D&D 4E Showing the Math: Proving that 4e’s Skill Challenge system is broken (math heavy)

[Wolfwood2]

Below was an example skill challenge I typed out to show my players how the system could work.

The walls begin moving slowly together. Roll Initiative:

Dave: 10
Mike: 25 WOOT, I rock!
Jon: 12
Tim: 1

DM: Okay Mike what do you want to do the walls are closing in on you.
The door behind you slammed shut and is locked.

So one thing strikes me about this example. What would have happened if the PCs had failed? TPK? Skill challenges need to have reasonable consequences for failure.

 

[Tervin]

Forget the math. It's all about the scene. We're not playing a computer game here, were using it as a tool to help make cool scenes. If you need to up the failures or lower the DC's so that players aren't all aiding one player to beat the math, then do it. Or put them in situations where aiding one player just doesn't make sense. Besides the players don't know how many failures they can get or how many successes they need.

Hmm, so I should forget the math but be careful with the math so that it ends up being cool? Ok.

Nice scene writeup, but what you are saying is basically that we should either ignore the system as written and fudge like crazy or be very careful with it.

But I shouldn't be that mean. I could also try and be creative with your suggestion. And here comes my attempt at a clever part - time to start reading closely!

Why not set up a Complexity 5 skill challenge and while it is being played through keep track of whether the players would have succeeded on it if it was a level 1-4 challenge. The more of the challenge the players succeed in the more XP they get, and the closer to the desired result they achieve. That way you add partial success as a possibility in a skill challenge, which will be a lot more satisfying for players - and a lot less swingy when it comes to XP awards and actual results.

Thank you!

 

[two]

It is really easy, fun, cinematic and cool to describe a scene where the PC's roll:

18, 12, 1, 16, 12, 15, 10

Particularly where the critical failure is not linked to the most important PC, and the average skill bonus is around +9.

It sounds like a fun skill challenge -- since they overcame it!

However it's completely beside the point. I'd agree that for most 5th? 8th? 10th? level PC's, rolls of:

18, 12, 1, 16, 12, 15, 10

Would be sufficient to beat most challenges, particularly if the most important check goes first.

The question is, how likely is it that the party would roll that well? And in such a nice order? You could keep the rolls and change the order and it might have turned out very differently:

1, 12, 18, 16, 12, 15, 10 may not be enough.

The basic point is, if there is a problem with the statistics underneath the mechanics, individual "fun outcomes" don't really matter. What matters is running that same encounter 50 times (in theory) and seeing what the results are. 40/50 wins? Cool. 30/50 wins? Pretty cool, but dangerous. 20/50 wins? Not so cool. 10/50 wins? That's just too tough.

 

[Nail]

Assuming that every time a skill challenge comes up, all four party members Aid the fifth acting member, by rote, is really crappy design in its own right.

There is simply no way that that particular form of "optimal play" is baked into the system.

Yes, it's just that crappy. Too crappy for WotC by far. I'd rather beat them with the "bad math" stick at hand than beat them with the "godawful boring play style" stick you're offering.

Hear, hear.

It's been well proven now that the Skill Challenges System of 4e, as published in the DMG, has poor math behind it. There's no way to white-wash that.

The attempt by some to call the +5 difference between combat checks and skill checks "ambiguous" is misleading, at best. For one thing, the +5 difference doesn't solve the fundamentally poor math. For another, the +5 bonus is found in several places in the published rules, including the many examples. It's not a typo, kids. It's not ambiguous.

There are ways to fix skill challenges, more-or-less, so long as the DM realizes the "window of desirable scores" he has to work is pretty small.

 

[Delgar]

So one thing strikes me about this example. What would have happened if the PCs had failed? TPK? Skill challenges need to have reasonable consequences for failure.

You are correct skill challenges should not ever stop the adventure.

However, I mean how many action movies have the death trap that the Heroes have to escape? I wouldn't use this very often but with their lives on the lines the players can pull out all the stops and could make for a very cool scene

 

[Delgar]

Hell, if the rules don't work, why not just forget them all?



You seem to be angling for a diceless game.

Nah, I mean there are multiple pages of arguing of how bad the math is, mostly because people are including the +5 to the table.

Also, people are talking about everyone aiding one person so they get a +8 to their roll. At this point your no longer participating in a skill challenge your just trying to GAME the system.

I think the intention in the end was for everyone to participate in the challenge by using the skills they have at hand.

So, all I'm saying is decide what you want, and use the skill challenge rules as a guide.

Do you want your players to succeed more, lower the DC or increase the number of failures they can get.

In the end you want a fun interactive scene.

 

[Mistwell]

I asked CustServ to comment on this issue, and their reply:

"We are aware of the issues concerning Skill Challenges at this time. However we’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon. Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign."

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Nah, I mean there are multiple pages of arguing of how bad the math is, mostly because people are including the +5 to the table.

Most people have pointed out that even without the +5, the math is still pretty bad.

Also, people are talking about everyone aiding one person so they get a +8 to their roll. At this point your no longer participating in a skill challenge your just trying to GAME the system.

Are you implying that players like to succeed?

I think the intention in the end was for everyone to participate in the challenge by using the skills they have at hand.

Which is, in no way, facilitated by the skill challenge system over just using skills.

So, all I'm saying is decide what you want, and use the skill challenge rules as a guide.

Rules != guide. If it were a guide, it would be in an optional section, or a tips and tricks section.

Do you want your players to succeed more, lower the DC or increase the number of failures they can get.

The major point is that the math is already wonky. Fiddling with it makes it more wonky, in unintuitive ways. Which is jarring, in a game that promised to have transparent math in the rules.

In the end you want a fun interactive scene.

Then you don't really need the skill challenge at all. Technically, you don't need skill checks, either. You can easily do that with no rules whatsoever, but that is moving towards 'collective authouring' and away from 'gaming'.

Your entire argument sounds like 'The rules work great! If you ignore the math, don't use them as intended, or don't use them at all'.

 

[silentounce]

Some of the people in here are saying that it's okay that the PCs fail more than half the time if there is little penalty for it. That you could make it so that succeeding at a SC gives them some sort of bonus. Are you still going to give them full XP if they fail? Imagine a session consisting of, in addition to normal RP stuff, a few combats and a few long skill challenges which they fail. Compare than to a session with normal RP stuff and more combats instead of skill challenges. Unless the PCs have a decent chance of succeeding in these challenges then they're going to advance slower. And trust me, they'll notice. Unless of course, you hand out XP for failure, which may be okay, but I'd never hand out FULL XP for failure.

And that's not even considering how much player morale is going to suffer if they consistently lose. You don't expect your players to lose in combat that often, do you?

Most of us agree that the success rate for even a moderate challenge should be at least 60% regardless of what failure or success brings the party.


Does anybody know if similar discussions are going on at other venues? I don't have the time to go to other RPG boards. Like are there discussions similar to this at wizards.com, rpgnet, etc?

 

[2WS-Steve]

I asked CustServ to comment on this issue, and their reply:

"We are aware of the issues concerning Skill Challenges at this time. However we’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon. Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign."

Repeated for emphasis.

Good job Mistwell!

We'll likely see some official errata and some nice article in Dragon available sometime. The designers see the problem too.

The skill challenge system is a good idea, but it could use some deeper development -- some way to give the players more meaningful choices during the encounter. A ten-page or so Dragon article might be just the ticket for that.