Building challenges that can't be trivialized by a single action

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've long had the impression that the real keys to balance/proper spotlight sharing are something like

Loose reading of ability checks (let them do more cool stuff by setting DCs lower and being more flexible).
Narrow reading of spells (they do what they say and only what they say, no "creative" readings).
Building challenges that can't be solved by a single person's action, no matter what that action is.


I'm interested in talking here about that third point (and won't respond to anything about the first two, which are just there for completeness and because I'm a bit OCD about that). Building "complex" challenges.

Here are my thoughts, drawing on XGtE's "complex traps" and generalizing:
Single-action-solution challenges are speedbumps, not challenges. A locked door, by itself, is not a challenge. They will get it open. If a single Charisma (X) check will solve an issue and there aren't really consequences for failure, then it's not a real challenge worth spending time on. Pure survival (finding food and water and not getting lost) isn't a challenge by itself. And none of these should be a challenge. They're basically irrelevant for balance concerns. In fact, most of the time they can be handwaved/narrated/auto-succeeded without issue.

Proper challenges should challenge the team as a whole, not necessarily individual characters. Even if every sub-component is pretty easy, requiring multiple actions keeps everyone engaged and requires teamwork. If the arcana specialist is over there reading the runes, he can't be on the other side twiddling the gizmos or protecting the group from the onrushing widgets. Everyone is doing something, so players don't get overshadowed by others. The trick is creating these challenges.

Proper challenges need to pick the right "zoom level". Instead of thinking of a scene as merely "getting through this mountain pass" or "talking to the king", the scene might involve the wandering giants (who can be delayed, distracted, or parleyed with but who pose too great a direct threat, possibly due to numbers, to fight directly), rockfalls that can be ameliorated by finding shelter, having the bruisers shelter the squishies under their shields or the wizards by casting wall of force (or something else), navigation (putting the navigator at risk for surprise), slippery ledges where failure means you lose your gear or your pack animal, etc. And even figuring out which way to go might be part of the scene. The trick, I think, is to drain resources other than just HP and daily/SR abilities. Gear. NPCs. Time (making that a real consequence is its own issue). Risk--if you fail going one way, you might have to go through the Mines of Moria instead.

This way, having a ranger along (who can auto-pass some of the obstacles but not the entire thing) is an active benefit--it lets the party focus their resources and efforts on the other challenges without trivializing the entire scene.

This is basically the idea behind 4e's skill challenges, without any of the mechanics. Instead, each sub-scene piece is presented individually and success and failure have direct, immediate, logical consequences. And by bundling it all together as a single scene, everyone's participating throughout.

So how about things like teleport? If they're going to somewhere they know well enough to avoid mishaps, then the DM has to consider that piece of travel, on its own, to not be a challenge anymore. Find other challenges. But IMX, most of the travel that's actually interesting is going places where you've never been, and where you can't just teleport. Since the various divinations are so weakened in 5e, scry-and-teleport doesn't really work that well anymore. So teleport is a nice convenience to get back home from the site (maybe for some shopping) and then back, but getting to the adventure in the first place requires legwork.

My goal in all of this is being a better DM by putting a firm cap on the "I win" buttons and the associated "I just press this button" mentality. Sure, I'll throw in "fake" challenges (fake on my side in that I don't really care if they're trivialized) so that people can get their power fantasy on. The dude who wants to fireball everything will have plenty of chaff to fireball and feel cool. But that chaff isn't really considered part of the real encounter. The rogue who has expertise in Stealth is going to get his chance to sneak past lots of folks. But that's baked into the cake already and is put there to make him feel cool, while the real challenges are elsewhere or only part of the challenge can be negated by one person's stealth. His stealth does make things easier for the party (so it's not nullified), but it doesn't solve the whole thing, and other people get a chance to act while he's off sneaking to the lever (or whatever).

Thoughts? How have y'all implemented complex challenges? Have you?

[Xervous]

My current campaign is very player-goal driven and I feel this has set their focus on a wide lens. The challenges are ones they seek out themselves, with the pursuit of a single goal spanning multiple sessions to get from where they were to the desired state. Many things arise that would fit your description of obstacles and the game is mainly about how much they want to push their capabilities in the face of uncertain frontiers.

For important scenes there’s never just one action to end it all. Drawing from the poltergeist floor of the crashed temple in the ruins of a flying city... there was a poltergeist that resides in paintings, able to animate all sorts of odds and ends around the room to assault the players. While the poltergeist remained they could not leave the floor. First they gathered clues through interacting with the animated objects and events. Then they pieced together an understanding of what rules the poltergeist played by, then they implemented their creative solution as a team.

Contrast this with a simple tactical skirmish that sets the scene, lets the players blast and hack, and is in all regards a mostly trivial fight.

The characters are competent, they can do x y z. X y and z should not immediately achieve the goal, but making it so they are instrumental stepping stones allows the players to use their characters’ competencies without invalidating the challenge because it’s on a greater scope than one roll.

A single roll is an event, it could be splash art on a page. A challenge is a chapter.

[firelistener]

This is a pretty normal part of the one-session dungeon format I use a lot, the "Five Room Dungeon". Room 2 is where you usually put the puzzle or other challenge like this. Works super great and I run this style a lot; I can't recommend it enough for new and veteran DMs. Even when making larger dungeons, the concepts are still very helpful.

https://strolen.com/viewing/5_Room_Dungeon

The best challenges are like what you described in the OP, where there are multiple routes to success. An example I really like to use in my games: an acid pit the party must cross. I usually put a kobold or something on the other side holding a rope swing, so that charismatic PCs can use that option. If there's any jumping or swinging, I'll throw some checks in there for that too. Most often, I see the party have to break out their own ropes and tools to cross.

[Man_Over_Game]

Thoughts? How have y'all implemented complex challenges? Have you?

First off, great topic, PhoenixPhyre. Great to have you back.

One thing I do is come up with, when it comes to large overarching problems (there's a plant-plague spreading through the next town over), is to just come up with a bunch of random solutions in different directions. That way, if the players ever decide to assume one method is THE solution they're always correct. But it also gives someone something to work with in case they disagree.

With the plant-infection problem, solutions could include:

Researching the infection and developing a cure.
Kill the plant monsters causing the infection
Track the source of the infection to a local desecrated shrine of a nature diety and cleanse the shrine/appeal to the diety.
Work with the townsfolk to work against the infections and defend against the monsters until requested help arrives


What this does is allow me to give my roleplayers a few avenues of working with the town and the local area, but also allows a few excuses for the Barbarian to flex his brawn. It makes improvisation extremely easy, since I already know 4 very different ways to get to the same goal, so anything I do or say accidentally easily merges with one of those paths.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a pretty normal part of the one-session dungeon format I use a lot, the "Five Room Dungeon". Room 2 is where you usually put the puzzle or other challenge like this. Works super great and I run this style a lot; I can't recommend it enough for new and veteran DMs. Even when making larger dungeons, the concepts are still very helpful.

https://strolen.com/viewing/5_Room_Dungeon

The best challenges are like what you described in the OP, where there are multiple routes to success. An example I really like to use in my games: an acid pit the party must cross. I usually put a kobold or something on the other side holding a rope swing, so that charismatic PCs can use that option. If there's any jumping or swinging, I'll throw some checks in there for that too. Most often, I see the party have to break out their own ropes and tools to cross.

I'd note that it's not just multiple routes to success, but multiple things that have to be done to succeed on any route.

And these "challenges" fit inside the 5-room dungeon.

Remember, combat is a multi-action challenge--just hitting with an attack doesn't finish the combat. That's where a lot of my epiphany came from. People complain about exploration (and social stuff) because they're thinking of them as one-step challenges: Survive. Persuade this dude. In reality, if we dig in and consider a more detailed view, Survival may have lots of different sub-components and lots of things going on beyond just finding food and shelter. Persuasion isn't just a "walk up and roll a Charisma (Persuasion) check". It may involve gathering dirt on someone, figuring out their likes and buttons, maneuvering the discussion, dealing with officious underlings, etc. This isn't stuff that the face, alone, can do. It requires the whole party. Just like the Fighter isn't the only one who participates in combat, the Bard or Wizard or whoever isn't the only who participates elsewhere, if the scenes are designed to require it.

[patchyman]

Funny, I am putting this into practice tomorrow. I’m adapting an adventure path. The AP just begins with the party arriving at the site after a 2-week voyage on horseback. I’ve decided to incorporate a series of challenges before the characters get to their destination, including:
- ambush (combat challenge);
- two animal encounters (exploration challenges);
- two interactions with NPCs (roleplay challenges)

As PhoenixPhyre recommends, neither of the exploration and RP challenges are one roll and it’s over.