Community

During my daily web surf, I read a really good blog entry by Robert J Schwalb on conducting skill challenges in a more immursive way. I encourage anyone that is planning on DMing an adventure to read the blog and see how interestingly a skill challenge can be run.

I've played in many adventures with DMs who treat skill challenges as a burden that simply must be passed and a mechanical dice-fest seems to be the quickest way to do so. Those adventures I've played where DMs run the non-combat encounters run in the more immursive way stick in my brain as the adventures I have enjoyed most.

Coming from this perspective as a player, when I've tried my hand at DMing I've attempted to make the skill challenges less mechanically presented. I realize that this takes a little extra prep time by the DM to fully understand and present these challenges. If you can afford the time and put forth the effort, it really does add to the experience for all participants.

 

The other side of that: normally it doens't matter if three people chuck a perception check.  in a skill challenge, it can.  Therefore, if you're not announcing skill challenges, you have to handle "passive skills" (knowledge checks, perception checks, things that normally players would have everyone chuck to use the best result because there can't possibly be a down side) differently.  (I like "take the result from the probable highest modifier, ignore the rest" personally)

I am firmly in the camp of not announcing a skill challenge and staying immersed in role playing.  So my style very much corresponds with what Robert suggests. 

One of the common pushbacks I hear or read, is that inhibits players from doing PC actions which are not supported by their skills.  I am not bashful to say, I think that is another way of saying they really do not like to role play their PC (or they do not understand RP is more than conversation).   If your idea of RP, is that you can spin an elegant verbal and persuasive discourse on a topic, but then, when asked to do a diplomacy, or bluff check, say, Oh, I didn't know this was a skill challenge--my PC is lousy at those skills, then how did you expect your PC to be persuasive, etc.  Transfer that to any skill and situation that is relevant, not just social skills.  Sure, they can try to do something they are lousy at, but there may be a consequence to failure.  If the players and DM are all of a mind, they do not want to role play, then trying to push an immersive style of play is probably pointless.  As authors, WDs, and DMs, we should help enable it, though, for those who do enjoy it.

Another pushback on skill challenges deals with failures, and playrs piling on.  I do not know of an universal solution other than to say, use some judgment.  If the check was to push open a door, unless there was a strict time limit, or the situation creates noise (as in Robert's example) failures of the Athletics check is probably meaningless. Some of this I control as the DM -- "hang on, not everyone at once," and usually as soon as the players realize that a verbal statement is not sufficient, it needs to be backed up by a skill check, much of the me too goes away.   Some of this implusive behavior issue was classifically manifested in PCs who would in the midst of encounters, open doors, set off traps, and otherwise compound the challenge.  Sometimes this is out of ignorance, sometimes from a chaotic personality who likes to liven up the action.

So my advice to players -- look over your PC skills.  Parse them into those you are good at, those you are okay at, and those you are poor at.  Adjust how you role play your PC as most willing to do the things you are good at (true for most people, BTW), hesitant but willing to do the things you are only okay at, and unwilling to try the stuff you are poor at (unless there is no choice).   Also, be more creative on how to solve a problem, and be willing to explain to the DM why you think your creative solution is a reasonable or feasible alternative.  If you want to be the PC who tries to do something he/she is bad at, please warn the fellow players when you sit down at the table, so they have some chance to be proactive or at least were warned. 

Forget the shackles of 3e (everything being tightly defined); but remember your character's stats define generally what you are good at and what you are not good at.  Otherwise in our imaginations, we would all be superheroes. 

Keith

Dec 30, 2011 -- 11:03AM, Keithric wrote:

Not telling people you're in a skill challenge, while being in a skill challenge, is a real way to screw up play.

Yup... mind  you, I'm not saying to actively hide a skill challenge, merely to present it immersively rather than announcing it. But yes, that might entail a bit of DM munging if the players are making mechanically poor rolling choices due to not noticing they are in a skill challenge. Of course, DM's might need to do that even when the players do realize they're in a skill challenge (especially if they are focusing on role-playing rather than mechanics).

One of my own tricks when players start 'rolling wild' is to ask:
"Is anyone assisting? Or are you maybe assisting someone else with that roll?"
(i.e. to tip them off that this is a skill challenge and/or the roll is important)

Being a large, shared-world living campaign, LFR does have some challenges with tailoring adventures and encounters to specific sets of PCs, to be sure.  Some of that, we count on the DM to adjust, through DME, although many on these forums know the history of discussion/debate as to how much is allowed/encouraged. 

I think to some extent, the players should accept they and their PC will not always be the star of the encounter/adventure.  If we as the LFR campaign staff try for varied approaches and balance styles across the campaign, then hopefully the players can either accept this variation, OR pick and choose which adventures they play.  I think most gamers on these forums realize that the urban adventures in Waterdeep, for instance, have a certain style of play, and players who expect them all to have physical skill challenges with heavy, no-legal restrictions combat is likely to be often disappointed.

Still, I am always interested in how we can make better adventures, and that includes with skill challenges.  The type of skill challenge I am personally most frustrated with is the "fast run" type, as typified by Chris Tulach's original Escape from Sembit (4e pre-release).  I ran that adventure several times but was definitely not satisfied as to how to do that skill challenge immersive and fluid.  I felt more information needed to be provided about potential routes, obstacles, props, NPCs, hazards, etc. along the way.  I tried some different approaches in WATE1-6, which I think worked better, but opinions may vary.  I also used one in MINI2-1 (heading to the estate outside of the city)  which I was not completely satisfied with, but seemed workable (similar to one in CORM1-1).

One other suggestion--as a DM, do not be rigid about the exact number of successes and failures.  If you immerse and go with the moment, a strict count might indicate you need one or two more successes.  From a game play aspect, close enough is good enough.  If the spirit or intent of the challenge has occurred, please do not get wrapped up in the numbers.  I have also encouraged authors to consider "special" skill challenges that put aside the standard formula--all entirely legal in D&D.  Mike Mearls did a lot of development to improve skill challenges which was captured in DMG2, the podcast, and various DDI articles by him.  I commend them for your reading.

Keith