Froodle:
I must admit I'm sometimes not sure if I get it right here too but I keep stealing ideas from Paul to use in my games (hope you don't mind).
Not at all. I'm flattered.
Froodle:
I think the biggest difficulty comes from the fact the manuals make them seem like a simple process. Succeed in x number of rolls before y number of failures, taking it in turns in initiative order to state and action and roll.
Yeah, and I think the rules could have made it clearer that (as I see it) the rules are just designed to try to make skill-based situations easier to run. And for me they have. But they aren't meant to replace the basic approach of PCs trying stuff and interacting with the world.
Froodle:
The first thing I did was ditch the initiative rolls (Paul doesn't use them) and now I'm thinking the description of the process could be a whole lot better.
I think the intent of initiative was to try to deal with the problem of just a few characters being involved in a skill challenge. But it wound up making it seem like players were forced to participate in a challenge, even if they didn't want to or didn't feel suited to a particular challenge. Lots of players prefer to hang back and not mess up what others are doing, so the idea of initiative ran counter to that.
Froodle:
It's almost a case of the bigger the task, the more scope there is to make it a fuller process rather than something quick. As an example, I've used it to get characters across a river, which gets some ideas going, but actually, a better use would be over the course of a whole journey where a river could just be one feature that a player has to overcome.
Right. I'm a big fan of summarizing what could be a complicated scene with a single check.
Froodle:
Of course any astute player will try to give a description that leans towards the character's better skills.
Yeah, and the game helps a lot with that, giving skills to characters that are going to want to use them and (usually) have the ability scores to be good at them.
Froodle:
The last bit I had some issue getting my head around initially, based on just reading the rulebooks was how to treat failure. A simple set of rolls shouldn't derail the whole adventure or make it impossible so the DM has to know what the outcome of failure is, whether it be adding delay to a time critical mission so the party cannot afford to rest or making an encounter harder.
Right. In this case it's about facing a weaker or stronger guard force. I should mention that you won't be locked into engaging in any particular fight and if you end up wanting to avoid fighting entirely, that can happen too.
About the "racking one's brains" or "looking around" thing: As much as possible, I want skill checks to represent some actual committed action. Traditionally, and per the rules, knowledge, Perception and Insight checks are just about gaining information. But I don't feel like that works, for several reasons.
For one thing, I don't actually have any information. I could invent some, or anyone in the game could, but I'd prefer to focus on doing that once I know what action the PCs are going to take. Otherwise, I wind up having to invent at least twice as many options, so the players don't think that there's only one choice.
For another thing, success or failure on the check doesn't actually change anything. Okay, the PC knows or doesn't know the information. But, how does that actually make things better or worse. For some challenges that are out there, the PCs could technically succeed or fail by make nothing but knowledge checks while standing in one spot, taking no actual action. Ok, they know they answer, but they haven't actually succeeded until they act.
So, I make the "know something" check about actually taking an action. Basically, the PC definitely does have the information, or believes they do, and they act on it. The check determines whether they were right or not. If so, they applied what they knew correctly and made progress. If not, they misapplied it and suffered a setback.
Related to that, I know some DMs will tell the PCs "false" information on a failed check. I won't say that can't work, but I'm a terrible liar. Even the lie is decent, the PCs could still mistrust it and just not act. Or they could mistrust or misunderstand true informaton. In that kind of situation, not much has been achieved.
So, I will admit that I greatly complicate that aspect of the game, by changing the usual approach. But I think doing so makes the skills operate a bit more consistently, and makes skill challenges make more sense.
My improvisational approach also complicates things. Nothing is "true" until it happens in the game, but almost anything
can be true. For most NPCs, I don't spend a lot of time coming up with their deeper thoughts and motivations, because there's revery reason to believe that the NPC will be use for all of a single post, or not at all. So, there's no real way to "experiment" with a mind in the game in order to see what works.
However, I am happy to simply tell you what works. I'm even happy for
you to tell
me what works. So, like with Sietnyas trying to find out if there's something the spirit wanted in exchange for help: why, yes, there certainly is, but the challenge isn't finding out what that is, it's accomplishing it. To find out what it is, we just talk about it, starting with you asking me what you want to know, or telling me what there is to know.
I very much understand that players are cautious about adding things to a game. This stems, in part, from the assumption that the game is pre-written or pre-thought-out by the DM, and that new information is likely to contradict something, or otherwise cause problems. In this game you can be a little less cautious if you want, because very little is pre-written. Yes, we're in the Eberron setting, but it's known for being very mutable. At the same time, it's easier to work with information if:
It is limited in scope. That is, it affects a small aspect of the world, possibly an aspect not many in the world will ever be aware of or impacted by.
It avoids absolutes. That's similar to a limited scope, but it's about saying "would probably" rather than "would definitely." It allows things to be challenging, rather than impossible, or trivial.
It's about what's happening here and now. That is, that we don't have to remember things for later, and we aren't putting too much effort (by which I mean more than we enjoy putting) into stuff that the game might never get to or be about.
With this water spirit, for example, just because I like thinking about stuff, I have plenty of thoughts about what it could be about or do or change, but ultimately it's lost and forgotten, and very weak. So, almost nothing we establish about it can have far ranging impacts. And, if you never interact with it at all, almost nothing of major import is lost. Or, if you winding up really like it, or anything else, and want it to have larger import, it can.
Drake:
I also agree that the skill challenges are a way of hindering or helping the PC’s to their goal rather than preventing the PC’s attaining their end goal. I’m unsure of the rewards we obtain as a result of success …. Perhaps XP could be given on a particularly imaginative descriptor or an imaginative use of a skill. This may encourage time and effort spent coming up with skill uses in challenges or on descriptions of available routes / story development opportunities
The in game rewards are generally just XP, and progress in the story. That said, I always struggle with ways to grant more XP faster, but not too fast, so I'll think about this idea. Thanks.