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

[Spatula]

I remain unconvinced that this is actually a problem. As complexity increases so does the reward and the penalty for failure. Higher complexity tasks represent more dangerous tasks with higher chances of reward. If thats correct then why are people assuming that its an error not a design goal that more complex tasks are easier? The main goal of 4e appears to be "Fun" and its certainly not fun if your players cock up a complex skill test and get executed because they spat in the queens eye or some such.

I don't know if you've read the skill challenge section in the DMG, but your execution comment would indicate that you have not. Advancing the plot is never supposed to depend on success or failure of a skill challenge, and a TPK for failure would kinda grind the game to a halt. There is no association of "more dangerous" with higher complexity challenges. For any challenge, the PCs need to be able to still reach their goal, maybe down a few surges, maybe with some extra challenges thrown in (a nice way to recoup the lost XP from the challenge). That inherently limits the ability of any proper challenge from punishing the players.

Of course that would mean Wotc got it right, a thought which seemingly sears some posters like the heat of a thousand suns.

Yes, we all hate WotC so much that we gave them our money, and are attempting to red-flag possible problem areas for DMs not trained in mathematics. Anyone attempting to run a challenge out of the book is going to run into problems. Those that see the information here know there's an issue and can attempt to work around it. We hate WotC so much we're trying to help people have more fun playing their game...

 

[Spatula]

However, I will say that some of your implications that I have no right to comment without owning the books and that I am somehow a rude and terrible person for being a little skeptical and asking someone to attempt a set of mathematical calculations under different conditions were indeed offensive.

If you're interested in a different experiment, all the tools needed to do so are available in this thread.

The OP's scenario is actually highly favorable in that it assumes each PC has an optimal skill bonus to use vs the average DC. "Unusual" skill uses are automatically at the hardest DC - 25 at 1st level - and may (or may not, confusing text) only be used once. Sure there could be some extra +2's flying around. There can also be -2's (the 'DM's best friend' rule). It's not presented as being necessary to group success.

You can go ahead and assume the party is ultra-optimized with magic items, skill-related utility powers, and skill focus feats, but only the feat is an option at 1st level. And the situation looks very bad for 1st level PCs.

You can assume that 4 group members aid another to let the skill monkey succeed. Aside from this not really working with smaller parties, I'm with Wulf in that that would be a really crappy design. It's boring for those aiding, it's tedious, and it doesn't meet the designers' stated goals for skill challenges - a goal that I very much support.

Anyway, I imagine that WotC will clarify that the +5 DC shouldn't be used for challenges, publish some errata, maybe fix the web enhancement for KotS, and call it good. That'll work for me, but DMs should still be aware of the tipping point with the higher complexity challenges.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Admittedly I haven't read the whole thread, but the OPs calculations are dead on, unfortunately. By the looks of it, Skill Challenges a la 4e are nigh-impossible at first level and too damn easy after 8th, and this has been my experience with low-level play, at least, as well.

Huh, sounds like the same problem 3e combat had, but even worse. I suppose it was too much to ask to not have such a problem rear its ugly head, although it's unfortunate it had to happen to a concept that is actually cool. Sad thing is I've liked everything about 4e so far besides this.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I decided to post this back around page 13, then it became moot around page 16 or so. But heck, after all the time spent reading, I'll post my original thought anyway...

___________________________________________________

ENWorld isn't exactly a D&D backwater. I find it hard to believe that WotC insiders are not aware--or been made aware--of this discussion. Given this, and in light of their failure to put this to rest with a simple explanation, I suspect they are currently in the midst of an "OH S**T!!!" moment...

____________________________________________________

Not gloating mind you. I really want this game to be good, but this--until it's satisfactorily resolved--is a fatal flaw for me.

 

[WheelsOnMeals]

Regarding the tipping point phenomenon where high complexity challenges become "easier" than lower complexity ones, for better or worse I can envision instances where parties would abandon a high complexity skill challenge given enough failures without truly achieving a failure as defined by the maths.

The KotS bonus skill challenge is example of this, where failed checks are met with damage that would be unpalatable to the players. Or they might give up if they feel there's no/little chance for success and want to move on (At risk of stirring up a dead horse, you could even say that Gambler's Fallacy might be at work here in the players' minds).

Granted it's not hard math, but there might be enough probable circumstances like this to at least balance the higher complexity challenges in practice. Of course, none of this addresses the issue of them being too difficult overall.

 

[Spatula]

ENWorld isn't exactly a D&D backwater. I find it hard to believe that WotC insiders are not aware--or been made aware--of this discussion. Given this, and in light of their failure to put this to rest with a simple explanation, I suspect they are currently in the midst of an "OH S**T!!!" moment...

Meh. The rules guys are busy working on new stuff and there's going to be meetings to discuss what happened with the skill challenges, is it really a problem, if we screwed up where did it happen, what should it really be, etc. This started over the weekend so they've only had since yesterday to deal with it, at best.

 

[Morrus]

From the sounds of things, the big problem is that this isn't really explained adequately in the DMG.

Really? You clearly understand it. Are you under the impression that anyone here doesn't? What makes you think it's not "adequately exlpained"?

It seems to me everyone grasped that just fine.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Meh. The rules guys are busy working on new stuff and there's going to be meetings to discuss what happened with the skill challenges, is it really a problem, if we screwed up where did it happen, what should it really be, etc. This started over the weekend so they've only had since yesterday to deal with it, at best.

Meh? Really?

Something this basic and fundamental and, by your characterization, at best they've only become aware of it within the past day after months (at least) of design and playtesting?

At worst, they were aware of it, but (perhaps) hoped no one would notice.

If they have thought this through, designed it, and playtested it, then they shouldn't have to confab over it. They should be able to trot out simple and numerous examples of how it's all supoposed to work. I hope they do. After all, I just plunked down a considerble chunk of hard earned cash on the assumption that I would be getting a quality playable product--and by playable, I mean one not requiring house rules right out of the box in order to play. If they do not have a ready explanation, I'm more than a little peeved, and have every right to be.

So, I stand by my original post.

BTW, if the system doesn't work as published, I hope hey can come up with a good alterantive that doesn't cause a ripple effect requiring changes throughout the system...

 

[Nikosandros]

I had that idea too (that PCs could choose to gamble on an easy check with harsher consequences for failure, or risk a hard check to get extra benefits).

It doesn't seem to be in the Excerpt on skill challenges, so I wonder if it was in Keep on the Shadowfell??

I think that's the way things were described by those that had tried the "Escape from Sembia" scenario.

 

[WyzardWhately]

Meh? Really?

Something this basic and fundamental and, by your characterization, at best they've only become aware of it within the past day after months (at least) of design and playtesting?

At worst, they were aware of it, but (perhaps) hoped no one would notice.

If they have thought this through, designed it, and playtested it, then they shouldn't have to confab over it. They should be able to trot out simple and numerous examples of how it's all supoposed to work. I hope they do. After all, I just plunked down a considerble chunk of hard earned cash on the assumption that I would be getting a quality playable product--and by playable, I mean one not requiring house rules right out of the box in order to play. If they do not have a ready explanation, I'm more than a little peeved, and have every right to be.

So, I stand by my original post.

BTW, if the system doesn't work as published, I hope hey can come up with a good alterantive that doesn't cause a ripple effect requiring changes throughout the system...

This hits the nail on the head for me. I dropped a c-note on a nice, pretty slipcase edition. I damned well better not need to be sticking multiple pages of errata in there with it. I'll take that from an indie company with lower production values and a lower price-point. But considering what they've held themselves out as...this is gettin kinda deep.