Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 dkyle Jun 18, 2009 16:33:42	Conflex is a skill challenge system I've been working on, and have been using in a game I'm DMing. I think I've gotten it to a point where it could be useful to others, and I would be interested in hearing thoughts and opinions from others. The system is build around the notion of conflicts. Basically, a conflict is some force in the world that would cause the characters problems if it's not dealt with -- something that stands in the way of their goals. The players can roll skill checks to handle those conflicts, but the conflicts periodically get a chance to respond. Some major design characteristics: * Each skill check goes against multiple DCs. The higher the DC met, the more progress made * Every skill check has a decent chance of helping at least a little. Someone with the worst skill modifier possible has about a 25% chance of hitting the lowest DC * An individual skill check cannot cause failure of the skill challenge -- it can only fail to help address a conflict as much as it could * There is, at least supposed to be, a significant amount of decision making involved with winning or losing. I've often felt, in other skill challenge systems, that a loss was primarily due to poor die rolls, not bad decision making. Fair warning: the system is significantly more complicated than other skill challenge systems I've used. It uses a worksheet (page 2 of the PDF) which really must be printed out. However, I've been able to run Conflex successfully without explaining much of the mechanics to my players -- I just explain their situation, and some of their options, in in-game terms, and things worked out pretty well. Thanks to Stalker0 and his Obsidian skill challenge system. I've found it useful in my DMing, and continue to use it for things Conflex is not designed to handle. My design goals were heavily influenced by his work. Scribd page: Conflex Skill Challenge System Cross-post at enworld: includes PDF as attachment
#2 dkyle Jun 18, 2009 16:34:21	reserved
#3 Goober4473 Jun 18, 2009 19:58:05	I'm not seeing how this involved mroe decision making and less rolling. It certainly looks viable, but it's still a series of d20 rolls. Is it supposed to be that they get to decide which conflicts they want to tackle? It doesn't seem like they get much of a choice in that, since they apparently roll three checks each, against three different conflicts, where there are generally four to choose from. Not a lot of options there. Also, there is only one skill involved in each conflict, maybe with one or two that have a penalty involved. Not much choice there either. Kind of feels like, "here, roll some dice and see what happens," in that sense. I'd prefer to see more party creativity in how they want to approach a problem, rather than hand them a situation, and tell them the skill to roll (or worse, make them guess every time). For instance, in negotiating with a primal tribe, they may want to try a diplomatic rout, and try to share things in common, try to prove themselves worthy, bully the tribe, etc. In all cases, knowledge would be helpful, and a variety of skills may be useful. They wouldn't be doing all of these at once, since they may be counter-productive. They'd pick one and go for it.
#4 dkyle Jun 18, 2009 23:46:50	I'm not seeing how this involved mroe decision making and less rolling. It certainly looks viable, but it's still a series of d20 rolls. Well, combat is basically a series of d20 rolls, but there is certainly decision making involved. I'm striving for something in the same ballpark as that. Is it supposed to be that they get to decide which conflicts they want to tackle? It doesn't seem like they get much of a choice in that, since they apparently roll three checks each, against three different conflicts, where there are generally four to choose from. Not a lot of options there. I was unclear about this. They get three rolls per segment, each against a conflict of their choice. Once they do so, there is a failure check, which may affect them in some way. Then the process repeats with another segment. I posted on enworld some more clarifications. I'll revise the PDF soon. Also, there is only one skill involved in each conflict, maybe with one or two that have a penalty involved. Not much choice there either. Kind of feels like, "here, roll some dice and see what happens," in that sense. I'd prefer to see more party creativity in how they want to approach a problem, rather than hand them a situation, and tell them the skill to roll (or worse, make them guess every time). I could see viewing the primary skills as a hint, but allow various approaches, as long as they act to handle the problem the conflict represents. For instance, in negotiating with a primal tribe, they may want to try a diplomatic rout, and try to share things in common, try to prove themselves worthy, bully the tribe, etc. In all cases, knowledge would be helpful, and a variety of skills may be useful. They wouldn't be doing all of these at once, since they may be counter-productive. They'd pick one and go for it. I'd counter that diplomacy alone is empty, intimidation alone risks inciting anger, establishing common ground alone is difficult without tact and a reason to stop and listen. In this case, the NPC has certain concerns/behavioral-tendencies, and I intentionally want to force players to handle all of those aspects simultaneously because I don't think single-minded focus on one is realistic.
#5 Goober4473 Jun 19, 2009 4:53:10	I was unclear about this. They get three rolls per segment, each against a conflict of their choice. Once they do so, there is a failure check, which may affect them in some way. Then the process repeats with another segment. That makes a bit more sense. But then it still seems to come down to "which conflict is in the msot danger of failing? Okay, roll a d20 on that one." Well, combat is basically a series of d20 rolls, but there is certainly decision making involved. I'm striving for something in the same ballpark as that. The difference, as I see it, is that in combat, you have tactical movement, a variety of status modifiers, powers that have all kinds of effects, terrain, etc. The tactics involved in combat involves a lot of modifiers, a lot of abilities, physical space, etc. So if this was going to be used very often (i.e. replaces skill challenges entirely, and sees say around half the use as combat), I'd fix Utility powers so all of the can affect these challenges. Drop all combat-based ones and replace them with skill bonuses, and powers that directly affect this system. I like the failure results thing, where you get a bad effect when you fail, but if you could throw some more special abilities in there for the players to use, that would make it a lot more interesting. Letting players choose weather or not to use a power is already adding a lot more decision making. I might also suggest adding in something in the style of "movement" in combat. Not actual physical space, but more of an abstract idea of players being "adjacent to" conflicts, or "flanking" conflicts, or needing to "pass soem difficult terrain" to get to another one. That way, you have a lot more strategy in which ones you want each character working on. The paladin who's been using Diplomacy the whole time may now be in a great position to move on to display some shiny might and impress the locals, but might need to cross some difficult social terrain in order to get over to actually Intimidating the people, as they may think him/her a fake if he moves from being nice to being mean. On the other hand, while the paladin is all shiny, maybe the bard could move in with a few Bluffs, and end up in a great spot to throw out an Intimidate. Obviously, this wouldn't be actual movement, but you could perhaps keep track of it in a similar way, with a grid, minis, etc. if it got too complicated. I would totally use this if Utilities were all about it, and there was a little bit more strategy involved in the order of completion, who's doing what, etc.
#6 dkyle Jun 19, 2009 12:24:05	But then it still seems to come down to "which conflict is in the msot danger of failing? Okay, roll a d20 on that one." This sort of thinking is certainly a problem with DMG skill challenges. I believe it's mitigated in Conflex because "most danger of failing" is not always clear, and complications mean that there are other things to consider. In running it, I've also found it useful for telling a coherent, but sometimes unexpected story. With other skill challenge systems, the storyline tends to be "the players do something, and either something good or something bad happens", rinse and repeat. The world doesn't get to have a mind of it's own, and do anything other than respond to the last thing the players did. So, aside from the strategic quality of a skill challenge, it also needs to act as a storytelling tool for the DM. So far, I've been been pretty happy with that aspect. So if this was going to be used very often (i.e. replaces skill challenges entirely, Conflex isn't designed to replace all DMG skill challenges -- those use an inherently more generic system. But for those it can replace, I believe it's already got better properties. and sees say around half the use as combat), Considering that skill challenges take much less time than combat, they can act as supplement to combat, not replacement. I'm not trying to replace combat, but rather DMG skill challenges. My baseline is DMG skill challenges, not combat. I'd just like to make a system with some of the decision-making involved in combats. I'd fix Utility powers so all of the can affect these challenges. Drop all combat-based ones and replace them with skill bonuses, and powers that directly affect this system. I like the failure results thing, where you get a bad effect when you fail, but if you could throw some more special abilities in there for the players to use, that would make it a lot more interesting. Letting players choose weather or not to use a power is already adding a lot more decision making. I don't know if I'd go as far as replacing all Utility powers, but I could see introducing some sort of special maneuvers -- but for now, I'd like to focus on the core system, make sure it works well. I might also suggest adding in something in the style of "movement" in combat. Not actual physical space, but more of an abstract idea of players being "adjacent to" conflicts, or "flanking" conflicts, or needing to "pass soem difficult terrain" to get to another one. That way, you have a lot more strategy in which ones you want each character working on. The paladin who's been using Diplomacy the whole time may now be in a great position to move on to display some shiny might and impress the locals, but might need to cross some difficult social terrain in order to get over to actually Intimidating the people, as they may think him/her a fake if he moves from being nice to being mean. On the other hand, while the paladin is all shiny, maybe the bard could move in with a few Bluffs, and end up in a great spot to throw out an Intimidate. Obviously, this wouldn't be actual movement, but you could perhaps keep track of it in a similar way, with a grid, minis, etc. if it got too complicated. I had initially wanted to do something like this, but at this point, that would be a whole new system, I think, and probably beyond my abilities as an amateur game designer. I would totally use this if Utilities were all about it, and there was a little bit more strategy involved in the order of completion, who's doing what, etc. Do you use DMG or Obsidian skill challenges?