[4E] Finding a Spy

[CosmicJester]

I'm currently running my first ever 4th edition campaign, and I am starting with the pre-made adventure Keep on the Shadowfell (so, minor Spoiler Alert).

The party has now discovered that there is a spy within the village the PC's are using as a base, who works for a cultist of Orcus, the main villain. I was looking for some help coming up with a fun and engaging way for the PC's to find the spy, and get some more information.

Would this be a good opportunity for a Skill Challenge?

Any ideas?

[Kurald Galain]

I suppose so, as long as you assume that the PCs aren't guaranteed to find the spy - that is, they can mess up (fail the challenge) and if they do, the plot proceeds in a different manner.

[Chrono22]

Sounds like a good opportunity to roleplay.

Why use a skill challenge in the first place? They are redundant.

I suggest placing evidence in sections of the base. A couple of informants, unusual guard shifts, stuff that sticks out as peculiar or questionable.
As the players accumulate evidence, they can make reasoned conclusions about who the spy is based on what they know. Think of it like a game of Clue. Actually, make it just like a game of Clue. The spy killed someone in the base, which has since been locked down.

[CosmicJester]

I'll be sure to factor in that they can fail. The spy will escape and they won't get any extra information about what the villain has planned.

Also, when I say base, I don't mean a fortress or other enclosed structure. I just mean a base of operations. It's a normal village, so people would need to come and go.

I may use the idea of process of elimination, based on the residents of the village, rather than a captive audience. I was hoping for some more ideas about what the PC's could do to try and track down the spy, or how to create a thrilling scenario when they try to apprehend them.

[Chrono22]

Ok.. the spy is actually two spies- identical twin brothers. The two brothers wear identical clothing and have nearly identical mannerisms. They use disinformation to their advantage in combat-they fight the party in a forest with lots of cover and opportunities to hide. Their strategy is to hit and run, and to fool the party into falling into cleverly laid traps and ambushes (snares, concealed pits, possibly fooling the party into antagonizing the fauna). They might bluff to convince the party that they have the ability to teleport, so that if one of them becomes overly injured, he can run off and heal while his brother engages the party.
When it comes to the elimination part- realize that whenever one brother commits a crime, his brother will probably be out doing something in plain sight. They'd always have an alibi.

[Tengu_temp]

Set up a dispenser and wait for him to sap it.

Sorry, had to.

[tcrudisi]

I suggest placing evidence in sections of the base. A couple of informants, unusual guard shifts, stuff that sticks out as peculiar or questionable. As the players accumulate evidence, they can make reasoned conclusions about who the spy is based on what they know. Think of it like a game of Clue. Actually, make it just like a game of Clue. The spy killed someone in the base, which has since been locked down.

This sounds exactly like a skill challenge to me.
"I want to try to find an informant." "Okay, roll Streetwise."
"I want to find some unusual guard shifts." "Okay, roll Perception."
etc.

What's the difference? Well, you are roleplaying it out -- which isn't a difference at all in my group, as we do that anyway. If you want to let them do that, well, that's fine. Just keep track of the successes and failures secretly. It's still a skill challenge. If they pass, they find the spy. If they fail, he learns that people are asking about him or looking for him (so he escapes or ambushes them).

[Kurald Galain]

This sounds exactly like a skill challenge to me.
"I want to try to find an informant." "Okay, roll Streetwise."
"I want to find some unusual guard shifts." "Okay, roll Perception."
etc.

What's the difference?

Well, one difference is that in a skill challenge, if you fail to find an informant, don't spot any guard shifts, and don't remember the exact history of the city, then you are henceforth unable to find the spy in any other fashion.

[Yakk]

There is a spy, and a disposable mook.

The skill challenge is about finding the mook before the spy kills the mook, or sends the mook away. (and the spy himself didn't leave any tracks)

After 3 failures, you have tipped your hand to the spy, and the mook manages to flee. If you beat the challenge, you manage to find out who the mook is and corner the mook; at which point, if you defeat the mook in combat, you get information on who the real spy is.

Time pressure? Check.
Realistic consequences to failure? Check.
Plot works either way? Check.
Plot-based reward to beating the challenge? Check.

[kc0bbq]

Well, one difference is that in a skill challenge, if you fail to find an informant, don't spot any guard shifts, and don't remember the exact history of the city, then you are henceforth unable to find the spy in any other fashion.

This isn't exactly true. There are consequences for failing a skill challenge; it doesn't mean that the outcome somehow becomes impossible. Depending on the skill challenge this could mean there is an encounter they would have otherwise avoided, or extra information the BBEG has to work with, or whatever. They are not intended to stop a plotline dead.

[Mando Knight]

Set up a dispenser and wait for him to sap it.

Sorry, had to.

Alternatively, the Ranger could pick up Jarate, or the Sorcerer could cast Burning Spray all over everyone...

[Chrono22]

This sounds exactly like a skill challenge to me.
"I want to try to find an informant." "Okay, roll Streetwise."
"I want to find some unusual guard shifts." "Okay, roll Perception."
etc.

What's the difference? Well, you are roleplaying it out -- which isn't a difference at all in my group, as we do that anyway. If you want to let them do that, well, that's fine. Just keep track of the successes and failures secretly. It's still a skill challenge. If they pass, they find the spy. If they fail, he learns that people are asking about him or looking for him (so he escapes or ambushes them).

I'm still not seeing why implementing a skill challenge is necessary in the first place. Roleplaying skill checks doesn't necessitate it, advancing a plot doesn't necessitate it. It can't stand in for roleplaying, and basing success on the proceeding rolls (instead of players' ideas and what they do with them) seems counter to roleplaying. It's complicated and redundant baggage.

[NeoVid]

Set up a dispenser and wait for him to sap it.

Sorry, had to.

Beat me to it, though I prefer to sacrifice a teleporter for that.

...Hey, are you in the GitP Steam group?

[Aron Times]

I would do a skill challenge for gathering information. Success would give them hopefully enough hints to figure out who the spy is, and failure would tip the spy off to what they're doing.

It helps, when you're running skill challenges, to ask your players what they're trying to do instead of asking them to make x Streetwise checks and y Diplomacy checks.

For example, the mage could try inspecting the building's magical systems to see if they've been tampered with. This would be an Arcana check. Or perhaps he could treat the suspects to an expensive meal while the rest of the party, hidden from view, observe their body language. The mage would make a Diplomacy check to get the suspects to loosen up while the rest of the party make Perception and/or Insight checks to read their body language.

Or perhaps the party could spread the word that the spy has been exposed, and the authorities are keeping the man's identity a secret so as not to cause a panic. Streetwise could be used to "leak" the spy's identity and Bluff could be used to make up a plausible story about the spy's activities and eventual capture. Meanwhile, the suspects would be put under surveillance in the hopes of catching the actual spy in the act. The ones tailing them would make Stealth, Perception, and Insight checks to observe them without being detected.

[Dimers]

[QUOTE=Chrono22;7266453]I'm still not seeing why implementing a skill challenge is necessary in the first place. Roleplaying skill checks doesn't necessitate it, advancing a plot doesn't necessitate it. It can't stand in for roleplaying, and basing success on the proceeding rolls (instead of players' ideas and what they do with them) seems counter to roleplaying.[QUOTE]

Some players will want the chance to roll the skills they've chosen, even if they themselves don't know how to properly intimidate people, or ask around for info without giving themselves away, or follow tracks. So whether a skill check is appropriate depends largely on the way the players approach the game mechanics.

[Chrono22]

Some players will want the chance to roll the skills they've chosen, even if they themselves don't know how to properly intimidate people, or ask around for info without giving themselves away, or follow tracks. So whether a skill check is appropriate depends largely on the way the players approach the game mechanics.

Right. So I'm still not seeing how you can tout skill challenges as a way of engaging players if the purpose of skill checks is to add abstraction so players don't have to be engaged.
If you don't know much about smooth talking, building boats or identifying monsters, you roll a skill check to represent your character's ability without needing to have that ability yourself. If you want to engage in the story directly, you can roleplay.
Using a series of vaguely connected skill checks (a "challenge") as a way of engaging the party in what they are doing- that's like using an easy-bake oven to make your thanksgiving dinner.

Skill challenges are an incoherent and ultimately superfluous mechanic.

[Dimers]

Right. So I'm still not seeing how you can tout skill challenges as a way of engaging players if the purpose of skill checks is to add abstraction so players don't have to be engaged.

I'm not "engaged" by insistence that I attempt to properly portray an ability I don't have. I am instead frustrated, which distracts from the game rather than adding to it. Such an insistence also conflicts with other game mechanics; if abstractions of actions aren't allowed, then you're boffer LARPing whenever you enter combat.

[Chrono22]

I'm not "engaged" by insistence that I attempt to properly portray an ability I don't have. I am instead frustrated, which distracts from the game rather than adding to it. Such an insistence also conflicts with other game mechanics; if abstractions of actions aren't allowed, then you're boffer LARPing whenever you enter combat.

Who said all abstraction is bad? But it's definitely at odds with engagement. Or do you think D&Ds elaborate combat rules are a coincidence? Nobody would ever trip, charge, bullrush, flank, or use a power if just hitpoints and basic attacks were good enough.
Skill challenges fail hard. They are supposed to help the players feel like they are making contributions and are getting involved outside of combat. Roleplaying does it better, and did it first.

[Kurald Galain]

Right. So I'm still not seeing how you can tout skill challenges as a way of engaging players if the purpose of skill checks is to add abstraction so players don't have to be engaged.

Skill challenges are the 4E equivalent of a certain 3E character class, in that both have fervent fans and fervent detractors, and that it's a common discussion on this (and other) forums whether they should be considered a design failure.

[Yakk]

Skill challenges are just one way to measure what the impact of a skill check should be.

Should a single gather information check find the spy? Should a failed gather information check tip the spy off, and make thing harder? Maybe it should take 10 gather information checks to pass to find the spy?

Both are reasonable things to say "yes" to, or no. Skill Challenges simply describe the stakes of each skill check in such a way that the problem isn't solved, nor rendered impossible to solve, in a single roll of the dice. And provide a framework for more than one person to contribute to the problem (if you run it that way).

The stakes of a given skill check are as described: you need to accumulate N points to solve the problem. As a DM, it is up to you to describe what a given skill check accomplishes, or a given failure results in; the skill challenge mechanics merely exist to help you give out stakes for a given skill check that generate an "encounter" that doesn't drag on forever, and admits the possibility of failure.

If the spy is passively waiting to get caught, and there is no possible way that the players won't be able to catch the spy, then there is no need for a skill challenge; nor any need for a skill check. Just narrate them catching the spy; it is, after all, inevitable.

If time is of the essence, then taking longer is a form of failure. If the spy is leaking information they don't want leaked, then failure comes in the form of more information leaking.

If the stakes of each skill roll is (N successes to find the spy, M to never find the spy), then you have to narrate that in a way that makes sense. A failed gather information check might actually give the player information, but it is information that leads to the spy trapping the players or framing them. A failed history check might not be "you don't learn anything", but instead they remember something that actually leads to them thinking someone else is the spy.

In short, make both failure and success interesting, both on the full skill challenge, and on each skill check. And "you don't learn anything" isn't interesting; learning something wrong (or misleading) is more interesting!