|
*** This post contains spoilers for We Be Goblins and The Pallid Plague. ***
I recently sat as a player on a session of The Pallid Plague and was frustrated with the skill challenge of working on a cure with Laurel. Ever since that session, I have been thinking about exactly what it was that bothered me and what could have been done to address it.
As a counter-point to The Pallid Plague challenge, I think of the skill challenge in We Be Goblins where a PC must try to eat five bull-slugs in ten seconds. Players love that challenge- the tension and the choices- risk the higher DC to avoid the poison gland. Its a nice balance that I would like to see in more skill challenges.
This is my distillation of what I liked about that particular challenge into principles:
1. Players should know what their options are.
2. Players should understand the consequences of the options.
3. Player should know how much they have accomplished, and how far they have to go- this allows for reassessment of the first two items.
4. A time limit or number of tries allowed creates a feeling of urgency and impacts decisions by the players.
As a player goes through the "bull-slug eating contest", she gets to access at each step how many successes she has, how many rolls there are left to go, and her odds at each of the two DC thresholds. I've seen players do everything from "play it safe" all the way through, risk it, or a mixture of both. It is fun and exciting- for both the player and the spectators.
I am not saying all skill checks should be replaced with these more involved skill challenges- sometimes all a GM really needs is a simple check. But when the skill checks are a central feature of the Act of a session, as in the case of developing a cure with Laurel, I think we can do better.
I've decided to try to apply these observations to City of Strangers: Part II, for the information gathering portion of an upcoming scenario for my group. I will only do so with their permission- understanding that normally monkeying with the scenario is frowned upon. I am posting this here because I am curious what other GM's think about this kind of thing.
WJ
|
One of the things that makes scenarios and adventures exciting are allowing players to make important decisions and having alternatives to solve problems. In the very least, there's almost always a safe and a risky way to solve a problem, and different classes have different ways to solve problems as well. Although you can say almost every problem can be covered under the "Creative Solutions" clause in the organized play guide, I think scenarios would benefit from explicitly giving options on major events (such as the event in Pallid Plague).
Also, if the party doesn't have a skill, they should be allowed to continue with the scenario (as written), but with penalties.
If the party is mostly unsuccessful in Part 1, the GM is supposed to add a CR4 group to almost every encounter in the scenario (6 out of 7 fights). For many subtiers, this pushes each and every encounter in the "epic" threshhold (APL +3). This is too much. If you want to make one encounter epic, that's ok, but making 6 encounters epic is just too hard and too time consuming, and you'll never finish the scenario (one way or the other).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
Giving more concrete and specific information as the challenge plays out makes the skill challenges more interesting and gives the players the chance to overcome poor die rolls through roleplaying and creativity. Such details don't always come up on the fly: It's best for GMs to brainstorm up some possible ideas ahead of time.
|
|
Stuff regarding Pallid Plague...
As a player, if I were given an option between a "slow and steady" way to solve the problem, with the consequence that the next encounter would be much stronger, I might opt for the riskier approach to get it done faster.
The GM would have to illustrate this consequence clearly to the players though so that they would know any delay in getting the cure will cost them later. I had been thinking that a GM could tell the user they need at least a dozen "points" of success. Laurel could provide one each day while the PCs could contribute 1 with a "take 20" each day, risk a low DC for 2 points or a high DC for 3 points each day. A group of four PCs who make the 2 point DC roll each day would get the cure on the second day, but of course, not everyone will make their check. Just an idea I was toying with.
I also thought about giving the PCs the option of "working into the night", gaining fatigue but possibly solving a problem faster at the expense of ability in later encounters.
|
|
Another thought that just came to me. Let's say a challenge can be solved by three different skills, getting a success in each of the three could even give an additional "point" toward the overall goal. (i.e. Heal (understanding the pathology of the disease), Survival (knowing what herbs/roots/etc. to gather to treat disease), Knowledge:Arcana (the ability to understand the necromancy side of the disease) could all represent different approaches and a party getting at least one success in each of the three skills could tack on an additional "point" to the total- kind of a synergy bonus.
|
|
UPDATE- I talked with DM who ran Pallid Plague about the actual mechanics used for Laurel's "skill check".
Even though the DC, modifier penalty, and other factors (her base skill, and modifiers for assists) may have been "by the book", it definitely was not an experience I would care to repeat as a player. On the other hand, you don't want it to be a cake-walk. Let's look at the parameters...
Two of the 4 PCs have contracted the disease and are suffering CHA/CON loss each day and so they are motivated to find a cure as they don't have Remove Disease available.
If every character gets rolls to assist, the number of assists is variable- depends on the number in the party and the skill set mix. If you change the "assist" rolls to one for each discipline involved, it will be a constant of 5 possible successes (using the skill list I provided above). Let's say a PC can only make a single assist roll per day, but is allowed to attempt different DCs to "contribute" to the solution... if more than one PC gets a success at a given skill, the highest contribution is used for that skill in particular.
Let's further say that the DCs are: 10 + APL to gain a +1 assist bonus, 15 + APL to gain a +2, and 20 + APL to gain a +4 bonus. (DCs 14, 19, 24 in our example). This lets each player "pick their difficulty and reward" each day. This also gives a range of total bonuses on Laurel's assist from +0 to +20. This still means the PCs have to come up with enough of a "boost" to get that final success and the DC of Laurel's skill check but at least they get to decide how to go about it.
This is one alternative approach that would still use the "one roll, one success" of the original challenge but provide PCs with a feeling that they are getting to decide how to tackle the problem. Another alternative is to require multiple successes (as I described in an earlier post) which accumulate until a cure is found.
I've dwelt on this way to much... time to get back to work. :-P
|
It's worth noting that in this particular adventure, each PC can provide more than one skill success towards aiding Laurel's skill check. The adventure actually says that the group should be aiming for a minimum of 10 successes to aid Laurel. They're allowed to use each skill once, but if they have multiple applicable skills, they can use them all.
I just can't imagine trying to run that adventure with only 4 players, though. We had 7 PCs when I ran it for WhiskeyJack and company, and they still had trouble, partially due to the skills the group had, and partially due to bad rolls. It didn't help that they had a paladin who dumped her int score and had no useful skills for this, but I can imagine any group having one character who will be pretty much left out of this skill challenge for that reason.
The sad part is that I was actually really looking forward to running this adventure, as I thought the skill challenge would be a fun change of pace from just killing stuff. Unfortunately, it turned out to be more frustrating than fun. :(
|
|
The sad part is that I was actually really looking forward to running this adventure, as I thought the skill challenge would be a fun change of pace from just killing stuff. Unfortunately, it turned out to be more frustrating than fun. :(
It's definitely not your fault. Please don't take this thread that way. This wasn't the only time I've done a PFS scenario where skill checks have created awkward situations (I'll fill you in on more of that later, off forums). I started the post to see if anyone has any ideas on how to make these kinds of skill challenges more fun... kind of a metagame for GMs to be creative. The challenge is to come up with a solution that gives the players enjoyment but still makes sense via game mechanics. The "bull-slug eating" contest sticks in my mind as one that has the characteristics I would like to see in more skill challenges.
I'd rather focus on why that skill challenge "works" than why the Pallid Plague one "didn't". (I already posted thoughts on this earlier.)
|
|
Let's further say that the DCs are: 10 + APLA small point.. PLEASE DON'T make DCs that simply scale by APL. It really is lazy and sloppy.
I recall one mod that was APLs 6-16 and had gather information checks that were DC X +APL.. it was stupid.
-James
Thanks for your input, James... this thread is essentially an ongoing workshop/sandbox for working things out. Normally DCs are set by the modifiers outlined in the rules and a DM's common sense- I did take a lazy route in creating my example, but I don't think I would rely on "formula" DCs in a real game. Sometimes a mathematical model is useful when trying to nail down things like this.
After thinking about it for a moment, a better way to have written that would have been: "Let's further say that the DCs are: Base DC to gain a +1 assist bonus, Base DC + 5 to gain a +2, and Base DC + 10 to gain a +4 bonus. (DCs 14, 19, 24 in our example)." This would allow for a different base DC based on Tier.
Are there any PFS Scenario authors online who can give examples of the thought process they have when constructing skill challenges? I would really be interested to hear from you.
|
|
UPDATE- I talked with DM who ran Pallid Plague about the actual mechanics used for Laurel's "skill check".
** spoiler omitted **
Even though the DC, modifier penalty, and other factors (her base skill, and modifiers for assists) may have been "by the book", it definitely was not an experience I would care to repeat as a player. On the other hand, you don't want it to be a cake-walk. Let's look at the parameters...
** spoiler omitted **...
I can't speak to your group, but my group sailed through it thanks to having a good bard and my oracle of lore being able to practically solve things on his own (minimum of 27, as high as 46, on any knowledge check, 4 times a day). It was a very fun scenario for us, even the rogue with no int.
|
|
I can't speak to your group, but my group sailed through it thanks to having a good bard and my oracle of lore being able to practically solve things on his own (minimum of 27, as high as 46, on any knowledge check, 4 times a day). It was a very fun scenario for us, even the rogue with no int.
It's too bad we couldn't have used your Oracle as a life-line. :-P
|
|
I can't speak to your group, but my group sailed through it thanks to having a good bard and my oracle of lore being able to practically solve things on his own (minimum of 27, as high as 46, on any knowledge check, 4 times a day). It was a very fun scenario for us, even the rogue with no int.It's too bad we couldn't have used your Oracle as a life-line. :-P
Shoulda seen the GM's face for labyrinth skill challenge in Delirium's Tangle. Skill challenge = nullified.
|
|
Personally I would not alter the DC based on Tier. Have it fixed. More experienced PCs accomplish these things more readily than less experienced ones. <snip> -James
I can see the wisdom of this... esp. for simple skill checks- let the more experienced adventurer easily overcome challenges that seemed daunting at lower levels. Good point, James.
I think we are getting just a little off track though- setting of DCs *is* a part of what I am talking about, but I want to focus on so-called "skill challenges" where its not a simple check and is meant to be the main course of the Act of a PFS Scenario rather than a simple skill check experienced as part of normal adventuring.
What you wrote here,
Its even worse when those DCs either drop down below minimums or exceed maximums from a misplaced desire to 'challenge' or similar thoughts.
is part of what I am trying to avoid... but I am also trying to avoid the situation where players roll and roll and roll and roll until the GM throws up his hands in frustration "ok, you get it" because otherwise the game turns into an exercise in players trying to roll the mystical "20" that lets them move on with the plot.
I am working on a skill challenge for an upcoming game... it's one of those scenarios where the players have to find someone/something in a city- very common in PFS organized play.
Gather Information: You can also use Diplomacy to gather information about a specific topic or individual. To do this, you must spend at least 1d4 hours canvassing people at local taverns, markets, and gathering places. The DC of this check depends on the obscurity of the information sought, but for most commonly known facts or rumors it is 10. For obscure or secret knowledge, the DC might increase to 20 or higher. The GM might rule that some topics are simply unknown to common folk.
Combined with Know:Local and possibly substituted by Intimidation, Diplomacy seems to be main skill here. I am thinking of describing to the players the following method of handling the skill challenge:
You now have 24 hours to find Mister X in the City of Y. Here is a map showing all the quarters of the city. In a four-hour time period, you may canvas a given quarter looking for someone who may know where to find him. There may or may not be someone in the quarter, though I will tell you there are several people throughout the city who do know something... if you pick a quarter to canvas that has one of those people in it, the DC to find them is 20 with one person in the party rolling the primary skill check against either Diplomacy (if you are nicely coercing people or bribing them) or Intimidate (if you are shaking down people with threats). Other characters can choose to assist with a matching skill or they may assist with a Know:local skill roll. If using bribery, tell me how much gold you are spreading around during this portion of the search.* If you find nothing in city quarter, you can move to a different one and search it the next four hours.
Once you have found the person in question, we will have a roleplaying bit where you can describe and act out how you are trying to get information from the person**. The target will start out as 'indifferent' and you can try to improve their attitude to 'friendly' via Diplomacy or Intimidate before asking them for information. Influencing the target's attitude and getting information out of them are two separate checks. Good luck."
* For every 2 gold spent in this manner, a +1 circumstance bonus is granted to a maximum of +4.
** a possible +1 or +2 bonus on check for good roleplaying.There are a few NPCs with the info scattered throughout the city- the players have a 2/3 chance of picking a quarter to search that has one in it. Each NPC has their own peculiarities.
Any suggestions on how to improve upon this? The challenge as described is very much "by the book" but I am open to alternative methods to represent this- keep in mind the "bull-slug eating contest" elements.
|
|
@James and TetsujinOni,
You know... you both have gotten me to take a step back and re-examine what I am trying to accomplish here. First, regarding the upcoming encounter, I went back and re-read it carefully- it really was meant to be played out as James described. So, I am going to try to stick to it as written as I think it is fine "as is".
I can honestly say that it was not my intention to eliminate role-playing from the mechanics of the skill challenge... I have been focusing primarily on mechanics, but this may actually be something deeper than mechanics and the four points I put in the OP. (Those four points should be folded delicately into the role-playing mixture- not to be the sole focus of the GM.)
I think it really goes back to what Sir_Wulf wrote above in his post-
Giving more concrete and specific information as the challenge plays out makes the skill challenges more interesting and gives the players the chance to overcome poor die rolls through roleplaying and creativity. Such details don't always come up on the fly: It's best for GMs to brainstorm up some possible ideas ahead of time.
"...gives the players the chance to overcome poor die rolls through roleplaying and creativity." - I can't design mechanics that are going to provide for that; it comes down to the GM's ability to come up with a solution as needed or plan for that eventuality.
And I have to confess, I may have been suckered into the more "boardgame-esque" dynamics of the "bull-slug eating challenge" as James pointed out... the elegance of the 10 rolls, two DCs, 5 successes... shouldn't take front-stage over the roleplaying of the challenge. So I have been given a lot to think about, which is good. :-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I believe skill challenges and "chases" need to go away. I played a society game once where there was the chase mechanic - one of the tasks was a stuck door or something like that. I said fine, I'll force the door, and succeeded. Then I said, I'll hold the door open so the rest of the group can just lay on the speed. The judge was like, no, you can't do that, you need to keep pursuing.
Forcing a series of skill checks on a "pursuit" theme without any regard to the party's abilities are inane. The entire "series of skill checks" idea is just bad mechanics if it ignores other rules like haste, boots of speed or of flying, flying mounts or companions, monks who could easily Ki jump over obstacles, etc.
I really, really wish adventure designers would stick to the existing rules when writing scenarios, instead of using some other square-peg-in-round-hole game mechanics to resolve the situation.
|
|
Personally I believe skill challenges and "chases" need to go away. I played a society game once where there was the chase mechanic - one of the tasks was a stuck door or something like that. I said fine, I'll force the door, and succeeded. Then I said, I'll hold the door open so the rest of the group can just lay on the speed. The judge was like, no, you can't do that, you need to keep pursuing.
Forcing a series of skill checks on a "pursuit" theme without any regard to the party's abilities are inane. The entire "series of skill checks" idea is just bad mechanics if it ignores other rules like haste, boots of speed or of flying, flying mounts or companions, monks who could easily Ki jump over obstacles, etc.
I really, really wish adventure designers would stick to the existing rules when writing scenarios, instead of using some other square-peg-in-round-hole game mechanics to resolve the situation.
Sounds like your GM missed the part on "reward creative solutions". I played a character during a chase who had crazy high armor and health, so instead of picking my way through a patch of briars, he charged. Took damage, but left a clear path for the party. It worked out nicely.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I believe skill challenges and "chases" need to go away. I played a society game once where there was the chase mechanic - one of the tasks was a stuck door or something like that. I said fine, I'll force the door, and succeeded. Then I said, I'll hold the door open so the rest of the group can just lay on the speed. The judge was like, no, you can't do that, you need to keep pursuing.
Forcing a series of skill checks on a "pursuit" theme without any regard to the party's abilities are inane. The entire "series of skill checks" idea is just bad mechanics if it ignores other rules like haste, boots of speed or of flying, flying mounts or companions, monks who could easily Ki jump over obstacles, etc.
I really, really wish adventure designers would stick to the existing rules when writing scenarios, instead of using some other square-peg-in-round-hole game mechanics to resolve the situation.
I can understand where you can get that impression, but I found the encounter to be rewarding and allowed everyone in the group a place to shine. There were one stage that my travel/liberation cleric literally walked through. It honestly sounds like a GM not being flexible enough. In a similar position My GM allowed a character to do just that with a door, making skill checks every turn against falling debris. In another situation, a character who made it easily was able to stick around and use tools and aid checks to make sure that the others passed more easily. It's important to remember that just because an encounter uses special rules, every other rule in the game does not magically go away. In a chase scenario slowing down to help your teammates is an important tactical decision that should not be taken away.