Skill Challenges, Unnecessary and Problematic
Friday, March 20, 2009 at 09:04AM I figured I'd better get into this before I let the "threat" of my quitting 4E hang any longer. Let me begin by saying I understand that using skill challenges properly (or at all) has little to do with the system I'm playing. I assure you this is not the strongest impetus for my potential move elsewhere, but it is certainly a beef I have with the system.
Fine Ideas
I like the idea of skill challenges very much. For me, they are a way to structure goal-setting for the group. Reaching the secret tomb of the mad seer, escaping the crumbling cathedral, talking your way past the intelligent, undead guards without having to fight them. I like organization. I like To Do lists and project plans.
My feeling is that skill challenges should be able to lend drama and critical thinking to what could otherwise be success or failure by DM fiat. Unfortunately, every skill challenge I’ve taken part it, on either side of the screen, has at best been a min-max math session to get “back to the real game,” and at worst a clunky series of trials and errors.
Here’s a recent example that I was looking forward to that went very poorly. Maybe you can tell me what I did wrong.
The Setup
The PCs take an elevator down a level into the Azer’s mine. Stretched before them is a hallway filled with conveyors carrying rock and the occasional bit of ore to the surface. Clockwork constructs are sorting the ore from the rock all along the conveyors. At the far end of the hallway is an Azer dozing on a chair. The challenge was to get past the clockwork workers.
I saw this skill challenge playing out in three parts as a "nested" challenge that could change based on the previous successes or failures.
The Challenge, by Zurdom
1. Planning – The PCs would take stock of the situation, possibly noticing that there are bits of clockwork worker and a crate just behind the elevator. They could also notice the levers controlling the conveyors, and that the dozing Azer is holding some kind of arcane device on his lap. A successful Arcana check could tell the PCs that the device controls the workers.
2. Execution – I expected the PCs would use a combination of stealth, disguise, and well-timed lever pulling to get at least one of their members to the dozing guard without the clockwork workers attacking, and without waking the guard.
3. Conclusion – Would they take out the guard while he sleeps? Would they wake him, overpower him, and question him about the device? Would they lift the arcane controller from him and have the clockwork machines attack?
They could have approached this from a number of directions. I asked for 6 successes before 3 failures.
I think this skill challenge had a great deal of potential, and I regret that the first thing my players asked after I identified this as a skill challenge was “why?” After a bumbling shared explanation from the group, what followed was a clumsy poking and prodding of the clockwork workers’ limitations, some random discussion of what to do, and no rolling dice. Pulling successes and failures out of that was forced. No one was sharing any sense of accomplishment on the successes.
Eventually the player who didn’t understand skill challenges sneaked under the conveyors to the Azer and lifted the controller. He sneaked back with it, and the Warlock figured out how to work it. Fair enough. I was just glad to get past it.
Different Group or a Different DM = More Success?
Maybe my group just isn’t into structured thinking, and that’s fine. They certainly seemed to struggle with the idea of how to succeed with this mysterious thing the DM was asking for. Maybe I made a fundamental mistake... should I have pointed it out as a skill challenge? I think it's important to openly manage expectations for the game. By the end, I was wishing that I hadn’t mentioned it was a skill challenge at all.
The first player’s question of “why” has stuck with me. Why would I structure my player’s potential actions for them? Why would I impose any limitations, even perceived, on how they can tackle a given challenge? Why force the players to either think critically, or tune out, as one or two of my PCs did?
Why bother with skill challenges at all?
The simple answer is not to use them, or to use them better. I’m betting you can help.
skill challenges in 4E 
Reader Comments (11)
Skill Challenges are nothing new. Many system used then before with other names. I always wrote my sessions with lines like 'If they do a Diplomacy DC 15 here, they get this information. If they do two Diplomacy rolls DC 15 there, they get this notes too.'
But you have to adapt as the session goes. If they decide they won´t talk to someone that may have the information they need, I couldn´t ask for the Diplomacy rolls. So I would ask for Gathering Information, Knowledge or something else. Same DC. They solved the situation using their own ideas? Great, take the XP.
It´s like when you expect then to fight a monster to get something, and they find a way to get what they need without fighting.
And next time don´t say 'This is a Skill Challenge!'. It´s like saying 'And this minions are here so you spend some healing surges'. It´s not fun and it´s metagaming.
*nodding* for sure, for sure. I understand that skill challenges aren't new, but setting them up as separate entities with structured mechanics outside of "here's your goal, get there" is. At least, I expect that's true for most players and DMs. It was for me.
I certainly have no problem adapting to the flow (I'm not great at improvising, but if I didn't want it, I wouldn't play RPGs, right?). The problem was the structure I imposed actually seemed to encourage less critical thinking and even some frustration as the PCs tried to fit the mould I had provided them. It was an odd situation to set up what I figured would be any skillful player's dream situation, only to have several blank or confused faces looking back at me. I didn't want to lead them by the nose, but I felt that I had to to get the ball rolling.
Your advice on not telling them it was a skill challenge is certianly something I want to consider. I'm not sure if it's metagamey... or, at least, not in a bad way. Any thoughts?
I should probably head over to A Butterfly Dreaming and read his articles on skill challenges. The couple I read were excellent, but I'm not sure if they addressed this concern, or not.
That sounds like a pretty cool skill challenge. For something like that where there is a clear goal and some clear obstacles, I might not announce that it was a challenge, but I wouldn't have thought doing so was a game breaker.
But the response is weird to me. Was this the first time your group had been confronted with a skill challenge? It seems a bit like setting out a bunch of orcs on the battlemap, asking for initiative rolls, and having a player ask "why?". Why? Because that's how the system balances this type of scene in order to award XP for skill use. But, just as players can often avoid combat in unexpected ways by diplomacy or stealth, so you should be open to the possibility that the players could come up with a brilliant short-cut around the skill challenge too.
I do think everyone at the table has to 'get' what's going on with skill challenges. They're a structure for creative use of skills and description of skill use, and if players are excited about that, then I think they'll work. If they're fighting the system, on the other hand, there's probably not much you can do.
That said, it sounds like your players ended up treating it as a skill challenge anyway, even if they didn't know it. "Eventually the player who didn’t understand skill challenges sneaked under the conveyors to the Azer and lifted the controller. He sneaked back with it, and the Warlock figured out how to work it." I count at least four successful skill uses in that sequence. That's a complexity 1 skill challenge. You could try explaining this too them next time and see if the concept clicks.
That's just my 2c. I've read and thought a lot about them, but I'm still learning how best to implement them at the table too.
In that specific instance, it seems like you made a lot of assumptions - you assumed the players would want to roll to figure out more information, you assumed they'd get past the challenge in a certain way once they had that information. Assumptions like that screw up any kind of plan, it's just more noticeable with a skill challenge because then you're left scrambling for excuses for them to make rolls.
I try to use skill challenges in more straightforward situations. A negotiation with an NPC. Tracking someone in hostile weather.
The key is to only declare a skill challenge AFTER the players tell you their plan. In my first example, if the players had decided to steal from the NPC, that probably wouldn't have required an SC because it would have just been one guy making stealth rolls. I didn't say "getting the equipment is an SC," I said, "She has the equipment," the players said, "We try to convince her to give it to us," and I said, "that sounds like a skill challenge."
Likewise, with tracking the NPC - if the players had decided to use a ritual to find him, or ask someone else for help, I'd have been out of luck. It was only once they made the decision to go outside and track him that I made it an SC.
It does work much better if you can improv SCs, and I should add the caveat that our group levels by fiat, so we don't have to worry about the missed XP if a group finds away around a skill challenge.
I've tried both ways, and often I'm more comfortable with not announcing it's a skill challenge until after the characters have succeeded or failed (if then). But I also have quite a few years of GMing under my belt, with players who are more or less used to my style by now. My 4e skill challenges are really nothing I didn't do in previous editions.
Half the time, I don't even bother to decide what skills could be applied at what DC. I just improvise based on what my players give me. To use your example, if someone asked about the device, then I'd ask for an Arcana check. If they'd tried sneaking beneath the belt, that'd be a Stealth check, and possibly a Dungeoneering check too. If someone asked whether they could use the Arcana skill or the Stealth skill, I'd respond with "How?" and wait for them to present something more like a plan.
Now, the rulebook does suggest stating it's a skill challenge, and suggesting skills to try. I think this could work pretty well for newer GMs and players. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that approach. It just doesn't work as well for me or my group.
I think you actually have a couple of related questions here that you need to figure out for yourself/your group:
The first player’s question of “why” has stuck with me. Why would I structure my player’s potential actions for them?
If you're asking this question, my advice would be... don't. Don't structure their actions; leave it open to them to decide. Just keep the success/failure targets in mind, call for checks as you feel appropriate, and hand out bonuses for roleplaying and ideas and such as usual. Award XP at the end.
Why would I impose any limitations, even perceived, on how they can tackle a given challenge?
The answer here is: You're not. If they're perceiving limitations, you need to figure out why, and then you'll probably have some idea what you can do to dispel that misconception. Maybe they're not familiar with skill challenges and think that it boils down to guessing the skill(s) you want them to use, and how you want them to use them?
Why force the players to either think critically, or tune out, as one or two of my PCs did?
If your players are tuning out, it might be because they prefer to avoid critical thought. If all they want out of the game is the combat (or all they want is roleplaying, without so much dice rolling), then you very well might be better off doing away with skill challenges, and just giving them more combat or more pure roleplaying. The only other answer there is "get new players," which also might not be ideal.
Of course, they might be tuning out because they don't understand the skill challenge system.
Either way, it sounds like an out-of-game talk before the next session might be appropriate. Find out what about your game they like, what they'd like more of, what they don't care for, where they'd like to go.
many excellent comments.. I have only one small one to add = "I asked for 6 successes before 3 failures." this was a mistake in my mind. I've always said that SCs are for DMs, not players. The best SCs are run without the players even knowing they are in one. Its all behind the screen. All too often situations arise that dont _fit_ an ongoing SC. The DM needs to fudge things occasionally too. But; the main thing is that SCs keep the DM honest, and force them to think ahead "if they do this, then this will happen; other this or that might happen". SCs have been part of D&D and RPGs in general for decades, 4E just codifies them - but the authors did a poor job in my estimation of explaining how to "run" a skill challenge.
I for one really like skill challenges. I think they are a very necessary part of D&D. Without them everyone builds characters who are REALLY combat heavy and are no good at anything else (as I discuss in Playing Characters With Low Ability Scores). The skill challenge provides opportunities for character who are more balanced or just less combat heavy to contribute and earn XP in non-combat scenarios. If you're not using skill challenges then you're giving some players a clear advantage over others. You're also eliminating any reason to take feats like skill focus or jack of all trades. If your gaming group isn't enjoying skill challenges then maybe you need to ease them into them. There are a lot of really good resources out there on how to run and how to build skill challenges of all varieties and for all levels. Good luck.
Sounds like the scope of the SC was too much for you and your group either preference-wise or expectation-wise.
Excellent, excellent feedback, suggestions, and advice, folks! I think I'll summarize it all and post it as a general skill challenge guide with special thanks to all of you.
As for me, I intend to speak to my group about skill challenges in the future, keep the structure of the skill challenge on my side of the screen, and plan skill challenges to be simpler.
Thanks again.
Skill challenges as detailed in the DMG seem backward to me. They fix the difficulty rating (number of rolls and DC) no matter what players do. Failure at a roll makes the task harder (or even impossible) no matter what it represents. What matters is the skill ratings plugged in, and unless the skill selection has been really skewed, I think that's likely not to be very far from an average (given the distribution of skills in a typical party). A poor plan (in the imagined situation) is about as good as a carefully conceived one.
I don't recall ever seeing the like! In every RPG I've ever played, one first finds out just what the players are attempting and then determines what (if any) rolls are required and how the results change the situation.
great feedback here! Especially Swordgleam's suggestion to announce a skill challenge after players announce their intentions. You can pre-gen a challenge, but don't assume players will take you up on it. Jonathan's reminder that SCs are for the DM is great too. Players will (and should) navigate your game world in ways you don't expect. An SC is a convenient way to assign XP to a non-combat situation. However they solve it they get the XP. If they fail or bypass the SC then they face the consequences and/or move on to the next encounter.