|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 11:50PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I'm another who has embraced skill challenges. Yes, people ran non-combat challenges before 4e, but there were persistent questions about how to do it, how hard to make them, how to know when the PCs had succeeded and how much of an experience point award the players should receive. All skill challenges did was provide one answer to those questions.
Frankly, I've rarely seen skill challenges presented or run well, even in the DMG. There's one good example of the portal that needs to be closed in combat, but most of them are very dry. I think there was a perception that skill challenges would do all the work, the way monsters almost run themselves in combat. But, no, all the skill challenges did was answer the persistent mechanical questions. The encounters themselves, like all aspects of D&D still require some imagination and description. But if you bring those to the table, you can really make skill challenges sing.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 5:20AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2012
|
I'm very new to d&d, but I've had enough time to address the problems I see with skill challenges. When it comes to things like opening magically sealed doors or finding the location of a tavern, I use a set DC for the challenge as you're supposed to - that's because these things are quick, and represent the skills of the characters. With more complex challenges though, like interacting with an NPC, I modify the DC depending on the quality of a player's answer - I do this to incentivise good role play, because I found one of my players saying things like "I'll bluff him", whereas another player would actually put on a bit of a performance. It didn't seem fair to me that despite this their chances of success depended solely on the proficiencies of their characters. My in-game rationale is that in these circumstances the skill modifiers represent things like body language, tone of voice etc.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 8:09AM
#13
|
|
|
Best thing I can offer up with regard to easy skill challenges is to simply present a situation clearly and ask, "What do you do?" Don't have "the answer" written down. Don't write up the skills and what they mean in context. Just ask what they do about the situation and say, "Yes, and..." to their ideas until they come up with something that looks like it might be a skill check. When that happens, ask for the roll and fairly adjudicate the outcome.
If the skill challenge is more complex, occurs in a hectic combat, is staged, or has phases where the action changes, then you should write it up and give it some structure. But deliver it the same way as above, interjecting whenever necessary.
In any event, just make sure success and failure are interesting.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 1:16PM
#14
|
|
|
I'm going to take the exact opposite position. Relatively simple tasks like opening a door shouldn't be a skill challenge. THAT'S what I think made people hate skill challenges: many writers made any significant skill-based problem an encounter, instead of just a roll or two.
I think the reason that I've had success with that type of skill challenge is that they tend to only be part of an encounter; typically something that is taking place during combat. There are a couple of great examples of this in the Robot Chicken youtube videos. They give the party interesting decisions like whether to try to take control of the golem and use it against its allies instead of just destroying it.
I just don't see the need for the rigid success/failure structure in a more open-ended scenario. I ran through Menace of the Icy Spire as a PC several months back and the blizzard skill challenge was one of the most awkward gaming moments I've ever experienced. Perhaps it would have been better if a few of the hazards mentioned (areas of icy ground, fallen trees blocking the path, getting lost) were presented as individual scenarios where overall success wasn't about tallying individual successes from a bunch of rolls, but about presenting the players with the problem and having them figure out a solution. Depending on what the players dream up the outcome might not even require skill checks.
|
|
|
