You are viewing gloomforge

 
 
14 June 2008 @ 11:37 am
Skill Challenges  
OK, I know I said I was going to stay away for a few days, but I consider this an important topic and I wanted to put my thoughts together in a coherent post. I really like the Skill Challenge system in 4E, and I've been using in for months. There are people having trouble with it at the moment, so I wanted to provide my thoughts on it.

The common question I'm seeing is "How on Earth does anyone ever succeed at a skill challenge?" At levels 1-3, the medium DC for a challenge is 20. At first level, a player will typically have a score of +9-11 with a trained skill (potentially +15 with a 20 stat and Skill Focus, but that's clearly an exception). Given that you need twice as many successes as failures - and that you won't always be able to find a way to use a trained skill in a particular encounter - how can you possibly succeed? Mathematically, the odds are pathetic.

There's four subjects I want to address. The first are the modifiers to that math. The second is the basic principlies of skill challenge design, and the role that plays. The third is the consequences of success and failure. And the fourth is house rules I have been using. But before I get into any of that, I want to emphasis that a skill challenge should be as significant and interesting as any combat. It should make you search for ways to support your allies and consider creative ways to use your abilities; while it may be fun to charge wildly into the fray as a fighter, tactically you'll have more chance of success if you stick together and support the rogue. And you need to consider the strengths and weaknesses of your particular foe: just like you don't use a fireball on a fire elemental, you need to consider whether Intimidate will work in this particular situation. A well-designed skill challenge is more complex and interesting that simply "I make a Search check" - it's something that requires creative thought.

Anyhow, let's start with the math. I'm not going to worry too much about the challenges of first level, because you're a first level character - is it really surprising that things are tough? By the time you're 2nd level, you're looking at a +10-12 modifier with trained skills, and you have the potential of utility powers and a second feat (third for a human). With a +10 modifier, you're still talking about a 50% chance of success - and since you need twice as many successes as failures, still not looking so good. But, bear the following things in mind.

Rewarding Flavor and Creativity. In running a challenge, I'm not looking for the PC to say "I'm using Diplomacy." I want him to roleplay the scene. How's he making his case? Is he drawing on anything specifically relevant to his target? While I like this for color, it's called out as something that SHOULD be rewarded. In providing advice to the DM, page 74 of the DMG specifically notes that you can choose to reward creative action (or penalize the opposite) by applying a -2 to +2 modifier to the check. In some cases, I've specifically set up encounters where the player can get an even higher bonus if he brings up the right thing - but more on that later.

Aid Another. Every ally who successfully aids you gives you a +2 to your check, to a maximum of +8. If you've got a +10 base and you get +8 from your allies... well, a +18 has pretty good odds on a DC 20 check. NOW, it's entirely up to the DM to decide if Aid Another is possible in a skill challenge; if you're chasing a thief down the street, I'm not going to let you aid your ally's Athletics check; you've got to make your own. And even if I decide Aid Another is possible for a skill, I'm going to want you to explain how you're aiding - to put the same thought into it that you'd use if using the skill. So an Aid Another on Diplomacy isn't just "What he said" - tell me how you're supporting the main speaker's point. Nonetheless, once you bring a potential +8 bonus from Aid Another onto the scene, you've got a big change.

Utility Powers. Many classes can get utility powers as soon as second level that have long-term impact on noncombat challenges. And the point here is that you need to make a choice whether you will shine in combat or out of it - and that both are valid choices. As a rogue, will you take Tumble or Master of Deceit? As a paladin, do you want Martyr's Blessing or Astral Voice? The warlock's Beguiling Tongue, the ranger's Crucial Advice - all of these are utility powers that specifically help during skill challenges, and as a paladin, I personally took Astral Voice. As designed, skill challenges are a significant part of the system; devoting a utility power to them is hardly a waste of time. Some of these only change a single roll; others enhance a skill throughout the course of an encounter. And there's more noncombat utility powers as you go. So in looking at the base math, don't forget that there are modifiers TO that base math, if you choose to take them.

Feats, Feats, Feats. Now, one of the issues here is that the +10-12 modifier is only relevant if you're trained in the skill; otherwise, at 2nd level, you could even have a negative modifier (a plate-and-shield armored paladin with 8 Dex will have a tasty -4 on Acrobatics). Of course, the challenge to you is to find a way to bring one of your trained skills to bear on the challenge... which means that it's good to have trained skills. In 4E, you get more feats than you used to in 3E... and beyond that, at the Heroic Tier, those feats simply pack less of a combat punch than they used to. Weapon Focus? +1 damage instead of +2. Power Attack is certainly useful, but at heroic tier it's a maximum of +3 damage for the greataxe wielding fighter, not the potential +10 of the past. These feats are USEFUL... but they are no longer VITAL. Which means that skill-related choices become a more plausible way to spend your feats. The 4th-level paladin I'm playing in a game at the moment has three feats: Multiclass Warlord training (which included Diplomacy training); Skill Training (Heal); and Skill Focus (Intimidate). Between my high Charisma, racial bonus to Intimidate, and Astral Voice utility power, I am awesome when it comes to Intimidate or Diplomacy; but I'm also decent at Athletics, Religion, Heal, and Endurance, which gives me a fairly diverse spread of skills to choose from when looking for a way to help in a situation. My Perception? only +4. But in that investigation scenario, ifsomeone else can find the bloodstain, I can study it with my Heal skill and see what I can learn. My point is that I consider all of these feats far more effective choices than taking Weapon Focus and getting a +1 to damage. it's much easier than it used to be to take your fighter and say "He used to be a bouncer at a bar - I want him to be Streetwise." Spending a feat on Skill Training won't cripple your fighter in combat; and with skill challenges, it's really a good thing to try to diversify your character, to be more than just the big strong guy. Sure, you're big and strong - but perhaps you grew up out in the country, where you developed your Nature skill (as fighters are rewarded for having a decent Wisdom, there's a lot of Wisdom skills you could train!).

CHALLENGE DESIGN. You can make a challenge very straightforward. "You are trying to scare this man. You need to make Intimidate checks. DC 20. Go!" This is the same as having a dungeon encounter where you say "It's a 10 by 10 room with no interesting features. There's an orc with a pie standing dead center. He's going to fight you. Go!" In creating a combat scenario, you're likely to put thought into ways to make it interesting. How's the terrain affect things? Are there tactics the monsters should use, or things the PCs can do to make the fight easier (IE, target the wizard first, avoid using scorching burst on the fire resistant creatures, get back to back to avoid being flanked)? As a DM, are you taking into account any of the PC's abilities when making the encounter?

All of these same things should apply to a good skill challenge. Let's take the basic example of trying to convince Duke Soandso to commit troops against your enemy, Count Suchandsuch. You could say that the base skills are Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate, DC 20 on each, and leave it there. Or you could get more creative.

Diplomacy is the obvious baseline in this case. It's a diplomatic encounter, right? But perhaps Duke Soandso is a proud warrior who hates silver-tongued weasels; he respects STRENGTH, and he likes a man who makes a fierce case. As such, perhaps the Intimidate DC is only 15. Of course, another Duke might be infuriated by someone daring to speak impudently to him in his own hall - if you're dealing with such a man, Intimidate might be an option... but one that results in automatic failure. Again, in combat, sometimes you'll find the creature that's vulnerable to fire - and sometimes you'll fight one that's immune to fire. That's what makes things interesting - every diplomatic encounter is NOT going to be the same, and you're going to have to adjust your tactics accordingly.

So how do you KNOW what skills are going to work? To begin with, that's where roleplaying comes in. Again, you could play this as just a flat series of die rolls, but if that's all you want to do, why are you playing a RPG? In my campaign, every die roll is going to involve some roleplaying on the part of both player and DM, as the player justifies his roll and the DM plays out the Duke's response. If you try your Diplomacy and the Duke snaps "I have no time for weasels in priestly robes!" that's a good sign that Diplomacy isn't your best shot here. Beyond that, though, try a skill. Perhaps Insight will reveal what he's hiding - or perhaps History will tell you of the time he executed an impudent ambassador.

Beyond this, as a DM, I like to bury hidden rewards for clever ideas. History's not a "primary" skill for the challenge. But perhaps, if you use History, you'll learn about how Duchess Soandso was a woman of peace - and if you work Duchess Soandso into a Bluff or Diplomacy check in a meaningful way ("Wouldn't your wife have wanted you to do this, Duke?", I might give you a +5 to the check. So you CAN just go Diplomacy Diplomacy Diplomacy... but you'll have a better chance of success if you evaluate the situation and look for clues, just as you'd have a better chance of winning a battle if you can take advantage of the terrain. In an encounter with gnolls, I set the initial Intimidate DC at 25, because you just don't know enough about their culture to lean on them... but if someone makes a Nature check, it drops to DC 15, because Initimidation is actually the right tactic to take as long as you know how to do it ("Challenge the father, but NEVER insult his mother."). It's more than just twelve die rolls; it's an encounter, and it should offer just as much opportunity for creativity and clever tactics as a battle.

Furthermore, in creating a skill challenge, I AM going to look the party I'm dealing with. Just like I'd design a fight to pose a challenge to THAT GROUP, I'll look at a skill challenge and say "OK, Lupin's got a good Nature check - if he thinks to use it, he can turn things around."

SUCCESS AND FAILURE. Skill challenges should be challenging. If the players can assume that they will succeed at every challenge, why bother doing them in the first place? As a result, in designing a skill challenge, you need to give careful thought to the consequences of success and failure, and whether partial success is an option. You should never build a skill challenge into an adventure in such a way that failure brings the adventure to a halt....if the players HAVE to win, then you'd better just let them win. Failure may make things more difficult for them. It may have severe consequences. But it should never be the end of everything.

The first aspect of this is to consider the potential of partial success. If I'm doing a skill challenge where you're trying to gather information in a bar, what I'm going to do is have a table of information, with each success getting you one more piece of the puzzle. If you go all the way, you're going to have a much easier time. If you fail - meaning that the crowd has clammed up - you're going to have to try to solve the puzzle using only the information you managed to collect. For example, in the adventure I'm playing in, we found an inscrption on the wall, and each success in the skill challenge let us translate one line. We only succeeded in two out of four - but those two lines were still enough for us to figure out the puzzle and get past it. If we'd gotten all four, it would have been trivial; as it was, it was tricky, but we still managed.

Taking the example of Duke Soandso, full success would mean that he'd commit troops to help you against Count Suchandsuch. Partial failure would depend on just how close you were. If you missed by one success, he might send one of his best soldiers with you to report on the situation - so you get some help, even if not all the help that you wanted; and in any case, the Duke will fortify his domain while he considers your worlds. Total failure could result in the Duke actually joining fores with the Count. It's still not the end of the game; but it's going to make life much more challenging for you, as now you have two enemies to fight.

Likewise, say the challenge is a chase - as you're pursuing a thief through the city. Success means you catch him. On a close failure, he slips away - but you at least got close to his hide out, and you know what part of the city he's in. You can pick up the stolen goods from the local fence, and if you want to keep hunting for the theif you've got a good starting point. Total failure means that the thief will be back with his buddies later in the night, since you were such easy marks... giving you ANOTHER chance to catch him, only now he's got friends. Again, the adventure isn't OVER - it's just a question of what actions come next and if you will have an easier or more difficult time.

HOUSE RULES. Now, I admit, I have been using a few house rules to help people with skill challenges.

Action Points. I allow people to use an action point in a skill challenge to reroll a failed check, and say that the second roll must be higher than the original. If they've missed the check by just one or two points, I will usually offer to let them spend an action point to turn it into an automatic success.

Critical Success. If someone rolls a natural 20 on a skill check (not Aid Another), I've said that it counts as two automatic successes. I've seen other people say that a critical success should instead eliminate a failure, and I may try this out.

In any case, in looking purely at the math of +9-11 vs DC 20, you're missing a lot of the options and depth that go into a skill challenge. First you have the potential modifiers to the math. Then you have the fact that a good skill challenge should always provide interesting options; it should be more than just a few flat rolls. And finally there's the fact that failing a skill challenge shouldn't be the end of the world. In many cases I assume that the PCs WON'T succeed at a skill challenge (remember as DM, I KNOW what their skills are when I'm designing the challenge); the issue is that the closer they get, the better.

There's certainly other house rules you could add. But I don't consider skill challenges to be broken, and I've really enjoyed using the system; it's one of my favorite aspects of 4E.

Tags:
 
 
Current Location: Boulder, Colorado
Current Mood: awake
Current Music: Would be a lovely thing
 
 
 
( Read 128 commentsLeave a comment )
tropico1 on June 14th, 2008 10:38 pm (UTC)
Sorry, but, is any of this supposed to be new information in any way? Seriously, this is like reading "Some players like to collect loot and others like to roleplay" being passed off as DMing advice.

All these points and many more that you didn't even begin to address have already been discussed exhaustively at ENWorld in many different threads. The conclusion is always the same: There are big problems with challenges at a fundamental level, regardless of ANY of this.

People who base their opinion on the math agree. People who base their opinion on nothing but actual play agree. People who use skill challenges exactly as specified in the DMG agree. People who have extensively designed challenges to be custom-made to use their party's highest skills agree. People who use challenges as tactical puzzles agree. People who only reward roleplaying agree.

Myself, I haven't even clicked on any math thread since math theory puts me to sleep, but I *have* run over 40 different skill challenges through eleven 4e sessions so far, half of those strictly within the RAW, the other half playing around with everything you mention here and several things you don't. The answer is unequivocal. Challenges do not work properly as written.

And here you are telling me 'oh no no, it's just because you didn't -design- them well enough.' Dude, no offense, but comes across as patronizing and almost insulting. Customer Support has already communicated to several people that the 4e design team is aware of the problems and some type of solution should be forthcoming in future errata. So WotC has admitted what everybody knows. I think the best thing to do is just wait to see what they come up with and not try to cover it up with shallow platitude-y advice.
Keith Bakergloomforge on June 14th, 2008 11:01 pm (UTC)
Sorry, but, is any of this supposed to be new information in any way?

Tropico1, I'm not a 4E designer or a WotC staffer. What I am is someone who's been playing the game for four months now, who's created and run lots of skill challenges, and who's had fun doing them. My opinion isn't official. It's my opinion. If you think it's worthless or patronizing, then stay the %#$^ off my LJ. This isn't some sort of official errata: it's my opinion, nothing more. Beyond that, my point is actually that much of it is NOT new information - it's information that people may simply have overlooked. For example, I recently talked to someone who thought that any secondary skill HAD to be set at a hard difficulty, which simply isn't true; creating a situation where a skill becomes available at an easy difficulty is part of challenge design.

And here you are telling me 'oh no no, it's just because you didn't -design- them well enough.' Dude, no offense, but comes across as patronizing and almost insulting.

Offense taken. Again, you're coming here, taking advice that is freely given and insulting me for providing it? If you don't need this advice, good for you - you don't need to be here. I didn't title this entry "Advice to Tropico". I'm not trying to patronize YOU, because I don't know anything about what you're doing in your game. I'm telling you what I've done with the system, based on my experience as a DM. Honestly, I don't CARE what the threads at ENWorld say, or even what WotC customer support says - because I'm not with WotC. I'm telling you what I've done, and that it's worked for me. If you find that patronizing, again, don't read the LJ. It's not like it's got any more weight than a thread at ENWorld; it's just the opinion of one more gamer.

I think the best thing to do is just wait to see what they come up with and not try to cover it up with shallow platitude-y advice.

You go ahead and do that. In the meantime, I'll be working on the skill challenge for the game I'm running tomorrow. I'm looking forward to it.
Ari: hate!!mouseferatu on June 14th, 2008 11:33 pm (UTC)
Wow.

Keith, if you need me to show where the instruction are for banning someone from commenting in your journal, just let me know.

"Wah! Your advice isn't useful for me personally! You shouldn't have posted it, even though it's your own private journal, and other people might find it helpful!"

I'm so glad this didn't happen on ENWorld, because there I wouldn't actually be able to use the phrase "inconsiderate self-centered smegma-brained penis-weasel" without getting banned.
Keith Bakergloomforge on June 14th, 2008 11:38 pm (UTC)
I'm so glad this didn't happen on ENWorld, because there I wouldn't actually be able to use the phrase "inconsiderate self-centered smegma-brained penis-weasel" without getting banned.

Don't be so sure... how do I ban people again? ;)

With that said, I am just as glad to have the opportunity to say this clearly. I'm not claiming to be some sort of authority on 4E. Eberron? Sure, that's my thing. But in 4E, all I can do is share opinions based on my experience with the game. If you disagree, if it's not helpful to you, I'm sorry to hear it. But it's just one gamer's livejournal - not some word from on high guaranteed to solve all your woes.
(Deleted comment)
tropico1 on June 15th, 2008 06:06 am (UTC)
Oh yeah. Oooooooo. That was scary. I consider myself dealt with. Lol.
somegaijin42somegaijin42 on June 15th, 2008 06:33 am (UTC)
Comment redacted. Meh.
tropico1 on June 15th, 2008 06:05 am (UTC)
Yeah, there's no need to take it so personally.

I am limiting myself to critizing solely your arguments and have steered well away from judging you as a person. You react as if I had called you names or something. Please.

IF this advice had given you so many good real actual play results you'd think you'd be defending them like a rational person instead of immediately throwing hissy fit.

And, to people below? Arguments like this happen on ENWorld and WotC boards all the time, I know because I'm usually in them, and noone gets banned because there's nothing to ban anybody over; you're just pretending that there is. Still, I apologize for miscalculating the situation, because people usually have (a lot!) thicker skin than this.

It's weird really, I feel like I tried to touch a soap bubble or something. Wow.
tropico1 on June 15th, 2008 06:24 am (UTC)
By the way, I know perfectly well who you are, I love Eberron and I think it's the greatest thing to happen to D&D ever, and it was in that context which I was commenting on you skill challenge advice.

I think my post makes it very clear that I DON'T think you're a 4e designer (you know, the whole "let's wait for the designers to fix it" thing).

Actually now that I think about it, was perhaps your violently defensive reaction spurred a little bit by the fact that I replied like I would reply to just any Regular Joe posting something on their blog, without any of that celebrity-like respect that would be due? Perhaps that was it. Whatever man. Get over it. Or don't. I'll have fun playing in YOUR setting that you brilliantly designed, and wonder at the irony.
Keith Bakergloomforge on June 15th, 2008 03:36 pm (UTC)
Actually now that I think about it, was perhaps your violently defensive reaction spurred a little bit by the fact that I replied like I would reply to just any Regular Joe posting something on their blog, without any of that celebrity-like respect that would be due?

Ah, got it. So now I'm shallow, patronizing, insulting, AND an egomaniac... but no offense, and you're not judging me as a person?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mean what you say: that you want a rational discussion and you're surprised by my rude response to your rude comment. Because yes, I was rude. You ask why I didn't defend my arguments like a rational person. The first reason what because I wasn't making an argument... I was offering advice. If I'd posted this on a thread on ENWorld, I would absolutely expect people to challenge everything I said. If I started it out "Tropico1 said skill challenges are broken, and is wrong because..." I'd expect you to argue. I did neither of those things. I offered advice based on my personal experience in the honest hopes that it could be of use to some people - not all, but some. So when you show up and say "Keep your shallow platitudes off my internet", yes, I am insulted.

Second, if you expect me the defend my points like a rational person, challenge them like a rational person. You don't challenge any specific point, you just say "Everyone in the universe agrees that it's wrong. Quit insulting me with your shallow platitudes and wait for WotC to fix it." Really? Everyone whose every tried to use a skill challenge in any form agrees? This isn't a rational argument; if I follow suit, I should say "They did not!" and you'd say "Did too!"

With all that said, I've got no problem with people disagreing with me. A bunch of people have already brought up the X failure/2X success issue, and I there I agree: they're right, while I like skill challenges, that aspect of them is flawed. However, it's one thing for someone to say "I see what you're trying to say, but I disagree with you here" - and another to say "Don't waste my time with your shallow platitudes." If you don't want a rude response, try not to be rude in the first place - saying "no offense" doesn't magically allow you to say offensive things.

But in case you honestly expected me to defend my points, I will.
Keith Bakergloomforge on June 15th, 2008 04:10 pm (UTC)
IF this advice had given you so many good real actual play results you'd think you'd be defending them like a rational person...

Again, if you'd actually argued against them like a rational person, I would have. So giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will.

What I've seen is people say that if you use the skill challenge system as it stands - skill +9 vs DC 20 - the odds of failure are very low. This is true. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying that as someone who's DMed and created a lot of skill challenges, my success rate has been far higher than people are predicting in the mathematical model, and I'm explaining why that has been the case. Which comes down to four points.

It's NOT +9 vs DC 20. Aid Another can give you a +8. Racial bonuses can give you a +2. Skill Focus can give you a +3. Creative action can give you a +2. Magic items like the circlet of authority can give you a bonuses and potentially, rerolls. And utility powers can give you bonuses and rerolls. So level one can be tough; there the best you can hope for is around a +25 (+5 from training, +5 if you max a stat to 20, +2 from a racial modifier, +3 from skill focus, +2 from creative action, and +8 from Aid Another)... though the +9 is more likely. But as you get more experience, get more feats, utility powers, and items, you'll get more options.

It's up to you to decide if it's DC 20. You design the challenge. You determine what should be hard or easy. You create situations where an action can change the DC of other actions. Again: it's not flat DC 20 vs +9. This much isn't new; it's straight from the book.

Failure isn't the end of the world. This SHOULDN'T be new, but it's something I've specifically had people say they don't see. So I'm not arguing that skill challenges are hard; I'm saying that you should design them with the consequences of success, partial success, and failure in mind - recognize that the group won't always succeed and make that part of the challenge.

House Rules. You ask what's new. Um, using action points in Skill Challenges? In retrospect, I'd say that this has played a HUGE role in my groups' success ratings... because it potentially gives you five rerolls if you're willing to expend the resources.

Again, I didn't initially defend my points because I wasn't making an argument. I'm NOT saying that DC 20 vs +9 is balance. I'm simply saying why, in my campaigns, it hasn't played out with the success rate people are predicting - and explaining why that's been the case. If that helps you, great. If you see it as patronizing, ignore it and wait for WotC to change the rules!
(Anonymous) on June 29th, 2008 06:41 am (UTC)
Hey Keith,

First off, I have to give props to you on the Eberron material - I think it's a masterwork, and I love the flavor you put on things.

Secondly, I have to say that the advice you posted on Skill Challenges was both helpful and confirming on my part. I got the privilege to playtest 4E at an RPGA event, and I've been reading all over the DMG through the examples and everything trying to find a way that I can make skill challenges work in my game. I personally think they will provide a fun, entertaining way for people to experience 4E. Even if my players don't stick with the new edition, I hope they take the skill challenge encounters and use them in their 3.X games. ;)

Lastly, I think you dealt with the flamer quite nicely. Just remember that when a baboon shows you his ass, don't get angry; it's just what baboons do, and they don't know any better. ;)

Take care, and happy gaming!