|
The latest from the 4th Edition DMG is up.
For those with no care to link:
The Skill Challenges system leaves plenty of room for roleplaying, while providing a sound mechanical rules element that allows for die rolling and the tension of a random element. It’s a robust system that can be used for any social encounter that includes real consequences for failure, as well as for other skill challenges that don’t involve combat—from finding your way out of a mysterious jungle, to taming a savage beast, to researching an ancient spell, and more.
What follows is the opening section of the Skill Challenges chapter, a few key sidebars, and a skill challenge template right out of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
An audience with the duke, a mysterious set of sigils in a hidden chamber, finding your way through the Forest of Neverlight—all of these present challenges that test both the characters and the people who play them. The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions.
Skill challenges can account for all the action in a particular encounter, or they can be used as part of a combat encounter to add variety and a sense of urgency to the proceedings.
--Bill Slavicsek
The Basics
To deal with a skill challenge, the player characters make skill checks to accumulate a number of successful skill uses before they rack up too many failures and end the encounter.
Example: The PCs seek a temple in dense jungle. Achieving six successes means they find their way. Accruing three failures before achieving the successes, however, indicates that they get themselves hopelessly lost in the wilderness.
Is This a Challenge?
It’s not a skill challenge every time you call for a skill check. When an obstacle takes only one roll to resolve, it’s not a challenge. One Diplomacy check to haggle with the merchant, one Athletics check to climb out of the pit trap, one Religion check to figure out whose sacred tome contains the parable—none of these constitutes a skill challenge.
Encounters Have Consequences
Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do. When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat—experience and perhaps treasure. The consequences of total defeat are often obvious: no XP and no treasure.
Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure—the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure. If the characters get lost in the jungle, that leads to further challenges, not the end of the adventure.
Sample Skill Challenges
Use the following skill challenge templates as the basis for skill challenges you design for your adventures. The level and complexity values are suggestions only; adjust as necessary to meet the needs of your adventure.
The Negotiation
The duke sits at the head of his banquet table. Gesturing with a wine glass, he bids you to sit. “I’m told you have news from the borderlands.”
This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader or other authority figure. The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to earn the NPC’s favor.
Setup: For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way.
Level: Equal to the level of the party.
Complexity: 3 (requires 8 successes before 4 failures).
Primary Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight.
Bluff (moderate DCs): You try to encourage the NPC to aid your quest using false pretenses. Characters can cooperate to aid a lead character using this skill.
Diplomacy (moderate DCs): You entreat the NPC for aid in your quest. First success with this skill opens up the use of the History skill (the NPC mentions an event from the past that has significance to him).
Insight (moderate DCs): You empathize with the NPC and use that knowledge to encourage assistance. First success with this skill reveals that any use of the Intimidate skill earns a failure.
History (easy DC): You make an insightful remark about the significant event from the NPC’s past. This is available only after one character has gained a success using the Diplomacy skill, and it can be used only once in this way during the challenge.
Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.
Success: The NPC agrees to provide reasonable assistance to the characters. This could include treasure.
Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent by the NPC out of anger or antagonism.
I really like this. Multiple rolls really seems workable and blends out some of the ridiculous failures I've witnessed in single roll skill use - I don't mean just D&D here.
I like this mechanic for several reasons. The first is that it allows for more creative and dynamic ways to resolve a situation instead of just pushing the bard forward and having her take 10 (or even 1).
Actually, thats kind of the second reason as well: more than one person can actively participate in their own way.
Also, uses of some skills appear to open up other skills, which can lead to easy successes (the use of History in the example is an Easy DC, for example), so this could be an additional reward for creative or logical thinking (in a negotiation, Diplomacy makes perfect sense).
Finally, some skills just explicitly dont work in some cases.
Good points.
I'd go so far as to say this is awesome, and I'm curious if this is an innovation of the current designers or it comes from somewhere else.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the RAW on this.
Interesting tool for DMs. Not certain how easy it would be for a novice DM to accurately assess their party's abilities, when trying to create their own 'skill challenges'. No explanation here of what is meant in this context by 'primary skills' with regard to the challenge; presumably explained somewhere in the actual rulebooks, but omitted from this article.
Maybe there are tables to back this up. Would not regard this mechanic as making things easier for a novice DM to run (fairly) if there are not.
Since skill challenges have levels, and the math in 4th Edition is much, much better, I think it would be extremely easy for a DM of any skill to basically say, "I need a level 5 skill challenge for my 5th-level characters," and plop one down.
Thats something that I'm really liking about 4th Edition, and is causing some of my players to be more inclined to DM: they can just take the party level and quickly build challenges at a glance. 1st-level party? Toss in one 1st-level monster per character. Much easier than the EL formula that we have now.
I prefer to think of that in all honesty, at a given level there is likely only so much that a player can squeeze out of their character. For example, a level 1 character will likely, at best, have a +12 to a certain skill. +5 for a Trained skill, +5 from an ability score that was boosted to 20 by an ability modifier, and perhaps a +2 racial bonus. Thats the absolute best that I expect a character to have.
More likely, we are looking in the range of +8 (+5 for Trained, +3 from ability score).
Now, characters no longer spend ranks. All skills progress at +1/2 levels, so you could scale up skill challenges using that as a basis when determining the DCs. Now, there may be ways to get more out. From the article, characters can assist other characters in doing this, so it seems that you can eke more out in the right situations.
Now, some characters might end up with bonuses so high that they could easily hit the Hard DCs. I dont think that will be a huge deal, and think of it as a reward for a player having a character thats extremely good at something.
Anyway, the DMG apparently has tons of great advice. Its not hard to imagine that it will have advice on tweaking skill challenges that may be too hard or easy by default.
|
When I read the rules, they seemed familiar to me and for good reason. The rules seem to be variant of the complex skill checks found in Unearthed Arcana.
In fact the more I read the two, the more it seems they just took the complex skill checks and elaborated that there is more than one way to get the same thing done.
When I first heard the concept name "skill challenges", my first thought was "So what, its a complex skill check?"
Oh, it has a few more decorations on it, like other optional skills. In fact for that part, go back to some old Classic Traveller stuff, and you will see the exact same mechanic of primary skills and negative skills used as part of an adventure.Mind you, I am not saying there is anything wrong with skill challenges, just that there is nothing gloriously innovative about it other than writing it down as a core rules system.
|
|
I like this mechanic for several reasons. The first is that it allows for more creative and dynamic ways to resolve a situation instead of just pushing the bard forward and having her take 10 (or even 1).
Actually, thats kind of the second reason as well: more than one person can actively participate in their own way.
Also, uses of some skills appear to open up other skills, which can lead to easy successes (the use of History in the example is an Easy DC, for example), so this could be an additional reward for creative or logical thinking (in a negotiation, Diplomacy makes perfect sense).
Finally, some skills just explicitly dont work in some cases.
Of course in that example all you really need to do is push the character who took Bluff or Diplomacy or Insight as a trained skill forward and let them make a five or six rolls instead of one.
Yeah, someone could throw in a History skill check, but they do not have to. Just let the party Face take 10 and walk through the encounter.
The system itself may not be particularly innovative ... as you say other systems have used similar rules for years. But this is the first appearance of something like this as part of DnD core. Sure UA had complex skill checks, which these are a more fully fleshed version, but it didn't integrate that idea with a static skill advancement that was developed in SWSE. Considering that we apparently get an entire chapter on Skill Checks, I expect they'll be pretty detailed on how to build and use.
Color me excited! :)
I like the fact that they emphasized failing a skill challenge doesn't halt the adventure, it just makes the PCs need to do something extra (or suffer under a penalty, such as if they anger someone important and can't get the full assistance they need) in completing the adventure.
I can also imagine some pretty interesting ways of including skill challenges into adventures. An example using Paizo adventures:
In the Age of Worms, when the PCs go to the feast at Zeech's palace - using a skill challenge to determine how good an impression each PC makes on Zeech (and therefore, where at the table they end up being seated). Do this one on an individual basis per PC. The cost of failure is being seated among the less-favorably-viewed guests.
In the CotCT, when the PCs talk to the Emperor, skill challenges would be a much more interesting way of determining what hoops he makes them jump through (metaphorically speaking) rather than just a Diplomacy DC.
I'm looking forward to reading this chapter.
The Negotiation
The duke sits at the head of his banquet table. Gesturing with a wine glass, he bids you to sit. “I’m told you have news from the borderlands.”
This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader or other authority figure. The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to earn the NPC’s favor.
Setup: For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way.
Level: Equal to the level of the party.
Complexity: 3 (requires 8 successes before 4 failures).
Primary Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight.
Bluff (moderate DCs): You try to encourage the NPC to aid your quest using false pretenses. Characters can cooperate to aid a lead character using this skill.
Diplomacy (moderate DCs): You entreat the NPC for aid in your quest. First success with this skill opens up the use of the History skill (the NPC mentions an event from the past that has significance to him).
Insight (moderate DCs): You empathize with the NPC and use that knowledge to encourage assistance. First success with this skill reveals that any use of the Intimidate skill earns a failure.
History (easy DC): You make an insightful remark about the significant event from the NPC’s past. This is available only after one character has gained a success using the Diplomacy skill, and it can be used only once in this way during the challenge.
Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.
Success: The NPC agrees to provide reasonable assistance to the characters. This could include treasure.
Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent by the NPC out of anger or antagonism.
I find really surprising that nobody pointed out the type of scripting of encounters this seems to suppose. In other words, how does one think this will be actually played out at the game table?
I roleplay my character so that I clearly use Diplomacy. I roleplay well and succeed my check. This unlocks the possible History check. How is that played at the table? The Game Master interrupts my RP and tells me "See now, you have the choice between going on with your line of thought, or you could make a historical allusion blabla". How am I supposed to know what historical reference to do in RP without the GM telling me what to say, or passing notes around the table, et cetera?
This is basically scripting the conversation and how it unfolds, UNLESS nothing about the encounter is written in advance and the DM builds it AS it unfolds: letting the RP flow naturally and the GM saying "you say that? Ok, make [this] check. Now [that] check" which is contrary to the intent of a design of the encounter prior to the game.
The answer to the dilemma will most certainly be that beyond the first check, the dialogs will actually not be role-played at all, because this makes this whole dialog management issue a lot easier on everyone.
No dialog, no practical problem.
Hence, less choices in the role-play, or less role-playing altogether.
Conclusion: I see this as a good idea with a terrible implementation so far. Maybe it'll turn out to be much better in the actual finished product. Who knows?
I would DM it like this (unless the Skill Challenge chapter has a better idea, of course):
Player talks nicey-nicey with the Duke, so they make a Diplomacy check. Knowing that a success should open up the use of Knowledge: History, I drop some prepared historical fact into my RP response from the Duke. If the player's don't opt to use it then they lose out on a possible easy win. They should pay more attention! :P
Cheers! :)
I find really surprising that nobody pointed out the type of scripting of encounters this seems to suppose.
I think the problem you're seeing is that it's difficult to roleplay the results of a History check unless the player happens to be an expert on the in-game history.
I don't see where the gamemaster has to interrupt your roleplaying any more than rolling dice at all does. The example provided already gives the DM the information he needs to cue a History check in the description of the Diplomacy results. "First success with this skill opens up the use of the History skill (the NPC mentions an event from the past that has significance to him)."
But, in general, I think that this level of detail in a skill challenge will only occur in printed modules, and not in most instances in home play. Or rather, I think the level of detail in the printed example will happen as often a drawn-out map of an encounter, complete with monster locations occurs in the notes for my home campaign--only when I feel that the encounter is a critical one and when I have plenty of prep time. I expect that most of my skill challenges will be a little more free-form than the example.
|
|
I find really surprising that nobody pointed out the type of scripting of encounters this seems to suppose. In other words, how does one think this will be actually played out at the game table?
I roleplay my character so that I clearly use Diplomacy. I roleplay well and succeed my check. This unlocks the possible History check. How is that played at the table? The Game Master interrupts my RP and tells me "See now, you have the choice between going on with your line of thought, or you could make a historical allusion blabla". How am I supposed to know what historical reference to do in RP without the GM telling me what to say, or passing notes around the table, et cetera?
This is basically scripting the conversation and how it unfolds, UNLESS nothing about the encounter is written in advance and the DM builds it AS it unfolds: letting the RP flow naturally and the GM saying "you say that? Ok, make [this] check. Now [that] check" which is contrary to the intent of a design of the encounter prior to the game.
The answer to the dilemma will most certainly be that beyond the first check, the dialogs will actually not be role-played at all, because this makes this whole dialog management issue a lot easier on everyone.
No dialog, no practical problem.
Hence, less choices in the role-play, or less role-playing altogether.
Conclusion: I see this as a good idea with a terrible implementation so far. Maybe it'll turn out to be much better in the actual finished product. Who knows?
That looks more like a problem with how to write the encounter elements.
As done, it is pretty much just telling the players what they do rather than informing them how, within the structure of the rules, each of several options they take, will be adjudicated.Instead of:
"You try to encourage the NPC to aid your quest by using false pretenses. Characters can cooperate to aid a lead character using this skill."
It should read:
"When you try to encourage the NPC to aid you quest by using false presenses, use your Bluff skill modifier. Other characters can help you when you use this skill."
The first way tells me what I am doing. The second tells me how to resolve the action I have chosen.
For triggering the use of the History check, you can either leave it completely up to the PCs to take the hint, or you can add as an aside after replying for the NPC that the PCs suspect he might be susceptible to flattery about the incident he mentioned.
Of course the real problem there is again the text directing a character action:
"You make an insightful remark about the significant event from the NPC's past."
How do you know the remark is insightful?
If it does relate to that specific adverb, why does it not involve the use of the Insight skill rather than the History skill?
Mind you, this kind of text is exceptionally difficult to write. You are looking at writing only half a narrative while accounting for the other half being completely open ended. For an inexperienced DM following that example exactly it will lead to rather harsh DM scripting combined with rollplaying as the roleplaying has been usurped by the DMs script. That would not be a good thing.
I find really surprising that nobody pointed out the type of scripting of encounters this seems to suppose. In other words, how does one think this will be actually played out at the game table?
I roleplay my character so that I clearly use Diplomacy. I roleplay well and succeed my check. This unlocks the possible History check. How is that played at the table? The Game Master interrupts my RP and tells me "See now, you have the choice between going on with your line of thought, or you could make a historical allusion blabla". How am I supposed to know what historical reference to do in RP without the GM telling me what to say, or passing notes around the table, et cetera?
This is basically scripting the conversation and how it unfolds, UNLESS nothing about the encounter is written in advance and the DM builds it AS it unfolds: letting the RP flow naturally and the GM saying "you say that? Ok, make [this] check. Now [that] check" which is contrary to the intent of a design of the encounter prior to the game.
The answer to the dilemma will most certainly be that beyond the first check, the dialogs will actually not be role-played at all, because this makes this whole dialog management issue a lot easier on everyone.
No dialog, no practical problem.
Hence, less choices in the role-play, or less role-playing altogether.
Conclusion: I see this as a good idea with a terrible implementation so far. Maybe it'll turn out to be much better in the actual finished product. Who knows?
From what I read from designers' and playtesters' comments, on skill challenges the DM doesn't tell (or at least, doesn't restrict) what skills can be used on the challenge. It's up to the players to discover how their skills can be used to beat the challenge. In fact, the DM is encouraged to allow the players to come up with creative uses of skills that he hasn't predicted himself.
So, after "the NPC mentions an event from the past that has significance to him", it's up to the player to see that the History skill can be used on this situation.
From a 3.5E perspective it may seem tough for the player, but remember that on 4E the number of skills is largely reduced, so the player has a good chance of realizing it just by checking his list of skills.
Changing a bit the subject...
The art from the excerpt is awesome.
If 4E can provide more artwork which doesn't involve the PCs performing "badass poses" or slaughtering things, I will be more than happy with it.
|
IMHO, I concluded this past winter that 4e is a game of the munchkins, for the munchkins, by the munchkins. Gone are the days of good roleplay. Now the rules spell out exactly how and what to roleplay... er, I mean, what to roll, in order to succeed at what used to be improvisational dialogue. No thanks, I'll stick with my order of PRPG, with a heaping side dish of good story and great roleplaying.
3.5 Never Dies. PRPG Forever!
IMHO, I concluded this past winter that 4e is a game of the munchkins, for the munchkins, by the munchkins. Gone are the days of good roleplay. Now the rules spell out exactly how and what to roleplay... er, I mean, what to roll, in order to succeed at what used to be improvisational dialogue. No thanks, I'll stick with my order of PRPG, with a heaping side dish of good story and great roleplaying.
3.5 Never Dies. PRPG Forever!
To increase the horror of the notion of skill challenges, imagine a situation where the DM is playing the local (evil) magistrate and the PCs are on trial for murder (they were framed, of course). Is the trial resolved by die rolls? When they escape from jail and attempt to make their way out of town, should they not be allowed to choose the specific methods and face the specific consequences of their actions?
Keep in mind that trial scenes and chase scenes are among the most popular elements of suspense and action movies. Would you take from your players the opportunity to play out in detail such pivotal scenes?
I can see where events are less exciting than others, tempting some to simply roll their way through. But for situations so trivial, why bother rolling at all? Such throw-away scenes are generally left on the cutting room floor.
The entire game (and I speak of 3.5, rather than 4e) is in and of itself a skill challenge - a role-playing skill challenge - for the players and the DM, not just the PCs.
Luckily, I've been maxing out my "Ham it up" skill since 2nd lev ... er, I mean, grade.
Cheers! :)
PS: Okay, maybe it is only a lucky thing for me. My DMs seem rather pained by it, to be honest ...
Edit: More relavently, even in 3.5, you can choose to forgo (forgoe?) role-playing encounters like this and rely on simple Skill Checks to accomplish everything. I've always felt that solution rather bland. I don't like pure role-play either, though. I play with several players and some of them (no matter their character!) are just more outgoing, and quicker to roleplay in any given situation. Others are quiet and reserved, and quickly allow others to talk over them.
This is why I favor a mixed method of role-play and rolling. Having a mechanical artifact to pull in my quiet players makes it easier to elicit some responses from them (the Skill Challenge in the Escape from Sembia demo was pretty fun, with some of my "wallflowers" really acting it up ... I was shocked!
So, in order to keep this edit from being longer than the original message (too late!) I, for one, welcome my new Skill Challenge Overlords.
To increase the horror of the notion of skill challenges, imagine a situation where the DM is playing the local (evil) magistrate and the PCs are on trial for murder (they were framed, of course). Is the trial resolved by die rolls? When they escape from jail and attempt to make their way out of town, should they not be allowed to choose the specific methods and face the specific consequences of their actions?
Keep in mind that trial scenes and chase scenes are among the most popular elements of suspense and action movies. Would you take from your players the opportunity to play out in detail such pivotal scenes?
I can see where events are less exciting than others, tempting some to simply roll their way through. But for situations so trivial, why bother rolling at all? Such throw-away scenes are generally left on the cutting room floor.
The entire game (and I speak of 3.5, rather than 4e) is in and of itself a skill challenge - a role-playing skill challenge - for the players and the DM, not just the PCs.
First, it's weird that some people are implying that the concept of using dice to aid on social encounters as something that's being introduced by 4E. AD&D has Reaction and Morale checks, 3E has Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate checks.
Second, skill challenges encourage role-playing, they do not substitute it. Players are still required to represent their characters' dialogues on social encounters, as explictly mentioned by Dave Noonan:
1) I had perfect attendance at my table last night: 7 PCs, plus the dragon, plus the lich. A truly participatory social challenge at a table that big is going to be chaotic no matter how you structure it. Or at least you can't come up with rules that muzzle my players.
2) There was a lot of variety in both the mechanical techniques used (the checks/rolls/etc.) and the actual table dialogue. That's a pretty high priority, so it was good to see it emerge in actual play. But my table is predisposed to show those behaviors, so I can't see anything more definite than "it's a good system for people who throw themselves into that play style wholeheartedly."
3) The system we were testing involves skill checks (big surprise, huh?). One of the things I found fascinating was that some players preferred to deliver their dialogue, then roll the skill check and report the result. Others preferred to roll the skill check first, then deliver dialogue that matched their result (good or bad). The system works either way, so I might just make it explicit that you can "roll, then talk" or "talk, then roll.
4) There is a totally valid D&D playstyle that haaaaates the idea of social interactions being resolved with a die roll. This system should work for that playstyle, too, once you flip a few switches. That just isn't the playstyle we were testing last night.
In fact, the DM is encouraged to allow the players to come up with creative uses of skills that he hasn't predicted himself.
If this is specifically worded in the Skills Challenges chapter of the DMG, then this defeats the potential scripting of dialogs or lack/railroad thereof in encounters. Awesome.
I certainly hope this will be part of the text.
Otherwise my objection to this type of mechanic would still stand. We'll see!
PS: I'm not criticizing the use of Skill checks in social encounters. I hope everyone understands this (I let players role-play at my game table, then ask them to roll something relevant, sometimes, adding/substracting RP modifiers as I see fit from my side of the screen, as DM). There seems to be a doubt when I read some posts: what I'm specifically concerned about is the possible scripting of how one has to role-play during an encounter by using this or that roll instead. How this concept here will turn out at the game table in practice.
First, it's weird that some people are implying that the concept of using dice to aid on social encounters as something that's being introduced by 4E. AD&D has Reaction and Morale checks, 3E has Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate checks...
Yes, but these were often meant to be applied to singular events (usually where NPC motives were not already developed), rather than a larger scenario... depends on how you play it...
4) There is a totally valid D&D playstyle that haaaaates the idea of social interactions being resolved with a die roll. This system should work for that playstyle, too, once you flip a few switches. That just isn't the playstyle we were testing last night.
This is the item I would like to see tested... I'd like to see the wiring behind the switches he mentions...
Mind you, this kind of text is exceptionally difficult to write. You are looking at writing only half a narrative while accounting for the other half being completely open ended. For an inexperienced DM following that example exactly it will lead to rather harsh DM scripting combined with rollplaying as the roleplaying has been usurped by the DMs script. That would not be a good thing.
Yes, this is quite true. In the hands of an experienced DM, however, it could still be awesome.
This is the item I would like to see tested... I'd like to see the wiring behind the switches he mentions...
Well, Dave Noonan himself gave a good hint of how would this work:
When I talk about "roll, then talk" or "talk, then roll," I think we can pull it off so that some people at the table can do it one way, and others at the table can do it the other way. Or even that a player could shift between 'em from round to round. As long as the DM doesn't provide feedback until both roll and talk are done, then everything works just fine.
Eric Noah is pretty good at sussing out our future rules, at least in part. He's clearly had lots of practice, right?
And what Eric Noah said?
I also like talk, then roll. If the "talk" is good, I'll usually skip the roll. If the talk is bad, I'll let the player roll to simulate the fact that his character might be a bit more suave than he is in person.
I also like talk, then roll. If the "talk" is good, I'll usually skip the roll. If the talk is bad, I'll let the player roll to simulate the fact that his character might be a bit more suave than he is in person.
That's more how I'd play it... I would hope that the DMG is extremely clear on the advice to new DMs as to when to use the skill challenge system and (most importantly) when not to do so.
In fact, the DM is encouraged to allow the players to come up with creative uses of skills that he hasn't predicted himself.If this is specifically worded in the Skills Challenges chapter of the DMG, then this defeats the potential scripting of dialogs or lack/railroad thereof in encounters. Awesome.
I certainly hope this will be part of the text.
Rodney Thompson mentioned that on his blog:
Shifting gears away from combat for a while, JD Wiker had a discussion on his journal a few days ago about rewarding roleplaying mechanically, and how clearly 4E isn't going to do that (not his assertion, but an assertion that sparked the discussion). In this area, I disagree. We showed off skill challenges in the Escape from Sembia event at D&DXP. Basically, it boiled down to this: the heroes needed to escape from some Sembian guards, prompting a chase sequence. The heroes then had the option of using a variety of skills to escape from the guards, and the encounter was built using the non-combat encounters guidelines in the DMG. Basically, the players could use any skill they liked, so long as they had a good explanation for it, and the encounter gave rules on adjudicating those checks based on the likelihood that the attempt would be feasible. For example, one player I read about used his History skill to remember an old sewer grate from some ancient plans of the city, where he was able to had. Obvious skill choices allowed players to hide, climb on top of buildings, disguise themselves as passers-by, etc.
I like this mechanic for several reasons. The first is that it allows for more creative and dynamic ways to resolve a situation instead of just pushing the bard forward and having her take 10 (or even 1).
Actually, thats kind of the second reason as well: more than one person can actively participate in their own way.
Also, uses of some skills appear to open up other skills, which can lead to easy successes (the use of History in the example is an Easy DC, for example), so this could be an additional reward for creative or logical thinking (in a negotiation, Diplomacy makes perfect sense).
Finally, some skills just explicitly dont work in some cases.Of course in that example all you really need to do is push the character who took Bluff or Diplomacy or Insight as a trained skill forward and let them make a five or six rolls instead of one.
Yeah, someone could throw in a History skill check, but they do not have to. Just let the party Face take 10 and walk through the encounter.
Assuming you are allowed to take 10 for skill challenges. Otherwise in some cases its no worse than 3rd Edition skill mechanics.
However, by default it would seem that there is more than one skill that can be used to overcome many situations now, where in 3rd Edition generally there was just one.
While I do not agree with treating everything in D&D like a combat mechanic, this Skill Challenge thing was always one of my very few things I like with 4E (though I still think it should be less "combat mechanic-focused"). Funny thing is, you didn't need a whole new edition for this either, as similar rules were already presented in Unearthed Arcana.
I guess I will swipe what 4E has in store for skill challenges and mix it in my 3.5e games.
"Each use of Intimidate earns a failure."
I wonder what that means exactly, do you roll and then announce failure regardless of result? Or do you just say, ok, you try intimidate, that's a failure then. The "Each use" seems to imply the former, unless your player are dumb.
That makes me wonder what you do if the players choose a skill that is totally inappropriate, like Acrobatics. Tell them it won't work and not count it as a failure? Or do something similar to Intimidate? If the latter, why is Intimidate a special mention?
I've something else to say but it's going to be flamed so I post it separately.
If 4e still had skill points, this would seem interesting.
However,
1) The DCs are set by player level.
2) The skills are not determined by skill points, but rather by decision you made a long time ago like what your class, ability scores, are.
3) Because of 2, there is likely that there will only be a few points difference between the different skills you can choose to use.
4) Therefore, each roll has a reasonably fixed chance of success or failure.
5) Therefore, x successes before y failures, is similarly a flat percentage. You might as well make it a single roll, or turn a big wheel.
6) Of course, it's more fun to make separate rolls each one bringing you closer to success or failure, but if there is no strategy, or really big difference between the choice of skills, it becomes a game of snakes and ladders. Fun, but not a game for adults.
It seems you have to add something strategic - you can try to make a DC 30 and get two success points, or a 20 and get 1. Etc.
|
|
Assuming you are allowed to take 10 for skill challenges. Otherwise in some cases its no worse than 3rd Edition skill mechanics.
However, by default it would seem that there is more than one skill that can be used to overcome many situations now, where in 3rd Edition generally there was just one.
Then you do not get to take 10. As noted, the probably may be so significant as to be irrelevant anyway.
As for 3E, that is a matter of writing style, not rules.
I roleplay my character so that I clearly use Diplomacy. I roleplay well and succeed my check. This unlocks the possible History check. How is that played at the table? The Game Master interrupts my RP and tells me "See now, you have the choice between going on with your line of thought, or you could make a historical allusion blabla". How am I supposed to know what historical reference to do in RP without the GM telling me what to say, or passing notes around the table, et cetera?
I'll tell you how. The DM roleplays with you.
If you're goign to make an empassioned speech about why the Duke should help you as your diplomacy check, then the DM just responds by roleplaying out the duke's responce. He actually says, out loud just like the Duke would, what the Duke's history and backstory is.
That is the PC's clue to use History, and the DM in no way has to tell the PC they are using History. Let him just keep talking, and Then ask for a history check to make sure the PC got the detail's right in their speech.
It's not hard to roleplay out this kind of excahnge in a natural fashion as a DM, especilly when the player is the one starting the roleplay. You know what the Duke is likely to say, and while you don't have to script your lines, sketching them out helps a LOT.
|
|
I'll tell you how. The DM roleplays with you.
If you're going to make an empassioned speech about why the Duke should help you as your diplomacy check, then the DM just responds by roleplaying out the duke's responce. He actually says, out loud just like the Duke would, what the Duke's history and backstory is.
That is the PC's clue to use History, and the DM in no way has to tell the PC they are using History. Let him just keep talking, and Then ask for a history check to make sure the PC got the detail's right in their speech.
It's not hard to roleplay out this kind of excahnge in a natural fashion as a DM, especilly when the player is the one starting the roleplay. You know what the Duke is likely to say, and while you don't have to script your lines, sketching them out helps a LOT.
QFT
I always hated the one "diplomacy" check (love you/hate you!), so always gave multiple opportunities. It's nice to see it spelled out for new DM's. And it's just fine to roleplay it out.
What they don't spell out (and should) is that critical failures (1) and critical successes (20) ought to vary things up a bit. Critical failure either boots you or requires additional successes, critical success takes you straight to happy NPC or at least get you bonuses on the next check. Maybe they go into more details on that in the full text.
"I had 3 critical success Diplomacy rolls and the Duke asked me to marry his daughter! Woo-Hoo! Took 2 more to get out of it. Whew!"
|
|
"Each use of Intimidate earns a failure."
I wonder what that means exactly, do you roll and then announce failure regardless of result? Or do you just say, ok, you try intimidate, that's a failure then. The "Each use" seems to imply the former, unless your player are dumb.That makes me wonder what you do if the players choose a skill that is totally inappropriate, like Acrobatics. Tell them it won't work and not count it as a failure? Or do something similar to Intimidate? If the latter, why is Intimidate a special mention?
I've something else to say but it's going to be flamed so I post it separately.
Here's how I would do this.
The scenario as written makes it clear that Intimidate is always a failure (regardless of the roll, even a 20) Every time they tried Intimidate, I would make it clear the Duke looks more peeved. I'd speak for the Duke more clearly each time. "You would attempt to bully me in my own castle!" From the scenario as written they get 4 failures, so if that's all they tried by the 4th one the Duke would be kicking them out.
If they tried "acrobatics" it would depend upon the situation and what they did. I like to reward creative role-playing. If they attempted some sort entertainment to gain the Duke's favor, acrobatics might get them a success. If they tried acrobatics and it failed miserably (falling on the Duke, knocking over the china, etc.) then it's a failure. Generally though if they did acrobatics and it was sort of "bleh" I'd consider a push. Multiple "blehs" would probably count as a failure as the Duke became bored with your shinanigans.
I always like to be fair and give credit where credit is due. While much of 4e has left me cold and wondering why this is better, rather than just different, I really like this idea. It may not be new, but darned if I was bright enough to come up with it on my own, and it gives me tons of ideas on how to actually create some challenges that might utilize rules similar to this, especially to encourage using some skills that sometimes only come up once or twice in an entire campaign.
The best thing about this skill system is not the easy mechanics involved. (I do love that aspect, and I say "Good Job" to the designers.)
It's the sheer numebr of roleplaying opperetunity this setup provides.
The DM lists the four or five most likely skill checks the party will use. plans out any intresting bits that the party might discovers about a NPC (Such as the Duke's backstory with the History check) or a local secret, say locating a hidden shrine by using a Knowledge Religion check to notice signs carved in the trees you're passing.
These are preplanned things the party can find, and thats very cool. It allows the DM to plan ahead, and yet not railroad the party.
It also provides a huge roleplaying oppertunity for the players. Every skill check you make can be described by the player, granting a bonus or penalty based upon how good that description is. Use a strange skill check, a great description, and you'll create a wonderful roleplaying expirence.
Sure, you could always do that before. Everybody has done that in 3.5
But by making this a core part of the system, by formalizing the rules into the core of what the game is, it makes this kind of roleplaying much more a part of the game then it was before.
One of the things I was thinking of, is to make sure for each "failure" in a social situation to make sure that the NPC offers an objection or a counterpoint to the PCs last comments, so that the whole thing rolls along as an actual conversation, not just, "I want to roll this check, this check, and this check . . . is that enough to do this yet?"
I figure in the case of a social challenge that there will be social roleplaying going on, so players will have an understanding of how things are going depending on how they go about trying to get what they want.
So if a player tries to use Intimidate, the NPC will probably voice an objection or distaste to let the PC know that, hey, thats not going to fly.
One of the things I was thinking of, is to make sure for each "failure" in a social situation to make sure that the NPC offers an objection or a counterpoint to the PCs last comments, so that the whole thing rolls along as an actual conversation, not just, "I want to roll this check, this check, and this check . . . is that enough to do this yet?"
I have also read from playtesters' comments that social encounters may have "antagonist" NPCs capable of nullifying the PCs' successes with their own rolls and arguments. Perfect for a "Trial" skill challenge.
Mind you, I am not saying there is anything wrong with skill challenges, just that there is nothing gloriously innovative about it other than writing it down as a core rules system.
And therein lies the glorious innovation.
Come on, Sam -- you need to give in to the hype :P
Resistance is futile...