This isn't about the writing of skill challenges in general, but more about the difficulty of them. For me, when I DM, they usually feel more like filler than an actual challenge. If the information is "necessary", the mods usually find a way for the players to get it regardless of the pass/fail and penalty of losing a surge or whatever. Also, I've found that normally there is someone in the group that has no trouble hitting the DC's for whatever skill is required, and often times several players capable of doing so.
So basically, I suppose I'm curious what others think about it.
The DCs for skill challenges seem to be fairly easy, but that is because they are not geared to PCs 'specialized' in a skill. There is not a whole ot we can do about the DCs: if we up them, we have to give more xp, and that eats away the budget. What we can do, is try to encourage tp spread skills so they are not always used just by the specialists. Group checks are way to do that (if one or an X number of PCs fail the check, the group check fails). Another is follow-up skill checks. I.e. a successful Diplomacy check is followed up by an Athletics check (the brawler challanges the bard to an arm-wrestling match). Another is to have hard DCs for some checks, and use moderate DCs to support - this involves more people, and allows use of more hard DCs. In the end though, with the exception of real specialists, you will also need a bit of luck. If you roll a 1, most skills will fail unless you are really, really good (which happens, but is not rule).
Note that one thing I am tweaking with is how to determine success or failure. SCs have a way for it, but it does not always work., Sometime sytou simply have to go for 'averaged' successes. I am currently trying out a different appoach: If you get to the goal without 3 failures, you succeed - regardless of the actual number of successes. You will, on average, have accumulated X successes, but some may have more and some may have less (be smart, and you need less). I am looking at how that works out (so far, it seems to work).
Another trouble with SCs: while combats can end an adventure through a TPK, a skill challenge can never end an adventure - just like a roleplay shouldn't end it - at least not in LFR. That means that the results of a challenge are not *whether* you will continue on, but *how* you continue on. That may make success at the SC feel a bity less like a real achievement. You will always find the portal, catch the monster, get to the end scene. It is difficult to make the challenge matter this way. In a few cases the adverse affect hit others: NPCs died, bad guys got away, etc. In other, things just got a abit more difficult in future encounters. In a few, adventure outcome hinges on success in the SC - rather than the combats.
All this does not invalidate SC. SCs are a good way for PCs to use their skills, and can also cover parts of the adventure that are not covered by dungeoncrawls (I sometimes feel people forget this is a roleplaying game). Bit making them matter is hard, and often hinges on how invested PCs are in the adventure - PCs need to *want* to succeed for a SC to actually matter.
Looking at the questionaires between 5% and 10% of the table fail at a skill challenge, or at least those important enough to be put in the questionaire. In my experience people fail when with a random group when they realize nobody is trained in a particular central set of skills without PCs with high attributes for that set of skills. For example, there are a couple of wilderness survival skills that groups failed at because nobody was trained in Nature and Perception without a high Wisdom based class or social challenges where nobody was trained in Diplomacy and Bluff and nobody had a high Charisma. The pressence of reward cards will influence these numbers a LOT.
Regardless, as Gomeztoo points out, in LFR skill challenges cannot be adventure ending. When I review the challenge though, I do try to make sure that at least the important ones (complexity 3+) have a bigger impact then just the loss of a healing surge or a slightly harder fight. At the same time you also do not want to be the impact too big, since ultimately the concequences of failing something not as challenging as a fight should not be as severe. A poster on the LFR community board for example complained about the consequences being too severe in for example SPEC1-3 H1 (and the NPC does not even die in that challenge). For example, in case of a mystery you really want the PCs to proceed or else the adventure becomes incredibly frustrating for the players. Whether or not the players get stuck has nothing to do with the skill challenge mechanic, even without it, I have seen it happen in LG as well where the whole mystery was purely RP. It is the inherent risk of mysteries. Of course, the loss of xp in itself is punishment enough for the players that don't care about the RP repurcursions of failure. If you don't care about failure, there is little need to do so after all
Ultimately it is up to the DM to give the players the sense that success of failure matters beyond the often simple mechanical effects. I always found it easy. Fail the survival check, describe how tired and dirty the characters are. Fail the mystery, and let the NPC who eventually contacts them negotiate from an apparent strong point (perhaps even mock the PCs) and let the players realize they lost a lot of time and now the whole city knows they are searching criminal X. In my experience, while to the DM the consequences of failure might appear minor, most players I know really dislike it when they do fail. Why else would we get the many complaints about players turning a challenge into a game mechanical tactical approach instead of simply roleplaying the scene?
I'll be the first to point out that I am not a "good" DM at all lol. I can get confused in a complicated SC in a heartbeat. And I realize, when I DM it is my job to "sell" the skill challenge. I'm just not always able to. I don't like to look around a table and see my defenders or strikers scratching their butts or looking at the clock because they don't have arcana or diplomacy or whatever.
I've tried a couple ways of upping the SC, like adding a couple of points to the DCs. Another thing I tried was not allowing anyone to aid them. And another thing I tried was just going around the table and having each player roll a specific skill check (like if its a fighter, I'd let them choose between athletics, intimidate or diplomacy depending on what skills they have access to). Then, they would have to explain/RP how they use said skill. That was what I kinda liked the best because it involved the whole table, everyone "HAD" to do something and it seemed to keep everyone involved instead of just one arcane PC or whatever. However, the downside to this was that there seemed to be more failures. Although, I suppose that could have just been bad rolls on their parts.
I forget the mod at the moment, but one SC I remember standing out as being played out "cool" was one where if the PCs failed the SC, the next encounter's bad guys got a surprise round, and if they passed, then the PCs got one. Of course the PCs didn't know it at the time, but the consequence of not taking the SC serious, or failing it really made it stand out in my mind.
All this to say, I'm still working on my DM skills lol but I was just wondering if I was seeing the SC's wrong or what.
The DCs for skill challenges seem to be fairly easy, but that is because they are not geared to PCs 'specialized' in a skill. There is not a whole ot we can do about the DCs: if we up them, we have to give more xp, and that eats away the budget.
I think we just hit the nail on the head. The problem may not be the budget of XP or the player's that specialize. I believe the problem revolves around the continued idea that skill challenges are being minimized as a fun and pivitol part of the adventure experience.
Through the module writing process, we as an association, are trivializing what skills can do to effect enjoyment. Complexity 1 skill challenges seem to be the most popular and the majority of skill challenges in LFR modules. DM's commonly at conventions look at the table and say something similar to, "Well...here are the primary skills X, Y, and Z. Roll some dice so we can move on." It is easy to blame the DM, but should a paragon level module contain a complexity 1 skill challenge about crossing a river?
If you thought I was joking about the above example, I am not. There is such a skill challenge where a group of 11 - 14 characters that have fought dragons and fended off the advances of the priests of Shar are now having to cross a river. Is it a raging river of violent rapids? No. Is it a river inhabited by lava elementals that cause the water to boil and the sand to turn to glass? No. It is just a plain old river.
How about a few things to start. Suggestions on how to better work with players to enjoy skill challenges.
Positive Reinforcement - Complexity 1 and 2 skill challenges do not penalize a group for failing. Instead, if succeeding the group gains a benefit. Benefits can be a surprise round, starting outside of the PC's start here box, openning up another skill challenge that counts towards a milestone, allowing for an extended rest, etc.... After all, if the XP budget is such that you can't fit in a higher complexity skill challenge then the fights are most likely focus of the story. The skill challenges should support the combat encounters and allow the PC's to interact with them throughout the entire module.
Skill Challenges in the Module Must Advance the Story- A skill challenge to cross a river, does not advance the story. A skill challenge of a race to find an ancient temple of Shar before the Priests of Cyric find it, does advance the story (SPEC1-1).
Skill Challenges Should Allow for Character Interaction - A skill challenge should be a team effort, not an individual sport. This is a bit harder to conceptualize I think, but a skill challenge should strive to have players split the party. There are many skill challenges that are written with the concept that the player's have to talk to NPC A in Location X to get information and roll a check. Then the players go Location Y and talk to NPC B to get more information. Instead we should force the players to look at their skill challenges more dynamically. The PC's find out that two brother's, that are partners in ownership and of running a tavern, have the information the PC's need. The PC's also find out that the brother's tend to disagree a lot and have been having screaming matched in the middle of the tavern lately. If one brother sees the PC's talking to the other brother then that brother won't give a "friend" of his brother the information. You are creating a situation where the party splits and has to do a part of the challenge without the help of the other half of the party. This increase the drama and provides a memorable situation where 2 or 3 of the group have to work together more closely.
To me, skill challenges are the best improvement over previous editions of D&D. We just need to rethink our utilization of them in LFR.
As a DM, I consider skill challenges to be roleplay opportunities rather than serious challenges. Occasionally a group will fail one, which is good, but I'm not looking at them the same way I look at combats. It's a way for people to show off the non-combat things they want their characters to be good at. How is your PC cool?
DM's commonly at conventions look at the table and say something similar to, "Well...here are the primary skills X, Y, and Z. Roll some dice so we can move on."
Sorry, but if this is how a DM approaches a skill challenge, then yes, all blame falls, imo, on the DM. I expect such a DM will approach roleplay encounters the same way - iow, not like a rpg at all. In my experience though, this behavior is not the norm.
As to level 1 difificulty SCs: those are simpyl easier written, and also run quicker. Crossing a river is probably not the most exciting, but a small skill challenge can be used when PCs have to overcome an obstacle. Earning a benefit is as valid a reward as avoiding a penalty, but there is no hard and fast rule for SC rewards.
I've failed two skill challenges in LFR. The first was one of the first modules we did at Gen Con when LFR was introduced. We didn't have That'll Do. We didn't know about aid another. The DM had each person make a check, going around the table. It failed before it got to me.
The second was quite recent - we needed 3 Perception or Nature checks at 'Hard' DC, which meant apparently that the best person at the table (trained, bad Wis) needed a 9 or 10 while the next best (untrained, okay Wis) needed an 11. That best person had one That'll Do, but otherwise rolled 3-7 on all his checks. So we failed. The DM didn't allow aid another unless you were trained.
So failure is possible, but it's pretty rare. That's out of... an awful lot of games.
In my experience the best skill challenges jump scenes every 1-2 successes/failures so that there's a real flow, more skills can be used, etc.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
DM's commonly at conventions look at the table and say something similar to, "Well...here are the primary skills X, Y, and Z. Roll some dice so we can move on."
Sorry, but if this is how a DM approaches a skill challenge, then yes, all blame falls, imo, on the DM.
As to level 1 difificulty SCs: those are simpyl easier written, and also run quicker. Crossing a river is probably not the most exciting, but a small skill challenge can be used when PCs have to overcome an obstacle. Earning a benefit is as valid a reward as avoiding a penalty, but there is no hard and fast rule for SC rewards.
Gomez
I just want to illuminate and give rebuttles to the three points brought up.
Firstly, in placing blame on the DM at the con, The writer of an LFR module is paid to write the mod the mod is editted, and then playtesting occurs by a group of players who's critique is suppose to be valuable. The DM does not recieve monetary payment for running the module or adjusting the story. Even more so, the writer has failed to express to the DM that the skill challenge is important. Many times the skill challenge isn't important either. A DM at a con has four hours. The guideline for time, is that a combat should last 1 hour per fight. Three combat encounters per module is rather standard. 3 of the 4 hours is on combats. 10-20 minutes in mustering. 10-20 minutes in setup. This gives a con DM approx. 20-60 minutes to run the skill challenges, tell the story, and allow PC's to interact with NPC's. To blame the volunteer DM that is racing the clock is not who I would believe is the proper person to blame when compared to the writer that put a trivial complexity 1 skill challenge in the module that has nothing to do with the story. DM's can be and should strive to be better, but that doesn't mean that the writer should ask the DM to make things pertanent in their story they spent months writing.
Secondly, of course a complexity 1 skill challenge is easier to write. If the writer is doing a MYRE then ok, it shouldn't be as polished as a published mod, but these are published mods and the writer should be held to a higher standard. If the writer is not able to proficiently create a complexity 2 or 3 or 4 skill challenge, then the writer should not be good enough to write for LFR and might need to look at writing for a different system. As for a time issue, if you have higher complexity skill challenges the combats can use less XP and play faster or eliminate 1 combat and just have two. Obstacles should meet the level band of the adventure. Crossing a river is a level 1-4. Crosssing a river with rapids might be a 4-7. Crossing a river of disease might be 7-10, but a papragon mod needs to up the anty even more. Even still, there should be a story element as to why the river needs crossed, not just a way to fit in XP or a way to take a surge.
Thirdly, your comment on rewards boils down to positive reinforcement versus negative reinforcement. If you look though sociological research you will find that in a group dynamic that isn't as culturally structured towards the specific norm, that a postive reinforcement will better help to be a vehicle that will meet the end goal, which is for a small group of players to feel that succeeding the encounter had more weight. In a nut shell, this just means that players are more apt to give value to a success the gives them something extra versus a success that keep the status quo.
I'll be the first to point out that I am not a "good" DM at all lol. I can get confused in a complicated SC in a heartbeat. And I realize, when I DM it is my job to "sell" the skill challenge. I'm just not always able to. I don't like to look around a table and see my defenders or strikers scratching their butts or looking at the clock because they don't have arcana or diplomacy or whatever.
You aren't a bad DM if you are working on your skills. With a little luck you have many years of gaming ahead of you. You don't want to see what kind of a DM I was 20 years ago...
Here's an idea for the next SC you DM. When prepping the adventure, break out a piece of paper and write the goal of the skill challenge. (Example: PCs try to escape the forces of the evil dungeon and make it across the river).
Next, take a look at each scene or clear skill delineation. For example, the river crossing might use Athletics, Acrobatics, Endurance. Now, on the paper, write the story out, adding some color and reasoning. "PCs break through the forest, reaching the edge of a wide river. There are no rapids, but the water is chest-high, perhaps deeper in some areas, and likely to slow the party and endanger their supplies. A strong enough PC could endure this. There are some vines in the trees above, some which dangle down into the water and could be used to swing across. There is an area of logs and rocks that someone could balance or jump across. Some of the rocks are wet and slippery, others jagged. The far side quickly becomes dense forest/jungle once more."
So, now you have a bit of a solid setting for that scene. None of this is meant to be boxed text, but rather text that helps you have a mental image. You can even practice by conversationally (not reading) describing the situation to PCs. Maybe you want to give some hints (you see some rocks and jammed logs) but uncover others as the PCs have questions (yeah, some of the rocks are jagged, others slick with water).
Next, take a look at the DCs and the skill challenge level. DCs scale by level. The complexity (number of roles) XP-wise is equal to that many monsters of that level. So, a paragon complexity 5 level 12/14 skill challenge with complexity 5 would be as hard as a normal on-tier combat. Complexity 1 should be easy - the author designed it that way!
You can revise your notes accordingly. If it is an easy encounter, prep it as a story piece, focusing on ways the PCs can shine. You might think on how more vines could be used for Acrobatics, letting someone like a rogue shine as they swing across. You could introduce some fake concerns, such as a wave of enemies off in the distance, and describe how they are being left behind as players succeed. Maybe each success demoralizes some of the chasing foes, and they abandon the chase, lessening the force after them. You could add other no-success skills that involve the rest of the party, giving information on the fauna or flora. Maybe they find a plant that can be used as food (no special effect) or letting them escape a danger that isn't even in the challenge (Nature check identifies one rock as a crocodile, party doesn't jump on it). Just don't get off track. The idea is always for it to come off as an interactive story. Imagine the SC without checks, then try to have the checks enhance rather than limit that story.
If it were a challenging skill challenge, and the mechanics and description are lame (crossing a river, here are the checks), you can dress up the description further. Some of the vines are attached to branches with snakes in them... they will drop on the PCs if they pick the wrong ones. A line of archers appears in the distance and begins to fire on them. At such range, the first volley misses... but future ones might hit... Crocodiles emerge amidst the rocks, snapping at them. One of the rocks animates, some nature spirit awoken by their passage - there is no chance to stop and fight with so many forces behind them. The key is to add color but not to add any rules. Describe it, ask what they do, convert it to an applicable check. Example: "As you move forward one of the rocks suddenly animates, becoming some sort of manifestation of the river itself. Short rocky arms grasp for you. What do you do?" The skill remains the same, but when they describe what they do you keep them on track. "Well, you take a stab at it, but it's rocky shell absorbs most if not all of the damage. You can hear the troops approaching in the distance. You do note that this thing is short, mostly underwater. You might be able to jump over it..."
Hopefully, at the end and with no more prep than you would spend on a combat, that piece of paper will have some solid story ideas for how to breathe life into the SC and how to keep it flowing. For an SC already appropriate to tier (river crossing at H1), you just want to know how you will flow from one set of rolls to the next or how each skill manifests and what success or failure means, and how you describe the scene. For an SC where the adventure tier seems to need more (river crossing at P2), you can plan some embellishments that are just story-driven. Always keep level and complexity in mind, as well as the author's intent.
I've tried a couple ways of upping the SC, like adding a couple of points to the DCs.
I'm not a big fan of that, unless you really think that the author wanted a challenging SC but lacked the XP budget. For example, in one adventure I wrote, I was well aware that the first SC was not very hard. That was perfectly fine. I wanted the SC to bring about knowledge of the culture at hand and to allow the PCs to shine - this is how they prove themselves. Upping the DCs would be contrary to the goal.
Another thing I tried was not allowing anyone to aid them. And another thing I tried was just going around the table and having each player roll a specific skill check (like if its a fighter, I'd let them choose between athletics, intimidate or diplomacy depending on what skills they have access to).
I think you are fighting the system and I'm not sure you will win. Instead, you might aggravate your table by forcing people to participate and make rolls they don't want to make. It sounds as if you are giving options, and that's good, but it is something to watch with care.
Then, they would have to explain/RP how they use said skill. That was what I kinda liked the best because it involved the whole table, everyone "HAD" to do something and it seemed to keep everyone involved instead of just one arcane PC or whatever. However, the downside to this was that there seemed to be more failures. Although, I suppose that could have just been bad rolls on their parts.
The easiest way to make a SC hard is to A) not advertise what they can do, and B) force players to make rolls they would not normally make. Neither is necessarily good. Ideally, the situation is evocative, providing a hint of what is applicable. The player of someone nimble says "Hey, does it look like I could use the vines to swing across?". Any confusion should ideally be something you figured out how to mitigate during prep time. Some confusion can be good, by the way, such as when faced with various options. You want table discussion for these moments, so you might prompt various PCs/players for what they think.
Any time I prompt a PC, I give them an out. I might ask what they think or do, but I don't force them to roll. I might say "Yeah, you think that someone could try to jump from stone to stone," rather than making them do it. After all, they might be the diplomat, not the Olympian!
Regardless, you should know that all of us are struggling with how to best integrate SCs into the game. In the past, you often had scenes that had some RP but quikly devolved to 1-3 PCs making a roll or two and ending the scene (LG's diplomatic scenes or LG's arcane sigils on doors). Now we have ways to integrate more party members, but we have to learn better ways to weave the story into it so the mechanics aren't so heavy-handed. We also have issues with the ease of challenges and what to do to make success/failure meaningful in the context of this being an encounter and an important part of the story. It is an ongoing exploration for most authors/admins.
