I really like skill challenges.

[OneFamiliarFace]

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]

Death to the Infidels!

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

[Oracle_Hunter]

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.

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

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."

[Antacid]

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

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."

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]

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]

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.