PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Skill Challenges



Rattus
2008-06-06, 11:24 AM
How do/are people planning to introduce the set of skills available in skill challenges? Do DMs generally say "The following skills are available" or "you might try the following things"?

Reading the web expansion for Keep on the Shadow Fell (warning: spoilers if you've not played it (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080522b)) it says you can use this, that and the other... but do you present these options ("Use endurance to...", "Use religion to...") to players ahead of time, or leave them to flounder and grasp for themselves?

My gut feeling is that I shouldn't tell players what they can do from the outset, but then are they ever going to suggest things like using endurance in the linked example? Or branch out beyond diplomacy/perception/intimidate/knowledge for a diplomatic encounter? :smalleek:

Kurald Galain
2008-06-06, 11:31 AM
I plan on not using them at all (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080518).

RTGoodman
2008-06-06, 11:31 AM
I don't plan on telling them "Make an X check, a Y check, or a Z check," if that's what you mean. I might say, "Alright, you're with the Duke, and he doesn't seem to think you're good enough to warrant him funding your adventure. Convince him." Or something like that. If the player's can come up with the skills listed as necessary, great. If they come up with something else, I'll let 'em try and maybe even let 'em succeed. If they're floundering... well, that would depend on my mood - I'd either slip one a note giving a hint, or just count it as the first failure or something.

Rattus
2008-06-06, 11:46 AM
Kurald Galain: Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read. I disagree with the authors "the sky is falling!" on several points (he seems to be rules-lawyering himself into the ground- just like anything else, the DM can adapt the situation) but he's definately given me some food for thought. Nothing I read there makes me want to ditch them completely, but I'll definately give my skill challenges more consideration beforehand, now.

I haven't played with a skill challenge yet (hence this topic asking for advice) but it's good to see some of the potential issues brought to my attention before I encounter them at the table. :smallsmile:

FoE
2008-06-06, 12:01 PM
1) A player says he pleads to the noble, appealing to his better nature.
2) A player says he threatens the noble in helping them!
3) A player says he tells the noble that a great (and non-existent) evil awaits beyond his borders and only the PCs can stop it.

My reaction:

1) Try a Diplomacy check.
2) Try an Intimidate check.
3) Try a Bluff check.

And then it sort of rolls from there.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-06, 12:09 PM
I plan on not using them at all (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080518).

Wow...there's some really beautiful stuff there! I loved the proposed fix for save-or-die effect - it's ingenious and uses one of my favorite 3e mechanics.

Also, this was hilarious (even if out of context for this thread):


I think the wider problem with WotC's solution of choice is that it's basically like saying, "Man, this soup tastes like crap! I think I'll try adding some more water to it." The taste of crap is now a little less intense, but it's still crap.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-06, 12:45 PM
I plan on not using them at all (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080518).

Honestly, now that I've seen the mechanics in full, I don't really feel like Bacon's objections hold that much weight.

His primary objection seems to come down to the fact that you can have unrelated checks causing sucess or failure. That doesn't really seem to be a problem if the skill challenges are set up properly. The issue really only arises if you make the task set to be overcome by the skill check too broad.

Take the example in the article "Get into the castle". He's right that there are multiple ways to get into the castle and that a sucess at talking to the guards shouldn't count toward an attempt to climb the wall. This, however, is a perfect example of the skill challenge being set up incorrectly, rather than the mechanics themselves being at fault.

Had the DM said, "Ok guys, you need to get into the castle. How are you going to do it?" and based the set up of the skill challenge on the PC's plan, there wouldn't be a problem. If the PC's said, "we are going to try to find a secret door and sneak in" he could easily have them roll a Streetwise check (I think that's the right skill, beforehand) to see if they know about a secret door. If they do, when they approach the castle is when the skill challenge mechanics come into play (Stealth, Thievery, etc.) and there isn't a problem.

There is perhaps an issue with the use of spells to solve skill challenges. I suspect that they'll need to be resoved on a case by case basis but for things that avoid the problem entirely (like using a fly spell to get up a wall) I'd just have the person who used the spell be exempt from the skill challenge, or exempt from the consequences of failing the challenge.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-06, 12:52 PM
Honestly, now that I've seen the mechanics in full, I don't really feel like Bacon's objections hold that much weight.

I believe you're essentially agreeing with me. You intend to houserule your way through the issue to avoid the problems of this mechanic. And, of course, so do I. That doesn't change the fact that the mechanic is poorly thought out. Oberoni and so forth.

Dark Tira
2008-06-06, 01:18 PM
I plan to let my players use any skill they can reasonably justify to me. I may tell them a primary skill they can use depending on the situation anything else I'll modify depending on what they present. That said, I fully intend on adjusting the scenario on what skill they use and how well they do. Breaking into a castle via a climbing a wall compared to sweet talking your way past the guards lead to very different results on success and failure.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-06, 01:21 PM
I believe you're essentially agreeing with me. You intend to houserule your way through the issue to avoid the problems of this mechanic. And, of course, so do I. That doesn't change the fact that the mechanic is poorly thought out. Oberoni and so forth.

Insofar as we are talking about spells, I'll grant you the point there. There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules that resolves what happens if a skill challenge is overcome by a spell or power specifically although one of the sidebards does seem to indicate that it would probably count as one or two sucesses (as per the assassins and the duke example).

However, regarding the choosing when to use the mechanic reply, I don't really think that the OF applies. It's not a house rule to say that skill challenges should be used when there is a defined goal and expected method of achieving it any more than it's a houserule to say the combat mechanics are best applied when actually in combat. In fact, it really doesn't say anything about overall scope of a skill challenge, nor does it say that the skill challenge rules are actually 'rules'. Strictly speaking, they are guidelines.

Zeful
2008-06-06, 01:32 PM
The link seemed, weird. Not particularly wrong but not fully right. From what I understand there are three types of checks that are associated with skill challenges: Those that help, those that harm, those that do nothing either way.
If the skill check's success would help with the goal of the "encounter" then it's failure may go towards the "encounter's" failure (wording something wrong with Diplomacy, Stuttering with Intimidate etc.) However, some checks open or close certain avenues of exploration but don't count as successes or failures (gather information, History (sometimes), insight etc.) Sneaking into a castle isn't a skill challenge, it's an adventure.

The Hard Part about skill challenges is balancing the wins vs losses and what contributes to each.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-06, 01:41 PM
Skill Challenges are an excellent addition to the D&D toolbox. Like lots of stuff in the books, they give you guidelines as to how to "cost" (XP wise) substantial non-combat encounters and a neat framework for solving the risk v. reward problem that has always been present.

Ideally, I'll be running them this way:
1) Set up the situation, generally ("you need to avoid patrols on your way to the castle" OR "the Duke sits down and asks you why he should send troops to the Darkwood Forest")
2) Wait for a PC to make an action. Compare it to a list of skills (and skill uses) I've drawn up beforehand, using DCs cribbed from the DMG. Tell the acting PC to roll the closest skill or explain what skill he was planning to use, if I can't figure it out.
3) Resolve that given action, depending on the dice roll. Ask another PC what they are doing. If this is a "moving" challenge (like avoiding patrols) I'll use a little narrative to phrase the encounter slightly differently ("OK, you've entered the forest, moving along the path picked out by the ranger [successful nature check]. The dry creek is overhung by a thick net of branches thick with obscuring leaves.). This can trigger the PC to make a different skill check ("I'll check the trees to see if we're being watched" "Roll Perception") or at least add to a sense of motion.
4) Determine in advance what success for failure means. For some failures, the type of roll that brought up the final fail will influence the consequences (a failed Nature check might cause the party to stumble into dangerous flora or fauna, a failed Stealth check will result in an ambush).
5) Award XP for successful Skill Challenges.

Note that none of this requires "house rules." The actual rules in 4e just depict a skeletal system, and do not require you to do anything stupid (like ask the PCs to choose from a list of skills to roll!). Designing encounters is totally up to the DM, and if he decides to make "Get into the Castle" an undifferentiated Skill Challenge ("Um, okay you passed 3 Diplomacy checks and 1 climb check, so you climb the castle wall") the it is his fault for designing the encounter poorly. Just as bad as having the PCs fight a band of vampires in the middle of an open field in the middle of the day.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-06, 01:47 PM
I agree with AKA_Bait. That guy seems to have mistaken how skill challenges works. I didn't see the rules yet, but it feels like the skill challenges are like the multiple successes from the Vampire:The Masquerade games. You just need more than a single skill check sometimes. This guy is mixing rolls that shouldn't be mixed up.
I like the idea that sometimes rolling one dice and calling it a day doesn't work well, specially for time-consuming actions (Diplomacy, for example, in 3.5: Make an entire speech that'll turn your worst enemy in your most trusted follower in 6 seconds. Sounds like a Final Fantasy Tactics thing...)
It can be complex like the duke example in WotC's site, or simple, like looking the temple, also pointed out in WotC's site.

Hah, reading further, he gives a "fix" that is *exactly* the basic rules.
And man... he goes on and on about how the skill system is "dissossiated".

I do agree with that guy that the marks mechanic sounds weird, though.

Matthew
2008-06-06, 01:53 PM
As with the "weapon specific abilities" idea, I quite like the concept of "Skill Challenges, I am just not that keen on the execution.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-06, 05:01 PM
nor does it say that the skill challenge rules are actually 'rules'. Strictly speaking, they are guidelines.

Strictly speaking, everything is a guideline.

Draz74
2008-06-06, 05:21 PM
Thank you Barbossa. :smallbiggrin:


Honestly, now that I've seen the mechanics in full, I don't really feel like Bacon's objections hold that much weight.

His primary objection seems to come down to the fact that you can have unrelated checks causing sucess or failure. That doesn't really seem to be a problem if the skill challenges are set up properly. The issue really only arises if you make the task set to be overcome by the skill check too broad.

Originally, that might have been his main concern. But if you read the more recent stuff on his site, some other things about skill challenges now bother Justin more than this.

Like the way everyone is forced to participate in a skill challenge, like a social interaction. The low-Cha Fighter just isn't allowed, by the rules, to just sit back and let someone else do the talking?

Or the way the rules say, if the players come up with a way to use a skill in a Challenge other than the default-presented skills, that the DC for the creative skill should automatically be "Hard" and they should only be allowed to do this once/encounter in any event.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 05:42 PM
I plan on not using them at all (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080518).

Wow, that link is awful. It's like he does his best to misunderstand and misinterpret.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 01:32 AM
Originally, that might have been his main concern. But if you read the more recent stuff on his site, some other things about skill challenges now bother Justin more than this.

I stayed up very late one night reading the entire article. I am actually quite glad that Bacon took the time to write it, because it made me look at the skill challenge system in a new light, and really try to comprehend it.

After taking that time to thoroughly examine the system, and discern and counter the multiple errors that are made in the article, it seems like the skill challenge system is really well designed. I like a lot of the things that can be accomplished with it. The examples in the DMG are great, and are just the tip of the iceberg.


Like the way everyone is forced to participate in a skill challenge, like a social interaction. The low-Cha Fighter just isn't allowed, by the rules, to just sit back and let someone else do the talking?

Anyone who doesn't want to make an active check can make an Aid Another check to attempt to give the Leader of the skill challenge a +2 to the check; this is the equivalent of the King firmly affixing his gaze to the low-Cha Fighter and asking him what his thoughts on the situation were, and the Fighter responding "My thoughts on the situation, milord, is that I am but a Fighting-man. Let the pretty one over there do tha talkin'" with a lopsided grin. A low-Cha Fighter can be smart enough (Int, Wis) to keep his mouth shut, make a joke, and defer to the Face of the party.

That's all by the rules, btw. The roleplaying bit isn't even strictly necessary, but I would loathe to make such situations mere dicerolling fests. As a DM, I would require some sort of RP.


Or the way the rules say, if the players come up with a way to use a skill in a Challenge other than the default-presented skills, that the DC for the creative skill should automatically be "Hard" and they should only be allowed to do this once/encounter in any event.

I understand the reasoning for why it was designed that way, and you're probably not going to like it; because 4e had to be integrated as an online game, some considerations had to be made with the online game in mind. Some kind of rule had to be made. They couldn't simply leave a nebulous undefined region there. So, you're presented with this situation: what do you allow the character to do on their turn of the skill challenge, if they attempt to use some non-related skill? You took the time to design the skill challenge well, so you covered pretty much all the bases with the set skill DCs. Do you just let the character use the skill willy-nilly? If you allowed characters to use non-default skills in skill challenges multiple times, then every skill challenge would come down to each PC spamming their best skill over and over. And what's the fun in that?

Since the rules also state that the DM can give circumstance bonuses to skill usage, you can give a certain skill check a Hard DC, and then also give the player a bonus to their skill check roll for innovative use of a skill.

For instance, one humorous suggestion I came up with while conversing with Bait was thus: the party is sitting at a feast table with the King and assorted nobles. The Rogue, on his turn of the skill challenge, jumps up on the table, leaps into the air, and does a spinning mid-air flip to grab the chandelier, and then proceeds to flip back to their seat.

I would give this a Hard DC for Acrobatics/Athletics, but perhaps give the Rogue bonuses for creativity (the Nobles cut him a little slack if he wobbles a bit). Then, afterwards, if the Rogue succeeds, the King might say "Well done, my fine flipping fellow! Good Show.... but in the future, let's try and keep the chandelier-grabbing to a minimum, shall we?" Thus, that particular skill check can't be made again.

A failure in that situation might be spectacularly bad (multiple failures). But it also might be a quite memorable tale for your gaming group to reminisce on. :smallsmile:

Draz74
2008-06-07, 01:50 AM
For the record: I wasn't actually making a judgment on the Skill Challenges system myself. I refuse to draw conclusions about it until I see more of how it works personally (I haven't even read the books yet, let alone played an adventure with Skill Challenges). I just wanted the opinion presented on the Alexandrian to be considered in its entirety, not just part of it.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 01:53 AM
For the record: I wasn't actually making a judgment on the Skill Challenges system myself. I refuse to draw conclusions about it until I see more of how it works personally (I haven't even read the books yet, let alone played an adventure with Skill Challenges). I just wanted the opinion presented on the Alexandrian to be considered in its entirety, not just part of it.

Oh, I certainly agree. Mostly I felt compelled to correct your impression, gleaned from the article, that each party member must make a skill check and risk garnering a failure towards the skill challenge when it is their turn, and then it snowballed into a whole long post :smallbiggrin:

Draz74
2008-06-07, 02:00 AM
Thanks. If the Aid Another action is still in, and unlimited in use, (and doesn't count as a "failure" in the skill challenge), it certainly does pretty much shoot that particular complaint about the system in the foot.

Jarlax
2008-06-07, 05:49 AM
How do/are people planning to introduce the set of skills available in skill challenges? Do DMs generally say "The following skills are available" or "you might try the following things"?

My gut feeling is that I shouldn't tell players what they can do from the outset, but then are they ever going to suggest things like using endurance in the linked example? Or branch out beyond diplomacy/perception/intimidate/knowledge for a diplomatic encounter? :smalleek:

the books tell you to sort skills into primary or secondary. primary have a medium DC and can be used several times and secondary are unrelated skills a clever or imaginative player may find a use for, in which case its a high DC and a once off.

however, the list you make for primary skills is not set in stone unless you say so. so if a player finds a way to use a skill you have not selected as a primary skill that is both, a) appropriate and b) something that could be performed repeatedly, then you can by all means turn it into a primary skill.

as for telling the players. id say don't tell them what to do, but instead guide them toward actions and skills that would seem appropriate. so for a social skill challenge hint to them that social interaction skills are what your looking for, in the baron example out of the DMG an intimidate check is an auto fail, but the PCs should know better then to intimidate a baron in his own castle in the first place even if it is a social interaction skill. while it meets the criteria of being performed repeatedly it is not appropriate.

Tough_Tonka
2008-06-07, 01:02 PM
I believe you're essentially agreeing with me. You intend to houserule your way through the issue to avoid the problems of this mechanic. And, of course, so do I. That doesn't change the fact that the mechanic is poorly thought out. Oberoni and so forth.

Actually it sound like to me these examples like get into the castle are poor interpretations of the idea of the skill challenge. Getting into the caste should fall under the category of quest and the approach the characters make (talking with the guards, sneaking into the caste) should be separate skill challenge.

It like when some one complained that minions could be confusing if you party consists of 10 lv and 5 lv PCs.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 02:02 PM
Actually it sound like to me these examples like get into the castle are poor interpretations of the idea of the skill challenge. Getting into the caste should fall under the category of quest and the approach the characters make (talking with the guards, sneaking into the caste) should be separate skill challenge.

Agreed. Separate skill challenges or even just skill checks. Not every situation has to be a whole Skill Challenge.


It like when some one complained that minions could be confusing if you party consists of 10 lv and 5 lv PCs.

Lol. I was actually the one who suggested that. It was a theoretical exercise, my friend, just to point out holes or flaws in the Minion mechanic. Having used it, I now like the Minion mechanic, but I know I will have to be careful and prudent in its use.

tbarrie
2008-06-07, 04:08 PM
Anyone who doesn't want to make an active check can make an Aid Another check to attempt to give the Leader of the skill challenge a +2 to the check; this is the equivalent of the King firmly affixing his gaze to the low-Cha Fighter and asking him what his thoughts on the situation were, and the Fighter responding "My thoughts on the situation, milord, is that I am but a Fighting-man. Let the pretty one over there do tha talkin'" with a lopsided grin. A low-Cha Fighter can be smart enough (Int, Wis) to keep his mouth shut, make a joke, and defer to the Face of the party.


Aid Another makes sense when an NPC specifically engages the PC in question. But my reaction to that part of the article was that this wasn't really a problem at all - allowing a character to just "sit out" a social encounter for which they're physically present is generally unrealistic, so why should it bother anyone that the rules disallow it?

As an example: Shifty Freddy is trying to convince the town guard that there's no need to search his wagon. Unfortunately, Faralan the Guileless is riding shotgun. Sure, Faralan may not be trying to participate, but if he's sweating, nervously glancing behind him, and generally looking guilty, he can still spoil the deal all the same.

I'd just say that "Keep your fool mouth shut" is usually a valid choice when it's your turn to act in a social encounter. The DC would be noticeably easier than active participation, but the trade-off is that a failed roll counts as a failure towards the skill check, whereas a success only maintains the status quo.



I understand the reasoning for why it was designed that way, and you're probably not going to like it; because 4e had to be integrated as an online game, some considerations had to be made with the online game in mind. Some kind of rule had to be made. They couldn't simply leave a nebulous undefined region there.


Do you think? I'm not sure whether by "online game" you mean a game run by a human DM online or an actual CRPG - but in the former case, I don't see why things would be any different from a face-to-face game, and in the latter, I'd be surprised if unanticipated skill use was allowed at all.

Tough_Tonka
2008-06-07, 11:00 PM
Agreed. Separate skill challenges or even just skill checks. Not every situation has to be a whole Skill Challenge.



Lol. I was actually the one who suggested that. It was a theoretical exercise, my friend, just to point out holes or flaws in the Minion mechanic. Having used it, I now like the Minion mechanic, but I know I will have to be careful and prudent in its use.

Good to see some one gets it too, and mentioning the minion deal wasn't meant to disrespect your concerns.

I agree, minion rules rules would be harder to justify in that kind of situation, but the DM has always has the option of not using minions. He or she could instead just a mixture of low level monsters and high level ones. Such as how a DM shouldn't make something as vague as Getting into the Castle a Skill challenge.

JaxGaret
2008-06-08, 10:24 AM
Aid Another makes sense when an NPC specifically engages the PC in question. But my reaction to that part of the article was that this wasn't really a problem at all - allowing a character to just "sit out" a social encounter for which they're physically present is generally unrealistic, so why should it bother anyone that the rules disallow it?

If I'm interpreting what you say here correctly, I agree with you.


As an example: Shifty Freddy is trying to convince the town guard that there's no need to search his wagon. Unfortunately, Faralan the Guileless is riding shotgun. Sure, Faralan may not be trying to participate, but if he's sweating, nervously glancing behind him, and generally looking guilty, he can still spoil the deal all the same.

In this case, the player is the one deciding what exactly his PC is doing; if the player thinks that his PC would be acting nervous, or otherwise exhibiting something that wold "spoil the deal", then yes, the PC would be correct in attempting the skill check, and consequently risking a failure.

That is entirely up the player, and how they want to roleplay their character. The roleplay and the adjudicaton of what the roleplay means mechanically go hand in hand.


I'd just say that "Keep your fool mouth shut" is usually a valid choice when it's your turn to act in a social encounter. The DC would be noticeably easier than active participation, but the trade-off is that a failed roll counts as a failure towards the skill check, whereas a success only maintains the status quo.

That would be entirely the province of what the DM and the player agree to, in terms of DC and what type of check is being made.


Do you think? I'm not sure whether by "online game" you mean a game run by a human DM online or an actual CRPG - but in the former case, I don't see why things would be any different from a face-to-face game, and in the latter, I'd be surprised if unanticipated skill use was allowed at all.

I meant that D&D 4e is designed to work from the bottom up with the D&D Game Table on D&D Insider. They had to playtest and make rules for every conceivable circumstance (in this instance, what types of skill checks are allowed during skill challenges).

JaxGaret
2008-06-08, 10:33 AM
Good to see some one gets it too, and mentioning the minion deal wasn't meant to disrespect your concerns.

Okay, cool.


I agree, minion rules rules would be harder to justify in that kind of situation, but the DM has always has the option of not using minions. He or she could instead just a mixture of low level monsters and high level ones. Such as how a DM shouldn't make something as vague as Getting into the Castle a Skill challenge.

I like the Minion mechanic, it does speed up battles and give players the feeling of cutting a swath through a pack of semi-dangerous mooks. It just needs to used thoughtfully; if you throw Minions out there willy-nilly, it's probably not going to work too well.

One thing I will suggest about them: Don't use too many of them. They're much better mixed in with other troop types instead of being the main force the PCs are opposing, unless it's a small well-below-EL battle that is supposed to be a cakewalk. I've previously suggested that Minions should total to no more than one-half of the total XP in an encounter; I am going to amend this to say that they should probably not total up to more than one-third of the total XP in an encounter if you can help it.

Rattus
2008-06-09, 09:29 AM
re: the linked article.. the more I think about it, the more I think his getting-into-the-casle example is flawed. Climbing the walls, digging your way in, talking your way past the guards should all be separate skill challenges from what I see.

At the end of the day, skill challenges are there to flesh out what would have been a single-roll encounter previously ("you roll a 19 on your intimidate, he lets you through"/"you roll an 18 on your diplomacy, he's now friendly and lets you through"/"you roll a 1 on your intimidate, he scoffs at you and tells you to get lost" are all far far less fun than an extended conversation, and skill challenges are there to give you the framework to run a more in-depth encounter).

Thanks for all the feedback re: presenting skill challenges :smallsmile: I'm definately going to be going in thinking more of them as a guideline framework now, rather than rigid manacles.

Zeful
2008-06-09, 09:44 AM
Pretty much the breakdown as I see it is:
Adventure: Any series of complicated events leading to a specific goal, monetary or otherwise.
Skill Challenge: Any dialog that has a series of complicated consequences, based on participation.
Skill Check: Any part of the above.

Getting in to the Castle- Adventure
Convincing the Duke to help you- Skill challenge
Climbing a wall- Skill check

Justin_Bacon
2008-06-09, 02:50 PM
A couple of general notes:

(1) The earlier essay about how skill challenges are dissociated was written in mid-May before the core rulebooks were released. There's a date stamp on them and huge disclaimer right at the top of the essay.

(2) As I note in that essay, skill challenges generally work better for social encounters than for non-social encounters (since the dissociated nature of the mechanics can be kinda blurred away in the vagaries of social interactions).

(3) The blog entry on the skill challenge section of the DMG was an immediate gut reaction to what I was reading. After discussing this with people in various places, I would agree with the people saying that my immediate reaction to the "characters must make a skill roll" was inaccurate. At some point I'll probably get around to writing a follow-up and getting it posted to my website.

However, that was never my primary problem with the skill challenge rules as presented in the DMG. My primary problem remains the fact that the skill challenge rules, as written in the DMG, mandate railroading. These rules can, of course, be ignored.

(4) IMO, your best bet is probably to entirely scrap the 4th Edition skill challenge rules and redesign them from the ground up. Complex skill checks (in which you must get multiple successes with a single skill to accomplish a specific task) are a useful mechanic. And redesigning a more general skill challenge system that provides a structure for giving players narrative control has a lot of mileage to it, too. But the skill challenge mechanics presented in 4th Edition have no noticeable utility and do considerable harm if you use them as written.


re: the linked article.. the more I think about it, the more I think his getting-into-the-casle example is flawed. Climbing the walls, digging your way in, talking your way past the guards should all be separate skill challenges from what I see.

A lot of people seem to be overly obsessed with attacking this particular example.

On the one hand, I'm curious to know why they feel "getting into the castle" is inappropriate for a skill challenge but "finding your way through the
Forest of Neverlight" is perfectly acceptable. (The latter is a direct quote from pg. 72 of the DMG.)

On the other hand, it's largely irrelevant. This particular example was a convenient way of demonstrating the dissociation that happens when you try to use skill challenges to model a situation with multiple possible solutions. Whatever example you feel is appropriate will suffer the same problems, because the problems are endemic in the design of the system not the design of this particular challenge. The only way to avoid these problems, as I note in my essay, is to design each skill challenge as a railroaded script the PCs are required to follow.

Which is, of course, the imperfect "solution" that WotC took. In the final version of the skill challenge mechanics published in the DMG, skill challenges are not only railroaded (to remove most of the dissociations I talked about in my essay) but also manage to introduce entirely new dissociations (by having DCs set by level instead of the difficulty of the challenges they're overcoming, among other things).

And you pay this price -- in dissociated mechanics and railroading -- for little in the way of utility. The only advantage of WotC's skill challenge mechanics is that they give you a structure for rewarding XP.

For me, the price far outweighs the benefit. Particularly since you could gain most or all of that benefit by:

(a) Giving quest rewards for appropriate goals (like getting inside a castle or finding your way through a forest);

(b) Using these guidelines strictly for designing complex skill checks (which don't suffer from the dissociative problems or railroading of WotC's broader skill challenge mechanics); and

(c) Design a more detailed and useful set of social challenge mechanics (where, as noted, the dissociated aspects of the system are less relevant and your ability to allow unlimited player-input removes the necessity of the railroad).

So, for me, there are some pretty nifty ideas buried deep at the heart of the skill challenge mechanics. Those nifty ideas could be designed in some really kickass directions. But, in practice, WotC managed to find a worst-of-both-worlds implementation: It gives me nothing of value and takes everything I care about.