] You can win or lose a combat, why can't you win or lose a negotiation? Of course you can.
You don't need a gameplay mechanic to decide a narrative direction. That is not the function of D&D's combat mechanics. The combat mechanics provide compelling gameplay. If all you wanted was a narrative direction, you wouldn't use D&D's combat mechanics, because it would be a complete waste of time.
] You can win or lose a combat, why can't you win or lose a negotiation? Of course you can.
You don't need a gameplay mechanic to decide a narrative direction. That is not the function of D&D's combat mechanics. The combat mechanics provide compelling gameplay. If all you wanted was a narrative direction, you wouldn't use D&D's combat mechanics, because it would be a complete waste of time.
Yet, this is the argument you have provided (with some variations and some notably false presumptions on operation) against Skill Challenges.
Again, your argument (compiled from posts including but not limited to this one) is similar to saying "When I drop an anvil on my car, my car doesn't wash my dishes. My dishwasher washes dishes. I can wash dishes by hand. I don't need a car to wash my dishes anyways, so why even own one."
When we point out that not only is dropping an anvil on your car likely to make it cease to function for its intended purpose, your car is not supposed to wash your dishes, your reply is "I don't care. I want it to wash my dishes."
I cannot argue that you think "your car is supposed to wash your dishes." I understand and agree that you have an idea about the function of your car, I simply point out that it is both incorrect, and that you are taking a wholly incorrect approach.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
I can understand your complaint. It was well-reasoned, informative, and used objective observation to reach a conclusion.
This is why you are respected on this forum.
I disagree with your conclusion, but I understand your issue.
Can the SC system be improved? Most probably, though it has worked well-enough for me to not bother thinking about it much, so I have little to no suggestions for improving the system itself. Contrast to 3e's CR system, which frustrated me to no end, causing me to have plenty ideas to improve upon it.
Thinking about it a little, the "trouble" with SC is unskilled characters and their players thinking they can't contribute. While I disagree with that assessment, the immediate solution is to grant more skills. If everyone got an extra skill or two, it shouldn't truly unbalance anything, aside from making the Rogue's "skill monkey" reputation feel a little less special.
Though as a result, since everyone would be more capable, you'd have to raise the relative difficulty of future Skill Challenges. Rather than a majority of Easy and Moderate checks, with the occasional Hard checks, you'd probably need a majority of Hard checks. Since more characters would be skilled, there would be more attempts at primary skills, lessening the need for secondary checks, and a potential lowering of improvised actions. Of course, this is all speculation. Without at least some trials, we'll never truly know.
If my speculation is correct, then that's not really the experience I'm looking for in a game, but that is subjective opinion and preference.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
I don't think in this case its function can be divorced from its purpose. To do so invites madness, which explains your posts on the topic.
The functional value of a gameplay mechanic is to determine if you win.
The skill challenge mechanic is a gameplay mechanic (do you win or not?).
If you aren't interested in winning (mechanically), the mechanic is non-functional.
If the purpose of the system is to do something other then determine if you win, it can conceivably serve that purpose even if it contains a gameplay mechanic.
The purpose of the skill challenge seems to be to see what happens to the characters in the narrative (which is not the same as seeing if the players win).
This doesn't seem to be madness. I can claim that the skill challenge mechanic is bad and other people can claim the skill challenge system is good and their isn't any contridiction.
Thinking about it a little, the "trouble" with SC is unskilled characters and their players thinking they can't contribute. While I disagree with that assessment, the immediate solution is to grant more skills. If everyone got an extra skill or two, it shouldn't truly unbalance anything, aside from making the Rogue's "skill monkey" reputation feel a little less special.
Though as a result, since everyone would be more capable, you'd have to raise the relative difficulty of future Skill Challenges. Rather than a majority of Easy and Moderate checks, with the occasional Hard checks, you'd probably need a majority of Hard checks. Since more characters would be skilled, there would be more attempts at primary skills, lessening the need for secondary checks, and a potential lowering of improvised actions. Of course, this is all speculation. Without at least some trials, we'll never truly know.
If my speculation is correct, then that's not really the experience I'm looking for in a game, but that is subjective opinion and preference.
Without taking the time to work out the math exactly, the main differences of moving to this design would be that players may perceive themselves as more skilled, but overall be less able to contribute.
Raising to a majority of hard DCs (since the difference in hard and moderate is slightly wider than moderate and easy) means that overall the players have less chance of success on a majority of rolls.
Those who still choose to create specialists in skills, and as a result wind up in skill challenges without obviously applicable skills (untrained) are now at an even steeper disadvantage because they are rolling a majority of moderate to hard skills with lower modifiers, rather than easy to moderate with low modifiers.
You would have to hold the player's hand and say "no, your concept is invalid, you cannot play a specialist, you must be more general" to make this work effectively. As you point out, most of the current problem is one of perception, created mostly by the easy analogy to the previous edition's skill system--in which you either could contribute with a skill or you could not, and there was little middle ground.
Since the "problem" with the current system is one of perception, rather than actual mechanics involved, it is easier to simply address the perception of the players directly, rather than attempt to fiddle with the mechanics to change the players perception and try to avoid creating the problem which did not actually exist previously.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
] You can win or lose a combat, why can't you win or lose a negotiation? Of course you can.
You don't need a gameplay mechanic to decide a narrative direction. That is not the function of D&D's combat mechanics. The combat mechanics provide compelling gameplay. If all you wanted was a narrative direction, you wouldn't use D&D's combat mechanics, because it would be a complete waste of time.
Combat is narrative. It is a violent, highly risky narrative with relatively little talking other than generic grunts, some taunts, and directions to "Go over there" and to "Take THIS!", but it is narrative nonetheless.
The combat mechanics help determine the end result of that narrative in a way other than "Good guys win, bad guys lose", while making the journey to that result fun and engaging.
The Skill Challenge system does the same thing for non-combat narrative.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Combat is narrative. It is a violent, highly risky narrative with relatively little talking other than generic grunts, some taunts, and directions to "Go over there" and to "Take THIS!", but it is narrative nonetheless.
Who said it wasn't? The concept of combat is obviously narrative.
The combat mechanics help determine the end result of that narrative in a way other than "Good guys win, bad guys lose", while making the journey to that result fun and engaging.
How so? It just determines how many certain mechanical resources you've expended. Its up to you to decide how to narrate what that means.
The functional value of a gameplay mechanic is to determine if you win.
The functional value of a mechanic is to determine how and by what measure of success you resolve the conflict the mechanic addresses.
To use win/loss terms, it's not whether you win or lose, but "how" and "by how much."
The skill challenge mechanic is a gameplay mechanic (do you win or not?).
The skill challenge resolution mechanic is a gameplay mechanic. Note that this is only part of the rules on Skill challenges, (and a much smaller section of them) as the rest comprise of skill challenge design.
Aside from the description of cumulative success, most other rules involved in the resolution of them are found in the PHB, under skills, powers, etc.
If you aren't interested in winning (mechanically), the mechanic is non-functional.
Incorrect. Your character may wish to succeed, but you may feel success is not in the cards for your character, whether by narrative decision, objective analysis of their stated mechanical definition, or so on. Using a mechanic for resolution does not imply you wish to win, only that you wish to see the issue resolved in a way you may have input on, but not complete control over.
If the purpose of the system is to do something other then determine if you win, it can conceivably serve that purpose even if the mechanic that determines if you win is non-functional.
This would be technically correct, however, you have not shown how this applies to Skill Challenges.
The purpose of the skill challenge seems to be to see what happens to the characters in the narrative (which is not the same as seeing if the players win).
Incorrect by omission.
What happens to the characters in the skill challenge is the cause behind the effect of success/loss. The success/loss and degree by which it is achieved is part of the mechanic used, but is not the majority of it. Cause results in effect. Effect is not the same as cause, but effect is directly related to cause.
This doesn't seem to be madness. I can claim that the skill challenge mechanic is bad and other people can claim the skill challenge system is good and their isn't any contridiction.
True, as long as both parties ensure to include the disclaimer "to me." or something similar.
Again, when asked "why" they are bad, you've only provided poor analogies that incompletely address the system, or examples of how you are using it in direct contravention to how they are described.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
Thinking about it a little, the "trouble" with SC is unskilled characters and their players thinking they can't contribute. While I disagree with that assessment, the immediate solution is to grant more skills. If everyone got an extra skill or two, it shouldn't truly unbalance anything, aside from making the Rogue's "skill monkey" reputation feel a little less special.
Though as a result, since everyone would be more capable, you'd have to raise the relative difficulty of future Skill Challenges. Rather than a majority of Easy and Moderate checks, with the occasional Hard checks, you'd probably need a majority of Hard checks. Since more characters would be skilled, there would be more attempts at primary skills, lessening the need for secondary checks, and a potential lowering of improvised actions. Of course, this is all speculation. Without at least some trials, we'll never truly know.
If my speculation is correct, then that's not really the experience I'm looking for in a game, but that is subjective opinion and preference.
Without taking the time to work out the math exactly, the main differences of moving to this design would be that players may perceive themselves as more skilled, but overall be less able to contribute.
Raising to a majority of hard DCs (since the difference in hard and moderate is slightly wider than moderate and easy) means that overall the players have less chance of success on a majority of rolls.
Those who still choose to create specialists in skills, and as a result wind up in skill challenges without obviously applicable skills (untrained) are now at an even steeper disadvantage because they are rolling a majority of moderate to hard skills with lower modifiers, rather than easy to moderate with low modifiers.
You would have to hold the player's hand and say "no, your concept is invalid, you cannot play a specialist, you must be more general" to make this work effectively. As you point out, most of the current problem is one of perception, created mostly by the easy analogy to the previous edition's skill system--in which you either could contribute with a skill or you could not, and there was little middle ground.
While I don't disagree with your assessment (that being higher skill checks to challenge the super trained results in the non-participation of the unskilled), I submit that by giving out more skills to train in, you end up with less unskilled characters.
It's not like they can become even more specialized than before. No one can put training in a skill twice and become uber-specialized.
My assessment was that by having more skills granted overall, players would be more capable of meeting Hard DCs (that are meant for those that are trained), and Easy DC (those that are meant to be for the untrained) would become trivial.
From where I stand, it just means relevant SCs would be harder, though not necessarily more complex (and thus requiring more successes). What would have been a normal challenge before, become trivially easy, and thus not worth running (like a combat against a couple of goblin minion "guards"). Such obstacles with absolute forgone conclusions are best just narrated along the way, while maybe giving the PCs a chance to describe how they overcome the challenge. They will succeed, no question, but the variance will be in their method chosen.
When in a skill challenge that acutally provides a challenge (meaning the primary checks have Hard DCs), there would be less impluse to make secondary checks, since if you can make a primary check, you will. You've invested in the skill, so you'll use it. Similarly, it lowers the likelihood of players attempting improvised actions (for the same reasons).
In short, it creates the kind of problems that those like Ongorth and Shaka are complaining about. And I think you got it right when you laid the blame on their perception of the skill system itself, and their thinking that skills are modeled the same way as the were in 3.X, where training represents knowledge, and no training represents no knowledge.
If there is one criticism of the 4e skill system, it's that you can't make a character be a total rube or absolute beginner. A character with an average stat and no training is still moderately capable of making easy checks. So the city-slicker warlock is still capable of starting a fire, and scrounging for food because he's an adventurer. If you want to roleplay him outside of his element, and overwhelmed by nature, that's cool. But then why complain he can't participate in a wilderness-related skill challenge if doing so would run contrary to the intended character?
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Incorrect. Your character may wish to succeed, but you may feel success is not in the cards for your character, whether by narrative decision, objective analysis of their stated mechanical definition, or so on. Using a mechanic for resolution does not imply you wish to win, only that you wish to see the issue resolved in a way you may have input on, but not complete control over.
Umm, that's a sterling example of what I'm talking about. If you decide you don't care if you win, you no longer care about the gameplay mechanic and it ceases to function. You are now looking for a mechanic that helps you find out what happened in the narrative, not a mechanic that tells you if the player won or not. The mechanic here can still do that by providing you a binary fork between two narrative paths, but its a needlessly complicated way of doing so and certainly isn't necessary for the purpose you've put forth.
