Thank you for sharing your house rule. I'm sure that works very well for you in your home game.
That's not what the actual rules say, however. You either know the answer or you don't. If you succeed on the roll, you recall a useful bit of information; if you fail, you just don't recall anything pertinent.
Much though I enjoy your sarcasm, I should point out that you are reading the general rules for skills, not the rules for skill challenges. To belabor the point, skill challenges ADD rules on top of skill rules. For example, and this is kind of important, if you fail a knowledge skill check OUTSIDE a skill challenge, then, as you point out, it has no effect.
If you fail it in a skill challenge, then -- please correct me if I'm wrong here -- I believe it counts as a FAILURE, not as a no-op. If I am wrong, and every time someone does no succeed in a skill challenge knowledge check, then nothing happens, then please make sure that everyone knows, because I think most people regard the rules as strongly suggesting it is a FAILURE, with negative consequences.
Now, of course, as a GM, you are entirely free to describe a failure as a lack of anything happening, even though mechanically it is FAILURE, even though, as has been pointed out, it makes no sense to describe it as such, and even though every good commentator on skill challenges says failures ought to be described as such. Feel free.
*Honestly*
I can see why a lot of people have such bad experiences with skill challenges. It seems a rigid dark cloud descends over GMs: "must run rules in most rigid interpretation possible ... anything that makes them more fun must be a house rule ... cannot use creative side of brain ..." This idea -- that describing a failure as having negative consequences in a skill challenge (which it undoubtedly does) is wrong because wording for a skill doesn't allow that is just plain silly.
In D&D, there are quite a few skills that have no negative consequences in general use. However, in a skill challenge, every skill use can have a negative consequence. Choosing to ignore that fact under the guise of following RAW is doing an injustice to your players/
In D&D, there are quite a few skills that have no negative consequences in general use. However, in a skill challenge, every skill use can have a negative consequence.
And that's a problem with skill challenges. If they can't even fit within the framework of the rules..
They are just that awful.
That is not to say that many judges can't take the idea of 'here's an obstacle to bypass/overcome' and handle it very well. But the mechanics of skill challenges don't aid in things here, they only detract.
And that's a problem with skill challenges. If they can't even fit within the framework of the rules..
They are just that awful.
It is how many things in 4E work. It is one of the differences with 3E. Specific trumps general, and for the benefit of the game and the story, some aspects need rules that differ with a more generic application of the same situation. Why is to so easy to accept that monsters follow different rules in regards to powers (e.g. they tend to completely ignore equipment, their attack rolls are level and role based unlike for PCs) than PCs with the same abilities and items? But not when it comes to other parts of the game? The fact is, that if you want to let a Knowledge skill apply a success to skill challenge, then a failure has some negative consequences.
You can argue whether or not recalling a particular fact should provide a success or failure for the challenge as a whole, but that is not the fault of the skill challenge rules. It is the "fault" of the authors and reviewers (and yes, that includes me, it is a point I should keep in mind). If you want to stick to the basic PHB skill rules, the knowledge skills should be secondary skills by the RAW who either provide a bonus on the real check or does help the PCs deal with the problem indirectly. Mind you, it is applied in existing skill challenges such as where using Arcane to find a particular magical item (failure meaning you need more time to actually trace the items) does add to the success or failure, but where History provides you a clue on the villain behind the plot without giving success or failure for the challenge as a whole.
That is not to say that many judges can't take the idea of 'here's an obstacle to bypass/overcome' and handle it very well. But the mechanics of skill challenges don't aid in things here, they only detract.
Only if you as a DM let yourself get into, to quote GrahamWils: "must run rules in most rigid interpretation possible ... anything that makes them more fun must be a house rule ... cannot use creative side of brain ..."
Instead, you should read it as: Here is an obstacle to overcome, and here are a couple of good examples of skills and situations that help you deal with the ideas and actions the PCs come up with. Here is also a number of successes/failures you should aim at and which we think captures the majority of tables. It is perfectly acceptable to call a won fight (in fact, the designers stressed that point at several seminars at DDXP when discussing lurkers), so why not call a done skill challenge? Why don't DMs expect us the authors to provide a round-by-round tactics for the NPCs in a fight, but do expect us to do so with a skill challenge (or its equivalent anyway)?
I wholeheartedly admit there is more then enough room for improvement on how we implement skill challenges in adventures. Often complexity of a skill challenge appears to have been picked based on xp needs and not the goals of the challenge itself. Similarly, at times goals are too limited for a skill challenge, or example skills with example uses should not be applied in such a fashion in a challenge. In the end though, that is not the fault of the basic rules of skill challenges, let alone the concept (provide non-arbitrary structure with fair xp rewards to non-combat challenges). That is just authors, reviewers, DMs and players still comming to terms with this part of the rules.
I wholeheartedly admit there is more then enough room for improvement on how we implement skill challenges in adventures. Often complexity of a skill challenge appears to have been picked based on xp needs and not the goals of the challenge itself. Similarly, at times goals are too limited for a skill challenge, or example skills with example uses should not be applied in such a fashion in a challenge. In the end though, that is not the fault of the basic rules of skill challenges, let alone the concept (provide non-arbitrary structure with fair xp rewards to non-combat challenges). That is just authors, reviewers, DMs and players still comming to terms with this part of the rules.
Yes!
I'll admit that its hard to write a Skill Challenge for use by another person. In fact imo its much harder to write a Skill Challenge than a simple RP encounter or even a complex battle.
Skill Challenges are essentially nothing new, lets face it they are a series of skill checks to achieve a goal (that certainly isn't a new idea), yet the change in how the relevant information is presented to DMs and how those skill checks are incorporated into the drama of the game is new.
As bgibbons mentioned earlier in the thread how to handle failure, now that it is well understood what is needed to fail, needs more attention from writers etc and DMs. Most of us as DMs have a really good grasp on how to handle success, and even on when to "call the challenge" as a success (even when the mod might say they need a couple more successes), but the failure element is managed in a new way.
How do you give the players clues that they are failing in the challenge without making it seem they have completely failed the challenge.
Consider the classic chase sequence where the PCs are chasing the villain:
Success is simply keeping the target in sight until they are cornered by their actions or the PC's.
Failure on the otherhand means the PCs are starting to loose the villain. Now everyone knows that 3 failures means you fail and in a home game its relatively easy to add an extra fight, or even have the villain escape completely for the time being (only to return later when it makes sense), in LFR its not that easy. So now failure needs to make sense while still moving the game forward - how do you do that?
Making that make sense is the hard part, and where a challenge is made or broken when it fails.
Just a couple thoughts after reading the discussion....
Why everyone needs to participate? Because everyone gets XP from it. If a char does nothing in a skill check portion, it's wrong for them to get the xp listed for it. Find a way. Let them think outside the box and figure out how their strengths can help, because if they don't, they don't deserve the xp. Someone who is only good at history/religion/arcana can roll to know the technical data needed for a diplomatic player to enhance to win the convincing argument.
Maybe the problem with skill checks is that the writers need to find ways to offer skill check encounters that don't seem contrived/drawn out/senseless. There are tons of great adventure writers out there, but sometimes, the convoluted path to get 15 skill check rolls leaves me so confused I don't know what the heck my party is trying to accomplish.
Skill checks give an open opportunity for players who love to roleplay. I'll admit that they aren't my strong point because I'm decidedly an "instigator" who wants to get to the next crazy hilarious (ahem I mean serious and dangerous) situation. However, balance is the key, as my druid says. And everyone should be challenged, just as they are in combat.
I've decided that, given my complaints, it's only fair that I try to write my own adventure to submit to the RPGA, and I believe all people with gripes should also consider being a voice of change rather than just a voice. Maybe if we all tried to write skill check encounters, we'd learn new perspectives and new ways to allow characters to earn the XP in these encounters.
I've decided that, given my complaints, it's only fair that I try to write my own adventure to submit to the RPGA, and I believe all people with gripes should also consider being a voice of change rather than just a voice. Maybe if we all tried to write skill check encounters, we'd learn new perspectives and new ways to allow characters to earn the XP in these encounters.
Or run your own game with the new "My Realms" mod option. But I agree with the principle - it's much easier to design and run non-combat encounters in a home campaign with a group you know than to write one for a mod. Doesn't matter what edition, writing good generic mods is and always has been difficult.
Skill challenges can be a series of dice rolls or a fun RP experience, it's up to DME to make them work. Back in LG many non-combat encounters boiled down to "5 minutes of boxed text followed by the Bard rolling a diplomacy check".
Only if you as a DM let yourself get into, to quote GrahamWils: "must run rules in most rigid interpretation possible ... anything that makes them more fun must be a house rule ... cannot use creative side of brain ..."
In the end though, that is not the fault of the basic rules of skill challenges, let alone the concept (provide non-arbitrary structure with fair xp rewards to non-combat challenges). That is just authors, reviewers, DMs and players still comming to terms with this part of the rules.
Snipped for brevity.
I disagree as I do think it's the fault of the skill challenge mechanic. I don't see what having this mechanic adds to things.. all I see is how it makes life more complicated for the DM.
I mean if you throw out the rules for skill challenges when you run them then I'm sure a decent DM can do a decent job of representing what the skill challenge was supposed to represent.
But that's my point.. the mechanics of the skill challenge present an obstacle for the DM in putting forth the given part of the story.
In the case I listed you will note that the basic rules of many skills have to change in order for the mechanics of the skill challenge to function.
Why? Why do we need to change these rules to fit square pegs in round holes?
Now please don't misunderstand me here.. I like the idea of having an obstacle to be overcome that is not handled via combat but rather by skills and perhaps other abilities (say flying over something you needed to climb, etc). But I don't like how the mechanics were done here as they don't model the challenge but instead reduce it down to a bad sub-game which a decent DM has to do contortions to put right within these rules.
Throw them out I say and be done with it, I say!
Describe the obstacle and have the PCs solve/bypass/overcome it. Give relevant information to the DM on what might work to help the PCs, but don't straddle the table with silly rules and forms that not only don't help but rather hinder!
The simple reality of how often this discussion comes up is indicative of the weakness of the Skill Challenge rules, if not their overarching concept. The errata did not help.
As with minions, WotC has been pretty open about the shortcomings. You don't create a 6+ part article series on a rule mechanic that works just fine.
And, for advanced players that can RP for hours before the DM reads the intro, skill challenges can be a really confining system. For DMs that have a literal mindset, skill challenge formats can trick them into running a cold and boring encounter that consists of rolling dice and yawning. Other games I play, notably Legend of the Five Rings and Spycraft, do an excellent job of providing fantastic creative encounters where players understand they have something to accomplish but are allowed freedom with which to do so and reasons to RP while doing it.
Having said that, I'm ok with the system for the RPGA. Here is why.
Your average RPGA player is not a top-tier RPer. The average RPGA player enjoys RP, speaking to NPCs, investigating something, and figuring out what to do next. However, they generally lack the initiative to really immerse themselves in this. Many players, especially new or shy players, will stay quiet during such encounters.
What the Skill Challenge system does is force the table to spend some time on these issues, and encourages more players to participate.
LG diplomatic encounters, for example, often had good RP but one person doing the rolling. The LFR version often has weaker RP but involves more people. And, in the hands of good DMs, becomes excellent.
As with so much in LFR, we have to ignore many of the earlier mods and excuse them (somewhat, at least) for not using the system as well as the newer mods do. Newer mods are doing a much better job and trying out a lot of new things. From my own perspective, we aren't close to the end of where most authors/DMs have truly mastered the system (how to write them, how to run them). This is a weakness of the mechanic! Absolutely! But, it does mean that sticking with it produces results.
As we author, DM, and play, we get to see that it really is possible for the skill challenge mechanic to have great RP, encourage creative thinking, and encourage greater player participation. The number of times in recent mods we find ourselves wondering "Wait, is this a skill challenge or not?" speaks to the better way these encounters are being handled.
Having said that, I'm ok with the system for the RPGA. Here is why.
Your average RPGA player is not a top-tier RPer. The average RPGA player enjoys RP, speaking to NPCs, investigating something, and figuring out what to do next. However, they generally lack the initiative to really immerse themselves in this. Many players, especially new or shy players, will stay quiet during such encounters.
What the Skill Challenge system does is force the table to spend some time on these issues, and encourages more players to participate.
Except that if the players understood the mechanics of skill challenges it does exactly the opposite of forcing the table to spend more time on the issues and actively discourages participation.
To the contrary, skill challenges as a whole serve to hand-wave non-combat challenges. How did the paladin sneak past the guards? Well, you only had to roll two stealth checks so the ranger and the rogue did it and no-one else had to. How did the wizard climb the cliff? We needed three athletics checks so the fighter and barbarian did it (twice) and the wizard and cleric rolled dungeoneering and perception checks. No need to describe the barbarian as the lead climber climbing to the top and lowering a rope for the others who the fighter then led in the climb, showing them how to do it and giving them a hand in the rough spots. In some challenges, this makes more sense than others, but in all skill challenges, the focus is not on "how can the party solve a particular problem and what special obstacles do our weaknesses pose in this case?" but rather on "when my turn comes up, how can I justify using a skill that I'm good at?"
How about participation? Even a cursory glance over the skill challenge mechanic reveals that the worst thing a party member can do is contribute a failure. If your fighter does not have the appropriate skill, the best thing you can do is keep your mouth shut, don't make eye contact with the DM and either say "pass," "Yeah, what he said--aid other", or "I flex and use my impressive athletics--everyone knows athletes are cool and my coolness makes them more likely to accept my team's argument on this trade agreement because everyone wants to be on the side of the jocks." (I know that when I run into a social skill challenge with characters who aren't good at bluff or diplomacy, I shut up).
Bottom line, skill challenges are a mechanic for handwaving roleplaying and discouraging participation.
LG diplomatic encounters, for example, often had good RP but one person doing the rolling. The LFR version often has weaker RP but involves more people. And, in the hands of good DMs, becomes excellent.
As with so much in LFR, we have to ignore many of the earlier mods and excuse them (somewhat, at least) for not using the system as well as the newer mods do. Newer mods are doing a much better job and trying out a lot of new things. From my own perspective, we aren't close to the end of where most authors/DMs have truly mastered the system (how to write them, how to run them). This is a weakness of the mechanic! Absolutely! But, it does mean that sticking with it produces results.
Actually, I would argue that ignoring it produces results. I haven't played with a DM who ran skill challenges by the book for several months. At this point, a majority of DMs in my area have given up on the mechanic.
As we author, DM, and play, we get to see that it really is possible for the skill challenge mechanic to have great RP, encourage creative thinking, and encourage greater player participation. The number of times in recent mods we find ourselves wondering "Wait, is this a skill challenge or not?" speaks to the better way these encounters are being handled.
More like, "we have figured out how to minimize the damage done by a truly horrid and abysmal mechanic--usually by not using it." If only the authors, designers, and admins would do the same and consign it to the scrapheap of history with weapon vs armor type.
How did the paladin sneak past the guards? Well, you only had to roll two stealth checks so the ranger and the rogue did it and no-one else had to.
Because of bad DMing, not bad rules.
Before there was a skill challenge mechanic you wouldn't have let them do that, so don't let them do that now. Get the players to tell you how they are getting the paladin past and get them to make the appropriate rolls - just like before there was a skill challenge - and use the result of those checks in the skill challenge success tally.
Skill challenges aren't about being able to metagame the rules to achieve a goal - again bad DMing lets that happen. Skill challenges are about giving an underlying structure and guidelines to the DM to handle a non-combat challenge and determine a success and failure point.
Lots of the early LFR ones are poorly handled but I've played through a couple of good ones now, and as a DM I'm learning better how to run them, and now they work very well for me.
