How do You as Player Like to be Challenged?

[hymer]

One of the oldest pieces of GM advice I've received was to make sure you challenge both the character and the player. Handouts, roleplaying, and tactical decisions are all ways you can achieve this.
So which ways do you, as players, most enjoy being challenged? The more specific your examples, the better. :smallsmile:

To get things started, I'll say that the most enjoyable challenge that springs to mind was planning and executing a series of interrogations of gang members. It was both tactical and roleplaying, and very enjoyable to flex those 'muscles'.

[Kaptin Keen]

I like to be challenged by plot.

If I'm being totally honest, one of the things I enjoy the most is to try and metagame the plot. It's very enjoyable to feel clever enough to figure out the plot (and it has nothing to do with cleverness, and a lot to do with watching too many movies, reading too many books, and playing too many games). It is, however, even more enjoyable to find out I had no clue what was going on.

For the numbers part of the game, I frankly don't care. I'm intimately aware that .... if I min-max my character to do tons of damage, the GM simply has to compensate. So I try instead to be in line with the party.

[tensai_oni]

Honestly? I realized I don't particularly like being challenged. I play to have a good time - to enjoy the plot, to have fun interactions with other player characters and NPCs, or just to smack around bad guys and feel like a badass. A more challenging encounter usually doesn't hurt with that feeling, but if the game turns into tactical minmax chess or navigating complex puzzles or seemingly hopeless situations (extra points if the solution is "so obvious" to the GM - because they came up with it), I'm out.

As the Angry GM said, too many game masters feel it's their duty to make every encounter a life or death struggle and it's not a success unless the player characters just barely make out of it alive. Yet somehow, players seem to enjoy easier encounters just as much if not more. Funny about that.

[FelineArchmage]

As frustrating as it is to think about and deal with in the moment, I love dealing with ethical conundrums or anything that pushes me to make hard decisions/push me to play (or not play) my character's alignment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Honestly? I realized I don't particularly like being challenged. I play to have a good time - to enjoy the plot, to have fun interactions with other player characters and NPCs, or just to smack around bad guys and feel like a badass. A more challenging encounter usually doesn't hurt with that feeling, but if the game turns into tactical minmax chess or navigating complex puzzles or seemingly hopeless situations (extra points if the solution is "so obvious" to the GM - because they came up with it), I'm out.

As the Angry GM said, too many game masters feel it's their duty to make every encounter a life or death struggle and it's not a success unless the player characters just barely make out of it alive. Yet somehow, players seem to enjoy easier encounters just as much if not more. Funny about that.

This is my viewpoint (and that of most of my players, in fact). They've enjoyed fights that were no significant challenge--one said that her high point in the campaign was stun-locking a beholder while they nuked it. It never got an action that combat. It's the flavoring, the associated story, the experience of being together. It's the memories of knocking a fleeing gnome to the ground with a hurled can of soup. Or befriending a giant lizard. Both of those happened in a campaign recently.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Difficult choices.

The old gods had mostly vanished from the world, leaving a few scattered followers here and there. There was an old ruined temple of one of them on top of a dormant volcano. The volcano went active and was set to erupt in a month or so, something that would devastate the region. I got a vision from my god vaguely telling me to go to the temple at the moment of the eruption. At some point as I climbed up it the GM told me in no uncertain terms that the air was full of poisonous gas and I would die if I kept going. I kept going anyway, made it to the temple, and then passed out and died. And the god used that act of faith to mitigate the eruption and save most of the region. It was one of my most vivid roleplaying memories of all time.

[Concrete]

As a player of mostly DnD-derived games, I prefer battles which can result in various degrees of success, where a loss is not necessarily a tpk. I'm not really into the idea of total defeat and total victorybeing the only options

[Quertus]

So, I don't really like the word "challenge" here. In what ways do I like to utilize player skills? Hmmm... Exploration is my favorite "aesthetic". Give me a sandbox game with lots of cool, unique pieces, and let me build something cool. Oh, you have floating rocks? What can I do with that? Why do they float? What can I do with that knowledge?

Beyond that, it's very character dependent. Give Armus difficult moral dilemmas & interesting tactical scenarios. Give Quertus puzzles and arcana. Give most any of my characters NPCs to talk to, opportunities to roleplay.

I'll see if I can come up with any particularly prominent specific examples.

[GrayDeath]

That depends.

If I go into a game for the challenge then I prefer plots and situations that demand my full attention and brain power to decipher, analyze and solve.
I enjoy collecting data, finding what truly is going on, and then applying my characters skills to triumph.

But those games are really rare (the last one I oarticipated inw as...late 2011?).

In "normal" Games I enjoy it most if the plot manages to be "demanding attention" without needing constant or total focus, and most of the real "challenge" is of the so0fter kind (acting socially adept, tactically sound combat etc).

[Psikerlord]

Honestly? I realized I don't particularly like being challenged. I play to have a good time - to enjoy the plot, to have fun interactions with other player characters and NPCs, or just to smack around bad guys and feel like a badass. A more challenging encounter usually doesn't hurt with that feeling, but if the game turns into tactical minmax chess or navigating complex puzzles or seemingly hopeless situations (extra points if the solution is "so obvious" to the GM - because they came up with it), I'm out.

As the Angry GM said, too many game masters feel it's their duty to make every encounter a life or death struggle and it's not a success unless the player characters just barely make out of it alive. Yet somehow, players seem to enjoy easier encounters just as much if not more. Funny about that.

that's very interesting - i am the opposite - i like survival to be hard, or at least risky, often. Easy fights etc are of no interest to me, I'd gladly knock off a few hp and handwave them

[Kaptin Keen]

that's very interesting - i am the opposite - i like survival to be hard, or at least risky, often. Easy fights etc are of no interest to me, I'd gladly knock off a few hp and handwave them

It is interesting.

I've played RPG's for more than 30 years. I have never had a character die, not as a player nor a GM. I make no secret of the fact that I design fights to be winnable. As do the GM's I've played with over the years.

And I wonder. How hard? How many characters have you lost? For your hard fights, what would you say is the average survival rate - for you, personally?

And ... for the purpose of this, PVP or build tests or whatever don't count. How many characters lost in actual games?

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, it's not that I doubt your word. I'm just curious to have an actual metric =)

[Psikerlord]

It is interesting.

I've played RPG's for more than 30 years. I have never had a character die, not as a player nor a GM. I make no secret of the fact that I design fights to be winnable. As do the GM's I've played with over the years.

And I wonder. How hard? How many characters have you lost? For your hard fights, what would you say is the average survival rate - for you, personally?

And ... for the purpose of this, PVP or build tests or whatever don't count. How many characters lost in actual games?

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, it's not that I doubt your word. I'm just curious to have an actual metric =)

oh hmm well over the years, maybe twenty dead PCs of my own? But we've mostly played 2e or later for dnd, and it got less lethal with each edition.

[Kaptin Keen]

oh hmm well over the years, maybe twenty dead PCs of mine? But we've mostly played 2e or later for dnd, and it got less lethal with each edition.

But that's not a percentage. 20 out of how many? =)

[Psikerlord]

But that's not a percentage. 20 out of how many? =)

oh geez hmmm I dunno. LOTS. I like something like 1 in 3 to die. But since 5e, we havent had any deaths (well, we had 1, but not my pc)

[Kaptin Keen]

oh geez hmmm I dunno. LOTS. I like something like 1 in 3 to die. But since 5e, we havent had any deaths (well, we had 1, but not my pc)

Well - 30% is still substantially up from my 0%.

I'm interested for a variety of reasons. One thing I feel is important in a GM is that he doesn't make encounters unwinnable. Using myself as an example, I'm quite good at all the fluff and description and plot and so on - all the word stuff - and quite awful at all the mechanics, numbers and crunch.

I combat, if I misjudge, I might very well CC lock the party to death. It doesn't help matters that, because of that same weakness of mine, I play with smaller parties, 3-4 players at most. So part of the reason hardly anyone dies in my games is because I don't want anyone to die because I miscalculated their chances of survival.

If I get it wrong, I might inadvertedly TPK - where a GM sharper on the numbers can be much more 'knife's edge' in his balance, and still be fine.

[Spore]

1) Combat is only satisfying if there is the possibility to loose. And not in the "if you all fumble thrice you might be in trouble" kinda way. It does not have to end in a character's death but it can. Capture, loss of possessions (robbery) or worse chances at the upcoming challenges (less time, more enemies etc.) can all be consequences.

Combat with consequences.

2) Puzzles are incredible as a single player experience. But in a group they are terrible. Either you have no clue or you are the puzzle master usually. There is no cooperative element in this. Mystery solving on the other hand is fine (Whodunit or other investigative jobs) because every character can ideally contribute. The barbarian can push away a boulder. The rogue can open a suitcase to check the inside. The wizard can divine up magic auras, the cleric can ask the dead what they witnessed. The substance abusing druid with the shaggy beard and the awakened Great Dane animal companion can stir up a trap for the monster.

Mysteries with all of the group involving.

3) Roleplaying challenges. How do you learn where the secret base of the villains is? How do you interrogate the evil hench woman what her master has planned. How to convince the dwarven merchant to sell or give this vitally important McGuffin to you? Give the heroes creative freedom but allow for multiple solutions to the problem. The thief wants to rob the place to get what the group needs? No problem. the Paladin needs to convince the local guard the merchant is hiding a dangerous evil artifact, and thus confiscates it? Okay.

Problems that can only be solved by non-combat usage of your characters.

[Lorsa]

If I get it wrong, I might inadvertedly TPK - where a GM sharper on the numbers can be much more 'knife's edge' in his balance, and still be fine.

It's still difficult. Being on the 'knife's edge' means that statistical fluctuations become more important. Good/bad rolls can determine the outcome (given that both sides uses optimal tactics). That's not necessarily wrong, just saying that if your goal is to avoid PCs dying, you can't really design encounters to be really really difficult.

Then there is also the Jay R design philosophy, which I also try to follow. Basically, design encounters in such a way that they seem really hard to the players. That way, they'll be really excited when they beat them.

[Max_Killjoy]

Depends on what you mean by "challenge".

If you mean "situations that need to be solved", then I like mysteries that need to be solved, answers that need to be discovered, and enemies that need to be thwarted.

If like one GM I've had, you mean "it should be a constant struggle of risk, uncertainty, and looming failure, with setbacks and sufferings for even minor slipups" (while you don't give critical bits of information because to you they're "obvious", or we "didn't ask" even when it was right there in the room with our characters in plain sight), then no, I'm not interested in "being challenged" at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then there is also the Jay R design philosophy, which I also try to follow. Basically, design encounters in such a way that they seem really hard to the players. That way, they'll be really excited when they beat them.

I use this a bit, with the knowledge that difficulty is very perception-based. I've had people nearly panic at things that, objectively, were no significant threat.

For my players in particular, getting to single-digits health is a big threat. Getting knocked to 0 is a "I nearly died" event. I don't see the commonly-reported "oh well, I'll be fine, just give me a point of healing and put me back on my feet" attitude at all. They're prioritizing healing/defensive actions at about half health, no matter how "unoptimal" that is.

So difficulty is mostly in the beholder's eye (which eye? probably the disintegration one).

[Red Fel]

If I know the game, or the encounter, can be won - that is, that there's the possibility of a good ending - and that I don't need to know the specific secret code to achieve it, I'm good with whatever, long as it's fun. Light challenge, heavy challenge. Diplomacy dancing, combat hacking, skill checks, puzzles.

If I know that there's a positive outcome on the other side, and that I can reach it with the tools available and without having to purchase the strategy guide, I'm good with pretty much any level of challenge, as long as we're all having fun.

I've been through dungeon crawls where half the party is dead and the other half is barely clinging to life by the end. I've been through "tests of character" that basically boiled down to what the DM learned once in a philosophy class, with all the depth and opacity of cellophane. I've been in campaigns where the characters were literally given godlike powers, and just told to fight off one massive invasion after another. As long as it's fun, and at least theoretically winnable, I'm there.

[Mikemical]

I like challenges that are tough but fair. An encounter should be possible for our characters to resolve, even if that means they must think outside the box.

I had the displeasure of playing with a DM who would basically read through the party's character sheets to make sure every encounter he could counter EVERYTHING we had. Our Rogue was level 6? Guess how many Rogue/Barbarian levels the other guys had. Fighter has the Power Attack + Charge combo for mass destruction? The Rogue/Barbarians also fly. Wizard prepared fireball this morning? Those guys had amulets of lesser protection against fire. It didn't help that every time an enemy died, all their belongings would go up in flame, so the only loot was whatever gold they were carrying. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I made it through four sessions before walking out of that guy's game, and the other players followed shortly after.

[JAL_1138]

Bit of a tangent (since of course encounters can be difficult without being hyper-lethal). These days I think meatgrinder-lethality and the enjoyableness thereof is partly dependent on ruleset, largely dependent on game style/tone.

AD&D Tomb of Horrors is fun because it's either a one-shot (wherein I don't have any attachment to the character) or something played at the end of a character's career when they're getting close to retirement anyway, so if they survive, it's awesome, and if they die, well that's Gygax for ya, at least it was funny.

Low-level meatgrinders can be fun in systems where character creation is super-easy and super-fast, and I know to bring a stack of sheets (and better if I'm not going to be sitting out the entire rest of the session if my character goes splat.) I've done that enough back when I played AD&D2e that it's gotten a bit old, though--we eventually began starting higher than 1st level and introduced some mercy-rules. These days, I'd rather not lose yet another 1st-level wizard to a housecat. (Although it was pretty funny when I had a 1st-level 5e cleric tried to read a book and exploded.) In a system where character creation is a long process of difficult choices and a myriad of options, it's less enjoyable, if just due to the sheer annoyance of making a replacement.

If resurrection is easy enough that character death is basically a slap on the wrist, like in high-level D&D play, then it doesn't much matter. Cue the "Oh my God, they killed Kenny the bard!" jokes.

In a character-driven, story-focused game in a system where character creation is difficult/time-consuming, resurrection isn't easy or even impossible, a character dying means a lot of story and interactions get lost, plot threads are shot to pieces, and combat is hyper-lethal, that's not much fun. That leads to avoiding risk like the plague.

In a character-driven, story-focused game in a system where death is a possible, but not especially likely, outcome unless the dice are just determined to murder you, or it's a major climactic battle, or you've just made horrible tactical/strategic decisions, that's generally fun too. There's enough risk to actually get some thrill-of-danger out of it and take those risks seriously, but not so much that it's miserable.

Although outright death, especially if a replacement is coming in at around the same level, is often preferable to getting maimed in a way that impacts the character's schtick. For example, if I've built a character around using two-handed weapons, it wouldn't be much fun if the character lost an arm and couldn't get it back, because there goes the character concept and a bunch of wasted build options...but I'm expected to keep playing the character. And for less severe wounds that will heal over time, the practical result is often either having less fun during gameplay until it's healed up, or saying hang the plot and going off somewhere to wait it out.

Basically the higher the level of investment in the character's continued survival and difficulty of replacement/resurrection/healing, the less enjoyable hyper-lethality is.

But on the other hand, cakewalk after cakewalk would get boring in a hurry, and I don't know if I'd be keen on a game where my character would be guaranteed to live, like with the "Heroes Never Die" optional rule in Savage Worlds, for example (granted, you can lose without outright dying--Planescape Torment being a crowning example of that, and of course you can get captured, lose gear/gold, or fail to achieve an objective in any game). I need to have some chance to lose in order for it to feel meaningful if I win. Not necessarily for every single encounter--that can get old in a hurry too--but in the broader campaign sense.

[kyoryu]

And I wonder. How hard? How many characters have you lost? For your hard fights, what would you say is the average survival rate - for you, personally?

What I find interesting here is the assumption that losing a fight has to equal character death.


It's still difficult. Being on the 'knife's edge' means that statistical fluctuations become more important. Good/bad rolls can determine the outcome (given that both sides uses optimal tactics). That's not necessarily wrong, just saying that if your goal is to avoid PCs dying, you can't really design encounters to be really really difficult.

I consider one of the flaws of the "GM hands out the encounters, players are basically expected to win them all" the fact that the GM has to balance the fact that the players are basically winning everything with the desire to make fights seem tense. After a while, most players figure out that they aren't really going to lose, and there goes your tension and excitement.


Then there is also the Jay R design philosophy, which I also try to follow. Basically, design encounters in such a way that they seem really hard to the players. That way, they'll be really excited when they beat them.

I prefer fights that the players can actually lose, but where losing doesn't necessarily mean TPK, myself.

[Max_Killjoy]

What I find interesting here is the assumption that losing a fight has to equal character death.

I consider one of the flaws of the "GM hands out the encounters, players are basically expected to win them all" the fact that the GM has to balance the fact that the players are basically winning everything with the desire to make fights seem tense. After a while, most players figure out that they aren't really going to lose, and there goes your tension and excitement.

I prefer fights that the players can actually lose, but where losing doesn't necessarily mean TPK, myself.


This can be as simple as giving the enemies goals other than "kill the entire party". Enemy wants to assassinate an NPC, loss means NPC is wounded or killed. Enemy wants to escape, loss means that the enemy gets away. Enemy wants to steal something, loss means they make off with it. Enemy wants to capture the party, loss means capture. Etc, so on, and so forth.


(Perhaps the "losing a fight = TPK" comes from the dungeon-crawling assumptions.)

[kyoryu]

This can be as simple as giving the enemies goals other than "kill the entire party". Enemy wants to assassinate an NPC, loss means NPC is wounded or killed. Enemy wants to escape, loss means that the enemy gets away. Enemy wants to steal something, loss means they make off with it. Enemy wants to capture the party, loss means capture. Etc, so on, and so forth.

Exactly. Story stakes.

Or, to put it even simpler: Fighting could result in death. What is the thing that is so important (to each side) that they're willing to potentially die for it?

Movie script-focused, but still useful: https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-you-should-never-write-action-scenes-into-your-tent-511712234


(Perhaps the "losing a fight = TPK" comes from the dungeon-crawling assumptions.)

Maybe? I don't think so, though, as running away was always a thing in dungeons! I mean, sure, TPKs could (and did!) happen, but there wasn't an assumption that you fought every fight til the death.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I like most kinds of challenge to varying degrees.

My favorites are cloak-and-dagger style "find the answers and get them to the right people" types for more long-term goals (sometimes that answer is a dagger in someone's back, literal or figurative) and tactically rich skirmishes for the short-term.

I'm up for anything if the GM can find that Goldilocks zone between trivial and nigh-impossible though.

On a related note, I'd be -much- angrier at a GM for saving my character from failure/death by fudging results than I would for my character's spectacular failure/ death to occur by an unfortunate roll of the dice. Victory without risk is a bland, tepid thing in which I'm not really particularly interested.

[Samzat]

My favorite challenge is finding clever alternate ways of doing things. For example, I was in a sci-fi one-shot on a spaceship hijacked by an anti-technology terrorist group. They had the hangar closed down with dozens of troops. The DM expected us to try to find another way, which would have made up the bulk of the adventure, however we had different plans. My group and I hacked the intercom, and claimed that we were in the process of dumping nanobots in the ventillation, sending them panickedly running towards the ventilation and filtration systems, allowing us to escape and accidentally skip most of the adventure. It was fun to discuss and debate with my party the best trick to clear the hangar was.

[Telok]

I'm in a game currently (pazio starfinder specifically) that's a bit weird and mostly pretty dull.

The system (it's fairly typical d20) is set up with assumptions and rules that put a PC's hyper-focused on abilities in about a 5 point range at any particular level, abilities a PC hasn't highly specialized will be at half or -5 from the low end of that range. This makes PC numbers pretty predictable at any given level, which is fine.

The NPCs are built using different assumptions from PCs. Notably they have noticably higher overall numbers in attacks, saves, damage, and their expert skills. They have (usually, supposedly) lower numbers are in AC, HP, and the effective non-existance of non-expert skills. So PCs survive more damage but NPCs hit more, save more, and have almost completely binary skill check results based on if they have a skill or not.

The adventure path we're playing, and perhaps the system overall, seems to assume a very finely tuned set of appropriate challenges within one level of the PCs using about the same number of opponents as the PCs. Which becomes a problem when it deviates from either of those two points. Solo monsters (or effectively solo due to under performing minions) have to be 2 to 4 levels higher than the party, but that means they have attack bonuses within 5 points of the party's average AC, do about x2 or x3 damage of a dedicated combat PC, and save 80% of the time. Which means it's going to down several and possibly some PCs. If the solo monster is within one level of the party the action economy pretty much slaughters it.

You can't really throw lower level mobs of stuff at the players either because the NPCs still have high enough attacks to be relevant and now the NPCs have the action economy on their side too.

As for plot/puzzle challenges... well it's an ap, you pretty much know you have to ride the train (especially with newer DMs) or things fall apart. But the skill DCs are weird. Because of the strong emphasis on specialization and having to compete with NPCs in some events DCs that challenge experts are impossible for others. Like at level 8 a highly specialized skill can be about +17 for a PC, +21 for a NPC, and the DCs for things you're supposed to be able to fail seem to start at 29 and increase from there. Of course the plot critical stuff has to be accessable to non-specialized PCs so they run 15 to 17.

So it's weird. Skills are either yes, no, or roll 13+. Combat is pretty much predicated on how many enemies you face. If it's one then they pretty much autohit for lots of damage so you just try to throw out as much damage as possible while not being targeted. If it's a roughly equal number then you focus fire while trying to switch out which PCs are getting hit in order to spread damage. If it's a bunch then you either bust out area effect damage, soak damage for the people who can do area damage, or run away.

While all the fights end up being narrow wins there's no actual choices to make. It's all damage because control and buff/debuff abilities have been neutered. So you just roll attacks and occasionally switch positions.

I guess the characters are being challenged numerically, but as a player it's pretty dull. If we had a good, experienced DM then we would go in for zaney antics or out of the box thinking. But with inexperienced DMs trying to follow an adventure book... well we broke one DM already with nothing more than basic invisibility and levitation so we're trying to go easy on the replacement.

[AuthorGirl]

I quite enjoy how a friend of mine uses character arcs and "plot powers" in his games.

Character arcs: in addition to the main objective of the campaign, there's a very important objective for each character. That character gets a lot of "spotlight time" during their arc, forcing the player to roleplay and develop their character a lot. Meanwhile, the other characters are still very involved in the game (more so than I think I'm adequately describing here). At the end of each arc, the character gets a plot power.

Plot powers: special abilities or items made specifically for each character, unlocked as the campaign progresses. They add a nice sense of progress and "rewards" to the character arc system.

TL;DR: I like being challenged to roleplay and take part in a story.

[tensai_oni]

But on the other hand, cakewalk after cakewalk would get boring in a hurry, and I don't know if I'd be keen on a game where my character would be guaranteed to live, like with the "Heroes Never Die" optional rule in Savage Worlds, for example (granted, you can lose without outright dying--Planescape Torment being a crowning example of that, and of course you can get captured, lose gear/gold, or fail to achieve an objective in any game). I need to have some chance to lose in order for it to feel meaningful if I win. Not necessarily for every single encounter--that can get old in a hurry too--but in the broader campaign sense.

You got an assumption here that the only way to lose an encounter is for a character to die. There are other loss states in combat (unless your GM is very unimaginative), and not every encounter is a fight to begin with. You could say that combat isn't an encounter at all (and yes, I'm referencing the angry gm again), it's a way to resolve an encounter because one or more parties involved decided the best way to reach resolution is to beat the others into a pulp.

Anyway, I was both on the giving and receiving end of encounters where the players' victory wasn't technically a guarantee, but the encounter was easy enough that it might as well have been. Didn't stop things from being fun and exciting.

[Psikerlord]

Well - 30% is still substantially up from my 0%.

I'm interested for a variety of reasons. One thing I feel is important in a GM is that he doesn't make encounters unwinnable. Using myself as an example, I'm quite good at all the fluff and description and plot and so on - all the word stuff - and quite awful at all the mechanics, numbers and crunch.

I combat, if I misjudge, I might very well CC lock the party to death. It doesn't help matters that, because of that same weakness of mine, I play with smaller parties, 3-4 players at most. So part of the reason hardly anyone dies in my games is because I don't want anyone to die because I miscalculated their chances of survival.

If I get it wrong, I might inadvertedly TPK - where a GM sharper on the numbers can be much more 'knife's edge' in his balance, and still be fine.
I think unwinnable encounters are essential - but I also think you need a formal party retreat rule to allow PCs to escape if they get in over their heads. OD&D had such a mechanic, for example. Something likely to succeed, most of the time, possibly with some kind of cost attached.

[Psikerlord]

For my players in particular, getting to single-digits health is a big threat. Getting knocked to 0 is a "I nearly died" event. I don't see the commonly-reported "oh well, I'll be fine, just give me a point of healing and put me back on my feet" attitude at all. They're prioritizing healing/defensive actions at about half health, no matter how "unoptimal" that is.


You might be right. Ime though that is all I have seen, since the start of 5e. If you understand how the 3 death saves and healing word works, there's very rarely any genuine danger. Which is a big problem for me.

[Psikerlord]

Exactly. Story stakes.

..... as running away was always a thing in dungeons! I mean, sure, TPKs could (and did!) happen, but there wasn't an assumption that you fought every fight til the death.

Story stakes are fine, but more important is a clear mechanic that allows escape imo. One that 5e lacks. It's a massive oversight for those who want to run a game without being shackled to "balanced encounters"

[kyoryu]

Story stakes are fine, but more important is a clear mechanic that allows escape imo. One that 5e lacks. It's a massive oversight for those who want to run a game without being shackled to "balanced encounters"

Both are vital.

Without story stakes, there's nothing to risk in combat, and so the options become "we win or nothing happens". Which is dull.

Without a way to escape combat, then there's no choice but "fight to the death!" (Well, a good GM would probably allow disengagement, but a clear retreat mechanic sends a clear message that retreat is normal).

[Rynjin]

I like it when there's some kind of narrative to the challenge. Not necessarily a plot, but a narrative to the actual actions happening. Something that when it's all done I can point back to that moment and say "that was like a scene from a book".

One of my favorite sessions ever in a Pathfinder game I'm playing involved my character and one other dying to an overtuned encounter. Normally I'd find this very frustrating: there were too many enemies involved for our three man party, all of whom were a legitimate challenge in themselves, plus a super monster that was a potentially rough fight even without being outnumbered by adds two to one on top of that.

In most other sessions I would have actually gotten kinda peeved and brought it up to the GM, but the way the session played out, like the last acts of a horror movie as first my character was dropped, then revived by a friendly NPC, as a friend's character was cut down after coming SO CLOSE to defeating the super-zombie in single combat, as the remaining two of us fled from combat, the party Witch dropping a Web spell behind him to stop pursuit, not realizing IC that anybody was still alive back there (the NPC had gone invisible at the start of combat and had never been visible in LOS of the Witch, and I had been knocked unconscious and was bleeding to death right before he fled). Getting trapped in the web as I tried to squeeze through, telling the NPC (who we'd all HATED IC and OOC before she saved my life) to flee and save herself mere seconds before the zombie slowly stomps its way up to me and beheads my character, to the final "shot" of the tomb doors being successfully sealed behind us, leaving two PCs corpses and a horrible monstrosity (plus a horde of shadow creatures) trapped inside for ever.

THAT is how I like to be challenged, in general. A tense fight, a little out of our depth but with luck we could have succeeded, and a desperate struggle to survive that was ultimately a failure.

Compare/contrast a 5e game I played that seemed to have two gears: steamroll and faceplant, because the GM was new and didn't quite know how to tune encounters, and it became a constant occurrence for my Barbarian to be surrounded and cut off from help, only to be inevitably overwhelmed, knocked unconscious, and mutilated because the GM had decided to implement optional rules for permanent injuries. The narrative of "desperate last stand" works once, not every other session.

Or in the case of a PF Gm who was running Way of the Wicked, and whose idea of making combats harder was to make them frustratingly tedious. Blink Dog Sorcerers in a maze that pp through walls, cast a spell, then leave, leaving our only options for fighting to be "Ready an action to do a thing" and waiting...waiting...waiting for an opening. Tactical combat is all well and good when it's rare (a previous combat involving enemies attacking from the mist and fading out had been cool), but not when overused so every session is one excruciatingly long combat sequence.

A bit nebulous, true. Its hard to manufacture those moments, but I think the key difference between the scenarios is the GM taking time to manage player engagement with NPCs and vague plot threads while the players simultaneously try to forge bonds within their PC groups.

TL;DR: I only like to be challenged if the challenge produces a cool story I can tell afterward. If it's just challenge for the sake of "It's gotta be hard because the PCs are strong", then it's whatever. Let me stomp some **** a lot of the time and I'll be quite content over "losing" combats like that.

[JAL_1138]

You got an assumption here that the only way to lose an encounter is for a character to die. There are other loss states in combat (unless your GM is very unimaginative), and not every encounter is a fight to begin with. You could say that combat isn't an encounter at all (and yes, I'm referencing the angry gm again), it's a way to resolve an encounter because one or more parties involved decided the best way to reach resolution is to beat the others into a pulp.

Anyway, I was both on the giving and receiving end of encounters where the players' victory wasn't technically a guarantee, but the encounter was easy enough that it might as well have been. Didn't stop things from being fun and exciting.

I did acknowledge you can lose without dying, in the parenthetical-- "(granted, you can lose without outright dying--Planescape Torment being a crowning example of that, and of course you can get captured, lose gear/gold, or fail to achieve an objective in any game)." Of course you can get thrown in jail, or all your stuff stolen, or be put in a place where it's going to take time an effort to get back to where you were, or fail to (for example) prevent the bandits from dynamiting the vault door and robbing the bank, etc., etc., so on and so forth. I never said otherwise.

I was going off on a tangent about the level of combat/exploration lethality, which does relate to the broader question of challenge but doesn't by any means encapsulate all of it. Social encounters can be challenging. Resource management can be challenging. Exploration can be challenging. Dear gods, puzzles can be brain-meltingly challenging. Decisions between various options (e.g., save the fort or save the town, etc., there's a billion different ones) can be challenging. Combat that isn't likely to result in character death can be challenging in other ways (e.g., time, finding a weakness, minimizing collateral damage, not getting caught, etc.).

Just a tangent on one specific sub-type of challenge. Apologies for the lack of clarity; I'm posting from a phone and it's a bit difficult to organize/refine my rambly thoughts.

[Psikerlord]

Both are vital.

Without story stakes, there's nothing to risk in combat, and so the options become "we win or nothing happens". Which is dull.


Well, you can TPK... but I take your point, both is best

[Quertus]

It is interesting.

I've played RPG's for more than 30 years. I have never had a character die, not as a player nor a GM. I make no secret of the fact that I design fights to be winnable. As do the GM's I've played with over the years.

How many characters lost in actual games?

If I may add to this...

I have played games where it's normal for at least one character to die per session. It's often a Darwinian "learn to optimize, or it may be you" experience. Sometimes, it's a "learn to play more carefully" experience. Sometimes, it's a "learn how the system / setting works" experience. In such scenarios, I've lost a lot of characters until I learned. Some players never learned, and continued dying frequently. Sometimes, I'm the one who never learns (in, say Warhammer).

In 3e, about 10-20% of my characters suffered final death. In case that statistic from one random Playgrounder matters to you.

Now, I'm curious about what you mean by your play style. The notion where "solvable -> no deaths ever" seems odd to me. I mean, most every character I've had who died, the party still full-well solved the encounter. Otoh, there were numerous encounters where all the characters lived, where the party did not solve the encounter. So, can you explain why you correlate a 100% survival record with solvable encounters?


2) Puzzles are incredible as a single player experience. But in a group they are terrible. Either you have no clue or you are the puzzle master usually. There is no cooperative element in this. Mystery solving on the other hand is fine (Whodunit or other investigative jobs) because every character can ideally contribute. The barbarian can push away a boulder. The rogue can open a suitcase to check the inside. The wizard can divine up magic auras, the cleric can ask the dead what they witnessed.

You know, most people claim that Speak with Dead makes murder mysteries as outdated as Teleport makes overland travel. I'd love to hear about your experiences where it was a boon!

Riddles, while everyone technically hears the riddle, and most can think about it (unless someone, say, recognizes the riddle and gives the answer before the riddle is even finished), really, only one person gets to participate in the answer. But a proper puzzle? That, the whole party can participate in solving, in both the planning and execution phases.


In a character-driven, story-focused game in a system where character creation is difficult/time-consuming, resurrection isn't easy or even impossible, a character dying means a lot of story and interactions get lost, plot threads are shot to pieces, and combat is hyper-lethal, that's not much fun. That leads to avoiding risk like the plague.

A lot of good stuff, I just want to expand on this. Lethality is not identical to challenge - it's possible for everyone to survive, but you still lose. But, yeah, there are many factors which tie into what level of lethality is fun. You've touched on many, including (especially!) ease of character creation, ease of adding in the replacement, amount of connection to the game lost, etc. I'd like to add one more. The problem is, I'm not completely sure how to define it.

I can define part of its opposite: the extent to which the character is a playing piece. But there's more here. It's the difference between a backstory and time actually played. It's that quality of the character that improves with play, that picture that gets painted. The more I want that, the less I want to have to go through more characters, and the more I'm likely to create highly survivable builds.


Victory without risk is a bland, tepid thing in which I'm not really particularly interested.

Hear, hear!

Although, would you accept risk of failure that isn't necessarily risk of death?

[denthor]

challenges I like to be able to find solid clues lead me from A to B to Connect all dots.

If there is a choice to be made make both sides equally able to lose

The DM I play with always says this may not be the correct path but never gives the correct path a choice We need to make very bad choices with no way of having any clue if it is a main or just thrown out there then we are told we were completely wrong with our plan of action.

If your players do by some mystery get it right allow to be right

[Reversefigure4]

But on the other hand, cakewalk after cakewalk would get boring in a hurry, and I don't know if I'd be keen on a game where my character would be guaranteed to live, like with the "Heroes Never Die" optional rule in Savage Worlds, for example (granted, you can lose without outright dying...

We played a full, 53 session campaign, over a year of real time, of exactly Savage Worlds with the Heroes Never Die optional rule on. It was a Pulp Action game about going Around The World in 80 Days, with our Heroes up against the villainous Phileas Fogg, who had personally wronged them in some way or another. We also applied Villains Never Die (the same rule, more or less). We did it for two reasons, 1) being genre emulation, since Indiana Jones and co don't die, and 2) being a desire to see an epic campaign climax with the same starting Heroes vs Fogg in the Ultimate Showdown. It was an absolute guarantee that Fogg couldn't be killed before the climax, nor could our heroes.

And yet, fights and conflicts were tense. There were always stakes on the table, ranging from the minor (you lose a few hours worth of investigation time as you find another way around the crocodiles) to hair-raising (if you don't save this NPC during this combat, they'll be sacrificed), to the extreme (if you don't stop Fogg in the next 3 rounds, the majority of the people on the planet will die). The players never stopped being interested in the outcome of fights.

However, this doesn't work overly well with attrition based fights (the somewhat-basis for the DnD model of the 'adventuring day'). We skipped over completely trivial encounters with no stakes, hand-waving them as a non-obstacle ("You make your way past the dinosaurs, driving the herd off with your guns"), or minor stakes resolved as simple challenges rather than full-blown fights ("Everybody make me a Fighting roll. Anyone who fails picks up a level of Fatigue. You're now past the piranhas after a brief struggle").

[JoeJ]

Story stakes are fine, but more important is a clear mechanic that allows escape imo. One that 5e lacks. It's a massive oversight for those who want to run a game without being shackled to "balanced encounters"

Why do you consider 5e to lack that? One of the main applications of the chase rules is when one side is trying to flee combat.

[Blackjackg]

As a player I'm open to a pretty wide range of challenges and I try to supply a variety when I GM, but for me challenges in general are a secondary consideration in tabletop RPGs. I mean, when I want a game of tactical optimization and snatching narrow victories from the jaws of defeat, I've got board games and video games for that. When I play a roleplaying game, I'm a lot more interested in the way that characters shape each other and the world, and how they are shaped by it.

Commensurately, the "challenges" I find most interesting are character-based-- ones where characters have to choose between equally attractive options, or push themselves outside of their comfortable niches. Other challenges can be fun too, but for the most part I think they're best when they reward creative thinking without requiring it (because what is more frustrating as a player than getting stuck on a puzzle or losing a key battle because you can't figure out the solution that the DM had imagined?).

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a player I'm open to a pretty wide range of challenges and I try to supply a variety when I GM, but for me challenges in general are a secondary consideration in tabletop RPGs. I mean, when I want a game of tactical optimization and snatching narrow victories from the jaws of defeat, I've got board games and video games for that. When I play a roleplaying game, I'm a lot more interested in the way that characters shape each other and the world, and how they are shaped by it.

Commensurately, the "challenges" I find most interesting are character-based-- ones where characters have to choose between equally attractive options, or push themselves outside of their comfortable niches. Other challenges can be fun too, but for the most part I think they're best when they reward creative thinking without requiring it (because what is more frustrating as a player than getting stuck on a puzzle or losing a key battle because you can't figure out the solution that the DM had imagined?).

I strongly agree with this whole post. Especially the bold part. As a DM, I worldbuild and love to see how the players change my world. What they do with the pieces I've given them (or that they've built). As a player, I want my character to have the ability to change things. To interact with things. To be changed by things. That is the "challenge"--how is ________ going to react to this situation (whatever it might be)? How will he change because of it? How will he change the situation?

[Lorsa]

I think this thread has the potential to be quite interesting, and it's a shame if we miss this opportunity to discuss the best types of challenges, or what constitutes a challenge.

Unfortunately, as it is phrased as a simple "give your view" thread, it won't spawn much discussion. It's always better to take a position and argue for it, as then people will natural argue against you and a discussion will occur!

Anyway, I don't get to play much but when I do I like my roleplaying skills to be challenged. That is, I like to try and portray a role as good as possible, in as many different situations as possible.

Other than that, I like challenges with no obvious "best solution". Basically, making decisions that are hard. This is why I don't much care for min-maxing for example, which isn't intrinsically hard, just a lot of number-crunching. Anything where the solution can easily be found with a simple use of algorithm optimizing isn't that interesting to me. As a player in a RPG that is.

So, I like to be presented with situations or problems with no obvious, or best, solution. This way, the approach I choose will shape the future of the game more than simply going with the "obvious choice".

[Telok]

I'm of the opinion that challenging the characters mechanically is pointless unless it can be used to challenge the players.

I regret that I cannot provide a positive example off the top of my head. As a negative example I can point to Pazio's Starfinder system and APs. They pretty much have their system math spot on for the game style they are trying to enforce, rolls less than 11 generally always fail, rolls over 15 usually succeed, in between is iffy. However there are very very few methods avaliable (outside of DM improv, which can be limited to nonexistant in an AP) to modify your bonuses to the rolls. So there's not much point in doing anything but rolling the die and taking the success/failure result.

With nothing to do as a player to increase my chances of success as a character there are few choices for me to make and I am not challenged. Because the dice rolls are more important to the events in the game than my character choices the character becomes unimportant and uninteresting. Without the option of out-of-the-box or zaney and wild actions (to avoid breaking the inexperienced DM or the AP) I'm constrained to using printed actions and abilities, which comes back to just rolling dice.

So in my circumstances it doesn't matter that the game is balanced or the characters are challenged. I can't significantly affect the outcomes of events through my actions as a player, so I can't be challenged because my choices don't really matter.

[Psikerlord]

Why do you consider 5e to lack that? One of the main applications of the chase rules is when one side is trying to flee combat.

The chase rules indicate if the monsters catch up to you the chase ends. That means any monster with equal or better speed will catch the PCs the same round they run away (assuming everyone dashes - except I guess rogue/monk if they use their extra speed options, but that's no solution for the rest of the party). So, the chase rules wont allow escape most times the party are already in melee (there are few monsters with speed slower than the PCs), barring some kind of escape magic (and if you have escape magic, web a corridor, or teleport, or super speed or whatever - you would probably just handwave the escape as automatic, taking into account the resource cost). If it is a ranged battle, before the monsters are too close, it might be a different story (perhaps, again, comparing speeds).

[JoeJ]

The chase rules indicate if the monsters catch up to you the chase ends. That means any monster with equal or better speed will catch the PCs the same round they run away (assuming everyone dashes - except I guess rogue/monk if they use their extra speed options, but that's hardly no solution for the rest of the party). So, the chase rules wont allow escape most times the party are already in melee (there are few monsters with speed slower than the PCs), barring some kind of escape magic. If it is a ranged battle, before the monsters are too close, it might be a different story (perhaps, again, comparing speeds).

You missed the part where every participant in a chase has to roll for complications every round, and they can also use their action to create additional complications. It is absolutely not certain that the faster party will win the chase.

[Psikerlord]

You missed the part where every participant in a chase has to roll for complications every round, and they can also use their action to create additional complications. It is absolutely not certain that the faster party will win the chase.
No I didnt miss those, they only come into play at the end of your turn, and affects you, not your opponent. So in the first round, the PC will be caught if the same or slower than the monster. Unless they use web or something to create their own complication, which I already referred to.

[JoeJ]

No I didnt miss those, they only come into play at the end of your turn, and affects you, not your opponent. So in the first round, the PC will be caught if the same or slower than the monster. Unless they use web or something to create their own complication, which I already referred to.

That's incorrect. The complication you roll affects the next participant after you in initiative order.

[Psikerlord]

That's incorrect. The complication you roll affects the next participant after you in initiative order.

OMG you're right! Hmmm. Well that does change things some. Hmm still, 50% chance no complication, and even if there is one (assuming you can shoehorn something into the immediate situation), I'm guessing many of them wont make much difference (particularly DC 10 stuff or stuff like a sudden monster appearing and getting an OA, which is the majority of the wilderness table). Still, the GM could make their own table to help address that, I guess.

In any event, thanks for the correction, I totally missed that. Kinda weird though. So the PC for exmaple runs off no effect, but then suddenly the ground is slippery for the chaser, etc.

[Drakevarg]

Putting together a puzzle. Specifically, one of my favorite things to do in a game is to be dropped in the middle of a situation with incomplete or nonexistent intel and have to put together what's going on and what to do about it. For this reason my favorite thing to be in a sci-fi game is a salvage specialist - hard to beat the feeling of exploring the groaning wreck of a derelict craft and piecing together how it got that way.

[JoeJ]

OMG you're right! Hmmm. Well that does change things some. Hmm still, 50% chance no complication, and even if there is one (assuming you can shoehorn something into the immediate situation), I'm guessing many of them wont make much difference (particularly DC 10 stuff or stuff like a sudden monster appearing and getting an OA, which is the majority of the wilderness table). Still, the GM could make their own table to help address that, I guess.

Yeah, it certainly isn't a sure thing. It shouldn't be, though, if the same mechanic is going to be used regardless of whether the PCs are the chasers or the chasees. They're much more likely to get away if they realize at the beginning of the encounter that they're overmatched and flee immediately. And the odds of escape do go up if somebody is willing to delay pursuit by making a heroic last stand.

[Darth Ultron]

Other than that, I like challenges with no obvious "best solution". Basically, making decisions that are hard. This is why I don't much care for min-maxing for example, which isn't intrinsically hard, just a lot of number-crunching. Anything where the solution can easily be found with a simple use of algorithm optimizing isn't that interesting to me. As a player in a RPG that is.


I too like this sort of challenge.

It's sad that it is so hard to find a good RPG like this, though.

[Sarak]

Anyway, I don't get to play much but when I do I like my roleplaying skills to be challenged. That is, I like to try and portray a role as good as possible, in as many different situations as possible.

Other than that, I like challenges with no obvious "best solution". Basically, making decisions that are hard. This is why I don't much care for min-maxing for example, which isn't intrinsically hard, just a lot of number-crunching. Anything where the solution can easily be found with a simple use of algorithm optimizing isn't that interesting to me. As a player in a RPG that is.

So, I like to be presented with situations or problems with no obvious, or best, solution. This way, the approach I choose will shape the future of the game more than simply going with the "obvious choice".

That tends to be my favorite challenge too, especially when it comes to a player whose outlook or personality are vastly different from my own. I find it more fun when I see the obvious choice that I'd make myself, but to stay in character go with something wildly different.

In games that I've played in as well as games that I've run, I like the open-ended encounter or problem. It can be equal parts frustrating and entertaining to have the PCs wander into a situation that I've designed, only to come up with a solution way out of left field that chalks up a win anyways.

[Darth Ultron]

I think this thread has the potential to be quite interesting, and it's a shame if we miss this opportunity to discuss the best types of challenges, or what constitutes a challenge.


I think we should get to the ''best'' challenges and what ''is'' a challenge. Even more so from the players view.

I often find most players will ''say'' they want a challenge, but they really want a super easy cakewalk. And I wonder why so many players have this mindset?

[WindStruck]

To answer that question, you only need the definition of a challenge to that player.

To me, a "challenge" might be solving puzzles, mysteries, and if you are in combat, finding clever tactics to maximize advantage. Combat itself isn't a challenge without also needing to come up with your tactics, kind of like a puzzle...

And I love roleplaying too, but... I wouldn't say it's so much a "challenge" as it is simply writing well.

[The Jack]

I'm a sandbox strategist. Ideally, the DM will have all sorts of encounters ranging from laughable to absurdly difficult, and I really enjoy my capability to either skirt around or retreat from harder encounters, and take advantage of easy ones. Bonus points if I can prep, and turn a hard encounter into an easier one.

If I don't have a choice, and I'm railroaded into an encounter, that'd suck. If I messed up and got put into a predicament, that's fun, and I've come to enjoy giving my characters attachments that sometimes get them screwed, but having the freedom to do what my character could do in that predicament is important.

If I think of a really clever idea to circumvent a personal encounter, and my GM bull****s an unlikely reason why it can't work/doesn't work nearly as well as it should have, or flat out doesn't let me do whatever, then he's a **** GM.
I recall one GM that had good intentions with this. I was playing Vampire:the dark ages and wanted minions to do things for me, and they'd always fail/partially succeed so I'd have to have a face-to-face final showdown with my enemies. It worked fantastically once where I tried to assassinate the same inquisitor on three consecutive nights and only narrowly got him by sneaking into a blessed church full of knights using flaming weapons and throwing a spear into him, his supporters taking his body away so I couldn't confirm he was dead . It was very satisfying to hear the news that he'd perished, but The whole goal of those schemes were to avoid that, a lone vampire in that scenario should've been suicide, and my prior plans should've got him. This narrative trick didn't work nearly as well other times. I'm not playing (vampires) who're stupid enough to risk themselves when they don't need to, I'm not a "trenchcoat and katanas" player. I play vampire for schemes, and when I play officers in DnD, I want to scheme and lead people, and outsmart opponents.

I don't always play tactical characters, but it sucks when I want to, and a DM is punitive for it.

[Ignimortis]

In a way that allows me to use something my character personally can do to solve the problem. I usually don't mind difficulty or puzzles if they're well constructed. That's why you're playing a professional, right?

However, as a player, I hate relying on outside sources for problem-solving. I hate the Leadership feat in D&D, I dislike ghouls in VtM, I do not play summoner-type characters in any system, etc.

The only exception to that is calling in favors from other characters, both PCs and NPCs, mostly for non-combat stuff, since usually you can't have all the skills in the game, and it's better to rely on a computer expert than to bungle it yourself if you don't have the skill, and if someone can clean up the bloodstains you've left while dealing with their requests, then why not let them?

If my character sheet doesn't have anything that I can use to solve the problem, then it's probably someone else's problem. If the solution is "get an army to do it for you", then it's probably either not a problem I should be bothered with, or just a bad IC call (the proper response should be "hold my beer and watch this, and stay outside of my cleaving/fireballing zone") or the wrong game.