What's a 4E skill challenge?

[Fuchs]

To reach the chancellor you need to diplomacy yourself into the good graces of another noble, or trade a favor with another family, and so on.

Breaking the scene up ito smaller parts is one thing - I'd break it up into an adventure of its own.

[hogarth]

I need a skills mini-game that requires multiple rolls and rewards some kind of thought.

No you don't need a skills minigame. You want a social minigame that does all of that stuff; that doesn't mean you should shoehorn all of the other skills (like climbing, jumping and picking locks) into the same damn minigame.

[echoVanguard]

Except that these are all scenarios where I want them to be able to use Diplomacy to solve the problem. Yes, I could just say that the chancellor seriously hates you and won't let you in no matter what, but that doesn't give me a more interesting way to resolve social encounters, it just gives me an excuse to laugh at everyone who put points into social skills instead of climb, jump, balance, and tumble. I need a skills mini-game that requires multiple rolls and rewards some kind of thought.

The way that the 3E system generally suggests that you do this (albeit in a very roundabout and obfuscated way) is to perform a "Diplomacy encounter". Players each suggest a particular course of conversation - for each player's suggestion, you determine how effective that course of conversation is likely to be, and assign it a modifier from +4 to -4 depending on how effective it's likely to be to that NPC (you should also modify the bonus or penalty based on the character's Charisma). Suggestions that are bland or non-directional ("I ask him to do what we want") grant no bonus, or even a penalty if the recipient is unreceptive to that kind of treatment. Once every player has given their input, total up all of the modifiers and apply them to the party's spokesperson's Diplomacy roll, and tabulate the result on the Diplomacy skills table.

For example, let's say that the party is trying to convince the king to do something relatively simple, like grant them an audience with Plotbeard the Wizard, who has a magical widget which can lead the party to the McGuffin of Power. We assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the party has already gotten some way to talk to the king - successfully petitioning for audience, beating up his guards, stealthing into his bedroom, whatever. Notice that each of these courses of action sets the king's starting attitude differently, which is important for the purposes of a diplomacy roll - a king whose audience you've gained by petitioning is likely to be Indifferent, whereas a king who's just had his guards pulverized is likely to be Unfriendly and a king who's been woken up by some creepy guys in his supposedly-secure bedroom is almost certain to be Hostile. On the other hand, requesting an audience after performing a sidequest for the king is more likely to make him Friendly or possibly even Helpful (in which case you're almost guaranteed to succeed anyway).

But, let's assume the party's suggestions sum up like this:
Player 1: (half-orc fighter) "I tell him we want to see Plotbeard."
...this is at best worth a +0. It includes no compelling benefit to the narrative and is essentially a non-contribution. If the player's charisma is low, this might conceivably be a -2, but it isn't disruptive enough to be worth a -4.

Player 2: (human rogue) "I beseech the king to let us, in his great wisdom and magnificence, receive an audience with Plotbeard, so that we can help save the kingdom by pursuing the McGuffin of power."
...this is worth a definite +2, probably a +4 if the character has high charisma. It treats the king appropriately, gives meaningful reasons, and paints a clear picture as to what the player wants and why he wants it in a way that's probably sympathetic to the king's interests.

Player 3: (elven bard) "I tell the king a bunch of reasons why he should let us talk to Plotbeard <and then rambles on for 15 minutes>".
...this is almost certainly worth a -2, although probably not a -4. The character started out sensibly, but overdid it and now risks boring or irritating the king. It's also bad that he or she is taking too long and stealing the spotlight from the other players.

Player 4: (dwarven cleric) "I remind the king of the time my people assisted him with a similar historical matter."
... this one is entirely subjective based on the king's history. If the king is likely to be receptive to this kind of argument, it should be a +2 - if the king is likely to be irritated or angry at this kind of reminder, it should be a -2.

Player 5: (halfling rogue) "I forge up a document saying that a neighboring noble has called in a favor with the king to request this audience."
... the player should roll their Forgery. if it's a success, the gambit should result in no worse than a +0 (if the King is unhappy at the noble overstepping their bounds), but possibly as much as a +4. If the roll fails, the opposite occurs - at best, the action modifies the overall roll by +0, but might be worth up to a -4 in negatives if the King is extremely irritated by forgeries.

Player 6: (elf wizard) "I tell the king to let us see Plotbeard, or I'll turn his ass into a toad."
....guaranteed -4. Now, if this were an Intimidate situation, it might be a +4! Everything's about context.

In summary, you should have a general idea of who the king is, what things he likes and dislikes, and how receptive he'll be to different approaches. If you can manage to drop hints about these sorts of things throughout the conversation, then your players can attempt to capitalize upon them, with bonuses or penalties for their success or failure to do so. The central idea is to have the characters use their skills, but also to have a sort of "plan of approach" for how they use them, and use the ad-hoc bonus or penalty system to support that. Even if the character incurs a penalty for a poor approach, their skill bonuses might be high enough to overcome it - conversely, a player with low skill might use a smart approach to succeed.

Now, if your party has a dedicated diplomancer, chances are good that they'll score an overwhelming success anyway, even if all of the party's suggestions were so terrible that the roll had a -16 modifier. But that's a horse of a different color and far beyond the scope of your question.

echo

[Kaelik]

I'm going to quote part of my rant.

Some abilities might need to be skills, like ...Social stuff if that's where you put it in your system instead of having genuine social combat. But fuck everything else that's a skill.

Name a single "skill challenge" that isn't social related.

If you can't, then guess what, you don't want skill challenges, you want social combat, and we have eighteen threads for social combat that you can read and argue in instead of the skill challenge thread.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Really - throw some obstacles at people if you want a scene to be more than two diplomacy rolls. Maybe the king is heads over heels for his new mistress, neglecting the audiences, and has ordered no one to disturb him.

"I Diplomacy him to get over her, and then I Diplomacy him to help us."

There is a locked wooden treasure chest guarded by an Orc.
"I hit the Orc with my axe to stop him from guarding the treasure chest, and I hit the treasure chest with my axe to make it open."

[Chamomile]

Breaking the scene up ito smaller parts is one thing - I'd break it up into an adventure of its own.

Good for you and all, but if I wanted to go with the MMORPG solution of solving all political crises by finding a key player and convincing him to swing his vote by killing ten boars for him, I could already do that.

-snip-

That system is workable, but it still ultimately comes down to one die roll made by one player, and built into the system it's very easily possible for a player to make things worse by their contributions, which means it'd be better if they'd said nothing at all. This is something that totally happens in real life, but it discourages players from playing the parts of the game they or their characters are bad at, and this is not good.

Name a single "skill challenge" that isn't social related.

The transplanar magepunk empire in my homebrew setting is in the middle of a war across the various Primes, and will thus be leaving wrecked or otherwise abandoned magepunk devices/weapons/ships all over the place once the war gets into full gear, which shouldn't take long. Point of all this being, getting stuff like this to work is a skill challenge. Too important to reduce to a single check, not really something you can solve by hitting things with an axe. Also: Stealth.

There is a locked wooden treasure chest guarded by an Orc.
"I hit the Orc with my axe to stop him from guarding the treasure chest, and I hit the treasure chest with my axe to make it open."

You really going to try and convince me that fighting a monster is exactly as complicated as rolling a single Diplomacy check?

[Kaelik]

Point of all this being, getting stuff like this to work is a skill challenge. Too important to reduce to a single check, not really something you can solve by hitting things with an axe. Also: Stealth.

You are an idiot. A skill challenge is not "anything you might roll a skill for."

And you are also an idiot because your random bullshit magery constructs are going to be activated by one guy making 14 UMD checks, which is stupid, because guess what, they could have just rolled one UMD check. There is no such thing as too important for a single check, because rolling the same thing at the same DC 14 times is not better than rolling it once at that DC.

[RadiantPhoenix]

You really going to try and convince me that fighting a monster is exactly as complicated as rolling a single Diplomacy check?

If, "hit the Orc over the head with a big enough Power Attack", has the same DC as, "make the king forget about his latest mistress," then yes; on the other hand, the DC to make a level-appropriate king 'get over' someone is probably pretty high.

[echoVanguard]

That system is workable, but it still ultimately comes down to one die roll made by one player, and built into the system it's very easily possible for a player to make things worse by their contributions, which means it'd be better if they'd said nothing at all. This is something that totally happens in real life, but it discourages players from playing the parts of the game they or their characters are bad at, and this is not good.

I'm afraid you appear to have misunderstood the point of my post. First of all, yes, it comes down to one die roll made by one player, but all players have contributed. Second, it is indeed possible for people to make things worse, but that's going to happen in any situation - if you are dead-set on encouraging participation at the expense of tactics, simply do not award penalties. Lastly, think carefully about what you are actually trying to accomplish - if your goal is just to get the players involved at the expense of everything else, just have them all use the Aid Another rules for skill checks. If you want them to actually be challenged, the ad hoc bonus and penalty system is a great way to encourage them to contribute actual character roleplay. If all you want is more dice being rolled, just make the requested action smaller in scope - a door with a multi-part lock can require either one very difficult Open Lock roll, or several easier Open Lock rolls, depending on how you adjudicate it. Perhaps the social challenge with the king could take the form of a conversation tree, where success or failure on a given roll pushes the conversation down a different path.

It sounds to me like you don't really have your problem clearly defined. The system already puts forth several different ways in which you accomplish what you want - the question is, which problem are you trying to solve? Any solution you choose will have certain advantages and certain drawbacks.

echo

[shadzar]

You really going to try and convince me that fighting a monster is exactly as complicated as rolling a single Diplomacy check?

If, "hit the Orc over the head with a big enough Power Attack", has the same DC as, "make the king forget about his latest mistress," then yes; on the other hand, the DC to make a level-appropriate king 'get over' someone is probably pretty high.

what is the DC for hitting the orc over the head with a pie?

[Chamomile]

If, "hit the Orc over the head with a big enough Power Attack", has the same DC as, "make the king forget about his latest mistress," then yes; on the other hand, the DC to make a level-appropriate king 'get over' someone is probably pretty high.

If the orc can be swatted aside with a single attack, it's clearly not a very compelling encounter, and the solution to this is obvious: Upgrade the orc to, say, an ogre. Now that the combat requires more than one blow to end, it also requires more thought than "roll dice at it until we hit the DC." Raising the DC on a diplomacy check decreases the odds of success, but it does nothing to make the situation any more interesting.

-snip-

What I want from the system is that it requires some kind of thought on behalf of all the players, it makes use of the skills or abilities of their characters (preferably skills, since most abilities are just an auto-win and doing that to every single challenge is no fun), and if a player fails I don't want that to contribute directly to the defeat of a party. In combat, when you miss a monster, no one on your side takes damage, you've just failed to damage the monster. In a skill challenge as written, if you fail a challenge, you bring your party closer to defeat. This means that it's better for the guys with bad ranks in relevant skills to stay out of things completely, as opposed to combat where there's nothing to lose to at least try and hit the monster.

A skill challenge is not "anything you might roll a skill for."

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Kaelik spergs out over semantic details more than the guys with actual Asperger's/autism?

And you are also an idiot because your random bullshit magery constructs are going to be activated by one guy making 14 UMD checks, which is stupid, because guess what, they could have just rolled one UMD check. There is no such thing as too important for a single check, because rolling the same thing at the same DC 14 times is not better than rolling it once at that DC.

Are you paying attention? Like, at all? Or are you too busy masturbating about how badass you are for calling people names on the internet? It's not even clear what your point is, here. Perhaps you assume that the idea is to just put a half-dozen skill checks at the same DC in front of someone, and then wait until they pass all of them, rerolling again and again until they do, with no possibility of failing the entire challenge. If there's no time constraint and it's impossible to damage the device past the point of being repairable, they're just going to take twenty on however many checks are put in front of them, and it will take twelve seconds realtime for them to complete the challenge so long as any fewer than infinity skill checks are required. That's not the circumstance under discussion at all, which should have been abundantly clear.

Second, you might have meant that having a skill challenge where a certain number of failures fails the challenge is ultimately the same regardless of the number of checks required, in which case you can't do math. Obviously if you have to win 5 out of 9 instead of 3 out of 5, the odds are tilted more heavily in favor of the average result. Either way, the entire point of the discussion is that I do not just want to dump a whole bunch of skill checks in front of the party and say they have to pass them all to proceed. I need a way for them to fail, and in fact that's pretty much the whole point of the discussion. Skill challenges as written work pretty much exactly as I want them to except for the part where you fail the challenge if you accumulate enough failures on individual skill checks.

[Josh_Kablack]

But, let's assume the party's suggestions sum up like this:
Player 1: (half-orc fighter) "I tell him we want to see Plotbeard."
...this is at best worth a +0. It includes no compelling benefit to the narrative and is essentially a non-contribution. If the player's charisma is low, this might conceivably be a -2, but it isn't disruptive enough to be worth a -4.

Player 2: (human rogue) "I beseech the king to let us, in his great wisdom and magnificence, receive an audience with Plotbeard, so that we can help save the kingdom by pursuing the McGuffin of power."
...this is worth a definite +2, probably a +4 if the character has high charisma. It treats the king appropriately, gives meaningful reasons, and paints a clear picture as to what the player wants and why he wants it in a way that's probably sympathetic to the king's interests.

Player 3: (elven bard) "I tell the king a bunch of reasons why he should let us talk to Plotbeard <and then rambles on for 15 minutes>".
...this is almost certainly worth a -2, although probably not a -4. The character started out sensibly, but overdid it and now risks boring or irritating the king. It's also bad that he or she is taking too long and stealing the spotlight from the other players.

Player 4: (dwarven cleric) "I remind the king of the time my people assisted him with a similar historical matter."
... this one is entirely subjective based on the king's history. If the king is likely to be receptive to this kind of argument, it should be a +2 - if the king is likely to be irritated or angry at this kind of reminder, it should be a -2.

Player 5: (halfling rogue) "I forge up a document saying that a neighboring noble has called in a favor with the king to request this audience."
... the player should roll their Forgery. if it's a success, the gambit should result in no worse than a +0 (if the King is unhappy at the noble overstepping their bounds), but possibly as much as a +4. If the roll fails, the opposite occurs - at best, the action modifies the overall roll by +0, but might be worth up to a -4 in negatives if the King is extremely irritated by forgeries.

Player 6: (elf wizard) "I tell the king to let us see Plotbeard, or I'll turn his ass into a toad."
....guaranteed -4. Now, if this were an Intimidate situation, it might be a +4! Everything's about context.

In summary,

you expect every player to be as knowledgeable about the setting and as charismatic/diplomatic as their characters are supposed to be and you assign penalties when they are not.

I hope you also require them to run at you with wooden broadswords to get charge bonuses during the fighting minigame.

A player outright saying "I'd like to use my character's high bonus <social skill> against the chancellor" should be resolved in the same way as a player saying "I'd like to use my character's high bonus <weapon attack> against the orc "

[RadiantPhoenix]

I hope you also require them to run at you with wooden broadswords to get charge bonuses during the fighting minigame.

Real Man MCs have the players use steel broadswords.

A player outright saying "I'd like to use my character's high bonus <social skill> against the chancellor" should be resolved in the same way as a player saying "I'd like to use my character's high bonus <weapon attack> against the orc "

I have heard one and only one legit-sounding objection to this: "but what are you actually trying to get him to do?"

[Josh_Kablack]

I have heard one and only one legit-sounding objection to this: "but what are you actually trying to get him to do?"

I will admit that is equally as legit as asking the player if he's using his weapon to deal lethal damage, or subdual damage or make a disarm or attempt a sunder or trip the orc in the attack scenario.

And in an involved skills/social minigame there probably should be a roughly similar array of abstract options available.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I need a skills mini-game that requires multiple rolls and rewards some kind of thought.

The 'rewards some kind of thought' goal is impossible to do in a compelling way if you're going to declare that only obvious and sensible skills will advance you towards victory. No one thinks too deeply about using diplomacy to convince the king or using athletics to climb a wall. People DO put some thought into figuring out how to use sense motive to climb a wall or using disarm device to translate a document.

If I was designing a skill challenge system I'd have a two-tiered system where you can use 'obvious' skills to advance a challenge and 'non-obvious' skills to pass. Yes, that means that if you're using something non-obvious that means that sometimes the DM and/or the party will just flat-out veto that particular magical tea party attempt. So while it's amusing for someone to diplomatize their way across the mirror and should be sometimes allowed, attempting to profession: janitor their way across won't be allowed unless the player comes up with the mother of all excuses.

The important thing is that using a non-obvious skill where the explanation isn't compelling shouldn't punish you and that people still have obvious skills to fall back on. This of course means that creative groups will perform better than non-creative groups but there's a limit to how much group success will depend upon MTP.

[shadzar]

I have heard one and only one legit-sounding objection to this: "but what are you actually trying to get him to do?"

I will admit that is equally as legit as asking the player if he's using his weapon to deal lethal damage, or subdual damage or make a disarm or attempt a sunder or trip the orc in the attack scenario.

And in an involved skills/social minigame there probably should be a roughly similar array of abstract options available.

with the except that using a weapon in combat by default one would assume to do damage, unless otherwise stated. while in the social arena using the "social weapon" doesnt really offer much to go on to figure out why it is being used, except to alter some state of disagreement. but which state of disagreement? the food being served? the tax rates of a kingdom? the price of Magic Item X?

if done right when the idea or concept is being spoken, this could have a chance of being known like the weapon use is expected to do damge unless otherwise stated. like you have been discussing something with this person for an hour now, so you use <skill #7> to further your position in the ongoing discussion.

but the DM needs something more to go on if there is nothing existing or current that would let an idea come to what your goal is, and better to tell the DM anyway rather than let the DM guess, otherwise you are left with the DM deciding what you are trying to achieve for you....so why have a skill system for that?

[echoVanguard]

I hope you also require them to run at you with wooden broadswords to get charge bonuses during the fighting minigame.

You don't? It certainly livens up our combats.

In all seriousness, though, this is a false analogy. A more appropriate one would be giving a player +2 on their attack roll for flanking, or a +1 attacking from an elevated position. The combat mechanics of 3E are significantly more robust than those used for skills, and enlivening skill interactions requires a more robust implementation of ad hoc bonuses or penalties as a result. In combat, players use their personal tactical knowledge to determine courses of action, such as flanking, using cover or concealment, and manipulation of the battlefield (although they may need to use character skills to actually carry out the supplementary actions). The corresponding actions in a skill interaction are no different.

echo

[Swordslinger]

I don't know why people continue to talk about 4E skill challenges. They don't work. I don't think anybody is saying they ever did.

Not that skills in 3E worked any better.

As for social mechanics, they inevitably divide into two camps. The ones who want to talk in-character to NPCs and the ones who don't think conversing with NPCs is a fun activity and just want to fast forward social scenes to get to the next combat.

Of course, the answer for the second group should be obvious in that you just don't have them talk to NPCs. They already invented a game type for these players. Dungeon crawls. If people like that, then the DM shouldn't be taking them out of the dungeon. Give them a 10 level dungeon filled with assorted crap to kill and they'll be happy.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't know why people continue to talk about 4E skill challenges. They don't work. I don't think anybody is saying they ever did.

Not that skills in 3E worked any better.

You're never going to fix anything unless you know why it doesn't work. That's what this thread is for. And doing a 'tu quoque' remark is extra useless and is just the height of fanboyism.

[echoVanguard]

What I want from the system is that it requires some kind of thought on behalf of all the players, it makes use of the skills or abilities of their characters (preferably skills, since most abilities are just an auto-win and doing that to every single challenge is no fun), and if a player fails I don't want that to contribute directly to the defeat of a party. In combat, when you miss a monster, no one on your side takes damage, you've just failed to damage the monster. In a skill challenge as written, if you fail a challenge, you bring your party closer to defeat. This means that it's better for the guys with bad ranks in relevant skills to stay out of things completely, as opposed to combat where there's nothing to lose to at least try and hit the monster.

Then use the ad hoc skill encounter rules, but don't award penalties. Problem solved.

echo

[shadzar]

I don't know why people continue to talk about 4E skill challenges. They don't work. I don't think anybody is saying they ever did.

Not that skills in 3E worked any better.

You're never going to fix anything unless you know why it doesn't work.

but for some it does just how they like it, and for others it doesnt, so you really cant please all of the people all of the time, and have to choose who to please, so the people wanting to rollplay social encounters might be chosen over trying to "fix" the system.

so in your interest to make the problem go away, are you wanting to fix something that doesnt work, or just choose to disregard those that think it needs fixed, and leave well enough alone for the ones that dont require a fix....basically hand picking your customers form the path of least resistance.

[Chamomile]

I actually left one out (oops): It should require more than one die roll. It helps average things out, prevents a single bad roll from screwing over the players, and helps build a bit of tension. I'm thinking it should probably average 4-6 rolls, preferably with some kind of incentive for people to roll it even if they don't have any decent, relevant skills.

[hogarth]

Not that skills in 3E worked any better.

Skills like Climb and Jump work great in 3E. Skills like Diplomacy and Bluff -- not so much.

[fectin]

Actually, skills in 3E did work much better, as has been pointed out repeatedly. In 3E you can fail and be non-productive. In 4E you can fail and be counter-productive.

I'm not a 4E whiz, so I usually refrain from commenting on it, but that sure sounds like a big difference to me.

[A Man In Black]

Actually, skills in 3E did work much better, as has been pointed out repeatedly. In 3E you can fail and be non-productive. In 4E you can fail and be counter-productive.

For what it's worth, failure is only counterproductive in 4e in Skill Challenges. Otherwise, ad hoc skill rolls work more or less like they do in 3e.