PDA

View Full Version : I really like skill challenges.



OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-27, 08:41 AM
I really like skill challenges. I mentioned to a friend that you won't see a thread with a title like this on the internet too often, so I decided to post it. So yeah, I really like this idea. I'm going to add it into other systems in fact, so as to make skill use more dynamic and less "single roll vs failure"-ish.

They just provide a good mental framework for how to operate a skill based encounter. This is almost the new "feats" to me (being the best high-profile change in 3.0), as something that seems so simple that I am almost ashamed I didn't come up with it.

And, they add back in an "experience for skills" element, since they count as an encounter.

So yeah, I'd like to hear what else people like about the new system. Maybe even things 3.5ers can use to help flesh out their own games. And I hope we can stick to just the positives. It's only one thread, right?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 08:42 AM
Death to the Infidels! :smallfurious:

:smalltongue: I couldn't resist. No, no, people do like 4e, though as I said in a thread awhile ago, the Skill Challenges are still really finicky to get to work right. A matter of practice and time, I'm sure.

Glad to hear you like 'em!

Totally Guy
2008-06-27, 08:50 AM
I think when setting up skill challenges the DM has to plan for failure. As in think as if failure is the more likely option.

This will make it a positive bonus from success rather than a big negative story stopper from failure.

I'm trying to think of more uses..


I wish they'd carried on the examples in the DMG to conclusion as I have images in my head of the players saying to the Baron...

"Go on..." Success!
Baron:"No."
"Go on..." Success!
Baron: "No."
"Go on..." Success!
Baron:"Oh alright I'll help."

nagora
2008-06-27, 08:51 AM
So yeah, I'd like to hear what else people like about the new system. Maybe even things 3.5ers can use to help flesh out their own games. And I hope we can stick to just the positives. It's only one thread, right?
I think they're potentially useful in certain situations. I think a chase through a city's streets, for example, would be a great application. I don't think they should be applied across the board, though.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 08:56 AM
I wish they'd carried on the examples in the DMG to conclusion as I have images in my head of the players saying to the Baron...

"Go on..." Success!
Baron:"No."
"Go on..." Success!
Baron: "No."
"Go on..." Success!
Baron:"Oh alright I'll help."

Heh. I'd start piling on the -2's if the PCs started doing something like that. If they still succeeded then I'd make the last "go on" a wide arm-spread "C'mon...." with the Baron saying "Aw shucks, how can I saw no? Sure, have some troops."

At the very least, I'd get a good laugh out of it. :smallbiggrin:

Nah, I think the main thing to keep in mind as a DM is to stay on your toes. Listen to what the PCs are saying and react appropriately according to the die. If the PC's have a really good line (give 'em +2 for that) and still fail, then have the Baron furrow his brow and say "Your words are fine, priest, but I do not think you have the power to back them up" or something of the like.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-27, 09:09 AM
I should have mentioned that anyone looking for great examples can check out the latest Dungeon and Dragon webzines on the WotC website. It does take planning to make it work, but the idea is each check is more subtle than they were before. And if you want, say, lying to result in automatic failure, then a lie could result in a "Seize them!"

As for the Baron (I use Baron Poopypants in my examples, don't ask why), I think it could go like this:

Baron Poopypants: "State your case."
PCs: We really like your, umm, Baroncy. (Diplomacy, failure)
Baron Poopypants: "This is tiring, get on with it."
PCs: Look, your Baroncy could be in danger if you don't lend us your aid. (Diplomacy, success)
Baron Poopypants: "Indeed, your plight reminds me of my younger days in creating this Baroncy."
PCs: (We can use History now!) Yes, your adventures were great, like that time you killed that Beholder by beating his save vs wands. (History, success)
Baron Poopypants: "Ah, I see you are familiar with my stories. Please state your case."
PCs: Your case. (Diplomacy, failure)
Baron Poopypants: "I see no humor in this situation. My Baroncy is in danger!"
PCs: Did we mention we bought the pizza? (Bribe DM, success)

The Baron decides to help the PCs, and everyone enjoys a pizza.

I think that is roughly how it works, depending on whether or not your DM fudges rolls now and again. I just see a lot of good possible set-ups for this. And though it requires extra planning on the DM's part, it also saves him from planning a new adventure when everyone stares down at the 1 rolled on his diplomacy by the shrugging Cha 4 Dwarf. The idea of failing a challenge according to this would either have the same results as failing a single check in 3.5, or it would be mitigated by the fact that the players did meet with some success. The baron may think the PCs are nice, but incapable of utilizing his resources well, for example.

Also, if you think particularly good roleplaying was involved in an social encounter, you could add a free success (or, likewise, a free failure for someone coming up with a particularly bad bluff).

HidaTsuzua
2008-06-27, 09:39 AM
I must admit I like skill challenges as well. They're good for the following situations:

1.) Where you don't need a unbroken chain of success to succeed
2.) There are multiple avenues of success
3.) Failure/Success doesn't stop/derail the game (admittedly this is more good adventure design than skill challenge issue)

The current probabilities make me sad, but the core idea is sound and universal. My hope is that it'll encourage multiple branching non-combat situations such as conversations that follow multiple paths, chases, and other interesting but usually condensed to a single roll things. While they aren't needed, they are a useful aid for the GM for deciding when there is an overall success and failure as well encouraging him to think of possible ways the PCs to attempt something.

Person_Man
2008-06-27, 10:19 AM
I like to set up my games so that the PCs can get entirely through every plot point without combat. How?

1) Roleplay - a lot (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Insight): NPCs are not just quest dispensers and merchants. They have motivations, backstories, are susceptible to reason, flattery, seduction, bribes, threats, and everything else "normal" people do. If someone hires you to kill a dragon, he might be just as happy with you convincing the dragon to stop attacking the area. But he's not going to just volunteer that information.

2) Research (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Heal, History, Nature, Religion, Streetwise): Before you set off to confront the dragon, its a good idea to figure out what a dragon is, what its motivations are, its physiology and abilities, where its lair is located and what might be in it, who it worships, whether anyone has survived encounters with it, when it showed up in the area, whether or not its looking for something specific or just terrorizing the population, etc. Since knowledge skills are generally the least utilized, I go out of my way to give the PCs an advantage (the dragon is vulnerable to fire) and/or new plot choices (the dragon scalps its victims, and is know to perform bizarre rituals. Perhaps if we just go everyone to give us their hair...) for using these Skills creatively.

3) Be Sneaky and Smart (Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery, and often others): Monsters in my world do not just sit in a hallway, waiting for PCs to walk up to them. Most of them sleep, eat, have to acquire food somehow, have daily routines, have friends and/or a family, etc. By being creative, you can often avoid them, convince them to leave you alone (give a hungry wolf a slab of venison), or kill them without combat (poison their food, lure them into a trap, etc). In many cases, just sneaking into an area and spying on the enemy for a brief while will give you a huge advantage in accomplishing your quest.

4) Run Away! (Athletics, Endurance): Again, monsters are not mindless machines that chase you until you get a certain distance away from them on your tracking radar. While many will probably make an attempt to run you down (bandits, guards, hungry animals) many will not, especially if you're clearly faster then them. If you are losing a combat (or don't want to engage in combat in the first place) running is always an option.

In order for this to work though, everyone needs to know that you DM this way. Many players (especially newer players) are conditioned by video games to think that enemies = mindless robots that kill you. That is not (or at least should not) be the case in D&D. And DMs need to accept that PC's aren't "cheating" when they bypass a really cool combat encounter that you spent hours planning. They're just making different character choices.

Having said all that, you can usually get through every plot point in my campaigns with nothing but combat as well (though it'll be more difficult, and you'll never learn about the secret hidden treasure...) Cause hey, sometimes its fun to just hit stuff.

GlordFunkelhand
2008-06-27, 10:48 AM
I see it coming: RP combat in 4.5e:

Player1: "I want to convince him, that it that I should get a bigger reward by using my "Honest Face" power!"
GM: "Ok, great. Roll your Diplomacy against his Stubbornness Defense"
Player1: "Ok, I rolled a 10 + half my level and my diplomacy ... 24"
GM: "That's a hit! Roll 1d6 to see how convinced he is!"
Player1: "5!"
GM: "Your words seem to impress the Major. But he isn't completely convinced, yet."
Player 2: "I use my "Father of 4" daily power on him. If I succeed he's marked and all characters but me will get a bonus on their diplomacy attacks!"
GM: "Try your best!"
Player 2: *rolls*
GM: "Not bad, but he's a Politician, so he can dodge your accusations and get's a Opportunity Reply."
* rolls some dice *

Note that in order to use the new diplomatic combat system in it's full glory, you should get diplomatic minis and play on the "diplomatic field of war" (sold separately).

Crow
2008-06-27, 10:57 AM
As for the Baron (I use Baron Poopypants in my examples, don't ask why), I think it could go like this:

Baron Poopypants: "State your case."
PCs: We really like your, umm, Baroncy. (Diplomacy, failure)
Baron Poopypants: "This is tiring, get on with it."
PCs: Look, your Baroncy could be in danger if you don't lend us your aid. (Diplomacy, success)
Baron Poopypants: "Indeed, your plight reminds me of my younger days in creating this Baroncy."
PCs: (We can use History now!) Yes, your adventures were great, like that time you killed that Beholder by beating his save vs wands. (History, success)
Baron Poopypants: "Ah, I see you are familiar with my stories. Please state your case."
PCs: Your case. (Diplomacy, failure)
Baron Poopypants: "I see no humor in this situation. My Baroncy is in danger!"
PCs: Did we mention we bought the pizza? (Bribe DM, success)

The Baron decides to help the PCs, and everyone enjoys a pizza.

Good luck getting a social skill challenge to actually work like that. Skill challenges are great for some things, and not so great for others. Social interactions fall under the 'not so great' catagory. At least for my group.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 11:02 AM
Good luck getting a social skill challenge to actually work like that. Skill challenges are great for some things, and not so great for others. Social interactions fall under the 'not so great' catagory. At least for my group.

I heard you mention that before. What goes wrong with your group?

Totally Guy
2008-06-27, 11:16 AM
I see it coming: RP combat in 4.5e:

GM: "That's a hit! Roll 1d6 to see how convinced he is!"
Player1: "5!"
GM: "Your words seem to impress the Major. But he isn't completely convinced, yet."

Note that in order to use the new diplomatic combat system in it's full glory, you should get diplomatic minis and play on the "diplomatic field of war" (sold separately).

Even better than that get some craft felt or a free swatch of sofa / couch materials and make finger puppets.

I've found some stuff that can be ironed into trouser ankles to take them up then you don't even need to do any stitching.

Ta da! Finger puppets to act as diplomatic props for those delicate negotiations. Also very handy for a session recap.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 11:24 AM
Ta da! Finger puppets to act as diplomatic props for those delicate negotiations. Also very handy for a session recap.

Hey, maybe my PCs will actually remember what happened last time if I do little finger-puppet summaries at the start of each session!

*grumble* can't be bothered to take notes, eh? *grumble*

Crow
2008-06-27, 11:29 AM
I heard you mention that before. What goes wrong with your group?

They like to talk. I would have to cut them off in order to call for the skill check. Usually they cut to the chase and lay out their entire case at first, and wait for the excuses. The problem with the skill challenges is that even if the players are completely reasonable, the skill challenge isn't over until you get however many successes. They could be offering the NPC everyting he could possibly want in exchange for whatever they are asking. It's hard to keep the NPC in character if you have to stretch every social interaction to accomodate the skill challenge.

Of course, as DM you could just cut it off and say they were successful. but that doesn't mean the mechanic works. I'm sure the implementation will vary between gaming groups.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 11:33 AM
They like to talk. I would have to cut them off in order to call for the skill check. Usually they cut to the chase and lay out their entire case at first, and wait for the excuses. The problem with the skill challenges is that even if the players are completely reasonable, the skill challenge isn't over until you get however many successes. They could be offering the NPC everyting he could possibly want in exchange for whatever they are asking. It's hard to keep the NPC in character if you have to stretch every social interaction to accomodate the skill challenge.

Of course, as DM you could just cut it off and say they were successful. but that doesn't mean the mechanic works. I'm sure the implementation will vary between gaming groups.

Ah. Well if the PCs aren't trying to get anything from the NPC he wouldn't give, then it's not a good time for the skill challenge - it's no challenge if it's that straight forward. Otherwise, after the main character has finished speaking, have the NPC come up with objections to keep the challenge going - perhaps he's suspicious of the PCs intentions, is craven and needs assurances that a given plan is going to work, or displeased that the PCs have been so brash as to lay out their plan without going through any of the pleasantries beforehand.

Talking PCs are great - have them roll after they pause for the NPC's response.

EDIT: Note that, even if the PCs are reasonable, NPCs (and people!) generally aren't. Go with that, and see if the PCs become less matter-of-fact and more "social"

Totally Guy
2008-06-27, 11:41 AM
How could this Skill Challenge mechanic synergise with the Diplomacy variant by Rich on this site?

Would it synergise well? Rich's version seems to lend itself well to middle not success- not failure ground.

I've not been the DM before and I wanted to show off this diplomacy variant and aside from skill challenges it seemingly can be used as written in 4E.

Then after showing off how clever it was I'd get out the pinger puppets and have the characters flop about in silliness. To restore the clever dumb balance.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 11:47 AM
How could this Skill Challenge mechanic synergise with the Diplomacy variant by Rich on this site?

Would it synergise well? Rich's version seems to lend itself well to middle not success- not failure ground.

I've not been the DM before and I wanted to show off this diplomacy variant and aside from skill challenges it seemingly can be used as written in 4E.

Then after showing off how clever it was I'd get out the pinger puppets and have the characters flop about in silliness. To restore the clever dumb balance.

Meh, you could, except that 4e has recommended difficultly levels now that scale with power level... and Skill Checks are no longer as ridiculous are they were.

DMG 42 gives you all the DCs you need to know, really. Just decide how difficult a given tact is to succeed and choose the right number.

Chronos
2008-06-27, 01:39 PM
And, they add back in an "experience for skills" element, since they count as an encounter.Add back in? When was it taken out? In 3.x, you got experience for sneaking past a guard, or disarming a trap, or anything else that removed the challenge posed by something with a CR. The difference is just that it was usually a smaller number of rolls.

Antacid
2008-06-27, 02:22 PM
You know what's really great about Skill Challenges? The fact that all the players have to participate (and in the core complex challenges, will probably all have to roll rather than just assist) means that they encourage players to get skills to compensate for what they're bad at, rather than just to enhance what they're already good at. The uncharismatic Dwarf has a reason to get Diplomacy: with the +5 bonus for skill training he is no more of a liability than the Cha 16 Warlord min-maxer who thinks social encounter skills are for girls. Players have a reason to become generalists instead of sticking to their archetypes.

Crow
2008-06-27, 02:46 PM
You know what's really great about Skill Challenges? The fact that all the players have to participate (and in the core complex challenges, will probably all have to roll rather than just assist) means that they encourage players to get skills to compensate for what they're bad at, rather than just to enhance what they're already good at. The uncharismatic Dwarf has a reason to get Diplomacy: with the +5 bonus for skill training he is no more of a liability than the Cha 16 Warlord min-maxer who thinks social encounter skills are for girls. Players have a reason to become generalists instead of sticking to their archetypes.

I see forced participation as a bad thing. Climbing a big mountain, sure. Negotiating with the Duke, no. Why should the fighter have to glad-hand the Duke when he would rather stand in the back and let the rogue do the negotiating? I guess he'll have to excuse himself and wait outside now.

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 04:38 PM
I see forced participation as a bad thing. Climbing a big mountain, sure. Negotiating with the Duke, no. Why should the fighter have to glad-hand the Duke when he would rather stand in the back and let the rogue do the negotiating? I guess he'll have to excuse himself and wait outside now.

This all comes back to the fact that the DM has to implement the skill challenge correctly, or it won't work properly.

In the situation where it is the Fighter's "turn" in the conversation, if they say nothing, perhaps the Duke turns to them and says "And what do you think of the situation, my quiet friend?" If the Fighter clams up and twiddles his thumbs, that sure would count as a failed skill check to me. If the Fighter decides to attempt an Aid Another check by simply saying "The Rogue speaks for me, my lord", that would be fine.

The roleplaying comes first. Don't just treat it like a series of dice rolls.

Mewtarthio
2008-06-27, 04:53 PM
Of course, as DM you could just cut it off and say they were successful. but that doesn't mean the mechanic works. I'm sure the implementation will vary between gaming groups.

Well, think about it this way: If the PCs, in the middle of a battle, dropped their weapons, threw their hands in the air, and screamed "We surrender!" at the tops of their lungs, would you consider it against the rules to cut off the combat encounter right there? Caving in to NPC demands represents roughly the same thing as surrendering in a fight: It's a loss.

Unless, of course, the PCs genuinely value the NPC's offer over their own offer, and vice versa for the NPC. In that case, this is a simple business transaction, and should not be represented with a skill challenge.

Crow
2008-06-27, 05:14 PM
But with social interaction, there is always the chance that what began as a "challenge" will quickly become a "business transaction". NPC's have their loves, hates, and motivations just like the players. I didn't say that cutting off the challenge on it's own was a bad thing. But it is more likely to happen when you have players actually trying to interact and understand the NPC.

Something like a player saying "I sit down and try to negotiate for extra troops." works fine for a skill challenge, but when the characters are speaking from an in-character perspective, the potential for the skill challenge to break down rises.

The skill challenge mechanic is great for some things, but I believe it is too difficult to apply "correctly" to most social encounters. Huge mountains, complex traps, and rickety rope bridges are more or less static, while personalities, desires, and motivations are mutable. Skill challenges are easier to apply to static challenges.

While I can see your point in how you lay out the "fighter in back", JaxGaret, that just doesn't work for our group. You have a situation where players will do everything they can to avoid making a check against the skill challenge so the main "negotiator" can do what he does best. In a game that is all about niche protection, why shouldn't the negotiator be allowed to do what he does without the fighter potentially 'bringing him down', especially when all the fighter wanted to do was listen in? If the fighter says nothing, I suppose a failure would be in order if the Duke hates people who don't speak for themselves, or a success would be in order if he respects those who know their strengths and weaknesses. But what if the fighter says nothing, and the Duke is just OK with that? "Quiet then. Ok rogue, go on..." What if the Duke doesn't care for religion and doesn't care what the cleric says one way or the other so wouldn't ask? Auto-failure?

Antacid
2008-06-27, 06:52 PM
While I can see your point in how you lay out the "fighter in back", JaxGaret, that just doesn't work for our group. You have a situation where players will do everything they can to avoid making a check against the skill challenge so the main "negotiator" can do what he does best. In a game that is all about niche protection, why shouldn't the negotiator be allowed to do what he does without the fighter potentially 'bringing him down', especially when all the fighter wanted to do was listen in? But what if the fighter says nothing, and the Duke is just OK with that? "Quiet then. Ok rogue, go on..." SNIP What if the Duke doesn't care for religion and doesn't care what the cleric says one way or the other so wouldn't ask? Auto-failure?

This is so dependant on DM fiat and encounter design that I'm only speaking for myself, but: it's not just how the players influence the outcome within the encounter, but in the context of the encounters function within the story.

As the players are asking for the Duke's troops, I might have a 1v1 combat earlier that day where the Fighter is challenged to a sparring contest by the duke's best knight. If he wins, the Duke will hear about it and will take their request for aid more seriously because he knows that the threat must be a formidable one for them to need it. That'd be an automatic success. Or you hint that the Fighter could please the duke by giving his son a free Spiked Chain lesson; if he gets the hint you give the first Diplomacy check a bonus to reflect the good first impression.

The Fighter need not actually be present at the negotiation at all; or he might not be called on to make checks because the Duke "already feels he understands him". Your priority is to find fun ways for the players to contribute to resolving the problem; the skill challenge is just the mechanic you use to find out if it works. Involving the entire party is intended to make the process less mechanical by ensuring the whole encounter isn't taken over by the player with the best Charisma.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 06:54 PM
While I can see your point in how you lay out the "fighter in back", JaxGaret, that just doesn't work for our group. You have a situation where players will do everything they can to avoid making a check against the skill challenge so the main "negotiator" can do what he does best. In a game that is all about niche protection, why shouldn't the negotiator be allowed to do what he does without the fighter potentially 'bringing him down', especially when all the fighter wanted to do was listen in? If the fighter says nothing, I suppose a failure would be in order if the Duke hates people who don't speak for themselves, or a success would be in order if he respects those who know their strengths and weaknesses. But what if the fighter says nothing, and the Duke is just OK with that? "Quiet then. Ok rogue, go on..." What if the Duke doesn't care for religion and doesn't care what the cleric says one way or the other so wouldn't ask? Auto-failure?

Ah, but the "niche protection" is reversed in terms of skill - that's why the system is so fluid in 4e. People are supposed to work together in skill challenges in 4e, irrespective of class, and in social circumstances, this makes the most sense.

As for the Duke being "OK" with people sitting dumbly through a long negotiation... I suppose you can do that, but generally you could just ask for a default Diplomacy check to make sure the Fighter doesn't embarrass the party by getting bored... maybe an Endurance check? :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, I like the idea of the NPC gauging the party as a group in social situations - nobody likes handing over resources to some smooth talker, particularly if the group is trying to convince you that they can, say, kill a dragon. They want to make sure that the party isn't just fronting here. If you didn't want the Fighter to screw up the negotiations, don't bring him - he's not going to be doing anything while there, after all?

I think you might want to re-examine how you're using Skill Challenges. Business transactions are rarely purely economic in medieval periods; trust is a huge component. The social skill challenge helps model that uncertainty by forcing the PCs to earn the trust/confidence of the entity they're dealing with.

And use auto-failures sparingly. If it's something that has no effect, then it has no effect either way - but if the cleric keeps preaching when the Duke clearly doesn't care, a failure for annoying the Duke! This is the same way how you shouldn't give successes for things like Insight or Perception that might give you hints about other tacts to use (the Duke loves flattery - bluff! The Duke is a member of the Order of the Wyrm, extol their virtues with History!).

Antacid
2008-06-27, 06:59 PM
As for the Duke being "OK" with people sitting dumbly through a long negotiation... I suppose you can do that, but generally you could just ask for a default Diplomacy check to make sure the Fighter doesn't embarrass the party by getting bored... maybe an Endurance check? :smalltongue:

How about rolling the Wizard's History check as an attack on the Fighter's Will defence? If the Wizard hits, the Fighter dozes off and starts to snore loudly. One auto-failure. :smallbiggrin:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 07:05 PM
How about rolling the Wizard's History check as an attack on the Fighter's Will defence? If the Wizard hits, the Fighter dozes off and starts to snore loudly. One auto-failure. :smallbiggrin:

Okay, but the Wizard has to take an Endurance check to Sustain the effect as a standard action :smallamused:

Plus, the rogue can make a sneak-attack-dopeslap as an immediate reaction to the Fighter being about to say something stupid. Dex v. Fortitude, with a successful attack shutting up the Fighter, but triggering a Bluff check by the Rogue to play it off as "he had a bug on his head." :smallbiggrin:

Antacid
2008-06-27, 07:21 PM
Okay, but the Wizard has to take an Endurance check to Sustain the effect as a standard action :smallamused:

Plus, the rogue can make a sneak-attack-dopeslap as an immediate reaction to the Fighter being about to say something stupid. Dex v. Fortitude, with a successful attack shutting up the Fighter, but triggering a Bluff check by the Rogue to play it off as "he had a bug on his head." :smallbiggrin:

I think we've found the holy Grail of RPGs: a way for D&D to model the adventures of the Marx Brothers.

"I join a club and beat the Duke over the head with it".

Thrud
2008-06-27, 07:24 PM
I quite agree. That is why I have been using something similar in my games since 3ed came out. I just always assigned CRs to various skill based events, then let the characters figure their way through them. It is not really something that is particularly unique to 4ed, though it is the first system that specifically spells it out, since you can do it with any system. I stole the basic concept from White Wolf's Storyteller system. In fact, with the much simplified skill system in 4ed I believe it is more fun in 3ed, but not having played 4ed, I can't say that for sure. I just know I always like more skills in a system than less.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 07:24 PM
I think we've found the holy Grail of RPGs: a way for D&D to model the adventures of the Marx Brothers.

"I join a club and beat the Duke over the head with it".

Nah, GURPS: Stooges did a pretty good of modeling slapstick routines. Though heaven help you if you used the full Long Joke construction rules!

EDIT: (Serious)

I quite agree. That is why I have been using something similar in my games since 3ed came out. I just always assigned CRs to various skill based events, then let the characters figure their way through them. It is not really something that is particularly unique to 4ed, though it is the first system that specifically spells it out, since you can do it with any system. I stole the basic concept from White Wolf's Storyteller system. In fact, with the much simplified skill system in 4ed I believe it is more fun in 3ed, but not having played 4ed, I can't say that for sure. I just know I always like more skills in a system than less.

I like Skill Challenges better than the WW system. WW was always waaay too nebulous in how to deal with Aces, Ones, and success v. DC. Skill Challenges are an extremely tight system, but the fluff can be a bit harder to implement... hence these threads.

Thrud
2008-06-27, 07:34 PM
I like Skill Challenges better than the WW system. WW was always waaay too nebulous in how to deal with Aces, Ones, and success v. DC. Skill Challenges are an extremely tight system, but the fluff can be a bit harder to implement... hence these threads.

Oh, yeah, don't get me wrong. I don't use the WW system in D&D. I just stole the basic concept and adapted it. Then all you have to do is assign challenge ratings to various skill based events, and the game no longer has to be all about combat. This was always my favorite part of 3ed. It was so easy to adapt to a system where combat was not essential, i.e.the only means for increasing in level. Of course, I dislike the basic concept of levels anyway, but ehh, if you are going to play D&D there are some things you just have to use.

AslanCross
2008-06-27, 08:03 PM
I really like the concept too, but since I'm still running a 3.5 campaign that is too far along to convert, I also began applying the idea.

The first time I used this was two days ago. Here's the excerpt from my notes:

Objective: To meet with an informant undetected and retrieve whatever information from her that will help them discover the truth behind the Marquis Eldershade's actions.
Complexity: Requires 6 successes before 3 failures.
Primary Skills: Disguise, Spot, Sense Motive

• Disguise (Cha); opposed by an assassin's Spot check: You enter the tavern in disguise, hoping to evade enemy attention. Characters can aid a main character in creating a disguise.
Success: The Assassin does not recognize you. The assassin strike team outside will only attack the PCs who remained outside. Award each character an extra 500 XP.
Failure: The Fire Knives strike team outside waits for the PCs to come out and attacks in full force (full CR)

• Sense Motive (DC 22) You attempt to get a feel of the attention that the surrounding people are giving you.
Success: You sense you are being watched (if they fail the Disguise check) OR You sense that someone in the area was meant to spy on you. Either result gives a +2 bonus on the Spot check to find the assassin.

• Spot (Opposed by assassin's Hide check): You attempt to pick out the Assassin from the crowd.
Success: You realize that a thin man with a gray goatee has been looking at you.
Failure (4 or less): Nobody seems to be looking at you, after all.
Failure (5 or more): You spot someone "watching you." (Wrong person)

• Spot (DC 13) You attempt to read the informant's lips as she speaks a message in code. The DC is mitigated since she tries hard to emphasize every syllable for you to understand.
Success: You successfully receive part of her message.
"It is a shame. Elder trees cast an uncomfortable shade…"
Failure (4 or less): You have no idea what she is saying.
Failure (5 or more): You get the wrong message

• Listen (DC 20) You attempt to hear the informant's whisper. Since she is trying to keep the message from being intercepted, she is speaking as quietly as possible.
Success: You successfully receive her entire message.
"It is a shame. Elder trees cast an uncomfortable shade. Answers found in text. Glyphs never lie. Be wary, fire is hungry and consumes; knives may wound and kill."

Here's how it turned out:
Everyone in the party has reasonably high CHA (nobody has it in the negatives), but due to their near-celebrity status (the wizard is a baron in the land), they decided to leave the sneaking to people with the right sensibilities.

Party:
-Alioth: Aasimar Paladin. Tank + greatsword = disguise out of the question.
-Azareth: Moon Elf Wizard. Landed nobility = forget it.
-Acantha: Cleric of Kelemvor. Armor + shield = disguise out of the question.
-Kieran: Half-Elf Rogue. The only character with ranks in Disguise and Bluff. 8 WIS.
-Lesa: Wood Elf Ranger. The only character capable of reigning in Kieran + good senses = should go.

<Lesa, the ranger> Who is good at disguises?
<Everyone> Kieran. [the rogue, who is female despite the name]
<Lesa> Who is good at acting?
<Everyone> Kieran.
<Lesa> Who is fearless?
<Everyone> Kieran.
<Kieran> I'm glad I'm so popular.
<Lesa> Then again, can we trust her?
<Kieran> See? SEE? You can't trust me with negotiations! Unless you want me to sell all your gear.
<Lesa> Fine, let me come along.

Kieran disguises herself as a tavern dancer just in case they needed distractions. (she has ranks in Perform (dance). She chooses a revealing gypsy outfit.

Lesa adopts a more mundane commoner costume meant to hide her elven features.

As they were entering the tavern, Azareth whispered one last piece of advice to them before they entered: "Buy a drink to keep yourselves from standing out."
"No problem!", replied Kieran cheerfully.
As they sat down close to the informant, Lesa ordered two rounds of ale. Kieran gulped hers down with no complaints. Lesa had to force herself.
Kieran and Lesa actually succeeded in their Disguise checks vs. the assassin's Spot check. He was observing them as they entered, but failed to recognize them. SUCCESSES: 2, FAILURES: 0
Lesa began to look around the tavern to keep watch. She spotted a thin man with a gray goatee looking at them, then suddenly looking away.
"Kieran, I think you have an admirer."
"What? Where?"
Lesa's Spot check beats the assassin's Hide check. SUCCESSES: 3, FAILURES: 0
The assassin begins to leave, and Lesa begins to feel uncomfortable with the situation. She tries to puzzle over the situation, and her intuition tells her that the man was most likely sent to watch them. (Sense Motive)
SUCCESSES: 4, FAILURES: 0

The informant gave her message, and Lesa was able to correctly receive the message both by reading lips (Spot) and listening (Listen in above the din of the tavern.
SUCCESSES: 6, FAILURES: 0

The two remain a few more minutes, then get up to leave. They begin to attempt to follow the man.

Although they successfully complete the challenge, the PCs moved a bit too rashly afterwards, drawing the assassin's attention. The PCs fight the entire strike team and defeat it soundly, with their sorcerer artillery trapped in a resilient sphere and the assassin leader himself embedded in the masonry of a wall nearby (thanks to the paladin--who has a level of crusader--and his Mountain Hammer.)
Kieran unfortunately got hit with a phantasmal assailants spell by the sorcerer and failed both her saves, dropping her to 0 WIS. The sorcerer also dropped a fireball on the party, setting fire to the tavern door. (Acantha, the cleric, quickly put it out with create water--drenching the convulsing Kieran, who was on the floor beside it.) In the aftermath of the encounter, when the law enforcement came to help them out, Kieran was restored back to sanity---albeit sopping wet in a skimpy tavern dancer outfit. The party did complete the challenge and was able to stop the strike team from reporting back to their masters.

Observations:
-You sometimes have to prod the players with hints. Thankfully, Lesa's player is smart and caught on quickly.
-Design the challenge with the player's skills in mind. No brainer; no point in making a challenge the players aren't equipped to deal with.
-The problem with this is that Lesa kind of soloed the challenge. Kieran was the only other person who contributed, using her Disguise skill.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-27, 11:08 PM
Well, this is going well. A common complaint has been the difficulty of the acting out the Baron Poopypants scenario.

I was really just listing what was happening in response to the checks. So perhaps the players just want to make checks, and then we work out what happened afterwards. In social encounters, on the other hand, the players talk, and if they've stated all of their case upfront, then I can just have them make multiple checks at once. If the success of one skill reveals the use of another skill, they can make that, get the information given, and then use it to further the interaction.

And for those wondering about whole party interaction, one could use the simple rules I have in the OP for "group checks," or one could have everyone aside from the person with the highest skill count as aiding the main skill-user. The purpose is to avoid the following scenario (note, this is supposed to be an example of pre-skill challenge skill checks):

Guards: "Welcome to the realm of Baron Poopypants. No weapons allowed."
Smilin' Bard: Oh, I don't have any weapons. *Twinkle* (Bluff, success)
Attractive Sorceror: This is just a walking stick. *Twinkle* (Bluff, success)
Dwarf with a bad smell: Who me? I'm carrying these axes for those two. (Bluff, Nat-1, failure)
Guards: "SEIZE THE SMUGGLERS!"

In a social encounter in real life, it would be possible for one bad liar to give up a whole scheme. But as this is a game, realism here actually takes away from all those beautiful points put into Bluff for the other two characters. The second the dwarf opens his mouth, it all goes out the window. So his character is likely to keep his mouth shut or grunt towards the bard in every encounter. But sometimes, your Cha 6 Half-orc fighter just didn't want to stay quiet because the bad guy was pissing him off. A skill challenge is just a simple game mechanic for allowing other people to compensate in case of rash behavior or a bad lie. So the above encounter could carry on in a skill challenge.

DM: Okay guys, let's see you bluff or diplomacy your way out of this one.
Dwarf: I'm rolling an Intimidate check. These guys are annoying me. (Intimidate, success)
Other two: And we'll try to make the guards a little more accepting of our nice friend by telling them how dangerous he is, and how we don't think they are any less of men for letting him past. (Bluff, success;Diplomacy, failure; but the bluff came first!)

Dwarf: If you two knew what's best for ya, you wouldn't be harassing a very angry dwarf, who has very big axes and hasn't had a good bath in over a week.
Smilin' Warlord: (Hey when did my class change?) Now, Rolfgar, we've talked about this temper, and it didn't do us any good to have to kill that band of ogres instead of talking to them, now did it?
Guards: "Well, it's really only one person...No big deal eh? Get on through. We're busy. Yeah, that's it...busy. Never saw a thing Hank. Me neither Tom."

So there is an interaction where the players discussed their rolls first, rolled them, and then explained the results. Man, I have to admit. I'm just having a lot of fun coming up with skill challenges for the realm of Baron Poopypants. Maybe I can fit this into a campaign? And I did this quickly enough that it seems like a DM wouldn't have even had to plan much for this encounter, if at all.

Gralamin
2008-06-27, 11:39 PM
I ran a simple skill challenge in a one shot earlier. It took me about 30 minutes to weave it in and it was very simple to me. The players did not try any other skills, however.

Setup: Your fighting a white dragon inside its lair. It is using the ice to stop the party from moving and is using its flight to great advantage. On the wall to the left is riddle written in blood. The riddle is actually a spell, one that a priest of Orcus left, as a last ditch effort to kill the dragon. He did not live long enough to succeed. The spell could fail at any moment. (Complexity 1)



A message in blood is splattered a pillar on your left, on it sits the message: "He who can answer this riddle can bind the dragon."

Cometh dusk, the lord did fall
Death itself rejoiced.
Cometh midnight the lord did rise
The lord of skulls rejoiced
Cometh dawn the lord did stall
for the shadow was no more a skull
Cometh noon the lord did fall
and the skull destroyed the shadow

You notice some faint lines underneath the blood, perhaps clues. You know that your knowledge of the arcane as well as religion may help you answer the riddle.

The answer is Tenebrous

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-28, 12:35 AM
People are putting the cart before the horse here.

Skill Challenges aren't supposed to replace the social interactions you had in 3e, they're supposed to provide a framework to resolve how they work out.

So in the weapons-smuggling case, that's not a Skill Challenge - everyone just makes a skill check to sneak in their own stuff. Now, if you were trying to convince border guards to not check your wagon for contraband, that might be more of a Skill Challenge. In the former case, the PCs are making a simple declaration; one roll should resolve it. In the later case, the border guard isn't just going to say "Do you have any contraband" and let you go - he's going to check you out, and see whether or not you need more investigation.

Also: don't tell the PCs what skills they'll need, show them. So in the case of the riddle (which I wouldn't recommend using as a skill challenge, anyhow) say "there are a variety of runes following the message." Smart PCs will ask you if they can figure out what they mean - ask them which Knowledge check they'd like to roll.

So, here's a quick sample of the Duke's Challenge (4/2)
DM: You are ushered into the study of Duke Ironbeard. It is a simply, but well appointed room complete with an overstuffed chair, upholstered with wyrmskin. The Duke is seated in the chair before a fireplace, warding off the cool winder air. The servant gestures to a collection of wooden chairs before the Duke and bids you to be seated.
Duke: "Welcome to my home. The Archduke's letter you bore said that you required some assistance. What is it that you need?"
Warlord: "Hail my lord. We are on a quest of great importance and need safe passage through the Bloodlord's Domain. The Archduke said that you may be able to secure us protection from the Bloodlord's Riders, due to your close ties with him."
DM: "Indeed." The Duke strokes his beard for a moment and gazes into the fire. "I rode with the Bloodlord in my younger days, and despite his wild ways, he still bears some respect for my sigil. However, even at the Archduke's request, I cannot risk the fragile peace we have with the Bloodlord by placing you under my protection."
Warlord: "But lord..."
DM: Alright, stop right there. If you're going to convince the Duke, its going to take some doing. We'll start up a skill challenge. Warlord, you have the first turn.
Warlod: *ahem* "But lord, did not the letter describe our service to the Archduke? We are trustworthy companions, and we will not besmirch your name!" I'll roll diplomacy *rolls*
DM: *checks* failure. The Duke looks you firmly in the eye and says "I have read of your deeds. Words on paper are all well and good, but I trust in men, not letters." Who's next?
Wizard: Me! "Duke Ironbeard, our quest is a simple one, and will not trouble the Bloodlord at all. We seek... (minutes later) ... and once we have recovered the Orb of Wyar, we can head back without harming anyone. Why, we can even pay you if you want it!" *rolls Diplomacy*
DM: *sighs* *checks* a success. The Duke listens patiently to you, although he seems to be getting rather bored at the end, and begins drinking heavily from a nearby flagon. He lets out a heavy sigh when you finish and says "Very well, you make a fine case. But do not worry about payment... I am not so impoverished that I need to sell my protection to travelers. But still, that is no easy journey, and there are many dangers in the Bloodlord's lands. However well prepared you are, there is still the danger that you may offend him." Next?
Rogue: Hmm... what do I know about the Bloodlord's lands?
DM: Roll History *checks* Not good enough. You've heard of them, of course, but you never really bothered to check up on it. That doesn't count against the challenge, by the way.
Rogue: Well, that's good at least. Hmm... "Duke Ironbeard, you do not need to worry about us! We are seasoned travelers and know well the perils of the Bloodlord's Domain!" Bluff, of course. *rolls*
DM: Risky! *checks* A success, surprisingly. Though the Duke looks at you skeptically, his heavy brow lifts and says "Truly? Well, not many know of the Bloodlord's Domain from the Northland. Perhaps you are as seasoned as you claim." He nods warmly, and you think he's finally coming around. Alright Fighter, your turn.
Fighter: Huh? Um... I'll agree with the Rogue.
DM: Really? Roll History *checks* well, you know nothing about the Bloodlord's Domain. Do you want to Bluff?
Fighter: No! I just want to say yeah, the Rogue knows what he's talking about. Can't I pass?
DM The Duke's eyes look at you expectantly "Well, warrior, do you share your friend's enthusiasms?"
Fighter: I nod!
DM: Fine, roll Insight first. *checks* Well, you can't tell whether the Rogue was lying or not, so you can either use Bluff or Diplomacy then.
Fighter: Eh, they're all the same to me. *rolls* Natural 1!
DM: The Duke takes the full measure of your being and frowns. He turns back to Rogue and takes a second look at him. "Sir" he says to you (points Rogue) "I do not think your friend shares in your enthusiasm. Why is that?" You've failed the Skill Challenge, but maybe you can salvage it.
Rogue: "Sir, you are a wise man, and clearly one of good judgment. I have said that we know of the Bloodlord's domain, but one cannot be truly confident in their preparations before the day. My friend here is a simple man, and does not trust in plans, but in practice, but do not worry! We have studied the Bloodlord's Domain extensively and I have every confidence that we can acquit ourselves without harm to your reputation!"
DM: *whistles* you don't take small bites, do you. Well, that's a pretty good save, so I'll give you +2 to your Bluff. Roll. *checks* A success. The Duke stands up from his chair and gazes about the room. "Perhaps what you say is truth. Tomorrow I am making a ride of the Border. Meet me at the keep's stables and we shall see how prepared you really are."
Rogue: Aw, crap. Um... anyone trained in Nature? We'd better see what we can learn before tomorrow.
DM: :xykon: indeed. The Duke gestures for you all to stand and says "This audience is at an end. I will see you at the stables, or I trust I will not see you again." And with a mixed expression on his face, he leaves the room.

That is how a social challenge should go, IMHO. The players are encouraged to keep up with the conversation, and all are required to act. Knowledge checks are generally used to inform character reactions, not garner successes, and while nobody used Insight, any PC could have used Insight to try and learn a clue about the Duke's demeanor.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-28, 01:15 AM
I was hoping the Baron Poopypants thing would indicate I was trying to simplify it a bit :smalltongue:. Though that's a good point. My checkpoint guards weren't really a long enough or important enough encounter to warrant an official challenge.

Still, I like the idea of the impromptu skill challenge being used to resolve sticky and problematic situations which arise from a character messing up or (as is more often the case), a player acting the fool. It's not officially designed as such, but I think allowing characters who have put points into social skills using those skills to alleviate problematic situations in such a fashion is not necessarily wrong-minded.

But I will keep that in mind when I start DMing. Social challenges should probably be reserved for the planned and important social interactions. And other types of skill challenges can be used to represent longer periods of time time taking place, like a hunt or competition.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-28, 01:20 AM
But I will keep that in mind when I start DMing. Social challenges should probably be reserved for the planned and important social interactions. And other types of skill challenges can be used to represent longer periods of time time taking place, like a hunt or competition.

Very true.

It's best to plan your Skill Challenges just like you plan Combat Encounters. That said, if the PCs get caught on the wrong side of a barroom brawl and you want to see if they can talk their way out of it, a nice quick 4/2 encounter with the Watch Sergeant is pretty easy to set up. But yeah, don't use 'em "just because" since they do slow down play, just like throwing a squad of gobos "just because" can.

nagora
2008-06-28, 06:35 AM
People are putting the cart before the horse here.

Skill Challenges aren't supposed to replace the social interactions you had in 3e, they're supposed to provide a framework to resolve how they work out.

You're asking the highly unlikely. The rules look like a replacement for social interaction and will be used as such by lots of players and DMs. And any group of players who understand your point probably don't need the rules in order to resolve social interactions - they'd just roleplay it anyway.

Best to keep the skill challenges for physical things: escaping, making things, perhaps as a crutch for solving puzzles when the player's brains aren't working this week, and other things that can be difficult to RP. For those, I think they're a good idea. For social stuff or really anything that a player and DM can roleplay they're just not needed or desirable.

Anyway, this was supposed to be a positive thread so I'll leave it at that: rules should not be over-generalised, but used carefully where they are suitable then skill challenges seem pretty good.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-28, 10:02 AM
Anyway, this was supposed to be a positive thread so I'll leave it at that: rules should not be over-generalised, but used carefully where they are suitable then skill challenges seem pretty good.

True in every case. Of course, it's always up the group. Some groups may actually like skill challenges as a way to avoid long RPing stuff if they love the hack-n-slash. Some groups may want to only roleplay social interactions and never roll a die (of course, that begs the question of what to do with diplomacy and what not :-p)

And you are probably right that people will just use the rules as is, as a substitute for actual interaction. If that's the case, then no good, unless it is the entire group's intention to do so.

This hasn't been discussed much, but I do like their implications for contests and competitions as well. Athletic/Acrobatic/Endurance skill challenges can represent moving through course obstacles. At first, this would seem to just be a "make the check when you come to it," but I houseruled some pretty complicated rules to footraces at one point (because I didn't just want whoever had the highest speed score to win outright, due to endurance and what-not) which people loved. This provides a framework to have a similar idea, which includes endurance and other physical training into a competition.

Talic
2008-06-28, 04:10 PM
Some groups may want to only roleplay social interactions and never roll a die (of course, that begs the question of what to do with diplomacy and what not :-p)

Only issue here is that the closest parallel is the fighter who knows the entire MM stat block for every encounter.

Using player abilities to substitute for character skills is rarely a good thing. At best, I use rolls, and allow players to role play those rolls. Thus, the player with a +7 diplomacy that rolled a 1, should roleplay a diplomacy check of 8. The character with a -1 diplomacy mod and a roll of 20 gets to act out a brief moment in tact and persuasion.

Bottom line, charismatic players generally like the no-roll system, because it benefits them. But it's not balanced. You want a charismatic character, build it, roll it, and role it.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-28, 10:41 PM
Bottom line, charismatic players generally like the no-roll system, because it benefits them. But it's not balanced. You want a charismatic character, build it, roll it, and role it.

And that's a fine way to do it. In my group, we tend to prefer rolls to more directly map to social encounters. But not every group does. In my old group, we had 5 players, and 3 of them were there to see the cool things they could do in combat. They weren't particularly interested in roleplaying or talking beyond what ale they were drinking that day (they eventually came around and we had great party interactions). So if our party ever wanted to be diplomatic, did one of the other two of us HAVE to pick a social class? I would say no. We ended up having a sexy rogue who helped us in a few situations, but my likeable halfling did just as well because he was just plain friendly.

I think that if you have to make a roll for any social encounter, then it can bog down play. Rolls are mostly for bartering, negotiations, and the like, where it suddenly becomes your social skills versus another's. In the meantime, I say play your character as amiably or as gruffly as you would like.

My low charisma dwarf who is plenty friendly but ugly as sin (and a bit smelly) would agree! People who know him like him, people who don't would rather not. :-p