Anatomy of Failed Design: Skill Challenges

[RandomCasualty2]

In your example, what if after the rogue picked the locked he saw the king's pet tiger sleeping in the hallway? Moreover, challenges shouldn't be presented in a simplified manner. The answer to 'You encounter a locked door. What do you do?' is obvious. The answer to 'You see two gnolls guarding the orc general's tent. What do you do?' is not. The answer to 'how are you going to infiltrate the city that's had a zombie infestation to get to the resistance HQ' has a lot of potential answer. The question of 'you know the secret entrance to the resistance HQ is somewhere in this alley. What do you do?' only has one or two solutions.

Honestly if you limit it to "skill" only challenges, there's only going to be a few answers most of the time. If you have spells and equipment to burn, that's where things start to generally get interesting.

It's more the concept of the skill challenge that I generally don't like. Because sometimes you'll want to use spells, or magic items or even brute force. Saying "you must choose one of your skills" is a bit harsh.

I generally just consider infiltrating the undead city to be an adventuring challenge, not really a skill challenge, since there's a lot more strategic thinking there.

You're getting on your 'I don't think social systems should be rolled' kick again

Yeah pretty much.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Honestly if you limit it to "skill" only challenges, there's only going to be a few answers most of the time. If you have spells and equipment to burn, that's where things start to generally get interesting.

It's more the concept of the skill challenge that I generally don't like. Because sometimes you'll want to use spells, or magic items or even brute force. Saying "you must choose one of your skills" is a bit harsh.

I generally just consider infiltrating the undead city to be an adventuring challenge, not really a skill challenge, since there's a lot more strategic thinking there.

And expanding on this, there's two ways you can integrate non-skill stuff into Puzzle Challenges.

You know what? I like the name Puzzle Challenge more than Skill Challenge, so I'm going to use that term instead of Skill Challenge unless I'm specifically describing what 4E does.

But anyway, you have two approaches.

Give bonus points for using non-skill stuff in Puzzle Challenges. For example, if your enchanter goes 'fuck this' and casts 'dominate person' on the queen, you gain 10 successes. Or if they use 'charm person' they get 3 successes.

Alternatively, you abstract non-skill stuff into skills when it becomes time for Puzzle Challenges. If you want to sneak into a town full of zombies you don't use 'Invisibility', you use your 'Illusion Magic' skill. If you want to chop past an army to get to a dam, you use your 'Military Fighting' skill. If the DM wants you to 'zoom in' for certain situations, such that if you're using your 'Military Fighting' skill to break past the orc lines, you do an actual combat session if one of the orcs turns out to be the Azure Guard or some shit.

[Lago PARANOIA]

That's really 4E's biggest problem with skill challenges right now (and that is saying a lot), is that there is no guidance for what to do if players do things outside the parameter the skill challenge.

For example, one of the sample skill challenges in the DMG is finding a temple deep in a jungle. You're supposed to use things like Religion and Athletics to navigate your way through. However, there's a ritual in the PHB2 that lets you summon up a small animal to lead to temple.

So if someone does this... what happens next? Does that count as a success? Does the skill challenge get bypassed? Does nothing happen at all? Throw me a fricken bone here.

This normally doesn't come up a whole lot because there aren't many ways to use your powers outside of combat, the magic items don't really do much of anything aside from combat or skill crap, and the rituals are already inherently a bonejob. But if the skill challenge system was ported wholesale to, say, Exalted things would fall apart real fast.

[Kaelik]

Lago

The type of thing you are talking about can work, but the very first thing you have to do is burn success in a pool of lava.

The very idea of success is half the problem.

You could have a puzzle challenge like: Zombie infested City, go to HQ that you don't know the location of.

And you could have obstacles like "Zomby Army" and "Walls and Gates" and "Finding the HQ" that can all be beat in myriad ways.

You can't have "You need 10 successes" Because that brings in "I roll an awesome Hide check!" "I do it again" "I do it again"

People should use skills to deal with obstacles, and then pass that obstacle, not use skills or abilities to get generic successes that allow them to beat it.

So for example, you could say, "Okay, you have to get over the walls!", and then everyone says, "Well I use Athletics or whatever + whatever yo get a Rope on the top, and we all climb over!"

Then you go, "Oh shit, you look down a sprawling mass of buildings with zombies looking up at you"

"We jump from building to building till we get to some place we can start hiding from zombies"

And then they can roll perception to hear people screaming for help and find out the HQ from them with diplomacy, or they can just use Divination X. And use Hide from Undead in place of jump and hide, or they can have fly and just never have to worry about non flying zombies while they search for the HQ

But you shouldn't have "generic successes" It's stupid and part of the problem.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If Puzzle Challenges are going to be solved at the individual level then why even have them at all?

[NineInchNall]

The solution is not to arbitrarily force all players to participate. It is to create a mechanic that rewards the players for contributing. I mean seriously, is that such a fucking hard concept?

You want X to happen, so you create a mechanic that gives incentives for doing X. You don't simply say, "You must do X."

'Cause that would be lame.

Combat arbitrarily forces all players to participate as well in 4th edition, because if they don't, the encounter becomes overwhelming in many cases. And this isn't a bad thing.

That's my fucking point. There is no rule that says, "you are required to participate in combat," yet every player does. Why? Because the system rewards you for doing so. Combat is mechanically set up such that chances of success are increased when everyone participates.

Thus should it be in skill challenges.

Yeesh.

[RandomCasualty2]

People should use skills to deal with obstacles, and then pass that obstacle, not use skills or abilities to get generic successes that allow them to beat it.

Yeah. It's better for the game if you try to model each obstacle individually and have people bypass that obstacle with some kind of ability (which may happen to be a skill).

Depending on how you solve it, there may be other repercussions, but I don't really feel like the game should switch "modes" to deal with an obstacle. I mean that's just like your standard adventuring mode, and we don't really need a special success counting mechanic for that, nor should we.

An obstacle might be a wall with guards. One way of getting past it is by climbing it and sneaking past the guards. The other way may be to snipe the guards and then disintegrate the wall. Alternately you can just hack through the wall and try to run through and try to lose the guards in the city streets. But I feel like that stuff doesn't really need it's own special mode like 4E wants to do it with skill challenges.

There may be times when people need to work together, but for that the encounter needs to be designed so this is the case. For instance there may be a crushing ceiling trap that comes down in 3 rounds. The rogue can stop it, but it takes him say 6 rounds on average to disarm it. So while he's busy trying to disarm it, he needs his buddies to hold up the ceiling to buy him time. Meaning mages are casting wall of stone, fighters are doing strength checks and so on. That's an example of something that includes the whole group.

But I don't think we should immediately believe that every challenge is going to include the whole group. Sometimes it may be a simple obstacle like a lowered gate that the fighter can just lift. I think trying to get everyone involved every challenge is a losing battle.

[MGuy]

Than how about we just keep skill checks to being just that skill checks. If you really want to have out of combat experience handouts you can give out Goals instead of having Skill Challenges. Goals have their own time limit, consequences, rewards, etc. Goals can be set by the players (or the DM if you want to entice them to follow the storyline) and leave the skill checks to accomplishing tasks.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Depending on how you solve it, there may be other repercussions, but I don't really feel like the game should switch "modes" to deal with an obstacle. I mean that's just like your standard adventuring mode, and we don't really need a special success counting mechanic for that, nor should we.

Ideally, puzzle challenges would be training wheels for DMs until they were able to design adventures that operated on the in dividual level.

Like real training wheels, you would want them to come off but I have played with a number of DMs and groups when presented with a challenge or a resolution method of said challenge they kind of faltered and either railroaded the plot or abandoned that plot hook.

[Kaelik]

If Puzzle Challenges are going to be solved at the individual level then why even have them at all?

If monsters are going to be killed individually why have them grouped in an encounter?

Why the fuck do you want eight hide checks to be sufficient contribution to sneak past a gate, sneak past a horde, and sneak into the hideout?

The reason puzzle challenges are separated into obstacles is so you can't do the same thing repeatedly to beat a challenge.

It's the same reason the five monsters don't have one HP pool. It measures progress, it presents concrete challenges to overcome and it prevents "I do X, 17 times."

[Lago PARANOIA]

Why the fuck do you want eight hide checks to be sufficient contribution to sneak past a gate, sneak past a horde, and sneak into the hideout?

You're doing that strawman thing again, Kaelik.

It's very irritating. So cut it out.

The reason puzzle challenges are separated into obstacles is so you can't do the same thing repeatedly to beat a challenge.

Well, that's kind of my point. If you look at plot progression as individual obstacles rather than a plan then there's no point of puzzle challenges.

I'm not saying that it's wrong, just that it's beyond the scope of this thread.

[Kaelik]

You're doing that strawman thing again, Kaelik.

No I'm not. You are defending a stupid concept.

Well, that's kind of my point. If you look at plot progression as individual obstacles rather than a plan then there's no point of puzzle challenges.

I'm not saying that it's wrong, just that it's beyond the scope of this thread.

You gave an example, sneak into a zombie city and find the HQ. You have demanded that actions should add successes and that obstacles should not be taken separately.

You have explicitly set up a situation in which "X successful hide checks" is a way to beat your challenge of finding an HQ. Hide skill is now a divination.

There is a point to puzzle challenges, it's the same point as encounters.

[Vnonymous]

You have explicitly set up a situation in which "X successful hide checks" is a way to beat your challenge of finding an HQ. Hide skill is now a divination.

This is blatant strawmanning.

Lago is not saying that "To sneak into a zombie infested city and find the HQ, roll hide 8 times."

He is saying that why do you bother going "This is a skill challenge" when you are doing something like "Hey, here's [obstacle]. Let's use [relevant skill] to get past it.", and just having a succession of obstacles.

You seem to be saying that without a formal clarification of this happening, you're just rolling hide eight times.

I completely agree with him, by the way - there is no need for an overall "challenge" to deal with obstacles like this.

Also, mguy, nice sneaky attempt to define "Goal" as "a goal". Very helpful, there.

[Kaelik]

This is blatant strawmanning.

Lago is not saying that "To sneak into a zombie infested city and find the HQ, roll hide 8 times."

...

You seem to be saying that without a formal clarification of this happening, you're just rolling hide eight times.

No, I'm being absolutely sensible and you are being an obtuse idiot.

I am not declaring that the only possible solution is "roll hide 8 times" I am saying that is definitionally one solution. Also, because there will exist people with a higher Hide check than everything else, they will, rightly, use only hide in any puzzle challenge that it is appropriate. As such, they will roll hide 8 times to build up successes in finding the HQ.

Other players will also pick whatever is the best possible skill they have and roll it repeatedly.

Unless you do something to stop people, every single puzzle challenge will consist of each person finding their highest modifier skill that is remotely applicable and then rolling absolutely nothing but that until they have accumulated enough successes.

That's the whole point. That's what people are encouraged to do in 4e skill challenges, and so far Lago has done nothing at all to disencourage it in his puzzle challenges.

What stops me from rolling hide 8 times if that's my highest modifier and it grants successes?

[MartinHarper]

What stops me from rolling hide 8 times if that's my highest modifier and it grants successes?

Variable DCs.

[RandomCasualty2]

What stops me from rolling hide 8 times if that's my highest modifier and it grants successes?

Variable DCs.

DC obfuscation just means that you have to do more math. But it in no way makes the decision making process actually any harder. You're still running down a list of skills from highest to lowest, you just have to resort the list each time now, taking into account retry penalties. While your overall chances of success have gone down, because you're taking penalties, the actual algorithm you use to calculate what skill to use hasn't changed. You're still just picking the skill with the highest bonus, you're just factoring in penalties now. Now it's just the highest modified bonus after penalties are taken into consideration.

[Vnonymous]

Variable DCs?

No, that's a terrible solution unless you make a bunch of them "impossible"

Some skills just can't be used to solve some problems. No matter how good you are at hiding, you can't use that to climb a cliff. No matter how smooth a talker you are, you can't talk a chest of gold into walking back to your house invisibly.

"What stops me from rolling hide 8 times if that's my highest modifier and it grants successes?"

Because it won't grant successes.

Unless I misunderstood Lago's point, in which case you are entirely correct.

[Username17]

So the folks over at EnWorld made a version of Skill Challenges called for unknowable reasons the Obsidian Challenge System. It is available Here.

Here are the highlights:

• The system hands out higher success thresholds for larger parties rather than allowing players to contribute negative hits for rolling dice. Thus, the Fighter is still hurting the party by showing up, but he is no longer hurting the party by attempting to contribute.
• The system has its math set up in such a manner as to roughly speaking keep the PCs on the RNG for success or failure at all levels.
• The system has three outcomes instead of 2. That's literally twice the granularity, even if it is pathetic for something that involves 15 separate d20 rolls.

Now frankly I don't see why I'd bother. The thing where the designer supposedly made it so that you weren't punished for contributing is false because the challenge scales in difficulty for having more players. So while it did make it so that the Fighter doesn't feel like a jackass for picking up dice, he still feels like a jackass for being there at all. And the design goal of getting everyone to do something different and not just try to convince your DM to let you use your best skill over and over again is a totally failed design goal. All he did was give people a longer list of base skills to use and then admonished the DM to only let people use skills off the list for "very creative" uses (as opposed to "creative" uses like the original). There's still no mechanical meat to convince me to do anything other than try to convince the DM to let me use one of my best skills every round.

About the only real solid advancement is that his system is only 3 rounds long. That is something I can get behind. But you know what? That's seriously about as far as the skill challenge system can go. All the math, all the effort, and I just don't even care. Obsidian looks about as different as it is possible to look and still get accused of being a skill challenge system, and it still blows.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

Wow. That's just ouch.

First off, they choose the wrong fucking file type - if it's just text and it's on the web, html will do just fine and having a punch of those open won't strain the gaming lappy that I don't care if I spill mountain dew on.

Then it goes downhill starting at the special thanks.

Special thanks to Fredrick Svanberg, who inspired the idea of doing skill challenges in rounds, and to Keith Baker who gave me the idea of using partial victories

Special thanks to the designer for mentioning that he used secret houserules with the system he wrote in the first place?!?! Here I thought my siggy was pushing it, but I guess it's actually too subtle.

Player Options: While engaged in a skill challenge, players can use the following:
Bold Recovery: A player may spend an action point to reroll a skill check they have made, before they might know if the roll was a success or failure. The player must take the result of the reroll.

Er, and what's the order of operations here if I'm playing a Deva with Memory of a Thousand Lifetimes in a group where the ranger has Crucial Advice ? Might want to have clarified such things in advance.

In fact given that

Critical Success: A natural 20 on a skill check is an automatic success. In addition, the player gets one additional success.

I'm thinking players are going to be dumpster-diving for skill rerolls in any game that uses these rules, so establishing rules for
such interactions will became really important

A standard skill challenge is the same level as the party. Table 1 below gives the DC of a skill challenge at each level. If a DM wishes to change the difficulty, a +1/‐1 to DC changes the difficulty of the challenge by about +/‐ 10%.

Uh, I get that you're approximating there, but without knowing bonuses or even the number of characters rolling just how did you arrive at that figure?

Then they split challenges into Physical, Social or Mental, hilarity ensues:

Standard skills for a mental challenge include:
Arcana (Int) Dungeoneering (Wis) Heal (Wis)* History (Int) Insight (Wis) Nature (Wis) Perception (Wis) Religion (Int) Social (cha)** Streetwise (Cha)***

**Social skills can be useful to gain clues when other people are near the challenge site, such as using diplomacy to acquire help from the head librarian. Generally allow this only once per challenge per person.

Standard skills for a Physical Challenge include:
Acrobatics (Dex) Athletics (Str) Endurance (Con) Heal (Wis) Stealth (Dex) Thievery (Dex) Social (cha)* Knowledge (int or wis)**

*Social skills can sometimes be useful in physical challenges against other creatures. Using bluff to throw off a group of guards as you make your escape is a good example. Generally only allow this once per challenge per player.

Standard Skills for a social challenge include:
Bluff (cha) Diplomacy(cha) Insight (wis) Intimidate (cha) Streetwise (cha) Knowledges * (int or wis)

So the Cha character gets handed a one round pass in physical and mental challenges and the Int Cha gets a chance to weasel a useful skill in Physical and Social Challenges.

Good thing there are all those Str and End skills to use in Mental and Social challenges eh? And good thing the characters most likely to have those stats as primary have so many more trained skills? Oh wait, what's that - there's only on Str skill and one End skill? And fighters still get fewer skills than anybody else?

:sigh:

And as an additional nitpick, they aren't called "Knowledges" in 4e - the skills are Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature and Religion, and each has a subuse that includes "Monster Knowledge" - but apparently you forgot that after writing the mental challenge list.

[Titanium Dragon]

That's because these people are, in fact, doing it wrong.

The correct solution is, in fact, to split it up into several subtasks which you can progress on individually. Basically, you make it into a combat encounter, except instead of monsters, you have individual tasks, which characters are better or worse at.

[PhoneLobster]

The correct solution is certainly not to do that. Go read my "How to Write No Rules" thread or something (except for the rambling majority where Frank and Murtak perform CPR on "Elensar's argument against statistics" for posts on end).

But regardless your idea to save skill challenges by split them up in ever more complex and exciting new ways is stupid by it's basic premise.

Skill challenges just have no excuse for existing in any format. Making them more complex and making them take longer to run is BAD. It makes them more costly in game play time and effort while the "rewards" only shrink.

Simultaneously the more they resemble a formal mini game the less actual potential situations they actually can be applied to.

Skills and the obstacles they face are the "and everything else" territory of the rules system in D&D. And that sort of thing can only work by being quick, easy and rules lite. Your proposal is counter to all of those things.

[Titanium Dragon]

But regardless your idea to save skill challenges by split them up in ever more complex and exciting new ways is stupid by it's basic premise.

Not at all. That's how D&D got its combat system, after all; originally it was just RPS before they brought in chainmail.

[PhoneLobster]

I may as well have just typed gibberish for you hey?

So to further elaborate.

Splork the burble of net ball girls plus fifty albomarginatus climate hanger.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

But regardless your idea to save skill challenges by split them up in ever more complex and exciting new ways is stupid by it's basic premise.

Not at all. That's how D&D got its combat system, after all; originally it was just RPS before they brought in chainmail.

Chainmail preceded D&D. D&D originated as a series of houserules for Chainmail.

I wasn't taking any of your grand pronouncements on the history of roleplaying very seriously anyway, but now I have less reason to do so.

[Titanium Dragon]

But regardless your idea to save skill challenges by split them up in ever more complex and exciting new ways is stupid by it's basic premise.

Not at all. That's how D&D got its combat system, after all; originally it was just RPS before they brought in chainmail.

Chainmail preceded D&D. D&D originated as a series of houserules for Chainmail.

I wasn't taking any of your grand pronouncements on the history of roleplaying very seriously anyway, but now I have less reason to do so.

And I never said otherwise. However, your history is somewhat inaccurate.

Blackmoor predates D&D. Or rather, proto-blackmoor. Look at the article on Greg Arneston on Wikipedia.