Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #15 on Feb 28, 2011, 4:55pm »
The idea would be to compress the whole combat into one skill challenge. Consequences of success would simply be that they win the combat, no need to track enemy damage that way. I wouldn't figure in defenses either. Except under specific circumstances.
Most powers have an attack roll of some kind. Some of them don't. Those that don't I might consider an automatic success, as long as the player was able to bring it into the challenge effectively and as long as it was a power that had to be expended. Otherwise I might just use an appropriate skill, possibly a grade lower in difficulty than it would be normally.
As I say, some of them could be used to negate failures too.
There's a list of damage appropriate to level somewhere. Would just use that as damage I reckon. But other consequences could be possible.
If failed completely, then the player characters would be forced to retreat in most circumstances I think.
Perhaps it would be instructive if I tried to write up a sample combat skill challenge here. Give me a few minutes and I'll have one up.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #16 on Feb 28, 2011, 5:45pm »
Kobold Ambush
The player party are travelling through the Undercity of Eh'karr when they hear ominous scuttling noises from the galleries in the large cavern they are moving through. Half a dozen shadowy shapes begin launching rocks and javelins at them.
All difficulties in this skill challenge are Hard until someone successfully makes some sort of perception related skill or power check. Characters with feats that improve initiative do not suffer from this disadvantage.
Possible Skills:
Perception or Dungeoneering in the first phase of the challenge, also negating the penalty mentioned above. Once one of these has been used successfully, neither is likely to be useful again.
Intimidate could be used to gain successes, causing the kobolds to cower.
Attack rolls and powers can be used to gain successes, by physically beating the kobolds in the face.
When the Wyrmpriest arrives (see failure), Arcana could be used to gain successes by engaging in a magical duel with him.
Possible Advantages:
Stealth, acrobatics, or an appropriate power, might be used to negate a failure by cunning manoeuvre. Heal, or a related power, might be used to negate by, well, healing. A Charisma check, or an appropriate leadership based power, might be used to negate a failure by giving party morale a boost (Urrrahh!) An Action Point might be used to allow a character to count one success as two, or to reroll a failed check.
Success: The kobolds are fought off, the remainder scuttling off back into the dark dragging their wounded with them. The party receives 400 XP. 2 gems worth 100 GP each are left behind, and if the kobold wyrmpriest showed up (see Failure) he leaves behind a Rod of Deadly Casting.
Failure: Each failure will cause 1d8+4 damage to all characters taking part in the failed check (i.e. the character making the check, and anyone making assist attempts). After the first failure, a Kobold Wyrmpriest will arrive to assist the kobolds, his magic will cause an extra 1d6 points of damage to each failure.
On reaching 3 failures, the player characters will be forced to retreat. They will lose any action points they have, and 2 healing surges. They will then have to find an alternative route.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #17 on Feb 28, 2011, 5:49pm »
Of course, I wouldn't actually bother writing up a skill challenge like this during play. I would just consider the situation, perhaps jot down a few possible skill/power uses, consider some possible changing circumstances and consequences and play it by ear. This is just to demonstrate the sort of thing I mean.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Joined: Jan 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 2,328 Location: New Hope, MN Karma: 93
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #18 on Feb 28, 2011, 9:47pm »
So, in terms of the skill challenge, you'd consider an attack roll similar to a skill check? Would the DC be the DC for the whole challenge, or specifically against the kobold's Armor defense? (I'm guessing the former) Actually, here's a good newbie question: How is DC established for a skill challenge? Does it have to do with the complexity?
I think this system has tons of potential, though of course it sidesteps "normal" 4e combat entirely. So, I assume if someone uses a Power or Feat or whatever, they'll need to be able to work it into the description of a particular check for it to be valid?
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #20 on Mar 1, 2011, 5:19am »
An attack roll would be made against a skill dc rather than the kobolds defences, the idea is to not use any monster stats at all so you don't have to hunt through books and can just run with it. Complexity determines how many successes you need, and the recommended number of advantages.
DCs for the entire game are determined by level. There's a chart of Easy, Medium and Difficult DCs by level in the dm book and the screen. It's up to the dm to decide which of the three is used, except in the example above where all are Hard until someone can spot the kobolds properly. I'd have put the numbers in but didn't have them handy at the time, and my party hasn't been first level for a while to remember them offhand
A player must *always* work their description of any skill or power appropriately into a skill challenge. They should never be allowed to just say "I cast Religion at them."
XP for a skill challenge is based on the complexity. Each point of complexity gives the same amount of XP as 1 standard monster of that level. So if you have 4 in your party a complexity 4 challenge is the same as a combat encounter of that level. 2 players would need complexity 2 etc.
The difference is that with normal combat you tend to have a variety of different encounter levels. I found that most XP in the game comes from the big level +3 combats. You could achieve this by altering complexity or level of the skill challenge. But as you can fit more of these in (no need to set up combat grids, just sketch the terrain, no enemy combat turns, less dice rolling, fewer turns required) I don't think you need to vary it very often. And I'd be inclined to run those big level+3 combats as normal anyway.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Joined: Jan 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 2,328 Location: New Hope, MN Karma: 93
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #21 on Mar 1, 2011, 10:29am »
Quote:
"I cast Religion at them."
I think if I had a player say that, I'd be laughing so hard they'd probably get away with it...
This is starting to sound really solid. Once everyone gets the hang of it, you could really work the color of both character and monster powers into combats quickly and easily.
I don't have the Essentials DM book, but I do have the Rules Compendium and pdfs of the DM's Guide 1 and 2. I'll try to read up on skill challenges tonight so's I can comment a bit more concretely.
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #22 on Mar 1, 2011, 10:50am »
Come to think of it, I would too But you get what I mean.
Essentials has the more up to date skill challenge stuff in it, but DMG2 has some good stuff about skill challenges in it. The rules are a bit different though. As mentioned previously, the game was horribly broken when it came out.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #25 on Jul 18, 2011, 4:02pm »
I really like this idea! I think that the skill challenge concept is one of the better things to come out of 4e. To the point that actually I have been trying to put together a rules light, entirely skill challenge based, system together for a while (a project which has currently stalled <_<). Skill challenges in general are a great mechanic once everyone in the group understands how they work (though as a prerequisite to using them in 4e you have to understand how skills, training, and DC work in 4e because it is very different than 3e).
One thing I have done in the past when running mass combat and wilderness survival skill challenges is reduce healing surges instead of HP as a failure consequence, that might be a little too harsh though if you are using lots of combat skill challenges.
For the record, I tend to use skill challenges in other games because combat in 4e is such a deal breaker for me, even once a session, that I refuse to run it and currently play in a campaign only grudgingly.
2. Hear more about why 4e combat is a "deal breaker" for you.
I'll field that second question first because it has been a bit more on my mind lately and is aa bit more on topic. To my mind there are three big problems with the 4e combat engine, in reverse order of subjectivity:
-Magic Item Necessity -Too Safe -TIME
I full admit that the first one of these is really subjective. I don't like magic items being necessary to stay competitive. A +X enhancement bonus should be a bonus. Not something you need to realistically hit. In my opinion, magic items should feel like cool edges and rewards, not like basic necessary equipment. You shouldn't have to put out special rules for inherently boosting attack and AC (like they did in the 4e Dark Sun book) to make it possible to play a low magic campaign.
4e is way too safe for my tastes. Unless you design a horribly out of level encounter there is little to nothing at stake for the party. In the two campaigns I have played in and the one I have run since 4e came out there has not been a single character death in combat. When my character went down a few nights ago I just got my notebook and stated working on one of my projects, pausing every so often to make a death saving throw (he had failed one out of three before someone brought him back, and by back I don't mean 'not dying' I mean back at full capability in the fight). Not because I don't care about the little guy, but because I felt there was absolutely no risk to him and no sense of urgency. I just think that if there is nothing to be lost in combat, why run it?
TIME. Oh god the time. The current party I play in consists of: Defender/Controller Hybrid; 3 Strikers; and a Leader/Controller Hybrid (my character). And we still can't dish out enough damage fast enough to keep combat from being a boring morass. The energy of the room palpably changes when the party goes into combat. In older editions, the magic user's combat turn was always the longest and most complex, and that was okay when you had only one or two in a party. But now that everyone has powers with a complex resolution system that throw out a ton of conditions and special effects, every combat turn has become that. The progression between turns goes like this: Take your turn -> decide what you're going to do next turn -> wait -> get bored -> pull out something else to distract you (we routinely have people reading, playing DS, or writing something entirely unrelated during combat) -> notice that the person before you in initiative order is going -> survey the board to make sure nothing has changed -> wait for the person before you to finish their turn -> take your turn. Combat should be an exciting and vital part of the game, balanced with skill use and roleplay. Instead it is the roleplaying and skill challenges that are exciting and combat just feels like busy work. This would pretty much still be acceptable if everything had similar HP ranges and combats were short and quick, but they aren't. The average time of combat is over an hour and it kills any sense of excitement or pacing. And it isn't that we are unfamiliar with how this works. This campaign has been running since release and we all now have epic level characters and know our powers basically from memory. I don't think that this is subjective to my group and I find it completely unacceptable.
In short: combat in my OD&D (and to a lesser extent my 3.5e and SW: SAGA) games is quick, immersive, risky, and (therefore) exciting; combat in 4e (whether I run or play) is slow, unwieldy, safe, and actively harms the immersion potential of the game.
I like norse's suggestion because I think it really pushes 4e back in the right direction. And I hope their is a way to smoothly pull it off.
On my system: I won't go into detail here since it is a little too much abstracted from D&D, but a quick sketch and then an idea of some of the skill challenges. Bear in mind this is alpha level development.
The system is a pseudo classless, level based system. Characters generate ability scores on 3d6 in order. Each ability score determines a single secondary stat as well as giving a modifier to skill checks. Players are given slots to develop their character. Slots can be used on skill training (including combat skills), skill focus, skill specialization (which bring special abilities associated with the skills kind of like 4e skill powers), languages, knowledges, magic schools, etc. In this way players kind of build a class from scratch, which is why it is only psuedo-classless. For the alpha playtest we wound up with essentially a fighter/loremaster and a ranger/druid.
Skills are either untrained, trained, or focused. Untrained you use your ability mod + 1/2 your level and can only access very basic uses of the skill (for instance anyone can try to ward against magic by making an arcana check and a folk sign to ward off the evil eye, or make a knowledge check to try to determine what that strange monster is). Trained you add your level and can use all aspects of the skill (e.g. not only do you get a bigger bonus when trained but certain aspects of the skill are only available to trained individuals, for instance only someone trained in arcana can attempt to cast a ritual). Focused gives a permanent +2. A specialized skill would give a cool little ability but probably wouldn't change the base roll (for instance the aforementioned ranger/druid took an archery specialization to not suffer penalties for firing in inclement weather).
Skill challenges work pretty much like 4e. I unfortunately do not still have my notes from the alpha test but to give an idea of the sort of stuff that went on:
The game opened with the two PCs trying to make its way to a particular fort high in a mountain pass during a blizzard. So the initial skill challenge was finding the fort. They needed 3 successes before 3 failures (the failure condition is always 3 for my skill challenges). Appropriate skills were things like Nature and Perception with possible uses of Stealth if they wanted to cover their tracks, Climb if they wanted to move to higher ground and get a better view, Invocation (Nature or any Mountain/Forest deity) if they sough divine guidance, etc. One of the players suggested Arcana to let him pinpoint their location by the stars and astrological correspondences and I ruled that if the weather cleared that would be acceptable. Each of these was assigned a difficulty band depending on how hard it should be and what exactly the players were trying to do with the skill. Also some skill uses made subsequent uses easier. For instance, climbing to higher ground lowered the perception DC to try to pick out the lights of the fort in the storm. At three failures I called for endurance checks and if they failed the lost one wound point (basically equivalent to a healing surge). And then I rolled to see of the condition changed 1-2 weather gets better, 3-4 weather stays the same, 5-6 weather gets worse and adjusted the DCs accordingly. The weather got better. Then I rolled on my encounter table. Too bad, winter wolves!
Three winter wolves attacked the party. I actually drew the terrain out on a piece of paper and kept track of character positions with thumbtacks, but didn't worry about a grid or scale. This challenge required 6 successes on combat rolls made against the wolves (2 successes kills one winter wolf) and in this case the PCs tracked failures individually (3 failures and they lost a wound point and must make an endurance check not to take a penalty to future skill checks from the seeping cold of the magical wolf's bite). Obviously the appropriate skills were any combat skills, however there were some other skills tossed into the mix as well. Perception or nature could be used to notice a perilously stacked pile of rocks on the cliff face and a strength check could be used to cause a small avalanche to gain 1d6/2 successes as it crushed the the wolves (but would require Athletics or Acrobatics checks from the other party members to not get caught in it themselves!). An arcana check told the loremaster that these were magical beasts they were combating and that they were vulnerable to fire and that any combat action made against them with fire would grant double successes of they beat the DC but that they were immune to cold. So he used this info to begin fighting with a torch in each hand instead of his sword and the druid did something quite clever. She asked if, since she had said when equipping her character that she eschews metal and carries a dagger made of volcanic glass instead, she could use Invocation (nature) to 'wake the sleeping fire within the stone' and allow the dagger to temporarily count as a fire weapon. In the end they were a little battered but managed to seize the day.
It all seemed to flow pretty well and allowed a quick play experience with a good bit of room for outside the box thinking. I would like to get back to that project after I finish tinkering with things for my OD&D game.
Some of the things I learned from it: be flexible and open to player suggestions if they are feasible, tie successes in a combat situation to monster wounds/death to make sure the players have a sense of progressing, skill challenges can extend over time and there is nothing wrong with taking a break from one to insert another event (or as with encounters, nesting a skill challenge in a skill challenge), characters can make single skill checks that don't contribute to the success or failure of the challenge as a whole to modify their chances on challenge checks, keywords like fire and ice above can be used to modify a challenge and are a good way to work magic items in, and it is generally a good idea to have a timescale for actions in a skill challenge and there is nothing wrong with having something happen say every three checks regardless of success or failure.
Wow that is a wall of text, I hope something in there is interesting and/or helpful!
Joined: Jan 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 2,328 Location: New Hope, MN Karma: 93
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #28 on Jul 19, 2011, 1:38pm »
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful responses! And, fwiw, I don't see discussion of your own skill challengish system as off topic at all--it's showing a viable example!
Re: Combat. I'd not heard the magic item point before--that is odd, though I guess it makes sense with the way EVERYTHING increases with level (magic armor bonuses, etc.) As for the too safe thing, that's not such a problem for me--after a couple of years here of playing ODD, I'm getting a bit tired of constant character mortality...
Now, TIME for combat encounters seems to be the biggest factor that sours most people on this edition. I've seen some decent suggestions for mechanically cutting down the time spent in combat, but I would think the biggest challenge would be engaging the whole table for the whole combat. If people are engaged, time spent doesn't really matter. Your example is really valuable, because it suggests that the time spent in combat is part of the core mechanical reality of the game, as opposed to being an artifact of unfamiliarity or some such thing.
Your system sounds like a lot of fun!
Quote:
Some of the things I learned from it: be flexible and open to player suggestions if they are feasible, tie successes in a combat situation to monster wounds/death to make sure the players have a sense of progressing, skill challenges can extend over time and there is nothing wrong with taking a break from one to insert another event (or as with encounters, nesting a skill challenge in a skill challenge), characters can make single skill checks that don't contribute to the success or failure of the challenge as a whole to modify their chances on challenge checks, keywords like fire and ice above can be used to modify a challenge and are a good way to work magic items in, and it is generally a good idea to have a timescale for actions in a skill challenge and there is nothing wrong with having something happen say every three checks regardless of success or failure.
These are good insights for the project at hand; I may actually start working on this again...
Re: 4E: On Running an Entirely Skill Challenge Gam « Reply #29 on Jul 19, 2011, 2:18pm »
Thanks, kesher! If I ever get that system in a finished form I'll toss a .pdf up online somewhere.
Re: Character Death/Combat I get what you mean about OD&D. The last game I ran, the four player party lost five (1st level) characters over the course of the crawl. If I am running a longer term game in OD&D I usually take some measures to avoid character death (e.g. letting a character reduced to 0 or lower HP make a save vs. death to see whether they have died or whether they have just been 'left for dead' but are only unconscious, or use the 2/3e -HP buffer). But at the same time I find it really weird to have a character go down in a fight and then have them pop back up at a full 1/4 HP. There needs to be a happy medium between no risk and a slaughterhouse.
As an addendum on both death and battle length I don't think the 4e designers properly considered the way save or die/incapacitate effects (or superhigh damage effects) alter combat pacing. Sure they were weird and wonky, but they still provided for a chance of removing a monster or character from combat in a single turn, which is significant. And as a corollary to that it seems the only way things can be settled in 4e is through an open war of attrition. We recently had a situation where the Rogue and the Assassin both slipped up behind a couple of rooftop snipers who thought they had the drop on the party, and they wanted to take out these guys silently. Unfortunately without death attack for the Assassin and with a system that technically doesn't allow the rogue to do enough backstab damage to kill anything that isn't a minion in one turn, they were forced to get in a long drawn out fight that alerted everybody to our presence.
I also have to say that my experiences so far are with vanilla 4e. I haven't had the time or disposable income to jump on Essentials yet, and will be interested to know how you find it!
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_u00qWD-_dM4/TNyW0RtBXkI/AAAAAAAAAI4/pHmT9bbqfrk/s400/backswords%2526bucklers.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/akesher3/erolaxeAvatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[image]](http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/akesher3/joustchallenge.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/96/nightmarek.png "[avatar]")
![[yim]](http://images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")