Because of my irritation of figuring out the calculations necessary for the accurate probability, I made a quick program to get a rough idea of the odds each set would be at.
It assumes that each participant has the same chance of success using their own skill and that chance doesn't vary in that individual skill challenge. It is very much simplified and could be off from the percentages of an actual skill challenge with varying DCs and an actual party with varying skill bonuses.
It isn't pretty, I'm just dumping the data the program calculates right here. I can only hope that I haven't made an error in my code to produce results that are way off.
** spoiler omitted **...
Now you've got two extremes but I want you to take a quick look at the odds with 5 or better. As your data points out (I've seen another table that had the same results as yours) this is really something of the sweet spot for most groups. You'll nearly always pass an easy challange and will probably fail a very hard one but its reasonably possible (45% chance roughly). If you look at the other curve for the challenges in the middle (like 6 before 3 etc.) you'll probably notice that it has a very nice curve for most groups.
I think 6 before 3 is around a 75% succsess rate and then its 63% or some such. Probably about what we are looking for in terms of skill challenges. You want your players to mostly win them but there needs to be some failure mixed in there.
Here, I'm arguing, is your sweet spot and when your building your challenges your going to want to be thinking a bit about that number because you'd like it to come up a lot. I'm not saying get to focused on it because I think making a good challenge is more art then science but keep this number in the back of your head will help. A DC that is 5 more then the players skill is a very nice DC. This is also a very useful 'rule of thumb' DC if you end up in a skill challenge on the fly. Finally you may want to consider some of the other percentages - I personally think these are the odds I want to see most of the time but others may feel that things should be tweaked up or down.
Skill ChallengeRHOD, <3. Anyhoo, you forgot to mention how hard you expect this skill challenge to be. What do you think the chances of failure are, under the DMG2 system? I'm going to do a bit more analysis of it than that, but that's a major part of it and I want to avoid goalpost shifts.Do the math and you tell us. Seriously I would just run as is and let the dice roll as they may. Note this is from a Dungeon Mag pre-DMG2 so it'll be interesting to see your results and hear your conclusions. Great chance for you to highlight the broken bits from an example skill challenge as passed by WotC's editors.
Go nuts,
S.PS: Please spell out any assumptions etc.
Let me guess - This is the first challenge in Rescue at Rivenroar?
Not sure of its odds but it was a bad place for a skill challenge. Never have a skill challenge to see if the players go on the adventure 'cause its really annoying when they fail!
With the current Skill Challenges (staring at the vague simulation numbers for guidance), I don't think that I would be able to determine if it is too overwhelming for my group (or how much I should adjust things by to make it complement my party) until I actually finish using it on my group.
Once again, I'm not saying that being "unable to tell how tough an encounter is" means that it is broken such that I can't ever use them and have fun.
I am saying that being "unable to tell how tough an encounter is" means that it is broken such that I could still use it, but I would be looking for a "better" system to run these encounters with.
But you can't tell me how hard any combat is either. In fact right now you know a lot more about the percentages involved in a Skill Challenge then any combat your planning to run in the near future. Combats, usually, are much more lethal in their results as well. Nonetheless we run them based on a heuristic made up of gut feelings and past experience.
This works for skill challenges as well, especially if you start your math in a place where its weighted in the players favour. That way if they don't happen to hit it optimally, well its still weighted in their favour - just not as much.
|
Let me guess - This is the first challenge in Rescue at Rivenroar?Not sure of its odds but it was a bad place for a skill challenge. Never have a skill challenge to see if the players go on the adventure 'cause its really annoying when they fail!
Yep. Yes puppy is what initially made me refuse to give 4e a good go. It is just completely rubbish. Given that example in isolation it is easy to understand MiB's stance. MiB's observations about this challenge is quite correct (assuming players make 'standard PCs'). The skill challenge system doesn't force players to roll however. It does make sense to have to best player roll, more people may get involved BUT no where does it that every PC must act during a skill challenge. But who that is will change encounter to encounter and as stated with variable (and unknown) DCs how the players handle this is squarely in their court. Has for how hard things are, I do agree that some sort of chart would assist a DM because skill challenges are not simple linear stats and as the number of d20 increases the more difficult it is to quickly work out the say 1st quartile.
S.
Yep. Yes puppy is what initially made me refuse to give 4e a good go. It is just completely rubbish.
Beyond the problem with having a Skill Challenge to see if the players go on the adventure this challenge faces another significant issue.
Essentially whats going to happen is the players are going to show up and say "You got a job for us?" and Troyes is going to say "I got a job for you"...and then... well then nothing. The players sit there and wait for the details. The DM is forced to push them into the Challenge and the whole thing just seems to terribly artificial.
A social challenge like this can work but you need the players grabbing the reins and running with it and that just won't work here. If instead the players are tracking down a murderer and they have info that some tramp saw something then we have a reasonable Skill Challenge. The players corner the tramp and proceed to pump him for information. The DM does not need to do anything to get the ball rolling as the players are going to be jumping in with how they plan to get info all on their own. This is the kind of Skill Challenge that the DM can do without ever informing the players that they are in a Skill Challenge at all. In fact I suggest that the DM does not bother with that as there is no need for the players to see the props holding the scene up - they just need to now what happens next.
Other times the DM may be in a situation where he has to take the lead, maybe in a situation where the players are fleeing from the guards or a Volcano or even sneaking through a town at night etc. Here group checks and such start to make sense and the DM is free to impose rolls from on high and its up to him to keep things exciting through the creation of a dramatic scene. I've seen this play out without the players being aware that they are in a Skill Challenge though thats not all that easy. Don't draw attention to it and it'll still probably all be good.
A Third style of Skill Challenge is one where things are very obviously a Skill Challenge and the players are weighing options. If you need to break through the arcane lock before the Cave Troll breaks down the door behind you then you have a number of issues on the table - more people can make checks to do the challenge faster but then they might get more failures - as the Challenge progresses it may also start to make sense to send players back to engage the Cave Troll while buying time for the more skilled characters to keep at the Challenge.
Bordin's Watch has a good challenge like this, where your facing infinite minions and the interesting part is deciding who to break off from the group to climb to the top of the tower and figure out how to flood the room. Having played through this scene with my cleric I have to say it was truly some of the best gaming I've ever experienced.
This works for skill challenges as well, especially if you start your math in a place where its weighted in the players favour. That way if they don't happen to hit it optimally, well its still weighted in their favour - just not as much.This is emphatically not true when you a difference of -3 (the difference between a primary stat and a kicker stat) can drop you from the 80s to the 30s.
Not sure where your getting 80's to 30's.
I see a difference but not that extreme. In any case its the DMs job to know how his players will deal with a Skill Challenge.
If they deal with Skill Challenges by insisting that the DM halt the game and identify skill challenges. To be followed by a list of potential skills and an audit among the group to find out who has the highest skill in the potential applicable skills. After which they will then proceed to have all players roll aid another to add to this skill. then one is going to need super high DCs to have any chance of stopping the players.
If, on the other hand, the players are going to go into a Skill Challenge unaware that they are even in one and just do what seems appropriate the DCs are best left a LOT lower. My bet is this is your disconnect with the new DCs in the DMG2 and errata, These DCs are not that bad if the PCs are not gaming the system but are auto successes if they are.
In the first case your right - the players can't screw up on that audit. If the DM set the DC super high knowing his players would hit it with their best skill and everyone would aid another (with most succeeding) then there is a disaster and that player can't make it to the game, then the players are screwed.
In the second case the DCs are already forgiving and those times the players happen to use their best skill in some maxed out stat its likely to be nearly an auto success. The DM is just aiming to get the DCs about 5 above the average skill used during the encounter not above the best skill the players have access to. Hence some checks are near auto successes while others are well behind the curve, maybe only a 50% chance of a succsess. Nether of these extremes represent all rolls with most falling between these two extremes.
So here is what I mean by hitting the Skill Challenge sub optimally. There are 10 total rolls, each is meant to work 80% of the time but the players hit the thing sub optimally, 8 of the rolls are within the expected range but two players use skills that only represent a 60% chance of getting a succsess. The total odds of succsess have clearly fallen in this case but they have not fallen dramatically.
This is in fact one of the benefits of the system I'm describing and its likely why many of the DMs on the thread have not encountered your issues. If you treat a Skill Challenge as something that can only be handled by an optimized character using a maxed out skill, and that character is meant to try and beat the system by rolling that skill, and only that skill, over and over again then, besides the fact that this is boring as all hell and utterly lacking in any immersion qualities, you also have a system that has no give. If anything happens so that this particular player does not or cannot use this maxed out skill then the chances of succsess drop like a rock. In the end you've created some kind of 4E tautology. You insist upon using the system in a manner that will break it and then come to the conclusion that the system is broken.
What truly confounds me however is that various posters have consistently recommended using various methods that will result in players not defaulting to this extremely unforgiving method. Said posters have pointed out that this unforgiving method was probably never the designers intent, its not currently how they are handling the skill challenges and its not even how they recommend approaching them in the DMG2 and yet you persist in decrying the use of the system in any manner but one which you know full well breaks them and therefore come to the conclusion that they are broken. This approach simply makes no sense and I am at a loss to understand why you persist in the endeavor since even you don't like where it leads.
Now you've got two extremes but I want you to take a quick look at the odds with 5 or better. As your data points out (I've seen another table that had the same results as yours) this is really something of the sweet spot for most groups. You'll nearly always pass an easy challange and will probably fail a very hard one but its reasonably possible (45% chance roughly). If you look at the other curve for the challenges in the middle (like 6 before 3 etc.) you'll probably notice that it has a very nice curve for most groups.
I think 6 before 3 is around a 75% succsess rate and then its 63% or some such. Probably about what we are looking for in terms of skill challenges. You want your players to mostly win them but there needs to be some failure mixed in there.
Here, I'm arguing, is your sweet spot and when your building your challenges your going to want to be thinking a bit about that number because you'd like it to come up a lot. I'm not saying get to focused on it because I think making a good challenge is more art then science but keep this number in the back of your head will help. A DC that is 5 more then the players skill is a very nice DC. This is also a very useful 'rule of thumb' DC if you end up in a skill challenge on the fly. Finally you may want to consider some of the other...
Yep, you are right. I do think that is about where I would try to set the line for that goal. But, part of me would feel ridiculous if I just ran skill challenges like that. Right now, I have no clue what the skill modifiers for my party are. And if I just guessed at setting the DCs and I was off by one or two, it would significantly change the odds of victory that I wanted.
What I'm arguing is that the size of the sweet spot, from what I can tell, is very small and that I think it is very easy for me to miss it. If I do miss it by just a few points, I will have already determined whether or not the party will beat the challenge without seeing a single die rolled.
But you can't tell me how hard any combat is either. In fact right now you know a lot more about the percentages involved in a Skill Challenge then any combat your planning to run in the near future. Combats, usually, are much more lethal in their results as well. Nonetheless we run them based on a heuristic made up of gut feelings and past experience.
This works for skill challenges as well, especially if you start your math in a place where its weighted in the players favour. That way if they don't happen to hit it optimally, well its still weighted in their favour - just not as much.
That is true. I can't really tell you how hard a combat is. But combined with my intuition and past experience, I should be able to have a very good idea how hard a monster will be for my party (how easy it will be to hit, how much it abilities will come into play, etc.) and have a pretty good idea of how difficult the battle would be.
An issue that I have though is that even with that table of percentages, unless I checked all of the party's skill modifiers (then utility powers, feats, and magic items for circumstantial or temporary skill boosts) I still have no clue how hard the encounter will be. Going by the tables for what I would say is the worst of the challenges (Worst not meaning least fun. Worst meaning that it has the largest swing in difficulty), it could be a 15% of victory (if I set the DCs slightly too high from my target), or it could be a 85% chance of victory (if I set the DCs slightly too low from my target).
My gut feeling really tells me that it too crazy, and I should find another system that would not be as easy to accidentally change the difficulty.
But, since combats are lethal and skill challenges are not. It isn't like I can't have fun with a skill challenge even though I might know that the party has almost no chance of succeeding or almost no chance of failing. If the party loses, they might not find that treasure, or that later combat may be a bit harder, but it isn't a massive deal. At least, nowhere near the aftermath of me killing a player character.
However, right now, it seems to me that skill challenges (especially the bigger ones) are so erratic, that I wouldn't put anything truly important on the success or failure of the challenge. I'm really going to avoid using them such that they might result in the death of an NPC close with the party or losing anything the party can't really "fix" with combat.
For example, a Barbarian PC has been striving for most of the game to be able to claim can claim the one of a kind magic weapon of his ancestors. The party tries negotiating with the Barbarian PC's elders for passage into cave where the weapon resides and the party fails the challenge to convince the elders of the PC's worth. There is no way that I'm going to use the results of the skill challenge to bar him from that item. He might be able to prove his worth by fighting a legendary monster instead. I have this feeling for anything the players might actually care about for more than an hour.
To me, my control (as a player) over preventing the failure of a skill challenge is so limited, that if I actually lost anything to them, it would feel the same as if the GM decided to just take it away without giving me a fair chance to fight for it.
I would like a non-combat challenge that I would feel somewhat comfortable giving an important reward or allowing to prevent an important loss.
Let's set aside whether skill challenges work or not.
You have a perfectly good legendary monster guarding the barbarian PC's heirloom magic weapon, and you're going to let the PCs bypass that? What are you thinking, that sounds like a totally awesome fight!
Well, techincally my example didn't have the monster guarding the weapon, it was only used by elders as an alternate method for the party to prove themselves worthy of actually getting to the heirloom weapon (and taking down anything that might be guarding it).
Also, given the experiences I've had with my groups, there would be a very good chance would go out and kill the legendary monster with little other reason than it sounding like a cool idea.
|
The way I've always viewed SCs was as a mechanical means to grant XP awards for using skills. Personally, I'd just as soon remove the XP award and have whatever the result of said skill usage be reward enough.I think you might be approaching skill challenges from the wrong direction. You're thinking about them as a way to provide XP for a skill-based encounter. That's part of what skill challenges do, but it's not their main function. The main function of a skill challenge is to provide a mechanical framework for an encounter that focuses on skills, rather than combat.
For example: imagine a scene where the players are required to rescue people from a burning building. There's a lot going on there: the fighter and rogue are running in and out of the flames, the wizard is trying to organize a bucket brigade, the cleric might be using his magic to heal people who are injured, and so on. This is a cool, heroic scene. The question then becomes: How do we handle this in-game? How do we know if and when the party has "beaten" this encounter? What are the rewards for success and the risks of failure? The skill challenge framework gives you a tool to organize the design of the encounter, balance it appropriately for its level, and determine rewards.
Thinking of SCs as a way to provide XP for a skill-based encounter is how I read the intent of SCs. Otherwise they wouldn't really need CRs and such to determine XP. The SC I wrote had my players going to speak to the lord of the town at his request to assist the town with taking care of a problem. They wanted to negotiate for a reward for doing this. I figured it would be a good time for an SC. The lord was more than willing, but members of his council didn't want him giving away what they saw as 'too much'. I worked on it for a while, making meaningful primary and secondary skills to be used. As I mentioned, I used the Initiative thing, which someone pointed out has now been shunned, so to speak. They RP'd each of their checks, but based on how it worked, the roll was still the roll, no matter how well they spoke. Sure, I could add bonuses and such if they did well, but even then, they all knew what was going on, so they ended up spamming their best skill, just because they knew it had the highest chance for success.
As for your scene, if the cleric is using magic to heal, it doesn't require a skill check. Rogue and Fighter, Fort saves for smoke inhalation and such (though that has nothing to do with skills). Have each roll Perception to see if they find anyone by catching sight of someone, following the sounds of painful screams, etc. Upon finding someone, Athletics to be able to carry them out, Perception to find the way. In the first round, if both fail the Perception check, you're already close to failing the entire challenge, based off what this thread has told me the new rules are. And just how hard do you set that DC? All the smoke, the roar of the fire, the coughing fits, the burning eyes, it could all lead to a really high check. We'll say they've 'beaten' it if they put out the fire, and save as many people as possible. But should the SC include a minimum number of people saved for success? Anyway...based on rounds, and round length, the Rogue and Fighter could charge in, stumble around blindly for 12 seconds, and 'lose' the entire SC. To me that seems like saying they failed their three checks, the building which was burning with people inside is now, only 12 seconds later, a pile of dust from which no one can be saved, because they've already been burned to ash. But the Rogue and Fighter stand up and dust themselves off because SCs aren't supposed to kill the PCs. So not only do they not get the XP the SC was supposed to award them for their non-combat encounter, but now a bunch of people are dead also, and they never really stood a chance.
I'll be honest here...I haven't looked at a 4e book in about half a year. I don't remember if there were rules for object and structure HP and the like. If so, to me it would kind of break immersion if a building is supposed to have ~1000 HP (obvious randomness) but be turned to dust in seconds because of three failed skill checks. I'll admit, this might be a much easier and quicker way to find out how that scenario plays out. But it's just as possible to determine hit points of the building, HP and other relevant stats of the stranded townspeople (I know NPC creation can take a while, but you could easily template something like this), how many are in the building, roughly how long it'll take for it to burn, etc. Beating it? Do what you can. Put out the fire, if possible. If not, save as many people as possible. Do both, even better. Sure, the wizard could try to start a bucket brigade. Though I'm not sure I'd even require a roll for that. To me that DC would be rock-bottom, assuming it wasn't some evil town where everyone hated their neighbors, and felt empowered by the sounds of the screaming dying. Depending on the edition and the level, that wizard could tell people to do that, then start waving and waggling and chanting, and order up a downpour.
Success and Failure. I've already said what could happen in terms of failure. Though in any system, it could be said that failure would only be the destroyed buildings and lost lives. But hey, they tried to help. Sure, it's completely possible that depending on the DCs, they might be able to find, lift, exit, heal some people, but the chances seem highly unlikely with a three fail you're done system, especially in a burning building scenario. Success=Reward. So, they save the people and the building. Or not. Someone (or many, actually) have posted that there is a way to have tiered success now. I'll take their word for it. Does XP award adjust based on the tiers? How would you even do that? Set up different CRs for each tier they accomplish to properly award XPs? I honestly don't know. Or, depending on what happened, they save some, they save all, building 'saved', building not... As I was getting to before, I don't see a need for this scenario to generate any kind of XP award at all. The townsfolk endearing themselves to the heroic PCs who attempted to help, and managed some, can lead to a really rewarding scene, much future RP opportunity, as well as favors, etc. Sure, these could also be added as a bonus onto the XP award given in the SC system, but that, IMO anyway, seems like going way overboard in terms of potential reward.
I understand the concept of a skill challenge. I just think it would be better set as a roleplay or non-combat challenge, and let the PCs decide what to do to take care of it. While there are ways to creatively use the skills you've got, you're basically being pigeon-holed into using only skills to complete the encounter. Skills, and much of the ruleset for 4e as I remember them, don't allow a Wizard to cause a downpour to help douse the fire, and possibly after a few rounds of said downpour give the wood (or whatever material) resistance 5/fire as it absorbs the rainwater, nor does it allow a Druid to summon a water elemental to combat the blaze. And either can still call on a bucket brigade to assist. Sure, the Fighter and Rogue, technically, could still be considered to be spamming skills (search in 3.x, Perception if PFRPG) but if neither manage to find anyone in the first 12 seconds, they can still look until they do find someone instead of having the building and people around them effectively disappear. Plus, everyone can have an 'active' part instead of a 'AA while sitting around' part, as some have mentioned on this thread.
OK, Runnetib, I think I understand where most of your issues with the skill challenge system are coming from. It sounds as though you want your games to have a strong simulationist feel. You mention the HP of the burning building, rounds and round length, and how it's not realistic the way that the skill challenge system works. You're right. The skill challenge system allows you to make the entire encounter into an abstraction. For example, a 'round' in this skill challenge might not represent 6 seconds, but 2 or 3 minutes. Let me explain how I might handle this skill challenge and see if it makes sense to you.
The fighter and rogue are running around inside the burning building trying to rescue people. I might call for:
Perception checks - to find the trapped people
Athletics checks - to drag people out of the building,
and Endurance checks - to fight off the effects of smoke inhalation.
The cleric is trying to heal people who came out of the building. I might call for:
Heal checks - to heal the wounded people. At the heroic tier, a cleric really doesn't have enough healing magic to heal large numbers of people, but if the cleric wanted to burn all his healing spells for the encounter, I'd give him a +4 bonus on all his Heal checks for the encounter to represent his judicious use of magic.
The wizard is trying to organize a bucket brigade. I might call for:
Diplomacy checks - to rally people and get them together.
If the wizard uses magic to summon a downpour or a water elemental or something, I might give the party a free success on the challenge, or give an ad hoc bonus on a check.
I'm sure other people could come up with other creative skill uses in this sort of encounter. Perhaps the rogue uses Acrobatics to jump in through a second-story window from the roof of a neighboring house. Maybe the cleric wants to use his healing magic to boost the fighter and rogue's chances of survival. There's a lot of variables, and the DM will have to adjudicate them on the fly.
There's other ways to run this sort of skill challenge, too. One thing that crossed my mind was to run a split skill challenge. One challenge would be getting the people out of the building, the second would be putting out the fire. Both challenges could be run simultaneously, with players actions determining which challenge they were taking part in.
|
|
OK, Runnetib, I think I understand where most of your issues with the skill challenge system are coming from. It sounds as though you want your games to have a strong simulationist feel. You mention the HP of the burning building, rounds and round length, and how it's not realistic the way that the skill challenge system works. You're right. The skill challenge system allows you to make the entire encounter into an abstraction. For example, a 'round' in this skill challenge might not represent 6 seconds, but 2 or 3 minutes. Let me explain how I might handle this skill challenge and see if it makes sense to you.
The fighter and rogue are running around inside the burning building trying to rescue people. I might call for:
Perception checks - to find the trapped people
Athletics checks - to drag people out of the building,
and Endurance checks - to fight off the effects of smoke inhalation.The cleric is trying to heal people who came out of the building. I might call for:
Heal checks - to heal the wounded people. At the heroic tier, a cleric really doesn't have enough healing magic to heal large numbers of people, but if the cleric wanted to burn all his healing spells for the encounter, I'd give him a +4 bonus on all his Heal checks for the encounter to represent his judicious use of magic.The wizard is trying to organize a bucket brigade. I might call for:
Diplomacy checks - to rally people and get them together.If the wizard uses magic to summon a downpour or a water elemental or something, I might give the party a free success on the challenge, or give an ad hoc bonus on a check.
I'm sure other people could come up with other creative skill uses in this sort of encounter. Perhaps the rogue uses Acrobatics to jump in through a second-story window from the roof of a neighboring house. Maybe the cleric wants to use his healing magic to boost the fighter and rogue's chances of survival. There's a lot of variables, and the DM will have to adjudicate them on the fly.
There's...
It seems we're mostly on the same page on the skill usage on how either of us would run it. I didn't specifically mention Diplomacy for the Wizard, but I did say that I would probably not require a roll as, personally, I'd set the DC at rock-bottom etc etc etc see previous post. I forgot about Endurance being a skill, so that would replace the Fort save I mentioned also. And you're absolutely right about the Cleric's heroic tier healing 'capability'. I actually used PHB1 recently to point that out to someone else on a different board, but I digress. I'll concede that the heal skill could be used simple to prevent dying, instead of using magic to restore everyone to full HPs. Though I was using your guidelines for that, where you specifically said the Cleric was using his magic to heal. (on further thought, I might also add Insight as a skill to 'remember' the steps you've taken so far, giving you a circumstance bonus on your Perception to find your way back out of the building.)
As for the rest of it, if you were to increase the duration of rounds (I'll leave alone the house-rule aspects of this as best I can) I think that would have a very big effect on DCs as well as logistics. As an example, let's say we switched rounds to 3 minutes. Speaking is still a free action, so in 3 minutes you could conceivably search an entire floor of a building and find an unconscious person who doesn't aid your Perception by screaming, coughing, etc., simply by tripping over his/her body. But even with a DC set at Hard, extending the time it would take between skill uses would greatly decrease just how hard it is, IMO. Rogue using Acrobatics to go through windows seems pretty cool, but I don't think I'd make that a primary, and possibly only make it available as a secondary on a high success on Perception to find someone.
As I mentioned, I haven't really read the books in a while (aside from my recent glance at the Cleric) and I let my DDI subscription expire since I don't run or play 4e anymore. Is the Wizard even capable of summoning a storm or an elemental in 4e? I don't recall seeing that anywhere back when I was still playing.
I don't have any issues with skill-based encounters in theory. I actually kind of like them, and enjoyed exercising my brain working out your scenario both in and outside of 4e. (If you don't mind, I may actually use it.) I think what gets me most is the success/failure aspect as they're designed for 4e, especially for the reasons I listed in my breakdown of the scenario. And that, at least while I was still playing, the spells/powers were almost solely combat based, so couldn't really help much during non-combat scenes/encounters. I'm not saying it can't be done...I had a wizard use Prestidigitation to put on a show in town to raise some coin for the party. However, I didn't actually get to 'do' the show...the DM just said 'it happened, here's how much you made. I can't recall there being anything similar to a Perform skill in 4e, where this could happen, and casting Pres might give it an ad hoc bonus to the Perform check. Sure, in this particular case, it still wouldn't be much of a skill challenge, per se, but I would feel substantially less 'cheated' by rolling for the results of 'how much I made' than having an arbitrary number pulled randomly by the DM. This would be the case whether or not the second option DM allowed me to play the scene out or not.
Is the Wizard even capable of summoning a storm or an elemental in 4e?
Not at the heroic tier, as far as I know. Still, maybe he has a scroll or item or something. I just threw that in there because it's the sort of thing that a good DM needs to be ready for.
As for the rest of it, if you were to increase the duration of rounds (I'll leave alone the house-rule aspects of this as best I can) I think that would have a very big effect on DCs as well as logistics. As an example, let's say we switched rounds to 3 minutes. Speaking is still a free action, so in 3 minutes you could conceivably search an entire floor of a building and find an unconscious person who doesn't aid your Perception by screaming, coughing, etc., simply by tripping over his/her body. But even with a DC set at Hard, extending the time it would take between skill uses would greatly decrease just how hard it is, IMO. Rogue using Acrobatics to go through windows seems pretty cool, but I don't think I'd make that a primary, and possibly only make it available as a secondary on a high success on Perception to find someone.
I think your overly caught up on timing this thing and forcing it into some kind of clock. Its a scene, comparable to something one might see in blockbuster (well a blockbuster with a scene involving running around in a burning building). The actions are as fast or as slow as is needed to run the scene. Figure out what the players are all doing and then get them to make some rolls while you narrate. If other rolls are needed that should flow naturally from how the scene develops. If you try and force things into a clock instead of allowing it to develop organically it'll feel choppy and inauthentic.
I agree you can make the skill challenge as detailed or abstract as you wish, and you can bring in other elements like time requirements, HP, etc. everything available in the "normal game".
I believe anyone can come with examples to support or challenge any aspect of the game that involves dice rolling (mechanics).
Although skill challenges appear simple (or out of place) at first, it is when you develop a scene in layers to include environment, players, creatures, and then add the challenge to determine the flow, that you will have the greatest success (even if it takes a couple tries to get used to it).
|
|
As for the rest of it, if you were to increase the duration of rounds (I'll leave alone the house-rule aspects of this as best I can) I think that would have a very big effect on DCs as well as logistics. As an example, let's say we switched rounds to 3 minutes. Speaking is still a free action, so in 3 minutes you could conceivably search an entire floor of a building and find an unconscious person who doesn't aid your Perception by screaming, coughing, etc., simply by tripping over his/her body. But even with a DC set at Hard, extending the time it would take between skill uses would greatly decrease just how hard it is, IMO. Rogue using Acrobatics to go through windows seems pretty cool, but I don't think I'd make that a primary, and possibly only make it available as a secondary on a high success on Perception to find someone.I think your overly caught up on timing this thing and forcing it into some kind of clock. Its a scene, comparable to something one might see in blockbuster (well a blockbuster with a scene involving running around in a burning building). The actions are as fast or as slow as is needed to run the scene. Figure out what the players are all doing and then get them to make some rolls while you narrate. If other rolls are needed that should flow naturally from how the scene develops. If you try and force things into a clock instead of allowing it to develop organically it'll feel choppy and inauthentic.
A skill challenge is a non-combat encounter. Encounters are based in rounds, which are set at 6 seconds. I'm not trying to force anything, I'm simply following the structure and guidelines provided by the rule-makers. I could argue that combat is also a scene. While the BBEG is making his long grandiose speech about why he's awesome and the heroes aren't, should I also remove limitations from him? Sure, speaking is a free action, but it's also to be tempered with common sense on just how much speech can be done in the allotted 6 seconds. Of course, this is assuming he does the speech at some point after combat is started, but BBEGs typically wait until they've proven they're better to take that little time to themselves.
My use of time was more as an afterthought based on the mechanics of failed skill checks, illustrating how, from an immersion standpoint, the scene would be perceived (i.e. building instantly turns to dust, heroes stand up, etc.) Upon further thought, there's another way this could go. Let's assume that the players are rolling really high, and there are no failed checks before reaching the 12 successes. (I think that's the right number for HARD) Using the same scenario, even if we just use the Fighter and Rogue inside the building, it could take a minimum of 6 rounds to accomplish the goal of saving all the people, though all in this instance is automatically set at 6. If the goal is to also put out the fire, and without using it as an overlaying yet separate SC, in the time it took for the bucket brigade to form, and then bring their first few buckets, the fire would be out. Almost as though the last person through the door had a Contingency cast upon him/her saying, "If I'm in a burning building, and I leave or am removed from said building, the building instantly stops burning, due to a Resist Fire 1000 burst centered on me." While that may not be choppy, that certain falls far short of authentic for me.
Even if you remove time from the scene for...hmm, not even sure what to call it... X's sake, if you still fail those three checks right away, you still completely fail, in essence not saving the building or the people inside, with literally all the time in the world to do so.
Wizards get several summons in Arcane Power, though more of the extraplanar variety. Though really, that tends to be - for me - the perfect thing for using the Skill Challenge element for. The wizard might not normally have 'summon water elemental' as a power - but if they have some summonning spells, and are willing to spend the resource (of a daily power) and make a difficult Arcana check to try and modify the magic to conjure up a water elemental, that's the sort of dynamic creativity that I like to encourage, and could be worth several successes and make a big difference in the challenge.
I like this idea, but how many successes would it award, especially if Arcana wasn't one of your Primary Skills for the SC? And does the summoning automatically grant the successes, or are they only granted if the Wizard can command/diplomize the elemental to drench the building, through powers, SAs or the like?
SCs break immersion for me, as written. You absolutely can run them without letting your players know they're in one (assuming of course you ignore the initial rule stating to make them roll initiative). Up to that point, immersion is fine. But when something like what I described happens (either success or fail), no matter how many rounds it takes, it would break immersion for me instantly, feel highly inauthentic and contrived, and ruin the whole thing for me. Even immersed, my character would be all 'WTF? How'd we just save all those people and put out a burning building in half a minute with 2 buckets of water?' I like the idea of Skill Challenges, but not the implementation.
So, why not have the DM describe what happens at the end of the scene.
DM: You (fighter and rogue) hustle the last few survivors out the door, and bring them over to the cleric, who is busy tending the wounds of the burned townsfolk. Meanwhile, the wizard has organized his bucket brigade, and is now commanding the last few words of arcane power to summon a small raincloud. It takes another hour or so of hard work to put everything out and ensure that the flames don't endanger other buildings, but you've managed to save as many people as possible and keep the neighborhood from going up in flames.
|
A skill challenge is a non-combat encounter. Encounters are based in rounds, which are set at 6 seconds. I'm not trying to force anything, I'm simply following the structure and guidelines provided by the rule-makers.
No, you're not. The DMG2 has quite a lot of stuff about how long a skill challenge takes, and says quite explicitly it could take place in rounds, minutes or hours. Combat is split into rounds because it is turn-based and supposed to mimic a fast-moving scene where people are attacking each other. A skill challenge doesn't necessarily need to fit into that sort of set up.
|
|
A skill challenge is a non-combat encounter. Encounters are based in rounds, which are set at 6 seconds. I'm not trying to force anything, I'm simply following the structure and guidelines provided by the rule-makers.No, you're not. The DMG2 has quite a lot of stuff about how long a skill challenge takes, and says quite explicitly it could take place in rounds, minutes or hours. Combat is split into rounds because it is turn-based and supposed to mimic a fast-moving scene where people are attacking each other. A skill challenge doesn't necessarily need to fit into that sort of set up.
I guess you missed the part(s) where I explicitly mentioned which books I was familiar with and which others I'd have to take someone's word on.
@Paul I suppose that is an option, though personally, I'd prefer the ability to actually summon that rain cloud, et. al., lol, than just say, or be told, it would take another hour. Though that comes down to play style/preference, so I won't slam anyone on their preferred methods. Spurred by your short thing there, I'm curious to know how you'd handle the whole situation, story/immersion wise, if you'd be willing.
I guess you missed the part(s) where I explicitly mentioned which books I was familiar with and which others I'd have to take someone's word on.
Then I'm not sure why your correcting me on how they work and even the DMG1 covers skill checks that take much longer to accomplish then some odd rounds. Including one where the players try and find their way out of a jungle and another where they are researching a clue by consulting sages and doing research in a library.
|
|
I guess you missed the part(s) where I explicitly mentioned which books I was familiar with and which others I'd have to take someone's word on.
I guess I did. But then again, if you don't know the full rules and the further details in the DMG2, why are we having this discussion? One of the more tiresome aspects of this thread is people wading in on a subject where they clearly haven't bothered to read, let alone use, the rules as written.
MiB, would you mind dropping the "bad math" argument? We've already discussed it quite a bit, and I think it's safe to say that the other people contributing to this thread consider it a non-issue. Please let it go, so that we can move on to discussing other elements of the skill challenge system.
|
|
Then I'm not sure why your correcting me on how they work and even the DMG1 covers skill checks that take much longer to accomplish then some odd rounds. Including one where the players try and find their way out of a jungle and another where they are researching a clue by consulting sages and doing research in a library.
I guess you missed the part(s) where I explicitly mentioned which books I was familiar with and which others I'd have to take someone's word on.
I wasn't trying to correct you so much as illustrate my standpoint based on the rules as I was using them, which were based on what I remembered of them and how I interpreted the way they worked.
I guess I did. But then again, if you don't know the full rules and the further details in the DMG2, why are we having this discussion? One of the more tiresome aspects of this thread is people wading in on a subject where they clearly haven't bothered to read, let alone use, the rules as written.
If we're not going to have a discussion, why have messageboards? My lack of experience with certain rulebooks and details a) has been admitted multiple times, and b) hasn't stopped anyone else from pointing things out from those sources, in a non-derisive manner,while still being able to continue on the discussion in an civil manner, despite what appears to be a difference of opinion.
DMG2 wasn't even out by the time I stopped playing. As for RAW, reading the posts will show you I'm the guy who had them roll initiative, even though that's been effectively removed now (thanks for the info, Jeremy, and for not chastising when you gave it). Aside from newer books, and perhaps some different readings or interpretations of rules, I think I've displayed I have at least a decent grasp on how an SC works, and that I have read rules for their use. The ones I haven't, I've learned through discussion and then even factored into my other posts.
I've worked to make sure to describe and give examples and reasoning for my posts and invite further discussion, instead of just spouting off without something to back them. I've even asked questions to get a better understanding of how others view or use the system, or to find out something I didn't know or was unclear about. It seems for some that that might have been a breath of fresh air, having someone try to see from all sides instead of just posting 4e hate. Things are much better when people work with each other instead of just seeing who can say 'you're wrong, you don't know what you're talking about' more times than the other. Some people just have more ranks in Diplomacy, I guess.
Paul, Matthew, Jeremy, Uchawi--you're a tribute to these forums and the gaming community. Thanks for your understanding, and your willingness to share, listen, and discuss.
|
|
Runetip isn't even commenting on statistics and so your response is irrelevant to the point in hand.I wasn't commenting on Runetip. You griped about people not reading the DMG2 to a level of detail that satisfied you, and I said why it didn't matter too much.
OK, fair enough as far as it goes. However, I don't actually give a shit. I don't think the statistical issues actually take us very far as they are gross simplifications of the way that the challenges work in practice. And that is where the rules come in, since they clarify what can happen beyond the mathematical analysis (which, incidentally, you never actually did yourself, and which doesn't actually support most of the comments you were making at the start of this thread) and also put in the aspect of player choice and other factors beyond dice-rolling. And since the combat rules are also just like the skill challenge rules, only more complex, I assume you have given up D&D and now just play craps.
|
|
I guess I did. But then again, if you don't know the full rules and the further details in the DMG2, why are we having this discussion? One of the more tiresome aspects of this thread is people wading in on a subject where they clearly haven't bothered to read, let alone use, the rules as written.If we're not going to have a discussion, why have messageboards? My lack of experience with certain rulebooks and details a) has been admitted multiple times, and b) hasn't stopped anyone else from pointing things out from those sources, in a non-derisive manner,while still being able to continue on the discussion in an civil manner, despite what appears to be a difference of opinion.
DMG2 wasn't even out by the time I stopped playing. As for RAW, reading the posts will show you I'm the guy who had them roll initiative, even though that's been effectively removed now (thanks for the info, Jeremy, and for not chastising when you gave it). Aside from newer books, and perhaps some different readings or interpretations of rules, I think I've displayed I have at least a decent grasp on how an SC works, and that I have read rules for their use. The ones I haven't, I've learned through discussion and then even factored into my other...
I apologise. My exasperation has less to do with you and more with another poster. I realised I had probably misread the tone of your post but it was too late to change it by then. However, the rules in the DMG are basically obsolete and the rules for skill challenges now effectively reside in the DMG2. If you haven't read it, then basically you don't know the rules as they currently stand, and so you will be at a disadvantage in any discussion. Your points are more about how they work in play, and a lot of that is set out in the DMG2 as well.
Spurred by your short thing there, I'm curious to know how you'd handle the whole situation, story/immersion wise, if you'd be willing.
Why don't we play it out? If we can get 4 or 5 interested people, I'll start another thread, and make some quick characters, and then we can actually run the skill challenge and see what happens. It'll be like "skill challenge sandbox" or "skill challenge theater."
So let’s back up here a minute, folks. What’s still in debate here? Looking at the original four Trollman points again:
1. Get Everyone Involved!
The complaint about the rules is that it is mathematically better for one person with a high skill mod to make primary rolls. (I actually agree.) The counter-argument is that a good skill challenge has a wide array of primary skills and secondary skills are useful. This is not a rule, it’s a design philosophy. It has always been the case in D&D that having the most skilled player make all the checks is the best mathematical option according to RAW. In order for this not to be true, you would need a mechanic wherein a player with a low mod has an equal chance of scoring a success, at which point why are we using dice? The point goes to Trollman/MiB. Examples are not RAW – they’re examples. They’re RAI (Rules as Intended).
2. Be Dynamic!
There is no rule for this. You are not required to have a minimum or maximum number of skill checks in a Challenge, unlike the success/failure ratio which is in fact spelled out numerically. You can have a design philosophy argument, but not a rules argument. This point is invalid.
3. End Binary!
Once again, the RAW do not match the RAI (or examples). Skill Challenge complexities are not denoted 4(2)/3 where two successes are a partial win. They are denoted for pass/fail only. Now clearly the designers work outside that frame in their examples, but the RAW IS binary. End. The point goes to Trollman/MiB.
4. Other Difficulties
The rules state that DMs choose DCs for individual tasks, not the challenge as a whole. This gives them reign over whether to choose an Easy, Medium or Hard DC for their characters’ level with full knowledge of the odds involved. Furthermore, the numbers are generally accepted to be on-par with realistic skill modifiers as of DMG2. This is no longer a failing of the system. The point goes to Paul/Matthew/Jeremy/Uchawi.
So the conclusion: 2:1. Skill Challenges per RAW do not function the way they are intended to. That being said, the devs have, in the examples (RAI), given us solid, useful challenges – demonstrating further that while the Challenge system is viable and interesting, the rules do not support it. Even the devs are ‘houseruling’ things. I personally enjoy the Challenge system as I and others have gussied it up, but I must stand by Trollman and Man in Black here. The RAW fails to meet its goals.
Also - Good idea, Paul. Count me in.
|
|
So let’s back up here a minute, folks. What’s still in debate here? Looking at the original four Trollman points again:
1. Get Everyone Involved!
The complaint about the rules is that it is mathematically better for one person with a high skill mod to make primary rolls. (I actually agree.) The counter-argument is that a good skill challenge has a wide array of primary skills and secondary skills are useful. This is not a rule, it’s a design philosophy. It has always been the case in D&D that having the most skilled player make all the checks is the best mathematical option according to RAW. In order for this not to be true, you would need a mechanic wherein a player with a low mod has an equal chance of scoring a success, at which point why are we using dice? The point goes to Trollman/MiB. Examples are not RAW – they’re examples. They’re RAI (Rules as Intended).
DMG2, p86. Getting Everyone Involved.
2. Be Dynamic!
There is no rule for this. You are not required to have a minimum or maximum number of skill checks in a Challenge, unlike the success/failure ratio which is in fact spelled out numerically. You can have a design philosophy argument, but not a rules argument. This point is invalid.3. End Binary!
Once again, the RAW do not match the RAI (or examples). Skill Challenge complexities are not denoted 4(2)/3 where two successes are a partial win. They are denoted for pass/fail only. Now clearly the designers work outside that frame in their examples, but the RAW IS binary. End. The point goes to Trollman/MiB.
DMG2, p87. Stages of Failure, Stages of Success.
4. Other Difficulties
The rules state that DMs choose DCs for individual tasks, not the challenge as a whole. This gives them reign over whether to choose an Easy, Medium or Hard DC for their characters’ level with full knowledge of the odds involved. Furthermore, the numbers are generally accepted to be on-par with realistic skill modifiers as of DMG2. This is no longer a failing of the system. The point goes to Paul/Matthew/Jeremy/Uchawi.So the conclusion: 2:1.
Um, no.
Aubrey - I do not have my DMG2 with me at work right now. My post is made to the best of my memory. I will go home and re-read the sections you have pointed out and will retract or reinforce my statements when I can do so with actual references.
edit 1: It may also be that you and I are playing from different definitions of "rule." Maybe I should clarify my position. Go to combat for a moment - when building an encounter, an XP budget is a rule. It's quantifiable and uses words permission-based words like "must" or "may." You also may also only use a standard action on your turn - another rule. The idea that an encounter should have multiple types of enemies (Skirmishers, Controllers, etc) is not a rule, it's at best a suggestion. Going against it is suboptimal, but not inherently "wrong." The wording uses "should" or "can." Choosing a patron deity for clerics and paladins is not a rule. You can choose not to. Are we on the same wavelength here?
In response to this thread (and to make my game more interesting) I tried to throw in a skill challenge for the party to break through a very sophisticated door. Either they got through it somewhat fast/stealthily, or gave the creature within warning and bonuses in the upcoming combat.
I don't believe the party knew they were in a skill challenge, in part because they technically failed four rolls into it. I suppose that I chose the wrong set of DCs (chose DMG numbers in response to suggestions that the DMG2 numbers should be ignored as being too easy) and, because they didn't know that they were in a skill challenge, players were incredibly willing to just try using skills even if they weren't their best skill.
They just wanted to try things out and apparently didn't really think that I was counting their skill failures. They just knew that there was a door to open.
I threw out most of the failures because I didn't want to punish my players for trying things out nor because of the apparent high DCs I went with.
I then described that the door opening a crack, to show that their efforts were doing something and inform them (without actually telling them directly) that more skills were now available to succeed at the challenge.
This apparently was an error in judgement.
While players apparently can't defeat challenges, avoid journeys, or dodge chunks of adventures with a single power in 4th edition easily, someone had failed to inform my players as one character created an magical bridge between those two points in space, rendering the challenge "solved" (sort of, now they are in a metal cavern with the only known physical exit blocked and their own long range teleportation abilities beginning to act up).
I should have seen it coming, both because he has actually used that ability in the past and I couldn't really have expected a 19th level party to be unable to teleport their entire group a total of fifteen feet.
The only good thing, and thankfully the only thing that really matters in the end, is that the players seemed to enjoy the diversion. So even though, from my perspective, it broke down in a very bad way, the challenge was still a success. Which is quite awesome. However, one thought that I have following the event is that why did I bother with using the skill challenge in the first place, when it didn't seem to make things better?
|
|
DMG2, p86. Getting Everyone Involved.1. Get Everyone Involved!
...offers no solutions to the hit-it-with-the-best-mod issue.
The two suggestions are to limit how many times you can use the best mod and to limit aid another. Limiting how many times you can hit it with the best mod simply causes the party to hit it with the second-best mod, and limiting aid another excludes party members with low mods.
The second solution makes the problem worse.
The problem is that you are seeing this purely as a statistical game. There may be perfectly valid reasons why you want to limit the use of a particular skill that are valid in the context the challenge. There basically is no solution to the problem if it is just about hitting DCs. But if there is a limit to the amount of flattery you can give the king it is valid to limit the number of uses of the Bluff skill. PCs have plenty of skills. They should use them, and the game should encourage them to do so. They should be made to work out how to negotiate a skill challenge in the context of what the situation sets out, not just go Bluff, Bluff, Bluff. All you are proposing is metagaming the challenge, not roleplaying it. And the limiting Aid Another is basically intended to get the PCs to use the skills they have trained, in order to validate their choices in character creation. Otherwise Bluff, Aid, Aid ,Aid, Aid, Bluff, Aid, Aid, Aid and so on is just as boring, and meaningless in the context of what the challenge represents in-game.
DMG2, p87. Stages of Failure, Stages of Success.3. End Binary!
...offers suggestions for punishing individual failures, not degrees of success between success and failure. Indeed, it's nearly impossible to design a manageable system with degrees between success and failure because the margin between a low-complexity or high-complexity challenge can be as much as 58% or as little as 1%.
Just because a header says it addresses a problem doesn't mean it does. Game designers lie to your face all the time.
No actually, it covers both degrees of failure and success.
|
|
In response to this thread (and to make my game more interesting) I tried to throw in a skill challenge for the party to break through a very sophisticated door. Either they got through it somewhat fast/stealthily, or gave the creature within warning and bonuses in the upcoming combat.
I don't believe the party knew they were in a skill challenge, in part because they technically failed four rolls into it. I suppose that I chose the wrong set of DCs and, because they didn't know that they were in a skill challenge, players were incredibly willing to just try using skills even if they weren't their best skill.
They just wanted to try things out and apparently didn't really think that I was counting their skill failures. They just knew that there was a door to open.
I threw out most of the failures because I didn't want to punish my players for trying things out nor because of the apparent high DCs I went with.
I then described that the door opening a crack, to show that their efforts were doing something and inform them (without actually telling them directly) that more skills were now available to succeed at the challenge.
This apparently was an error in judgement.
While players apparently can't defeat challenges, avoid journeys, or dodge chunks of adventures with a single power in 4th edition easily, someone had failed to inform my players as one character created an magical bridge between those two points in space, rendering the challenge "solved" (sort of, now they are in a metal cavern with the only known physical exit blocked and their own long range teleportation abilities beginning to act up).
I should have seen it coming, both because he has actually used that ability in the past and I couldn't really have expected a 19th level party to be unable to teleport their entire group a total of fifteen feet.
The only good thing, and thankfully the only thing that really matters in the end, is that the players seemed to enjoy the diversion. So even though, from my perspective,...
To be honest, the statistical stuff for me is irrelevant because the issue I always consider is: did they have a good time. Skill challenges can be fun. I think in this instance the challenge (or, at least, the situation) was a success because your players enjoyed it. And they thought laterally (or more laterally than you) to defeat the challenge - that's just players.
While players apparently can't defeat challenges, avoid journeys, or dodge chunks of adventures with a single power in 4th edition
Not true. 4e still gives people the sort of teleport/travel/dodgy powers that previous editions did. What 4e does, however, is sets those abilities at a certain level, and then lets the DM know what level he's going to start seeing those abilities at. This allows the DM to plan appropriate encounters more easily. So, in the situation you mentioned, it's fully within reason for a 19th level party to have an ability that lets them dodge that sort of encounter.
|
|
The problem is that you are seeing this purely as a statistical game. There may be perfectly valid reasons why you want to limit the use of a particular skill that are valid in the context the challenge. There basically is no solution to the problem if it is just about hitting DCs. But if there is a limit to the amount of flattery you can give the king it is valid to limit the number of uses of the Bluff skill. PCs have plenty of skills. They should use them, and the game should encourage them to do so.You're right.
But the game doesn't and that's a problem.
Players are never offered any good reason to use anything but their highest mod except for high-DC or autofail traps. That's terrible.
Well, they do, but you just don't really like the way they have done it. That's more a matter of taste.
No actually, it covers both degrees of failure and success.
It's all "They get a little when they get X successes, a little more at X+2, and finish the challenge at X+4". That doesn't work and I already covered why it doesn't work:
Indeed, it's nearly impossible to design a manageable system with degrees between success and failure because the margin between a low-complexity or high-complexity challenge can be as much as 58% or as little as 1%.
It does offer rules for degrees of failure and success but they are nonfunctional.
The suggestion made above is that the rules are binary. They aren't, or don't have to be. Again, you don't like the execution, but it is quite clear that they have allowed for it.
And it isn't impossible to design it at all - they clearly show you how. Your contention is more that it is difficult to determine the precise probabilities of success. I suggest that it doesn't matter. The skill challenge will be run once, not multiple times. There will only be a single outcome, and that is the one which they get depending on the dice they roll on the day. So unless you want a silly system with no chance of failure (or success) then it could go either way (and to various degrees, depending on how the challenge is set up) - as DM, you cannot be sure they will succeed. So you have to be able to see what will happen if they fail - you need to plan for both contingencies.
So in the end, it simply doesn't matter precisely what the chance of success is - you aren't having multiple runs in a Monte Carlo simulation, the PCs get one shot and then that situation is done and they move on. The rules give you a rough idea of what is "easy", "medium" and "hard", and how many dice rolls might be involved and how much experience to give out. If they fail, you place some sort of obstacle in their way or whatever, if they succeed they get the prize. But it should not be make and break. If it is, and it is hinging on a skill check, you have designed the challenge, probably the whole scenario badly.
It's like a weather forecast when they say there is a 50% chance of rain that day. That's meaningless. Either it will rain that day, or it won't. You can't get half wet. If you want to stay dry, take an unmbrella.
To be honest, the statistical stuff for me is irrelevant because the issue I always consider is: did they have a good time. Skill challenges can be fun. I think in this instance the challenge (or, at least, the situation) was a success because your players enjoyed it. And they thought laterally (or more laterally than you) to defeat the challenge - that's just players.
Yep. However, it wasn't the skill challenge that was fun. I was throwing out the rules and they were still having fun. Next time, I might be able to avoid the skill challenge, just set up the goals to overcome and have fun without really worrying about how many successes they need to make before so many failures. That way, when the players defeat with something I didn't expect, that I will just be thinking about the party succeeding, rather than trashing that skill challenge that I wasted time looking up.
That seems to be what you are not understanding. If my players are having as much fun working through skill challenges as they do working through things that are not skill challenges, why am I bothering with the skill challenges?
While players apparently can't defeat challenges, avoid journeys, or dodge chunks of adventures with a single power in 4th editionNot true. 4e still gives people the sort of teleport/travel/dodgy powers that previous editions did. What 4e does, however, is sets those abilities at a certain level, and then lets the DM know what level he's going to start seeing those abilities at. This allows the DM to plan appropriate encounters more easily. So, in the situation you mentioned, it's fully within reason for a 19th level party to have an ability that lets them dodge that sort of encounter.
Yes, it does that. But I wouldn't really say that was a new innovation that 4e brought to the table. 4e does it reasonably, but not in a way that I haven't seen in different editions.
Something else to consider - the combat system (which I have to refer to since it's really the only other relevant system in the game) at no point discourages you from using your best to-hit mod. In fact, it assumes you will at all times! Yet no one seems to think that system is 'broken' for it. To some extent, it's simply a double-standard in gaming: combat vs roleplaying. Fine. But there is something else behind it.
A combat is responsive - what you are up against actively opposes you. If combat were a single enemy that did nothing but get hit, but you lost if you missed more than x number of times, the best option would in fact be to let the guy with the best to-hit go up and pound the thing to death. I don't think anyone would disagree with that strategy. Furthermore, would you call it a challenge??
This, as far as I can tell, is the ultimate failing of skill challenges and the bottomline reason why so many people think they don't work or are broken. Combat has a natural back-and-forth exchange that makes it interesting; skill challenges are mechanically one-way operations unless the DM narrates the player's failures as the obstacle interacting somehow. Relying on good DM narration is not good game design. In the combat system, 4E acknowledges that fact by use of powers and conditions to create a tactical feel without the DM even needing to describe a single sword sweep. The mechanics are both a springboard for roleplaying and a backup plan should the players and DM fall short. (We are in fact all only human, even if some of us are elves or whatever.) The skill challenge system on the other hand relies on the DM for interactivity AND complexity.
OPINION: A well-designed game will be interesting and give the feel of the setting through mechanics, even if the players and DM are less than imaginative. Good game design is less vulnerable to poor play - not immune, but stronger. This is why I feel the skill challenge system is poorly designed.