Here's why I don't like skill challenges as written:
They detract from the story, and focus on mechanics.
Lets say we have two skill challenges as examples:
- The party wants to convince the king to mobilize an army to counter the threat from the east.
- The party needs to catch a pickpocket that bumped into them at the great bazaar.
Using the skill challenge rules, the DM would define a number of maximal uses of each skill. Here's the situation that might occur:
DM: "The thief escapes your grip (failed previous athletics check) and jumps onto the next roof."
Player: "I immediately take up and jump after him (starts to roll acrobatics)."
DM: "Oh, you've already used the maximal allowed acrobatics successes."
WAT?
Or in the other example, the players use very good arguments and have good rolls to convince the king, and he's almost convinced, except for one thing: he's still two successes short of the goal, and bluff, diplomacy, insight and history have been 'used up'. Now the players should use nature (e.g.) to convince the king that the swamp between the threat and his kingdom is easily passable at this time. But what if none of the players get this idea?
Obviously, any good DM will adjust on the fly, but 'house rules cannot be used to excuse defects in a system'.
For my own campaign, I've only kept a few things: the basic mechanics of a 'cumulate a number of skill check successes and failures', and level-appropriate DCs. Everything else is open - which skills can be used, and how many times they can be used, what explanations are behind the skill uses...
Another thing I think skill challenges do very well is that they emphasize that even failures move the story forward, just in a different direction. For every skill challenge, I try to think of at least three reasonably different paths forward, and will the one taken to reflect the players action in the game during the game.
Where are you getting your rules for Skill Challenges from, exactly?
Have a look at the 'rooftop chase' skill challenge presented in the Shadowfell book, which was the one that inspired this rant. Page 14 in the encounter booklet.
I don't really think what your describing is particularly against the advice on Skill Checks.
Thing is once we start piling up all the advice on running them there are a metric butt load of different ways and means to utilize the tools and different methods are going to be useful in different places.
The limit element is usually used when the players have come upon a static scene. Take for example the ubiquitous magic portal (its ubiquitous if your playing Scales of War anyway). The obvious answer when one is encountered and the PCs are trying to figure out what to do is to use Arcana...the problem comes up after they use Arcana...what should they use next? Well, umm, how about Arcana? The problem here of course is that its boring so no beating that challenge using just Arcana.
Now there are already issues with the portal that really is not doing anything in that its not really the height of entertainment anyway but your getting somewhere if you describe its archaic writing and religious imagery as well and then make the whole thing a smaller Skill Challenge. If you can manage it your looking for one or two Arcana checks and then the DM is going to have to try and and convey the idea that the everything that can be done with Arcana has been done. Making the arcana checks clearly getting it started and functional is one method here to convey that they are going places (or load noises and smoke might work if they are blowing their checks). We somewhat understand that once the 'machine' is started its well running and you need to do something else to make it go.
On the other hand if you have an evolving dynamic scene then limits are of much less use to you in running it, as the scene itself evolves various options for the use of other Skills should present themselves and here the players should feel like they are in a situation where time is of the essence and long debates are not possible - running with follow through as your players shout out actions will keep the action flowing in this environment so run with that.
There are all sorts of other methods as well - group checks (everyone must roll against Skill X and it works if 50% or more of the group make it) are useful in scenes where the whole group is involved in an activity...if its a chase then every time the action slows down for whatever reason (like the players can't decide how to act or what skill to use know) call for a group check on endurance to see how well the party is keeping up with their quarry - you only probably want to use this check some limited number of times during the scene (maybe its three, but whatever your notes say) but parcel them out in a manner that keeps the action moving and keeps the tension high.
I'm not sure how your rooftop chase is presented but I have found that I have had some success with scenes like this in taking the most obvious skill out of the players hands completely and doing that part on group checks when appropriate and then having the players interact with the rest of the scene using their other skills as appropriate.
For a chase scene, depending on what the background is, I might use group checks for nearly everything, possibly allowing quick witted characters to interpose individual checks if they find a place in the narrative to do so. One of the problems with a rooftop chase is everyone is running the same obstacle course and it can seem disconnected if Joe character makes the acrobatic check for everyone. Instead you may go with something like explaining that a low wall is coming up after going into how the quarry got over it - then get your players to say how they plan to navigate the wall. Probably their description comes down to either acrobatics or athletics so go with a group check but each player can perform an action that keys to either of those skills...some players may use a power to get over the wall - that is an auto-success for their character in this group check.
I don't really think what your describing is particularly against the advice on Skill Checks.
Well, from the primary skills section in aforementioned rooftop chase encounter:
Perception( DC 20, two successes maximum); With keen eyes and a quick mind, the adventurer spots unanticipated shifts in Gloomwrought's architecture and compensates accordingly.
Streetwise( DC 28, two successes maximum): The character acts on urban instict to suss out hazards, find shortcuts, or utilize geography.
This is bad. First, because the explanation is already given in the challenge. This is something I think that players should come up with. And second, because the maximum successes from using a certain skill are capped.
Again, I know that most DMs will simply adjust on the fly, but that never excuses flaws in the system.
Group Checks
Yeah, group checks are great. :)
I don't really think what your describing is particularly against the advice on Skill Checks.Well, from the primary skills section in aforementioned rooftop chase encounter:
Sounds more like a badly designed Skill Challenge more then anything. But you really have to keep your eye on them whenever you come across one because...like half...are not really up to snuff. My only advice here is every time you see or make one figure out how you plan to make this flow at your table and often what, if any, limitations are needed will follow from that.
There are good reasons why some times you want to cap the use of a skill but there are also times when its just a bad idea. The other issue is they are such a wide open mechanic that the way you have envisioned how this will flow at your table and the way I'm going to take the same information and make it flow at mine could be different and the limitations or methods used to convey the scene tend to only make sense if you understand how this is supposed to play out. More description could get us there in many cases but that element often gets short shift...and if it has not been play tested it can easily blow up when you try it.
One of the problems with Skill Challenges is that they can be awesome but its almost as if each DM has to make their own personal bible on how to run the things all built up from experience on what worked and what did not...there is all this advice and all these tools for running them but it generally seems to be a case of 'some assembly required' to make any given scene work at your table. Still if they give you numbers and flavour text you do have something to work with - or at least steal - while assembling the things into what it is you need to make this play out at your table.
For my own campaign, I've only kept a few things: the basic mechanics of a 'cumulate a number of skill check successes and failures', and level-appropriate DCs. Everything else is open - which skills can be used, and how many times they can be used, what explanations are behind the skill uses...
Another thing I think skill challenges do very well is that they emphasize that even failures move the story forward, just in a different direction. For every skill challenge, I try to think of at least three reasonably different paths forward, and will the one taken to reflect the players action in the game during the game.
I think you have already answered your own complaint. The only thing I can add is don't let a skill challenge create a dead end, and if you add more success/failure to a challenge, then make it a broad one, that may affect something down the road the characters are not aware of at the time.
*Shrugs* I don't have access to my books at the moment, but I'll say this: Stop looking at the examples, start looking at the guidelines.
But the skill challenges (like every one that I've seen that they have published thusfar) is simple and a bit silly. On the other hand, they're not meant to be 100% binding or universal. If you try to run them exactly as written you may be able to get a good experience, but chances are that you won't.
That's why I titled this post 'My problem with Skill Challenges as written' :)
As written, the guidelines for skill challenges encourage:[...]
I know the guidelines, and I think I've understood the essence of what SC are trying to achieve. And I agree with you.
Therefore it's doubly frustrating that every official published SC I've encountered is so flawed, from examples in the DMG (where they sometimes contradict the guidelines just next to it) to modules to now the shadowfell book.
Yeah, I think the big problem is poor guidance in adjusting appropriate narrative to the situation.Actually, scratch that - you can probably just sum it up as "poor guidance" in general. The DMG2 is better, but they don't spend enough effort helping the GM understand what every element is supposed to represent.
I certianly agree with you that some of the issue is poor guidance. A lot of the time I think that a chunk of the issue was they had no idea what guidance to give. One gets the impression that Perkin's and some of the others grabbed the mechanic and ran with it and it worked out great...but Perkin's in particular is famous for being able to do on the spot improvisation that is just breath taking. However most of us are mere mortals.
Hence, from day one, we see the best use of the feature as being one that is little more then guidelines, here is the scene here are the numbers...OK DM run with it. The problem is that you can't really print that up and effectively put it into a published product - no instead you have to try and set out and codify in an exact mechanical fashion how this is supposed to work...but its impossible - how do you codify role playing with randomizers?
At its heart that really is the problem, ultimately Skill Challenges are a kind of structured roleplaying meant to convey a scene. If I take a more traditional role playing scene, the Entrance of Count Strahd von Zarovich on the scene and he comes with a speech the adventure probably gives me some read aloud text. Thing is if I stand up and do the read aloud text in some monotone that is not really going to be an especially good scene. I probably need to fall back on my social skills, move around, gesture with my arms, give Strahd some inflection or an accent etc. but the adventure module does not spell out these elements and it really can't - each Dm needs to take the bare bones of that read aloud text and turn it into something emotionally powerful at their table and each DM will likely do this in their own way. We all know this is the case with a traditional role playing scene but there has often been the expectation that some how Skill Challenges will get us around that...they don't and they can't.
Fundamentally they are structured role playing and we are best off using the material given to us as mere guidelines which we will use to build up into something more emotionally charged at each of our tables depending on our strengths and weaknesses as a DM - the basic outline presented in the adventure or supplement is the fall back position - the equivalent of simply reading the read aloud text without embellishment - it will convey the scene after a fashion and allow the adventure to continue if the DM can't or won't do the embellishing him or her self but its far from the best way to run these things.
Hence...
For my own campaign, I've only kept a few things: the basic mechanics of a 'cumulate a number of skill check successes and failures', and level-appropriate DCs. Everything else is open - which skills can be used, and how many times they can be used, what explanations are behind the skill uses...
Is the correct answer...at least for Malaclypse. In fact my only concern here is that its a bit of a blanket statement for a series of mechanics that I believe can be used in a myriad of ways some of which will do the job better or worse depending on the actual content of the scene and what the DMs goals with it are.