Okay, so this is not a thread about the mathematics of Skill Challenges. The last few Dragon/Dungeon articles have cleaned it up and basically has set the failure rate at 3 regardless of the amount of successes needed. Simple enough.
However, I question the fun factor of the Skill Challenge. How fun is it to roll 12 successes before 3 failures? It all seems based on luck. The combats also have their share of luck, but there are also strategic moves one can make to maximize your advantage. The player is involved in more than rolling dice. But Skill Challenges seem based solely on the luck of the die.
Now one could argue that a DM can adjust the DC based on player's ingenuity. But how many times will a player's ingenuity affect the DC? And still, even with an adjusted die roll, is it fun to roll the die multiple times for one skill challenge?
This is actually meant to be a question (not a rant) as I have not actually run through a skill challenge. So I guess this question is targeted toward those who have, either has a player or DM - are skill challenges fun?!
I think this really comes down to the DM. A Skill Challenge run poorly comes across as forced and somewhat arbitrary/inexplicable in the outcomes. A Skill Challenge run well makes for some great freeform RPing mixed with interesting dicing.
I think Skill Challenges are best approached as more abstract, let the players invent their own solution scenarios, than rigidly defined skills X, Y, and Z must be used.
Overall, I give them my seal of approval. They're really about (in my mind) giving some mechanics to things which previously came down to DM Fiat. Those players who get antsy if too much time is spent without a die being rolled get some satisfaction, and the players dying to let you know about his Wizard's tortured past get some too. Everyone wins! :)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how to run skill challenges. I think the way to do it is to make sure the rolls actually do something to progress the story. So, rather than say "okay, if you want to track the bad guy, you need to make 8 successes before 4 failures, start rolling" you instead say "okay, you're at the bad guy's last known location, what do you do?" If they fail on that perception check to find the tracks you say something like "Okay, you don't find any tracks here, but there's a muddy patch a ways off that might hold them better" and then they get to do another check. Keep doing that and tracking how many successes and failures they get and see if they succeed overall.
Or, at least that's my theory. I haven't had a chance to run a full skill challenge and am still struggling with it. Part of my problem is that the players aren't used to thinking in terms of skill challenges. So, in the above example, if they fail the first tracking roll, they're likely to say "hmmm...okay, we can't track him" instead of just continuing on in the face of the failure. Conversely, if you tell them "no, it's okay that you failed, it's a skill challenge, you just need to get x successes before x/2 failures" they're likely to go into automatic dice rolling mode, which is fairly boring.
Plus, the DCs in the errata'd table seem awfully low. The hard DC is 15. I have a player with a +11 to his History skill check. He can't fail medium or easy checks.
However, I question the fun factor of the Skill Challenge. How fun is it to roll 12 successes before 3 failures? It all seems based on luck. The combats also have their share of luck, but there are also strategic moves one can make to maximize your advantage. The player is involved in more than rolling dice. But Skill Challenges seem based solely on the luck of the die.
Games of Chance are a multi-billion dollar industry so I would say so. People like to try their luck (Yes, yes, I know its just statistics) and I think that adds some excitement to it. Ive seen some one leap up and shout (knocking thier chair over in the process) during a skill challenge becuase they rolled the last success becuase they were on the verge of failing the skill challenge. That alone made it incredibly fun for us.
Games of Chance are a multi-billion dollar industry so I would say so. People like to try their luck (Yes, yes, I know its just statistics) and I think that adds some excitement to it. Ive seen some one leap up and shout (knocking thier chair over in the process) during a skill challenge becuase they rolled the last success becuase they were on the verge of failing the skill challenge. That alone made it incredibly fun for us.
I see your point and luck is always an aspect of the game (as silly as it is, there just isn't anything more satisfying than rolling a natural 20 - even saying 'natural 20' inspires my inner and outer geek). However, part of roleplaying is feeling a sense of accomplishment - a feeling of deserving the reward every time XP get parceled out. I'm just not sure that rolling 6 successes before 3 failures feels like accomplishment.
I get your point though. If one's success all verges on whether you roll a 12 or better after a series of good and bad roles, that can make for some excitement.
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how to run skill challenges. I think the way to do it is to make sure the rolls actually do something to progress the story. So, rather than say "okay, if you want to track the bad guy, you need to make 8 successes before 4 failures, start rolling" you instead say "okay, you're at the bad guy's last known location, what do you do?" If they fail on that perception check to find the tracks you say something like "Okay, you don't find any tracks here, but there's a muddy patch a ways off that might hold them better" and then they get to do another check. Keep doing that and tracking how many successes and failures they get and see if they succeed overall.
Or, at least that's my theory.
This is pretty much how I've been running them. It works well. Each step along the path to the 12 successes or 8 failures results in some narrative description on my part. Something happens. Whether what happens is generally positive or negative depends on how the rolls are going.
Also, each round every player has to make a roll in the skill challenge. So if you've got 4 players, then you get to 12 successes as quick as 3 rounds of the skill challenge. Not likely, but you could. So it actually progresses fairly quickly. It's not like you're sitting there with one guy rolling the die 20 or 30 times.
I like them, but they take some work as a GM to make them fun.
Let's say you are chasing someone on camelback through the streets and alleys of your trading city.
You start the chase. The girl with your necklace is ahead of you.
She makes a rude gesture at you.
PCs roll a success.
You almost reach her, but she veers away at the last second.
You both thunder down the alley
PCs roll a failure.
You get caught in a banner across the street. you are almost unseated as you untangle yourself.
She's ahead of you.
PCs roll a success. You make up the lost ground by running your camel through a narrow alley.
You can almost reach her.
PCs roll a failure. Going past the vender stalls as fast as you can, your camel fails to make it past a pile of onions and onions are scattered everywhere. The stall owner nails you in the back with a thrown onion.
(It's the last roll, make it dramatic.)
She is getting hard to see, almost out sight in the twisty streets. you take a short cut but suddenly there is a row of nuns pushing baby carriages.
PCs roll a success. You somehow shimmy the camel, running full tilt, through them without hitting a carriage or scraping a nun. Suddenly she's right by you. You are able to leap from your camel and grab her, pulling her to the ground.
Or it could have gone.....
PCs roll a failure. You try to squeeze the camel, running full tilt, through them without hitting a carriage or scraping a nun. You somehow make it past, but the camel now cannot make a turn and you go down. The nuns crowd around, scolding you, the babies are wailing and you can hear the woman laugh fade as she escapes.
I really agree with the part where these need a fair bit of input from the DM to be good. I think you really want to treat them with as much care as you do with a more in depth combat encounter.
While on the surface their just X successes before Y failures they are in fact significantly more involved then that from a players perspective.
Note that not all skills work in a Skill Challenge and not all of them are equally easy or hard most of the time. I think this is the core of were the role playing and the interaction come in. The whole thing is something like an interactive puzzle with an element of chance. The players job is to figure out what options are going to stack the odds best in their favour. To do that they need to interact with the DM and pay attention to the information the DM is laying down with his descriptions and NPC interactions.
Consider the example skill challenge in the DMG where the players are interacting with the Duke. Note that this Skill Challenge comes with options that can make later rolls easier and also an automatic failure. The DM should be role playing this Duke in such a manner that the characters have a reasonable chance to recognize that they don't at to try intimidate. Thats a really bad move on their part - therefore this Duke is not intimidated by them and they should know that from how the DM plays the Duke. So the Dukes role played personality is important to the PCs as it can have a big impact on how this Skill Challenge players out.
There is another interesting tid bit in this encounter that I think is worth expanding upon. Like a good monster encounter a Skill Challenge often should be part and parcel of the rest of the adventure. In the example of the Duke there was the possibility of using a history check to find out that the Dukes family is historically oathbound to help and this makes things easier with the later checks. So how does the DM work that part into this encounter. Well you might manage to work a clue into the surrounding description but I think a much better answer is 'work it into the adventure'. In other words players should probably have had a good opportunity to have learned about the Dukes Family history prior to this encounter. Their should have been a reasonable chance that they know of these old Oaths because they found out during their previous adventures. In other words your background fluff for your campaign setting just, potentially, took on a whole new level of importance because it could very well be mechanically worked into something like a Skill Challenge. Your explorer type PC, you know the guy or gal who actually pays attention to the words coming out of your mouth when their are no sounds of dice rolling behind the screen, can pipe up during a Skill Challenge if its been designed to incorporate your campaigns fluff.
My feeling is that Skill challenges certianly can be one time isolated events but I suspect that some of the most interesting and memorable Skill Challenges will be ones where the campaign and adventure fluff converge with the role playing to provide enhancements to the luck based mechanics that are the core of a Skill Challenge. If the players have been paying attention they should be able to shift the odds more in their favour by having clues as to which Skills are going to be easier to pull off then others.
A quick example off the top of my head - consider a Skill Challenge that involves the PCs trying to outrun an avalanche. Thats probably pretty cool by itself but a good way to incorporate this into the DMs campaign world is to make it so the PCs have a chance to learn about the dangers of Avalanches in the area. If the Avalanche is mostly the result of natural forces then it makes sense for the DM to provide clues to the players ahead of time that these mountains are dangerous and they should be on the lookout for avalanches. This information come in handy when they do face the avalanche scenario later on. Maybe it opens up something like an easy history or perception check early on that allows them to get a head start on the part where the scream and run for their lives.
I honestly think a lot of DMs are going to come to love the Skill Challenge System because it can be used as a mechanic that essentially says to the players:
"If you pay attention to my worlds fluff and to my NPCs personalities then thats going to give you the chance to get better odds on an exciting die roll mechanic - also its going to let you win more Skill Challenges often and if you win you get more XP."
So bottom line, IMO, for making Skill Challenges more then just 6 before 3 start rolling. Look to your worlds fluff (or at least the adventures fluff) and to the role playing events that the PCs have engaged in and incorporate these into your Skill Challenge design. It will make them more significant and it will make the rich background of your game mechanically important as well providing atmosphere.
I like them, but they take some work as a GM to make them fun.
Let's say you are chasing someone on camelback through the streets and alleys of your trading city.
You start the chase. The girl with your necklace is ahead of you.She makes a rude gesture at you.
PCs roll a success.
You almost reach her, but she veers away at the last second.You both thunder down the alley
PCs roll a failure.
You get caught in a banner across the street. you are almost unseated as you untangle yourself.She's ahead of you.
PCs roll a success. You make up the lost ground by running your camel through a narrow alley.You can almost reach her.
PCs roll a failure. Going past the vender stalls as fast as you can, your camel fails to make it past a pile of onions and onions are scattered everywhere. The stall owner nails you in the back with a thrown onion.She is getting hard to see, almost out sight in the twisty streets. you take a short cut but suddenly there is a row of nuns pushing baby carraiges.
PCs roll a success. You somehow shimmy the camel, running full tilt, through them without hit a carriage.She's right by you.
PCs roll a success. you are able to leap from your camel and grab her, pulling her to the ground. She has the wind knocked out of her.
I agree with all this but would take things further as I believe that the design of a Skill Challenge should focus on the choices that the players make. One strong aspect of fun in games is making interesting choices - adding in luck based die rolls is good too - mixing them together is really fun. So in your example the players seem to be making the same skill roll again and again. Thats fun but its more fun if the players can make choices that effect how they are doing in the chase. Perception checks to find short cuts, athletic checks to leap wagons, bluff checks to trick ones quarry into not using an optimal route etc. The background of the scene should let the players know what some of the best options are and in turn - to make things really exciting some really bad options should also be presented to the players. Maybe trying to leap several wagons is a possibility - but. uh, camels don't usually fly that far, even with a running jump.
I think, DMs, are going to have to learn a bit of a new talent in this department. Essentially its become important to convey information to ones players that hints at how good or bad varous choices based on description in the context of a Skill Challenge. Thats not to say its a totally new skill - I bet every experienced DM has hinted that some options facing the players are not a great idea in lots of adventures. If you've ever stuck a really exceptionally nasty monster in some part of your dungeon that your players are not meant to fight you probably provided you players clues regarding this. If the old bridge over the chasm is going to fall if weight is put on it we, as DMs, have always known to hint at this. So its not a totally new skill - but here we are likely conveying a fair bit more information in one chunk.
|
I have run a few skill challenges, and while I like some aspects of them, I have yet to be fully satisfied with any of them.
The part I like is that all the players get to be involved in non-combat situations. I have a mixed group of players, some of whom usually sit out the 'talky bits' (that phrase coined by one of the players who usually sits them out.) I have other players who really enjoy the non-combat situations. Anyway, skill challenges have proven a way to keep everyone involved in them, as there's the promise of dice-rolling for everyone, even if my role players do more of the talking.
But, I generally find I have to spell out the challenge a bit more than I like. I tell them what I consider the primary skills, and any special rules I'm laying out for this one. That's how I can keep my more combat-oriented players involved, but it feels to me like I'm channeling things too much.
We also go around the table, like we would in a combat, with each person getting his addition to the skill challenge. It keeps everyone involved, but there are also times where it feels like I'm breaking the flow of the encounter. ("OK, you're making great progress trading stories with the Duke, he's definitely warming to you. Oops, next person's turn...")
Like I said, I find the skill challenges a generally good addition to the game, but I'm still struggling to make them work as well as I think they should.
Drew Garrett
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how to run skill challenges. I think the way to do it is to make sure the rolls actually do something to progress the story. So, rather than say "okay, if you want to track the bad guy, you need to make 8 successes before 4 failures, start rolling" you instead say "okay, you're at the bad guy's last known location, what do you do?" If they fail on that perception check to find the tracks you say something like "Okay, you don't find any tracks here, but there's a muddy patch a ways off that might hold them better" and then they get to do another check. Keep doing that and tracking how many successes and failures they get and see if they succeed overall.
For what its worth, I really liked the concept as soon as I saw it, and I pictured using it almost without letting the PCs know they are even in a skill challenge.
I think you are absolutely correct that you need to make the individual checks seem like little successes in and of themselves, and explain, one at a time, what the failures do.
Of course, this really amounts to not being able to "spring" a skill challenge on anyone, as you really want to kind of think about what you want the successes and failures to amount to and how to explain them.
One of the posters on EN World and Clark Peterson were discussing coming up with a flow chart where you track individual successes and what they mean. The system they were talking about essentially meant that the PCs still got "something" for their successes (for example, minor bits of information that might slip during a diplomacy session).
I really think with the right amount of polish, and perhaps some really shining examples of these in published adventures, this could be one of the best features of the system. However, without that kind of example, its really easy for this to fall into an extremely boring dice rolling exercise.
Edit:
From the point of view of logic (and of logical story-telling) identifying beforehand a coherent reason why 'x' failures equates automatically blowing a skill challenge, (and which can be developed as a challenge progresses) looks to be useful. In the duke example you cite from the 4E DMG does it state that the DM knows beforehand that the duke is a busy man, with little patience, and that he comes over as being more annoyed with his time being 'wasted' by PCs on failures?
I believe the closure on this one is not so much that the Duke is a busy man but simply at some point he is going to make up his mind one way or another and thats that. The PCs can stay and keep talking but he's come to a decision so their talk is not actually relevant. Now if I'm role playing this Duke and my PCs failed I'd be role playing him as trying to end this audience and clearly no longer really evaluating what they are saying since the case is closed.
Skill challenges are indeed fun. That is with a little prep and thought ahead of time they are.
I am running my one group through a series of skill & combat challenges involving them navigating a city that is literally exploding around them. Certain magical artifacts have been brought into that city and they have gone haywire - exploding and raising up the dead. the skill challenges have, so far, had them fighting their way through panic-stricken crowds (or avoiding them when they are successful in the SC), fighting a huge fire at their patron's citadel, negotiating with some rather frightened guards and finding the quickest path through the fire ravaged city to get to the temple district.
All of these SC have had elements of real danger - for example failing to get through the panicky crowds (getting 3 failure before 5 successes) meant that all of the Dcs for the fire fighting were upped by 2. Failing certain skill checks in fighting the fire meant that PC took damage (nearly enough to kill one PC and bloody any of the others). Failing to find a quick route through the crowds to the temple resulted in 2 fights with looters and undead as well as some damage from smoke and buring ash. Failure to calm and negotiate with the guards meant an important NPC wouldn't have been available to help the PCs later.
The players loved them. And I loved creating them, too! The key, for me, is to balance the DCs & skills vs what the PCs have available to them. It is really no use using 4 skills that none of the PCs are trained in - failure is certain unless the DCs are very low. Also important is to make the pace fast and furious - don't give the players much time to think about their actions before calling for a die roll. This really helps break the otherwise boring action of just rolling dice .
Depending on the situation, I tend to think of skill roll sequences as an action sequence in an Indiana Jones movie. Like that sequence when he's trying to get into the tank. It's a whole series of "yes buts" yes, he's on the tank, but he's hanging by a strap. Yes, he's no long hanging by a strap, but now he's wrestling with a thug. and so on...
I like what PsychoticWarrior said, that fails have consequences, just like successes do. I can see that happening in a negotiation or at the end of car chase.
It sounds like a lot of people have taken the skill challenge and made it their own - in other words, it works for a DM that has put some thought into it and really determined how to use them in his game. Sounds like I'll need to experiment with them until I've really got a way of approaching them that I like.
Thank you everyone for your input.
Actually adding more rolls ADDS skill and removes luck, without removing it entirely.
It's a great system, where there is tension when a thief picks a lock, not just one flukey roll.
Challenge your players to think how they can use their skills to assist the progress of the skill challenge and you may eb surprised how well they respond AND also how it stimulates roleplaying far more than the old 3.5 system.
Thumbs up!
I believe the closure on this one is not so much that the Duke is a busy man but simply at some point he is going to make up his mind one way or another and thats that. The PCs can stay and keep talking but he's come to a decision so their talk is not actually relevant. Now if I'm role playing this Duke and my PCs failed I'd be role playing him as trying to end this audience and clearly no longer really evaluating what they are saying since the case is closed.
Edit:
From the point of view of logic (and of logical story-telling) identifying beforehand a coherent reason why 'x' failures equates automatically blowing a skill challenge, (and which can be developed as a challenge progresses) looks to be useful. In the duke example you cite from the 4E DMG does it state that the DM knows beforehand that the duke is a busy man, with little patience, and that he comes over as being more annoyed with his time being 'wasted' by PCs on failures?
Thank-you. At least they [writers of the 4E DMG] give some sort of guidance then (I think, from whate you're saying) on conveying that failures aren't helping. They have a limited amount of time (delineated by three failures) to produce a convincing, coherent case, and contributing to that (with successes) gets them extra time. In novel form, I think I could see a number of ways the interview could play out.
It sounds like these things can be horribly dull in the hands of ill-prepared DMs though.
I suppose amount of time involved is usually implied but its not necessarily limited.
Think of an example similar to my Duke one above but instead the PCs are trying to convince a council of merchants to fund an expedition. It might be that the debate is long and drawn out going from the early afternoon all the way into the wee hours of the night with varous merchants arguing vehemently with each other and some being more prone to support the PCs (maybe they have a patron among the group say) while others seem impeccably opposed.
For the DM running this the idea is that the Skill Challenge system focuses on they key events during this debate. Obviously no one is going to role play out a 13 hour debate so instead the DM is roleplaying out the key moments. Moments where the PCs arguments can sway the majority of the merchants one way or another. We could easily see something like the PCs using a History check to remind the assembled merchants that the father of the current King lost an entire years worth of taxes in this area in the time of their fathers; Think of all the wealth they stand to make if this loot where found by the expedition? Well after making that roll the DM more or less jumps forward by saying that the assembled merchants argue about that point back and forth for more then an hour before Old-Whats-His Face finally seems to convince the rest that there is a good chance of finding the gold and that the merchants stand to make a profit beyond just achieving the goals of the expedition itself (this presumes a successful history check of course). The next check could be taking place hours later when the PCs bring up another point etc.
Now I think this scene is much more difficult for the DM to actually roleplay effectively - it probably calls on him to be able to convey the feel for a long drawn out council debate and the opinions of many members of this larger gathering but its certianly a viable Skill Check and is in fact not much more then a variation on the Duke example above. At the end of the day if they get X successes before Y failures they'll convince the council but if they fail to many times then the council will still debate into the wee hours of the morning but will ultimatly vote against their proposal.
That said - while the DM can decide ahead of time that the council meeting will last into the wee hours one way or another he could also decide to let the checks themselves decide how long the meeting is. In the extremes it might be over before the clock strikes five with the PCs failing three checks in a row and badly bumbling their arguments. It could be over right around the dinner hour with the PCs in a stunning display make 6 success in row. Or we might have a drama filled encounter where the its now the wee hours. The PCs have made 5 success and 2 failures - it all comes down to the next roll of the die (presuming that we have a Skill Challenge of six before three). The PCs opt for a perception check - if they succeed they notice and expose the fact that one of the merchants is actually a thrall of Demigorgon, if they fail then they don't notice anything amiss and the Thrall helps to sway the other merchants that the whole thing is really just a huge waste of their money.
I've always considered not succeeding to be a pretty good case for failure myself
I think that's kind of why i like the skill challenge, rather than forcing some explanations onto the party (like the dude is a dick and if you piss him off three times he'll refuse to speak to you) it forces (or at least I do )the party to step up and try things, which i can then riff off of failure wise.
I think this is a really good point here. Obviously what skills the PCs employ tell the DM how the Duke behaves in the event of success or in the event of failure. If they use an intimidate and thats a failure and they fail on a check to remind him of his family's oath he is probably actually insulted, if they fail on other checks maybe its more a matter that he is just not convinced of the logic of their arguments.
Same goes with a success. If the Dukes a wimp and can easily be cowed (in this case there is no automatic failure if they try intimidate) maybe he's played as being actually kind of scared of the PCs, or maybe its that they convinced him to uphold the oaths of his fore bearers. Since its usually combo's of different successes that win a Skill Challenge we could see the DM trying to role play a wimpy duke that is intimidated but also deciding to uphold the honour of his family (PCs succeeded in both those checks). A bit of a tricky role playing challange, this one, but I might play the Duke as scared and using 'honour' as an excuse to give in to the PCs demands - maybe he's not really honourable but this is what he is spewing to everyone around him (possibly even himself) to justify kow towing to PC pressure.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Okay, I ran some skill challenges in my last game (or at least attempted to do so) and want to see if anyone has a comment on how to handle the problems I encounters.
I think the first big problem I have is communicating what exactly the goal is of the skill challenge. The skill challenge I attempted to run was an information gathering attempt. The PCs were trying to locate a criminal boss but the best they could do was find her gang. The gang was getting ready to rob a home and I set up a skill challenge for the PCs to find out about the job. The problem I encountered was that the PCs got all the information they thought to be important after 5-7 rolls. The skill challenge was supposed to be 10 successes before 5 failures. Part of the problem is that I didn't have a goal in mind to be reached (other than the general goal of getting information) but the other part of the problem is that it's difficult to communicate that goal. How do I tell them I've set up a skill challenge where the goal is not something they would even be aware of?
To put it in another context, suppose my skill challenge was find Bargle. The PCs begin tracking Bargle, get halfway there, and realize that it's Bargle they're after. So, rather than continue tracking him, they go back to his house and wait for him there. Again, they've short circuited the skill challenge but accomplished the basic goal.
As a follow up to this, there's also the question of how much xp I award, if any. Do I just treat it as a lower complexity skill challenge because they reached the conclusion faster than I anticiapted? If interrogations are generally supposed to be run as skill challenges, do you let the PCs milk them for xp by over-interrogating? If you use a skill challenge to bypass a foe (say, using Stealth and Acrobatics to go around a monster), should you get the xp for defeating the foe, for completing the skill challenge, or both?
I have not played any, yet, and I was having serious misgivings.
That said, the idea of all involved getting one roll per round, it should go faster. This also explains why non rogues can detect traps. When they enter the area, all who can, will start to roll their perception. A failure indicates they set off the trap while looking for it.
Is that about right?
Okay, I ran some skill challenges in my last game (or at least attempted to do so) and want to see if anyone has a comment on how to handle the problems I encounters.I think the first big problem I have is communicating what exactly the goal is of the skill challenge. The skill challenge I attempted to run was an information gathering attempt. The PCs were trying to locate a criminal boss but the best they could do was find her gang. The gang was getting ready to rob a home and I set up a skill challenge for the PCs to find out about the job. The problem I encountered was that the PCs got all the information they thought to be important after 5-7 rolls. The skill challenge was supposed to be 10 successes before 5 failures. Part of the problem is that I didn't have a goal in mind to be reached (other than the general goal of getting information) but the other part of the problem is that it's difficult to communicate that goal. How do I tell them I've set up a skill challenge where the goal is not something they would even be aware of?
I'm not exactly sure you have a Skill Challenge here - if you do its some kind of a variant one. First off I'm not really sure what the consequences of failure were in this example. Maybe more interestingly you did not really have 'success'.
I figure the players goals were to find out info on the gang. I suppose you personally know that if they hit the jackpot they find out about the robbery. However usually you only get whatever the 'goal' of the Skill Challenge is when you get the last success. Presumably everything else should have been a little bit of background info but when they hit the final success then they get the whole enchilada. Hence it seems to me that you were either running a series of checks that were not a Skill Challenge - but that each individually gave some info or you were running a Skill Challange but giving out too much information for each success.
To put it in another context, suppose my skill challenge was find Bargle. The PCs begin tracking Bargle, get halfway there, and realize that it's Bargle they're after. So, rather than continue tracking him, they go back to his house and wait for him there. Again, they've short circuited the skill challenge but accomplished the basic goal.
I suppose this sort of thing will come up. If they drop the Skill Challenge, for whatever reason, then I think their out the XP. That said I'm not sure how great a Skill Challenge this was. It seems a tad borderline. Mainly we have weak consequences for failure here. If they screw it up well no biggie and I'm not sure we really want that being the answer for a Skill Challenge most of the time. Some of what you seem to be using as Skill challenges might work better as boring old Skill Checks. Finding the Fish Market is not a Skill Challenge, not usually anyway. Its probably a role playing encounter with some salty sea dog. No die rolls are required though the PCs might be out the cost of an ale.
I'd consider saving the 'Find Bargle' Skill Challenge for stuff they can really screw up on. Maybe navigating the underworld - were failure means that they end up in a dark alley with lots of guys with bad intentions and poisoned crossbows on the rooftops overlooking the alley. Or actual chase scenes were they are trying to catch Bargle.
If interrogations are generally supposed to be run as skill challenges, do you let the PCs milk them for xp by over-interrogating?
I'd not really give them much of anything until they 'won' the challange. The info they'd pull out before that would be minor info meant to be a clue that they can follow up on if they blow this Skill Challenge completely - but not enough info that they can figure everything out without first 'winning'. I'd not allow them to 'milk' a challange. Its set by the DM prior to play and its worth exactly that much XP if they 'win', no more and no less.
If you use a skill challenge to bypass a foe (say, using Stealth and Acrobatics to go around a monster), should you get the xp for defeating the foe, for completing the skill challenge, or both?
I'd just give XP for the challange. I'd be careful about what they are sneaking past and why however. There is not much point in making the challange in the first place if it does not have consequences. Sneaking by is only worth doing if they are very likely to be utterly paste'd by the encounter if they blow it. Sneaking by two hobgoblins that are asleep is only interesting if they are trying to avoid raising the alarm or something, if its merely a matter of 'lets sneak by these Hobgoblins but if we blow it then we'll just kill them and thats fine too' then it is not a very good Skill Challenge. There are no meaningful consequences for failure.
Depending on the situation, I tend to think of skill roll sequences as an action sequence in an Indiana Jones movie. Like that sequence when he's trying to get into the tank. It's a whole series of "yes buts" yes, he's on the tank, but he's hanging by a strap. Yes, he's no long hanging by a strap, but now he's wrestling with a thug. and so on...
I like what PsychoticWarrior said, that fails have consequences, just like successes do. I can see that happening in a negotiation or at the end of car chase.
I'd say IMHO that you let the PC roleplay the skill if its a charisma skill(Diplomacy,Disguise,Bluff etc) or tell you how he's approaching the skill use( Open locks, acrobatics etc) and then give the player bonus's depending on what they come up with. In certain cases I'd give the player an automatic success if they do a good enough job roleplaying the skill use( coming up with a damn good story, fib, arguement etc).
Ultimately its about the player enjoying roleplaying and moving the story along.The only issue I've found so far is the skill selection will create clone characters. Lots of PC's will choose the same skills if they are from the same class, fighters are the worst offenders. I found this when I ran STAR WARS SAGA EDITION. so I am modifying the skill system to allow characters to individualise their character better.
The Player's Handbook says skill challenges are only for complex situations that call for more than one skill.
So yes, detecting traps might not apply.
Disarming a magical trap might.
Finding out something via street wise, intimidation, and diplomacy might.