill check, succeed or fail), and 4 or 5 being a whole multitude of required successes or fewer failures. Maybe up to a dozen successes before 6 failures, or 10 successes before 4 failures or something like that. Pure speculation, of course.

EDIT: Wow, triple-ninja'd trying to find that other mention of skill challenges.

SofS
2008-05-04, 11:59 PM
1st edition didn't really have a skill system per se, if I remember correctly. It was more about the DM deciding on the difficulty and the players trying to influence that number through preparation and such (taking off armour before sneaking, for instance). I could easily be wrong on that.

This is a lot like how old World of Darkness went, at least for my group. The article isn't particularly illuminating, but the core concept is pretty solid. I'll be interested to see how they apply the idea to non-social challenges.

TheOOB
2008-05-05, 12:11 AM
Meh, I could see this being a useful mechanic, but I could also see it being way overused. Skill challenges (called extended tests in most other systems) are only really neccesary when how long a task takes to complete is an important issue, or when multiple skills need to be used at different points otherwise a single roll is fine. Rolling multiple dice just slows things down. The listed diplomacy for example could be easier solves by a single appropriate skill check, just as picking a lock is a single skill check. Now, if the character needs to fasion a dagger in 10 minutes before the guard comes, and each check takes a minute, extended skill checks mean something.

Mewtarthio
2008-05-05, 12:25 AM
Well, if "8 successes before 4 failures" is a Complexity 3, I'd say it's probably a scale of 0 to 4 or 5, with 0 being non-challenges (just one skill check, succeed or fail), and 4 or 5 being a whole multitude of required successes or fewer failures. Maybe up to a dozen successes before 6 failures, or 10 successes before 4 failures or something like that. Pure speculation, of course.

True, I figured it has something to do with the number of successes and failures (perhaps Complexity + 1 failures, and double that for successes), but I'd have liked to see guidelines on how to determine the complexity. For instance, in social situations, complexity is likely based on how much convincing you need to do, but we don't know how it's related (eg simple check to convince a guard that you're sick is obvious, but what complexity to convince him to let you off with a warning for graffiti? To let you into the king's chambers while still armed? That the king is evil and should be overthrown?). That's the sort of thing I'd like to see.


Meh, I could see this being a useful mechanic, but I could also see it being way overused. Skill challenges (called extended tests in most other systems) are only really neccesary when how long a task takes to complete is an important issue, or when multiple skills need to be used at different points otherwise a single roll is fine. Rolling multiple dice just slows things down. The listed diplomacy for example could be easier solves by a single appropriate skill check, just as picking a lock is a single skill check. Now, if the character needs to fasion a dagger in 10 minutes before the guard comes, and each check takes a minute, extended skill checks mean something.

I think this was meant to be used in an RPing situation. Roleplay out a few descriptions of the skills, then roll dice to see how well it did. In this case, you'd probably exchange a few lines of dialogue, then make an appropriate check to see his reaction.

As a final side note, I really hope they've got some sort of diminishing returns on those skill checks, such as +1 to the DC every time you use that check. It'd be annoying if all complex skill checks devolved to the best skill user in the party repeatedly hammering away with his best skill.

Roog
2008-05-05, 12:45 AM
There is a hugh thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=386482) on this (84 pages so far) on RPG.net, which must have started before the article came out, which actually contains a reasonably large (athough proprortionatly small) amount of usefull speculation on how this could be used in a game.

Mewtarthio
2008-05-05, 01:05 AM
I've thought of another interesting use of this system: "Gambling" to get a better result. This sort of thing would be used in situations like haggling, or attempting to extract more help from an NPC. For example, let's say you want to explore some ruins, but the captain of the local militia refuses to let you enter, claiming it's too dangerous. With a simple skill check, you convince him that you can handle yourselves, and he lets you pass. However, instead of just wandering in, you decide to push him some more and see if you can't get him to actively help you.

The DM has decided beforehand that it will work as follows:
{table=head]Complexity | Result
0 (simple) | You may pass unhindered
1 | You may head down to the barracks and see if anyone's interested
2 | The captain assigns one of his dangerously bored men to go with you
3 | The captain orders three men to accompany you
4 | The captain himself and his best soldiers escort you personally[/table]

Assuming the formula is [complex + 1] * 2 successes before [complex + 1] failures, let's say you make one failure and three more successes (total of four). You've now convinced the captain to let you make offers to the men lounging around. You don't want to do that: That'd require you to pay money and/or make more skill checks. You decide to go ahead and ramp this up to Complexity 2 and see if you can't get some troops for "free." This requires two more successes before two more failures. The captain's already a little uneasy about you, since you've made a failure already, but he's willing to talk. Two failures later, and you've managed to insult him so impressively that he's decided to rethink letting you pass in the first place.

It's not perfect, of course: It basically hopes that the formula is different from the one I've guessed, lest you always have exactly two necessary successes and at least two failures. It also needs something to promote just starting out aiming for a higher Complexity, so that you can't look at your current rolls every level and always have a "safe zone" to fall back on (perhaps adding on a few extra necessary successes and subtracting an available failure each time you decide to up the ante, encouraging you to start at higher stuff if you think you can make it--the exact opposite of how it works in real life, but perhaps necessary for game balance). Still, I think it's a good start.

MorkaisChosen
2008-05-05, 06:42 AM
How well this works depends on the DM. If they can think on the fly or plan well enough to give proper responses to everything (in the Finding the Temple example, "You enter the forest. Before you are two paths, leading in opposite directions into the forest." PCs look for tracks? Failure: "You find some tracks leading down the left-hand path." Success: "You find some tracks leading down the left-hand path, but they are human, and the temple belongs to Lizardfolk. Down the other path, however, are the tell-tale marks of tales, along with a few scuffed claw marks the Lizardfolk obviously failed to erase.").

If they just say, "Make some Nature checks. You need 8 successes before you get 4 failures," it's incredibly boring and rubbish.

Duke of URL
2008-05-05, 07:06 AM
How well this works depends on the DM. If they can think on the fly or plan well enough to give proper responses to everything...

I would think this mechanism would work best for planned encounters, where the potential feedback can be scripted ahead of time, or at least with an NPC or situation that he's put enough backstory into that he can easily come up with good responses.

Unless the DM is very good at making things up on the fly, I doubt I'd recommend that.

There's no reason you can't use this mechanic in 3rd edition as well -- making a situation dependent on multiple skill checks works just fine in the 3.0/3.5 skill system. And yes, it does remind me of the conversation trees in Neverwinter Nights, but that's not a bad thing -- those were fun, if a little limiting in options; they would probably work better in a "live" game.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-05, 07:09 AM
I like it, although I would use it primarily for deciphering sigils and getting through the forest, not for conversations.

Of course, this is nothing but the "extended roll" system found in many other RPGs, but it's still a good idea to use that.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-05, 07:23 AM
I like it. The way the describe it is quite interesting... especially that certain skill checks open up more options or reveal that doing certain things could be bad... I just hope there's a lot of these pregenerated in the DMG or in the hardcover adventures that I'll be running for my game group.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-05, 07:31 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention...

* this avoids the problem of "hey, let's have everybody roll a check and I'm sure one of us will succeed"

* this also strongly reduces the issue of the diplomatic bard rolling low on his check whereas the dumb barbarian rolls a natural twenty; if you have to make five or six rolls you really don't want the latter to be your face.

Jarlax
2008-05-05, 08:07 AM
i like the new system, i think it makes a bigger home for the face man role in D&D. but i see one problem with this system, and thats gameplay breaking down about the point players come within 1-2 failures away from failing the encounter.

players obviously want the XP granted by the encounter and any reward tied to it as well. and that want will create this negative situation. if the party is close to failure say (2-3 failures in this example) and with too few successes (say 5/8 successes) gameplay will grind to a halt as PCs discuss which skills they want to use, and who should be the one to use them.

PCs don't know what skills will work and wont know the DCs until they try them once. so if they are close to failure they are going to take every skill check seriously and since they are probably all relying on that one player with the social skills trained the entire table is going to want their say on what he should do, since they cannot really assist through their own character.

Jothki
2008-05-05, 08:27 AM
That really isn't any different that having the party about to lose in combat, is it?

Xefas
2008-05-05, 08:50 AM
players obviously want the XP granted by the encounter and any reward tied to it as well. and that want will create this negative situation. if the party is close to failure say (2-3 failures in this example) and with too few successes (say 5/8 successes) gameplay will grind to a halt as PCs discuss which skills they want to use, and who should be the one to use them.

PCs don't know what skills will work and wont know the DCs until they try them once. so if they are close to failure they are going to take every skill check seriously and since they are probably all relying on that one player with the social skills trained the entire table is going to want their say on what he should do, since they cannot really assist through their own character.

I don't see this as too terrible a problem. If the PCs are actually engaged in the challenge and feel a sense of urgency, then that's a good thing.

However, I see where you're coming from, and having run a short 4ed session of my own, complete with skill challenge, I can say that there's an easy way to make sure they're doing things for the fun and not for the mechanical bonus.

In my challenge, the players were trying to uncover the corruption in a small Pelorite temple in a rural village/town without alerting the clergy.

Each success represented them finding another piece of evidence, and once they found enough, they could bring it to the authorities and have the place fully investigated. Each failure represented them doing something to make the local priests suspicious about them or clue them in to the PC's true intentions.

If they succeeded overall, then the temple was unmasked as a band of con men cheating the town out of its money and the PCs got 400XP for the victory. They would be celebrated by the locals for a long time to come, and could use the village as a base of operations for further adventures in the area.

If they failed, then the priests declared them heretics and had the temple guard attempt to arrest them. However, defeating the guards awarded 400XP. The difference being that a mob would rise up, throw them out of the town, and they would never be welcome there again. Perhaps rumors would even eventually spread to neighboring towns.

So, pass or fail, they get the same mechanical benefit, but the story goes in two different directions- one favorable to the PCs, and one disfavorable. That said, if they had both failed the challenge, and lost to the guards, then they would have gotten squat and things really would have taken a turn for the worse.

I believe this method had the PCs more interested in the story, and how they could develop themselves and impact the world than about "What gets me the fattest loot?"

nerulean
2008-05-05, 11:01 AM
It sounds like a slightly clunky system, and if indeed

If they just say, "Make some Nature checks. You need 8 successes before you get 4 failures," it's incredibly boring and rubbish.
is the case then it will suck mightily. Still, it seems to be mainly a way of assigning XP to non-combat situations more easily, and as party bard I'm all in favour of that. I hope it isn't too strongly emphasized in importance, though: it could get stale fast if it's not done well.

MorkaisChosen
2008-05-05, 11:09 AM
To be honest, my criticism applies equally to the combat system...

"You see four kobolds."

"I attack the kobold. It takes 5 damage."

"The kobold dies. Another kobold attacks you and hits for 5 damage."

That's not exactly enthralling...

Grey Watcher
2008-05-05, 01:33 PM
To be honest, my criticism applies equally to the combat system...

"You see four kobolds."

"I attack the kobold. It takes 5 damage."

"The kobold dies. Another kobold attacks you and hits for 5 damage."

That's not exactly enthralling...

Ninja'd, and by the very guy I was going to respond to.:smallbiggrin:

But yes, I suspect/hope that the full chapter on skill use will contain suggestions on how to make it more interesting than just "roll and handful of d20s instead of just one", like the flavor text you described in your prior post. The whole design ethos of 4e seems to be "let's give players more options on using their skills/abilities". Going from a single Survival check to find the Temple to a series of individual skill checks, each with unique descriptive text about how you're doing seems to be right in line with going from fighters just full-attacking round after round to giving them an array of crazy options on par with their spell-casting buddies.

Vortling
2008-05-05, 01:48 PM
Sadly nothing new here. I was really hoping they'd give us more of a look than the DDXP did.

wodan46
2008-05-05, 04:27 PM
So Skill Challenges are basically officially converting noncombat stuff into more organized noncombat encounters. It does so by establishing which skill checks can be used, which are bad, which require special effort to unlock, and how many skill checks you need to win or lose. As said before, this means that you need a character whose actually good enough at the skills to pass them 2/3s of the time.

As for the make 8 nature checks comment, its the players job to RP their skill checks, and the DM's job to punish them for making vague skill checks and reward them for giving good descriptions of how they go about the check.

Matthew
2008-05-10, 09:37 AM
I am of the mind that it's a vast improvement over 3rd edition's skill system, which was in turn a vast improvement over 2nd edition's non-weapon proficiencies. I've never played 1st edition, so I dunno if 2nd edition improved upon it or not.



1st edition didn't really have a skill system per se, if I remember correctly. It was more about the DM deciding on the difficulty and the players trying to influence that number through preparation and such (taking off armour before sneaking, for instance). I could easily be wrong on that.

Pretty much, though it was just as common for no dice rolling to be involved at all. Whilst I thought the 2e Proficiency System sucked, it actually had a number of advantages over the D20 Skill System, which have been discussed at length elsewhere. When it comes down it, both are pretty rubbish.


I just realised what 4e Skill Challenges remind me of - The Crystal Maze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Maze) (Youtube Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSX5UvyiJ5o)).

Flickerdart
2008-05-10, 09:56 AM
I could see this working very well is, as someone said, there were measures in place to make it beneficial (or mandatory) to use different checks. Take the example of running from the guards. Someone makes a [Climb] check to climb to the rooftops. That's the highest point they can get to, and like hell is rolling more [Climb] going to help them.

I can also see this working as some sort of "spell battle" between two Wizards, maybe, or even as a decent way of not punishing the players with the 5% chance of instant failure too much.