I'm not sure what other people think about the 4e skill challenge system (my personal opinion is that it's a cool idea, but a little broke in 4e). I was wondering if there had been, or if anyone else had thought of, rules for skill challenges for 3.5/Pathfinder RPG?
I'm no good at the probability/math rules, so I default to others.
Cheers!
The existing skills rules allow DMs to set up situations like Skill Challenges. Actually needing a special mechanic for it would be silly, and is one of the reasons the 4E version falls flat.
|
If you want skill challenges... just steal them right out of 4e. Personally I don't like the exact concept because it's turned ROLEplaying into ROLLplaying.
It doesn't matter how good of a ROLEplayer you are, it makes social encounters dependent on dice. In 3e, you got to the dice in social encounters when you want to get the npc to do something he wouldn't (or doesn't) want to do. Rolling can even be used to assist those people that aren't good roleplayers (or actors) but are trying (and failing.) Now in 4e you need to roll dice just to get a desirable outcome.
Note that in the past few days Wizards issued an "update" (errata) on skill challenges. I think they were trying to address concerns that they were too tough to "win".
I think the idea is interesting, but I haven't tried it out yet. Certainly Paizo has used the idea of "if you can succeed at X tasks, then you get advantage Y" in their adventure paths already.
|
I'm not sure what other people think about the 4e skill challenge system (my personal opinion is that it's a cool idea, but a little broke in 4e). I was wondering if there had been, or if anyone else had thought of, rules for skill challenges for 3.5/Pathfinder RPG?
I'm no good at the probability/math rules, so I default to others.
considering I have never read the forth ed skill challenge rules
No
|
|
Personally I don't like the exact concept because it's turned ROLEplaying into ROLLplaying.
I couldn't agree with you more. Skill challenges seem more a practice of getting lucky on large amounts of dice rolls rather than soliciting meaningful input from the players through role-playing, use of combat tactics, logic problem solving, or creative problem solving.
I've played through a few skill challenges and found myself wishing the DM would have just narrated a "cut-scene" in place of the challenge or allowed us to play it out differently. While most of the 4e rules seem primed for being turned into an MMO, this is one game mechanic I'm not sure could be adapted in an interesting way for an MMO.
I kind of disagree with the notion of the mechanic makes a game more roll-playing than role-playing. Attaching rules to interactions don't drive away role-playing. However I think that this argument might lead a wee bit out of the scope of this thread so I won't go any further with it here.
Since Paizo kind of does make a few adventures every once in a while, it is not like there won't be different mechanics popping up every once and a while to simulate, a chase over rooftops or for determining how successfully a party has defended a town.
The skill challenge is already out there, I would like to see something that is not just a copy of it.
I'm not sure what other people think about the 4e skill challenge system (my personal opinion is that it's a cool idea, but a little broke in 4e). I was wondering if there had been, or if anyone else had thought of, rules for skill challenges for 3.5/Pathfinder RPG?
Our DM has been using a modified (I don't know how modified, because I haven't actually seen all of his rules written out) version of skill challenges lately. I wasn't entirely sold on the idea at first, but it's growing on me as we play them out. I like the fact that it allows for concrete rewards for skill usage and also makes skill usage much less of an 'all or nothing' proposition. Instead of success or failure hanging on a single roll of the dice by a single player, there are multiple chances for the entire party to contribute to the success or failure of a complex endeavor.
I also like the fact that it can seriously reduce the amount of dice rolling needed for situations involving heavy skill usage over long periods of game-time. As an example, we recently played through a skill challenge involving an arduous journey to the peak of the highest mountain in our campaign world. The skill challenge mechanic gave us the flavor of a week-long trek up the mountain into a frigid, high-altitude environment without having to do something ridiculous like make a climb check once an hour during our travel time each day, which would have amounted to FAR more dice rolling than we did. Interspersed with a few combat encounters and an avalanche, the skill challenge wound up being great fun to play out and didn't impede roleplay in the least.
I suspect that, as with most things in D&D, in the hands of a good DM, 4e-like skill challenge mechanics can enhance the roleplay experience significantly. In the hands of a poor DM, they'd probably do just the opposite.
|
SirUrza wrote:
Personally I don't like the exact concept because it's turned ROLEplaying into ROLLplaying.I couldn't agree with you more. Skill challenges seem more a practice of getting lucky on large amounts of dice rolls rather than soliciting meaningful input from the players through role-playing, use of combat tactics, logic problem solving, or creative problem solving.
I've played through a few skill challenges and found myself wishing the DM would have just narrated a "cut-scene" in place of the challenge or allowed us to play it out differently. While most of the 4e rules seem primed for being turned into an MMO, this is one game mechanic I'm not sure could be adapted in an interesting way for an MMO.
Well said.
Personally I don't like the exact concept because it's turned ROLEplaying into ROLLplaying.I couldn't agree with you more. Skill challenges seem more a practice of getting lucky on large amounts of dice rolls rather than soliciting meaningful input from the players through role-playing, use of combat tactics, logic problem solving, or creative problem solving.
I've played through a few skill challenges and found myself wishing the DM would have just narrated a "cut-scene" in place of the challenge or allowed us to play it out differently.
I can't comment on the mechanics of the skill challenge system ('cause I haven't tried them out), I like the idea of encouraging every player to take an active role in a non-combat encounter.
For instance, consider a diplomatic negotiation. Rather than just having one or two "face" characters do most of the talking, I like the idea that the barbarian can make a positive contribution by being intimidating at the appropriate time, the cleric can contribute with her knowledge of history, the monk can contribute by noticing a subtle glance between two of the negotiators, etc., even if the characters (or the players!) are not particularly eloquent or intelligent.
Now you don't need a formal skill challenge mechanic to make this possible, but if it's not formalized then the onus is on the DM to make it clear to his players that the result isn't going to hinge on a single Diplomacy check (or whichever skill would seemingly be most appropriate).
Since Paizo kind of does make a few adventures every once in a while, it is not like there won't be different mechanics popping up every once and a while to simulate, a chase over rooftops or for determining how successfully a party has defended a town.
This.
The shingles chase in PF#7 and the twn defense in the savage tide AP are examples of skill challenges not requiring a special core mechanic.
It should be noted that they also use different mechanics from each other. 'Skill challenges' in the core rules would force them to use the same mechanic, which would not be appropriate.
Skill Challenges, as I understand how they work in 4e, sucks. It's a codified set of rules meant to apply to every situation (instead of having unique rules for specific applications), and when combined with how skill checks work in 4e, apparently meant to be failed on average.
The second part won't be that big of an issue in a 3e version, so it's the first part we have to look at.
.
The way skill challenges were built was way too gamist. No matter the situation, if the DM wants an easy, medium or hard challenge he ALWAYS makes the players roll X successes before Y failures.
This gives one specific type of tension, and also might not fit the situation. 8 successes before 4 failures. So... you have to make 8 set of rolls? What if it's for a Diplomacy check, and you don't have that much material prepared... the players roll back to back "just to see if they win"?
It's no longer about roleplaying or even rollplaying... it's basically adding a level of complication that does NOTHING except make you roll more dice to create a more complicated math structure for success. It's like making ALL to-hit rolls like critical hits.. and critical hits even more complicated. And then calling it "a challenge".
.
What works better is having different kinds of challenge methods, depending on the tone of the situation.
I have played in an adventure where there was a special roleplaying moment snuck into a combat situation (telepathy between a contracted devil and a player). Information could be gleaned, but it required payment and social checks (diplomacy, bluff or intimidation).
The more we increased the "encounters" value, by rolling well or promising more expensive payments, the more information and/or help we'd receive.
This was a singular, unique moment where I felt that Rollplaying and Roleplaying really meshed well.
.
Here's how this can work:
When creating a situation that could get multifaceted or complicated and not just an "all or nothing" thing, create a sliding scale of reward. Or, alternatively, if the situation seems complicated but ultimately binary, make the final goal have a set value.
Then, add in things that would influence this score. Things like:
- Reputation (are the players known in the area or by the people involved)
- Threats
- Pertinent Objects (Say you have a body part of the enemy's wife's corpse that he could use to resurrect)
- Specific subjects mentioned (bringing up past favors given, mentioning information the target might not have known yet that could influence his thinking)
Assign a value to any of those events being done, and possibly assign a skill check to see how much it influences, or if it influences at all.
.
Other "complex skill checks" can simply be making that Lockpicking job take more than one roll. The downside to it is that it would take extra time... which can be tough if it's the middle of combat, or if you've been sneaking around and the guards might be coming back to the beginning of their rotation, etc.
Failure in picking one part of the lock means having to spend that extra round trying it again. A 5 step lock would mean 5 rounds (30 seconds) minimum spent working at it... and if the guards will be back in just under a minute? Better not fail too many times...
To make this more than just a series of rolls, the DM would be best to describe the situation as getting more dire each check.
"As you hear the third lock click into place, you hear the guard's footsteps stop getting quieter, and now start to get louder... he's coming back!"
.
The point is that you can't just toss in rules saying "It's a hard challenge, roll 8 successes". This will only work properly if you make it fit to the situation in the adventure, rather than just make a "fair system" where "everyone is equal" and try and pound every adventure into this circle hole called a Skill Challenge.
For instance, consider a diplomatic negotiation. Rather than just having one or two "face" characters do most of the talking, I like the idea that the barbarian can make a positive contribution by being intimidating at the appropriate time, the cleric can contribute with her knowledge of history, the monk can contribute by noticing a subtle glance between two of the negotiators, etc., even if the characters (or the players!) are not particularly eloquent or intelligent.
This is where the DM would want to make the encounter have multiple aspects that can influence it, and call on the characters, or specific character if he prefers (and knows that they have the skill for it), to make the rolls for these influences.
On top of that, if the players come up with something you hadn't thought of, you have a set of influences and a scale to compare it to, which makes coming up with stuff on the fly easier too. If you forgot that the Monk has a stellar Sense Motive, and either remember in play, or he brings it up as something he wants to try, you can occasionally ask him to roll when you think it's appropriate to influence the situation, etc.
This is where the DM would want to make the encounter have multiple aspects that can influence it, and call on the characters, or specific character if he prefers (and knows that they have the skill for it), to make the rolls for these influences.
On top of that, if the players come up with something you hadn't thought of, you have a set of influences and a scale to compare it to, which makes coming up with stuff on the fly easier too. If you forgot that the Monk has a stellar Sense Motive, and either remember in play, or he brings it up as something he wants to try, you can occasionally ask him to roll when you think it's appropriate to influence the situation, etc.
Absolutely. But I'd still call that a "skill challenge" -- just not a "4E Skill Challenge(tm)" -- and I imagine that the posters above would still complain that it's "ROLLplaying, not ROLEplaying".
Personally, I don't think that rolling dice is the antithesis of roleplaying, though; I think that doing nothing at all is the antithesis of roleplaying.
So much for someone posting their rules for a 3.5 skills challenge :)
I agree with the a lot of what Hogarth said -- I'm not looking to eviserate my game by reducing it to dice rolls. Really, when it comes down to it, I'm just looking for appropirate DCs by level for skill checks.
(On the side: I DO have a game that has lots of social encounters, and whenever they need to have diplomatic encounters, they send the cleric in to do the dirty work. A skill challenge in that situation, whould still allow the cleric to shine with his skills set, while giving the other players a chance to help or hurt.)
Here's a vague idea of how a "hogarth Skill Challenge(tm)" might go:
- The GM sets a CR for the skill challenge, and gets a DC based on that CR. Say, 15 + CR as a base DC for success. (I just pulled that number out of thin air, so don't quote me on it!)
- The GM goes around the table and asks the players to make a d20 check of their choice: it could be a skill check, an ability check, an initiative check -- doesn't really matter as long as the player can roleplay some use for it.
- The GM classifies each proposed check as Appropriate, Somewhat Appropriate or Inappropriate (say). So a Diplomacy check during a negotiation might be Appropriate, a Knowledge (History) check might be Somewhat Appropriate, and a Survival check might be Inappropriate. Certain checks could get a positive or negative DC modifier as well; for instance, Intimidate might be Appropriate during a negotiation, but the other side might be harder to intimidate than usual.
- After the actions have been roleplayed, the GM secretly rolls the checks. Each successful check is worth a positive number of points and each failed check is worth a negative number of points. Maybe an Appropriate check is worth +4/-2, a Somewhat Appropriate check is worth +2/-1, and an Inappropriate check is worth +0/-1 for success/failure. (Again, those numbers are pulled out of thin air.)
- The GM can do as many rounds of checks as he wants (to make a longer or shorter skill challenge).
- Once all of the checks have been made, the GM consults a table of results ranging from the maximum possible positive number of points (spectacular success) to the minimum possible negative number of points (dismal failure).
For people without an Unearthed Arcana handy, the Complex Skill Checks rule has been OGLed(like most of Unearthed Arcana). They are available at the Hypertext d20 SRD here.
If you want skill challenges... just steal them right out of 4e. Personally I don't like the exact concept because it's turned ROLEplaying into ROLLplaying.
It doesn't matter how good of a ROLEplayer you are, it makes social encounters dependent on dice. In 3e, you got to the dice in social encounters when you want to get the npc to do something he wouldn't (or doesn't) want to do. Rolling can even be used to assist those people that aren't good roleplayers (or actors) but are trying (and failing.) Now in 4e you need to roll dice just to get a desirable outcome.
This is why putting the 4e Skill Challenge "as-is" into the game is bad, because all it does is making for more rolling with basically no added effect. Possibly the only people interested would be those that enjoy the math involved, but even that will get old with the same DCs and same # of checks each time.
The way rolling can be meshed with roleplaying is as I described, where you take the situation at hand, and roleplay it as you would normally, but add in these factors (checks, values, etc) to codify the result from your roleplaying.
If you don't do anything (don't roleplay), the result will be the same as before... nothing happens. The point of adding codified rules in this particular case (as opposed to the 4e method) is to create tension and an active goal, as well as help the poor speaker (player) play their good speaking character well.
So instead of just some back and forth between the DM and the group's good speaker (player, not character), it can become more involved (possibly more, or more appropriate players), and have some tension from chance (dice rolls).
Roleplaying would be the focus/starting point of the gaming situation, and dice rolls, skill checks, and numbered values would be inserted to keep things a bit more fair, and add clear goals and a more palpable tension. No reason they can't work together, if used in this manner.
The problem with the 4'th edition rules is that the "fixed number of successes" rule makes for some major absurdities: You need to cross a river. The players decide that they need a bridge. You decide that this is a skill challenge calling for four successes before six failures or whatever.
So... The first player notes that you'll need wood: he goes out to stat cutting and shaping timbers: he gets a successful check - lets say he uses "survival" and a tougher roll than "profession: lumberjack" would require, but he still succeeds. The next guy notes that pulleys and hoists will be in order, and rolls "Use Rope" (for old-style skills) or whatever seems appropriate. He succeeds. The Wizard with a few points in Knowledge/Architecture rolls to design a stable bridge and boosts hit intelligence to make sure he succeeds. The Bard uses Perform/Oratory to persuade some local villagers to supply some nails, on the grounds that the bridge will be a net benefit.
Wait: Now you've got four successes, and have won the skill challenge, without actually building the bridge or crossing the river. We could say that "you've prepared so well that the actual building is automatic" - but what if a flash flood was on the way or Carpentry is actually by far the weakest skill in the group?
That hard-and-fast "number of successes/failures" mechanic really doesn't make a lot of sense. Now, "everybody can try various ways of making a contribution", and "not all contributions are going to be equal", and "we're making steps towards a goal, but not all routes are equal" system is more complicated - enough so that a comprehensive rules system rather than guidelines may be impractical - but life is like that.