|
Well, they do, but you just don't really like the way they have done it. That's more a matter of taste.Where's the rule that discourages coming up with the party's highest skill mod and using that skill mod until you can't any more?
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%.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.Okay, I'll illustrate why those rules don't work.
Let's say you have a challenge where 4 successes weakens the foe, 12 successes defeats the foe, and a failure puts you in combat. Those are degrees of success, right? You can have a hard fight, and easier fight, and no fight. (This is an even larger swing than the example in the DMG2.)
The problem is that if you use medium DCs, the odds of weakening the foe are between 99% and 100%, while the odds of simply defeating the foe are between...97% and 100%. :/ That's not meaningful degrees of success; that's just autosuccess. If you use hard DCs, the odds of weakening the foe are between 74% and 95%, while the odds of just winning are between 16% and 65%. By the way, this variation assumes the same PC using the same skill on all of these different challenges; the DCs don't even scale smoothly with level.
So...where's the advice to use hard DCs? Sorry, you're going to need to write a spreadsheet to realize you need to do that. Where's the advice to deal with the issue that very high skill mods are important for hard DCs and that even middling-high mods are punished? ...uh... Where's the advice to deal with the effect this has on the PCs, where they won't ever want to use anything but the party's three or four highest skill mods? ...uh...
So, yeah. Implying...
No, you have completely misunderstood the point. If you knew perfectly what the chances of success or failure are for the skill challenge, what difference would it make, exactly? Let's say you know for certain that a skill challenge has a 75% chance of success, on average. Problem is, you don't necessarily get the average result. You probably won't. The PCs will run through each situation, each skill challenge, once. They don't get the chance to do it 10,000 times (or even 10) to average out their performance. So when you place the challenge in front of them, you have a very real possibility they will fail. So you need to plan for that contingency, as well as the possibility of success. Even if the players know the probability of success, what difference does it make. The random element in the challenge, inherent in skill checks, means that the dice can betray them. The only time you can really ignore the random element is when the chance of failure is negligible (a few percent or less). Arguably, you want the skill challenge to be a "challenge" but it really has no bearing on the game if you don't know preceisely the chances of success or failure.
And like I said (and so have a few others) how is a skill challenge different from combat, in that you roll a lot of dice (you don't know how many at the start) and there a lot of imponderable factors like what ebnemies are you fighting, what powers and builds do the PCs have, terrain, position, and so on? I notice you shy away from confronting that issue.
|
|
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?
I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Skill challenges are a tool. No one holds a gun to your head and orders you to use them. If you end up improvising in a skill challenge, that is just being a DM.
You could argue that the PCs never noticed the skill check because they suffered no penalties for it - they screwed it up (partly because they didn't know it was there) and you decided to ignore it. That's a decision you make on the day and it's valid (i've done it myself) but it may have consequences. And just because the PCs get round it without using skills isn't a problem for me - the rules pretty much say that's fine, and they are using the tools to hand. Seems fair enough to me. Award the xps and move on.
|
|
No, you have completely misunderstood the point. If you knew perfectly what the chances of success or failure are for the skill challenge, what difference would it make, exactly?You would know whether a skill challenge is hard or not. You wouldn't do silly things like knocking down a door harder than negotiating with a prince for his daughter's hand.
You'd have some sort of basic understanding of how the system works.
You already know the relative difficulties. Blazej's stat's show that the different levels of difficulty match with the rewards. The precise difficulties are not terribly relevant. The DM should be relatively indifferent to the outcome and the players don't need to know. After all, their PCs are engaging with an issue in the game world, but if the players are simply playing the odds why are they even playing D&D?
And like I said (and so have a few others) how is a skill challenge different from combat
Combat has a meaningful strategy, a degree of interaction, and give and take. It is competitive, it has little dramas as part of a big one, and it comes with pre-packaged, fairly exciting flavor. They vary dramatically depending on whether you're fighting many enemies or one large enemy or different types of enemies. Everyone has a role in a combat, and nobody is punished for trying to contribute.
Skill challenges are a stone wall you beat on with your biggest hammer until it breaks.
All true, but that has nothing to do with statistics (and no one is actually punished for trying to engage with a skill challenge - they just have varying degrees of likely success). If I might:
The whole system rests on a variable-size, variable-target dicepool system with some essentially cosmetic factors that obfuscate the success percentages to an even greater degree.
The root math is rotten.
That's combat. If you are actually saying that combat is fine because it is more fun, more involving and so on, you are probably right. But your points are about game style and aesthetics, and the statistical stuff is just chaff. Skill challenges suffer from problems but the statistics barely register at the table. The issue is that they are clunky and great for breaking suspension of disbelief if handled badly, which is easy to do.
I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Skill challenges are a tool. No one holds a gun to your head and orders you to use them. If you end up improvising in a skill challenge, that is just being a DM.
You could argue that the PCs never noticed the skill check because they suffered no penalties for it - they screwed it up (partly because they didn't know it was there) and you decided to ignore it. That's a decision you make on the day and it's valid (i've done it myself) but it may have consequences. And just because the PCs get round it without using skills isn't a problem for me - the rules pretty much say that's fine, and they are using the tools to hand. Seems fair enough to me. Award the xps and move on.
The only problem, if one can call it one, is that I don't really feel compelled to use the Skill Challenge system.
I will still like to have the party face challenges that they primarily use skills to overcome, but I just don't like the X successes before Y/3 failures and the results it has been producing.
I have no hostility toward the system, but my results from it make me feel like it isn't a perfect system and it needs work for me to be happy with it. It is especially the case since my group can have just as much fun without an system built around it and I would be happier using that than the Skill Challenge system.
I would do what you suggest in your second paragraph and not even be concerned about what the Skill Challenge system says. I believe I would have more fun doing that.
I don't think that Skill Challenges are worthless. I just think that the system still needs improvement.
|
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.
No worries. I haven't seen the DMG2, but from yours and others posts, I'm reasonably confident I can throw away the old rules, or at least those that have been changed. I'm willing to live with that disadvantage as long as people are willing to work with me on sharing the details.
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."
Sure, I'm game. Haha, gamer pun.
Does a >97% chance of success deserve rewards? Why or why not?
First, a "normal" combat encounter has greater than 97% chance of success. In fact, from what I've seen, unless things go drastically wrong, "normal" level combat encounters have nearly 100% success for the PCs. In fact, I've been playing 4e regularly since it was released, and I've yet to witness a TPK. Even character deaths are quite rare. Thus, if we are calibrating our success/reward ratio with equally difficult combat encounters, the skill challenge has a basically equivalent reward ratio to combat.
My second point deals with the depiction of a skill challenge as "hard" or "easy." It's important that people differentiate between a hard skill challenge - that is, one that is 3 or more levels higher than the party level, and a hard check within a normal skill challenge.
Finally, a point that I don't think is emphasized enough is that a single skill challenge may have multiple paths to success, each focusing on different skills, and possibly with different level of difficulty. The challenge for the players is to figure out which path is the easiest and then use those skills to accomplish the challenge.
For example, lets say the party needs to get past a guard to get into the Duke's party. A perception check might suggest that the guard looks alert and watchful, and an Insight check reveals that the guard is a pompous ass who has an inflated opinion of himself. A second Insight check reveals that the guard feels slighted because he isn't upstairs doing important guard duty, and that he's missing out on all the good party food. From that, the party might determine that Stealth and Intimidate are difficult skills, but that a quick bribe of some food from the kitchen might help them bring a Diplomacy check down to an easy DC.
Quick heads up - I'm still looking for one more player for the "Skill Challenge Theater" thread. Also, I invite everyone involved in this discussion to check out what goes on in that thread and comment on it. Hopefully it will spark some discussion about skill challenge design and workability.
I'd like to add that I feel skill challenges are best done with an individual challenge having been built in this way:
DM prepares challenge with one or more paths to success. He writes the challenge using primary skills (which grant skill challenge success/failures), and secondary skills (which can grant modifiers to primary skills). A simple challenge can have one primary goal (Diplomance the Duke), so that a few successes pass the test, but no one is rolling Diplomacy 15 times. The actual DCs of the skill checks, primary and secondary, can be easy, medium, or hard, depending on what they are doing. Note that it's perfectly reasonable to have 'Diplomacy (hard)' as a DC, for 'generic' diplomacy rolls, but also 'Diplomacy (Easy): If the PC is reminding the Duke of a boon he granted them last adventure, he is more likely to agree to terms. You may only get one success via this method.'
In this way, you don't have a challenge that says 'Diplomance the Duke. Get 6 success before 3 failures, party face, start rolling dice.' You give narrative hints so people use Insight, Perception, Bluff, etc, and success with those grants bonuses to the primary rolls.
A more complicated challenge is NOT 'Dimplomance the Duke. Get 12 Diplomacy checks made successfully before 3 failures.' It would be: Distract the Doorman, Bribe/Bully the Barrister, Con the Councilor, and Diplomance the Duke. It's more complicated because the goal (Diplomance the Duke), has multiple discrete steps before you even GET to the Duke. Failure at any of the sub-steps could result in stiffer bribes, fines, jail time, owing favors, etc... NOT just 'You can't get in. Try tomorrow.'
Much like a combat, the party is expected to continue the story after it's over. Maybe they ROFLSTOMP them with no lost resources, maybe they spend some dailies, maybe they burn surges, maybe they have to leave and rest, maybe they have to ressurrect someone... but you don't design an encounter that ends with the party going, 'well crap. I guess we fight them again.' or 'well crap, I guess we're done'.
Success is expected. Expenditure of resources is the 'failure'. Your skill challenges should be set up that success uses few resources, but failure uses more.
Yes, the math is wonky. But it's not that hard to figure out how to use secondary skills/situational bonuses etc to make things easier. Maybe you don't waste the boons the duke gave you, roll hard checks, and have to pay out the nose for the Duke to give you access to the McGuffin. The point is that Skill Challenges can be written to be interesting and compelling, or boring and dry. it's up to the DM and the players.
It's really no different than a combat that lines up mooks and fighters and involves 'swing. hit. 8 damage' for 12 rounds, or a combat that has lots of mobility, area terrain effects, chandeliers, fireplaces, a spiked pit in the middle of the room etc...
|
It's not an estimate or conjecture to say "The party has a X% chance of succeeding on this skill challenge."
Combat isn't like that.
Why isn't combat like that? Each side has a hp's, each side has X% chance to hit and does Y damage. The side whose total Y exceeds the other hp's first wins. Perfectly justifiable to apply stats to such a problem. Skill challenges are just a variation on this theme.
S.
|
|
The difference is that it is much harder to apply stats to the problem of combat because it is highly variable (as MiB says) whereas skill challenges are simpler to model. However, basically you are correct - skill challenges "problem" is that because they are simpler to model, people have done a degree of analysis and come to some conclusions that, in isolation, are probably correct. However, they have failed to grasp that combat is the same, but even more complicated. Because they haven't tried to apply the same analysis to combat and because, well, they enjoy it more than skill challenges, it gets the free statistical pass that skill challenges haven't received.
|
|
Because they haven't tried to apply the same analysis to combat and because, well, they enjoy it more than skill challenges, it gets the free statistical pass that skill challenges haven't received.
That's what I'm thinking...
4e makes this even more difficult by having Stat X vs Def Y. In theory you can work out the odds if the DM is willing to tell you the critters defenses AND hp's (cf: DM telling you the DC's of a skill challenge). Again meaning you could in theory reduce a combat to a single d% roll to determine which side wins (yes taking into account movement etc - like a chess computer).
But at the end of the day, as with skill challenges it would seem from previous posts, we just roll dice and hope. :)
There is such a thing as applying statistics to things that are not suited to such analysis due to, as pointed out, being stochastic events. The DM can introduce variables that make any calculations fallacious. When an RPG is run by a computer with a set algorithm I'll concede much of what has been said in this thread, but as long as a human sits behind the DM screen I'm going to roll dice and pray to Gygax every number is a 20*.
S.
PS: Just ordered some Zocci dice so for all you stats buffs I'll change the last bit to, "pray to Zocci every 1 in 20 numbers is a 20".
|
|
Why isn't combat like that? Each side has a hp's, each side has X% chance to hit and does Y damage. The side whose total Y exceeds the other hp's first wins. Perfectly justifiable to apply stats to such a problem. Skill challenges are just a variation on this theme.Well, for one, you just turned it from a one-man footrace into a two-man footrace. Skill challenges have one actor, whereas combat has two.
I think where we diverge in thinking is this (correct me if I'm wrong). You see only the end result (i.e. pass/fail if you like). What I see is at "each" roll the DM has a sort of old style "choose a path novel" before them. Sure ultimately the PC's may get the successes before fails (or not), but the journey to get there also provides role-playing opportunities for the DM. This is something that combat does not do very well at all.
So SC's serve another function besides the pass/fail of an action. As for the interaction, well that's the role-playing of the PC's (what D&D is about) with the DM [still a two horse race, just one doesn't roll dice]. A DM will adjust DC's, give bonuses or rethink outcomes based on human - human interaction. In some ways a DM is nothing more than a Medium reading not tea leaves but dice rolls when it comes to SC's.
Having glanced (and I mean glanced over) the SC rules in the DMG2 I can see that enough information has been given for a DM to make their own SC's. No knowledge of the underlying math is required.
SC's (if framed correctly) give a interesting tool for a DM to interact with the players. I do agree fully with you that if all the SC is for is to determine pass/fail and nothing else matters then a SC is pointless. In that case a simple single skill roll is all that is required.
S.
|
|
Hey MiB,
And from post 1 on people have been giving their real in game experiences saying that they haven't encountered such urges to see a SC as only an exercise in meta-gaming. Is you group full of statisticians? I'm not saying your wrong, what I'm saying is most people it would appear use the rules as written and don't care about the underlying maths. If that still provides them with a good gaming experience then "in spite" of flawed maths the system works. There have been suggestions posted in which people admit that making a good SC is a learned skill (like all aspects of DMing). A DM who just throws DC's at the players is (in my opinion) missing out on something as a DM. Reducing D&D to numbers and stats misses the point of an RPG (again my opinion - I had/have issues with the "board game combat" that 3.x/4e has entrenched for example).
My point to you MiB? It's the same as say evolution theory. Present all the facts you want, but there will be those who will continue their alternative views irrespective. SC will continued to be used "as written" by I would suggest a majority of 4e players regardless of your (or others) presenting "facts" that the stats don't stack up.
From post 1, I've been arguing that SCs are a flawed system no better than arbitrary GM fiat. You're saying that you can fix SCs with arbitrary GM fiat, but if SCs get better the more fiat you use and the less SC rules you use...why use any SC rules at all?
The above is exactly why we play RPG's with a real life DM. SC will work for the purpose the DM wants some of the time, in other cases it won't. Similar to combat in that sometimes the odd DM fiat fudged roll will crop up to stop the game becoming "unfun". DM fiat exists so that the DM can at times save the game from statistics - this isn't a bad thing.
S.
I can completely agree that the base rules for Skill challenges in the DMG were horrid. I also felt the DMG shouldn't turn roleplaying into Rollplaying, and that's the way a skill challenge seemed to be presented.
DMG2 then came out and clarified a lot of things and gave a lot of great examples on how to build a skill challenge, but the basic numbers are still really squirelly.
The first few Skill challenges I ran involved a LOT of DM fiat to make sure that I didn't nose-dive the adventure. It took time to learn that the numbers are pretty wacky, the success/failures as written don't make a ton of sense, and that overall, this was merely a guideline and you really needed to have a good grasp of the differences between Skill Challenges, Group Skill checks, and single skill player skill rolls.
However, after a few of them, I had the idea down, and was able to create meaningful skill challenges for the party.
I recall the first time I attempted to create a combat encounter. I think the primary issue with Skill Challenges is that they are new and different and require just as much DM work to make them meaningful as a climactic combat does.
Sure, you can make combat encounters that are 'monsters line up, fight, die' and you can make skill challenges that are 'roll skill, pass or fail'. The reason we play with DMs and not randomized tables is to make GOOD encounters.
So yeah, the Skill Challenge rules are really rough. They've got a lot of room to grow, and gain polish. But I'm ok with that.
I think at this point, I can safely agree with AMiB, that the rules as written kinda suck. But they do provide a framework to build from, and I'm fine with that.
|
|
My point to you MiB? It's the same as say evolution theory. Present all the facts you want, but there will be those who will continue their alternative views irrespective.
Don't ever do this, please. For the sake of my sanity, don't. Don't argue by analogy, and don't argue by this analogy.
How could I not and its a good'n! :)
|
|
players learn it in order to learn how to adjudicate skill-based tasks on the fly
I guess this is bit I'm a little fuzzy on. Unless the players are peeking at my notes how can they know what skills have what DC's assigned and what the result of a pass/fail on any one of the rolls on the skill check will have on subsequent skill checks?
I see (and may be I'm wrong) SC's as a set of branching P/F results all interlinked where the odds of passing (and what skill is best) can change according to the previous skill check roll.
I would appreciate if you could clarify this for me, cheers,
S.
|
|
The metagame is that the players pick the party's highest skill mod, ask you if they can use it, then use it if they can. If they can't, on to the next highest skill mod. The only way you can punish that is by metagaming right back at them, by raising the DC on their highest skill, but that's super lame and turns all skill challenges into a retarded guessing game where the party has to figure out what skill your moon logic dictated should be the easy one.
It's a guessing game arms race, and it's moronic.
Well, the system itself doesn't encourage that, only metagaming players would do something like that. If you were in a diplomancing-type situation and the players said, "Bob's Stealth skill is the highest mod we have - can we use that?" then frankly I would seriously consider not playing with a group like that. I agree statistically that that is the best thing to do, but it is just stupid. You need to roleplay too, otherwise why bother? And it isn't in any case a flaw of skill challenges: they could try something stupid like this on a situation requiring a single check too.
Plus, in any case, the rules are clear (and always were, even in the DMG1) that you have to justify your use of an unusual skill in a particular challenge - that requires roleplaying, and the DM can say no. And the rules in the DMG1 stated that using a secondary skill has an increased DC, so maybe you might be better off just using Diplomacy anyway in the above example.
|
|
Well, the system itself doesn't encourage that, only metagaming players would do something like that. If you were in a diplomancing-type situation and the players said, "Bob's Stealth skill is the highest mod we have - can we use that?" then frankly I would seriously consider not playing with a group like that.Nobody's going to suggest obviously retarded skills, sheesh. But Bob's going to see if he can't use Stealth ever time it comes up. "Can I sneak around and find anything relevant?" "Can I hide and see if someone comes by and reveals how to get by?" "Does my knowledge of camouflage give me some insight into where it might be hidden?" Etc. (And BTW, each of those is a use of Stealth from a published adventure's skill challenge, before you call those lame.)
But once the players are savvy to SCs, every skill challenge plays out like this:
Hey, Bob tries to sneak around with his +19 Stealth and see what he can see. Does that turn up anything helpful?
Hey, does Jim's +17 Insight give us any insights on the situation?
Okay. How about Bob's +16 Bluff. What happens if he tries to come up with an elaborate story?
Okay.... lessee. Tom has +14 History. Are there any relevant historical...things?
That's every single skill challenge ever. The questions may be flowerier or more subtle, or more in character, or might have some actual effort to roleplay to pretty them up, but it plays out like that. The PCs guess which skills are allowed by the GM's or module writer's logic, then beat the challenge with the highest allowed DC until they aren't allowed any more. The only way to stop them from doing this is to mix up the DCs, in which case you turn it into a guessing game. And I can play guessing games without rolling dice.
That's Guess The Name I Wrote On This Card. Followed by a bunch of superfluous dicerolling.
If they can justify it in-game, then what's the problem? And that is the point. Is they want to just roll a die on the off-chance, then they are metagaming (as you say) and that should be jumped on. Insight doesn't give you "insight", it is Sense Motive under a different guise. Who is Jim looking at? What is he specifically trying to achieve? What is Bob's story (in outline)? Is it even appropriate to try a story under these circumstances? Would running someone a line entrall or annoy them? What historical.... things is Tom looking at? Genealogy? Battlefield history? Archaeology? If they can't answer questions like these, which relate to the situation in hand and explain why their skill checks are relevant, they are metagaming. A DM could simply disallow these stupid attempts and maybe the guys will wake up and use their character's skills properly, in the context of the situations in hand.
So...the PCs have to come up with a clever plan, and the GM decides if it's clever or not. And then afterward they roll dice with a 95+% chance of success.
Why are we rolling dice again?
As we have already stated, chance of survival in combat is probably 95% plus yet that doesn't seem to bother you. And, in any case, the numbers above point out that the chance of success is actually related to DCs, the number of rolls and PC actions, so the assertion of 95% chance of success is basically false.
The GM has always decided whether the PCs plan is clever or not - he knows much more about the situation than they do. It was ever thus before skill challenges. That's just part of DMing in general. With a skill challenge it simply relates it more directly to the skills and abilities of the PCs, rather then DM fiat. And it gives a framework for rewarding experience.
|
|
I think your last comment makes no real sense - it is a bit like saying, "There's a logic puzzle. You characters are smart. So don't bother to roll, you break it." That's as dumb as saying, "Your characters are strong. You meet five goblins, but you beat the. Don't bother to roll." The game is predicated on rolling. If you are presenting a challenge then it won't be a logic puzzle, you will solve it by dice rolling. If you are presenting it as a logic puzzle, it will come down to the players and how smart they are. There are traditions for doing both in the game, and it will depend on play style as to what is appropriate. Some will enjoy the latter more than the former and vica versa. Again, nothing to do with statistics. And it's hardly perverse, it is the nature of the game.
I get your broader point about the reasons for having skill systems. I see where you are coming from but it is a problem inherent in any system which tries to mimic the PCs knowing something the players don't. Again, it's not a problem with skill challenges as such. There will always be that disconnct and sometimes it will be more obvious than others. However, if a player is volunteering to use a skill (as opposed to being told to roll by the DM, as in "Roll a Perception check") it isn't unreasonable to expect them to explain why they consider it to be relevant. Actually the DM doesn't decide in advance, it is probably more of a negotiation because the players may come up with something you haven't thought of. Does it invalidate the separation between player and character? Well, there isn't one really anyway unless you are into heavy roleplaying. It isn't really a problem assuming people are having fun.
|
|
Offer me an example of this, and I'll tell you how the players will handle it, and how they'll react if they find out afterward how it worked.
Sorry a bit swamped at work, but I will do this when time allows as I need to review in detail the DMG2 and make sure I'm not using the rules incorrectly (i.e. not RAW).
What I would do when making a SC in principle is to have multiple possible skills that each "contribute" to the success of the SC but no one would result in all the information (or whatever the SC is about) being discovered. Yes the player with the best "+" should make the roll for a given skill - stupid not to. Number of successes and from which skill should be integral to the development of the SC. If at the end of the SC the DM says "Well done you succeed" then I personally think the DM is missing the point of the SC system. The players should never be told "you pass/fail" unless it's painfully obvious, like climbing a wall for example.
S.