Musings about PCs and Prisoners

[Darth Credence]

Not all challenges need to challenge all players. As long as the challenges themselves require the whole team. Sure, one person can skip across things. But that doesn't solve the challenge, merely lightens one aspect of it.

Basically, single-note challenges are boring and too-easily trivialized. Real challenges should have multiple facets that affect different people differently. No more than a "first person to hit the enemy wins" combat challenge is an appropriate one[1]. I have a strong dislike of people claiming that a locked door, in the absence of anything else, should be a challenge. Even a trapped locked door. That's still a solo challenge requiring a single (or a couple from the same person) roll(s) or a single spell. Boring! Either roll it into some larger, multifaceted challenge or just skip it (narrating how cool the rogue is as he pops the lock effortlessly, but not wasting any time with mechanical resolution of boring things).

The only time I will have the party roll for unlocking a door is if there is a time crunch. Get through the door before the minotaur charging through the labyrinth towards them gets there type deal, or anything else that would mean they can't just slowly and calmly work the lock.

Was the [1] supposed to denote a footnote that you missed adding?

[OldTrees1]

Not all challenges need to challenge all players. As long as the challenges themselves require the whole team. Sure, one person can skip across things. But that doesn't solve the challenge, merely lightens one aspect of it.

Agreed. Challenges affect 0+ PCs and can be trivialized by 0+ of those PCs.

Basically, single-note challenges are boring and too-easily trivialized. Real challenges should have multiple facets that affect different people differently. No more than a "first person to hit the enemy wins" combat challenge is an appropriate one[1]. I have a strong dislike of people claiming that a locked door, in the absence of anything else, should be a challenge.

For tailored challenges, this is very good advice. For emergent challenges it becomes less applicable because the nature of the challenge emerges from the PC choices that lead to the challenge existing at all. However since this is design advice, it was always going to be most applicable to the tailored challenges.

Even a trapped locked door. That's still a solo challenge requiring a single (or a couple from the same person) roll(s) or a single spell. Boring! Either roll it into some larger, multifaceted challenge or just skip it (narrating how cool the rogue is as he pops the lock effortlessly, but not wasting any time with mechanical resolution of boring things).

Depending on the mechanical resolution (Take 10 or Take 1 for example), narrating how cool the rogue is could be #2 (keep it) rather than #1 (skip it). I agree about not wasting time on boring things. However the show don't tell might not be boring to the group.

Rolling it into some larger challenge fits in with your previous advice. It is really good advice for tailored challenges.

[King of Nowhere]

Even a trapped locked door. That's still a solo challenge requiring a single (or a couple from the same person) roll(s) or a single spell. Boring! Either roll it into some larger, multifaceted challenge or just skip it (narrating how cool the rogue is as he pops the lock effortlessly, but not wasting any time with mechanical resolution of boring things).

i mat require a roll, then, depending on how high the roll is, i may narrate how cool the rogue is popping open the lock effortlessly, or narrate the rogue having to sit down, study the thing and take his time. but yeah, no mechanical effect.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. Challenges affect 0+ PCs and can be trivialized by 0+ of those PCs.



For tailored challenges, this is very good advice. For emergent challenges it becomes less applicable because the nature of the challenge emerges from the PC choices that lead to the challenge existing at all. However since this is design advice, it was always going to be most applicable to the tailored challenges.



Depending on the mechanical resolution (Take 10 or Take 1 for example), narrating how cool the rogue is could be #2 (keep it) rather than #1 (skip it). I agree about not wasting time on boring things. However the show don't tell might not be boring to the group.

Rolling it into some larger challenge fits in with your previous advice. It is really good advice for tailored challenges.

i mat require a roll, then, depending on how high the roll is, i may narrate how cool the rogue is popping open the lock effortlessly, or narrate the rogue having to sit down, study the thing and take his time. but yeah, no mechanical effect.

Honestly, even for emergent challenges, if something is trivial (or impossible!), don't use mechanics that allow failure/success (respectively). Roll all you want for show, but it's not a real challenge. It's a narrative blip.

I guess the main thrust is to always think in terms of "how can I engage as many people in this challenge as possible." Along with "how can I prevent single points of either success or failure for anything that should matter" (speaking in terms of the emerging/established fiction). If the task is "persuade the king to send help", and the party has already bribed the chancellor to agree, dueled the chief military advisor to prove their worth, and brought heads of demons to show the real danger, then those were already part of the task-resolution, along with the culminating social conversation. No individual part of that would be enough, nor would (normally) any individual part be absolutely essential. They could have handled the blockers (chancellor/military/proof) differently or tried to just push through without one of those things. Or done without the king's help and found other allies. That prevents the party from hitting the tried-and-true "diplomacy win button", while also letting them chart their own path. Of course, it requires lots of on-the-fly rulings from the DM, as well as knowledge of what those blockers are and what they want.

So at design time, the DM creates the following:
* Situation: demons are invading.
* Optional Approach: get king to send army
** Blockers:
*** king is suspicious of attempts to pull the army away from established fronts.
*** chancellor is greedy and corrupt and won't support anything that doesn't benefit him personally
*** chief military advisor only respects personal strength and won't support anyone he doesn't respect.
** Difficulty of final check:
*** 0 blocks removed: impossible
*** 1 block removed: Difficult [numbers depend on system]
*** 2 blocks removed: Medium
*** 3 blocks removed: Easy or trivial (you don't have to work to convince someone who already agrees with you).
* Optional Approach: etc.

How (and if) they remove the blocks is up to them. If they can get away with it, they might be able to assassinate the chancellor and replace him with someone else. But they need to do something--no single check is enough.

[OldTrees1]

Honestly, even for emergent challenges, if something is trivial (or impossible!), don't use mechanics that allow failure/success (respectively). Roll all you want for show, but it's not a real challenge. It's a narrative blip.

I feel there is a disconnect here. Where there is no chance of failure, there is no chance of failure.

Even if you roll (or use "Take 10") to demonstrate there is no chance of failure, where there is no chance of failure, there is no chance of failure.


As for emergent challenges, it is really hard for the DM to design what the Players create. So the design advice becomes useful but less relevant because the DM has less control. So if the Players create an emergent challenge that only engages 1 PC, then that is what they created. My comment here was basically "that is good advice for the DM, the DM is not the only source of challenges, but that is good advice for the DM".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel there is a disconnect here. Where there is no chance of failure, there is no chance of failure.

Even if you roll (or use "Take 10") to demonstrate there is no chance of failure, where there is no chance of failure, there is no chance of failure.


As for emergent challenges, it is really hard for the DM to design what the Players create. So the design advice becomes useful but less relevant because the DM has less control. So if the Players create an emergent challenge that only engages 1 PC, then that is what they created. My comment here was basically "that is good advice for the DM, the DM is not the only source of challenges, but that is good advice for the DM".

I don't see how players create challenges (directly anyway). Players take actions within a framework set up by <someone else>, at least in a D&D-like game. They don't design the world in which they move as they go. In response to their actions, the DM has to react in some way. And before they can act, the DM has to set the initial conditions (this is cyclical in that the conditions depend on the prior actions). In general, a more "sandboxy" DM should think even more in terms of scenarios and challenges than a more-controlled/tailored one. A tailored one can design linear steps that must be accomplished without regard to lumping them into abstract "scenarios" or "challenges". A more sandboxy one has to do more design up front and more ad-lib design.

So a tailored approach can say task1 -> {choice set: tasks 2-n} -> etc.--both the allowed approaches and allowed tasks are set ahead of time (how far depends on how linear the game is). A more sandboxy one would have to design high-level "things going on" that the party might interact with and then at runtime do a lot of interpolation to figure out all the details that depend on exactly how they interact. But in both cases, those tasks (tailored case) and scenarios (non-tailored case) should be designed to make single-action (or single-actor) solutions implausible or alternatively make those single-action/actor solutions only work for things that didn't matter anyway. Where the scenario outcome either assumes they'll happen or doesn't care if they happen. They're baked into the scenario already.

Just crossing the swamp is a non-challenge. You can (and should) assume that it will happen one way or another if the party tries. The challenge of "crossing the swamp" lies in the range of other things (ranging from random/not-random encounters to interesting finds to other complications) that occur while crossing the swamp. So being able to skip across the tops enables one person do bypass one part (the actual slogging through the mud), but
a) doesn't get the rest of the party across
b) doesn't bypass any of the rest of the challenge.

Does it make it easier? Sure. You've got one person with good mobility when the rest don't. Great. Having them along is a boon. But it doesn't trivialize the challenge, because the part it trivializes wasn't central to the challenge anyway. It was just one small component. Even a whole party of such people wouldn't trivialize it, although it might be able to just skip the sub-challenges. But doing so should come at a cost--they don't get the rewards of interacting there in the challenge.

The same thing goes for all the other "ways to trivialize challenges" I've ever seen. They're either bad challenges or they have the cost of skipping the interesting parts of the adventure. Don't make challenges with single points of failure. Or accept that those challenges aren't really challenges at all.

[icefractal]

I beg to disagree. you are the dm, you are making obstacles specifically tailored to your players. so, everything you throw in their path are obstacles for them. the only difference is between obstacles that they are supposed to overcome, and obstacles they are not supposed to overcome. and obstacles that are supposed to be luck-based (i.e. requiring a dice roll that is not trivial nor impossible).

I think this is where we're hitting a disconnect in play style. For me the bolded part is not the ideal.

Ideally, the obstacles are based on their place in the world. Did some low-level woodsmen secure a place a long ways from the nearest city? Well then it probably has a lot of snares, pitfalls, spikes, and other hunting-type traps, maybe some dangerous animals or vermin they captured, but probably not magic traps or anything with complicated engineering. If that's easy for the PCs, then I guess the woodsmen are just an easy challenge. For a world to feel real, challenges should range from easy to overwhelming, not just all be on-par.

There's degrees - in a full sandbox, the woodsmen would just be there doing their thing regardless of who the PCs were. In a "guided sandbox", you wouldn't put the focus on them unless you thought they'd be entertaining, but you also wouldn't make them be 15th level just because the PCs were - rather, you could focus on a different group in the region that was plausibly that powerful.

Even in a more linear game (and I'm fine with playing those), it's better if things feel plausible. "These are just ordinary bandits harassing local farmers but not going after anyone better-defended" does not square with "Oh, and they're mostly 10th-12th level with +5 equipment".

[OldTrees1]

I don't see how players create challenges (directly anyway). Players take actions within a framework set up by <someone else>, at least in a D&D-like game. They don't design the world in which they move as they go. In response to their actions, the DM has to react in some way. And before they can act, the DM has to set the initial conditions (this is cyclical in that the conditions depend on the prior actions). In general, a more "sandboxy" DM should think even more in terms of scenarios and challenges than a more-controlled/tailored one. A tailored one can design linear steps that must be accomplished without regard to lumping them into abstract "scenarios" or "challenges". A more sandboxy one has to do more design up front and more ad-lib design.

PCs are walking through the forest. That is not a challenge. Presumably they have some reason, let's say they are making a time sensitive delivery to a village on the other side. That time sensitive delivery sounds like a DM created challenge. It might be a non challenging challenge. A trivial one if you will. However it will stand as an example of a DM creating a tailored encounter as a contrast to the following.

One Player likes the idea of their acrobat running along the canopy. The DM figures out the details of that player created challenge of running along the canopy.

One Player likes the idea of their pyro starting a forest fire. The DM figures out the details of the player created challenge of starting a forest fire, and the following player created challenge of the PCs travelling through a forest that is on fire.

All 3 of those are examples of emergent challenges. They emerged from the player choices rather than from a challenge the DM designed. since the players had a greater influence in the design of those challenges, the challenge design advice you gave the DM is less applicable.

So in addition to you repeating my advice about "Accept that those non challenging obstacles are not challenging." you gave additional advice about avoiding single points of failure and avoiding challenges that only involve 1 person. I agree that is good advice, but elaborated by mentioning emergent challenges and how the DM has less authorial control over what the Players help create.

[Talakeal]

A few pages ago I said something to the effect of "If players are never supposed to be separated from their gear, doesn't that make things like Eschew Materials into a trap option for dumb players."

This conversation about locks is making me feel the same way; if you don't roll to pick locks, doesn't that turn the open locks skill, and to a lesser extent several of the rogue's class features, into pointless trap options?

[PhoenixPhyre]

A few pages ago I said something to the effect of "If players are never supposed to be separated from their gear, doesn't that make things like Eschew Materials into a trap option for dumb players."

This conversation about locks is making me feel the same way; if you don't roll to pick locks, doesn't that turn the open locks skill, and to a lesser extent several of the rogue's class features, into pointless trap options?

No? Just because you don't roll for it when it doesn't matter (ie when the consequences for failure are simply "try again") doesn't mean that having that skill isn't useful when it matters.

A locked door by itself is not a challenge. It's either unpickable (for that group) or picked open eventually. And if time doesn't matter, then it's much simpler to assume that it just gets opened.

But sometimes time does matter. Getting it open now because the guard is coming back within 30 seconds matters. So you roll for it. You're not rolling for "does the door open at all", you're rolling for "is the door opened in time to avoid the door".

Beware of absolute statements. They're often incomplete. My position is that, assuming you want a locked door as part of a challenge, you can't just stick a locked door there and call it a challenge and whine when they overcome it trivially. That's like saying a single goblin is a challenge fit for a level 20 T1 party. There better be a reason that you've only got one shot at picking the door. Maybe there's a lock that seals shut if you fail. Maybe you're on your last lockpick, and it's on the verge of breaking. Or maybe the guard is coming back. Something, anything that makes failure have interesting consequences that move the story...if not forward, at least in some direction. Something that requires the next action to be along a separate line. Each roll should at least run the risk of foreclosing further attempts directly on that line of attack. You did your best, your best wasn't good enough, now try something else. The bad option is "you failed, back to status quo ante where you can try again." Because that does nothing but waste table time, the most precious of resources.

And not having that option means you have to take other paths. Which (depending on the situation) may or may not be more difficult. So having someone good with locks along (assuming you have any locks at all) is always a benefit[1].

IMO, rules and mechanics exist to help move the fiction along. To keep things rolling when otherwise you'd not know how to resolve something. To resolve uncertainty in a fun, fair, game-appropriate fashion. That's all. Bad rules tell you to use them all the time. Good rules give guidance on when to set them aside and do what works. Bad (TTRPG) rules dictate. Good (TTRPG) rules assist.

[1] unless having those capabilities has an outsized cost in character resources. To be hyperbolic, if being able to pick locks also meant that you never progressed any other skill, then yeah. It's a trap. It's why I'm not so fond of 3e's "have to pick between all these things" skill model. If rogues are supposed to be good at dealing with locks and traps, give them that as a class feature straight up. But that's an aside.

[Pex]

Not all challenges need to challenge all players. As long as the challenges themselves require the whole team. Sure, one person can skip across things. But that doesn't solve the challenge, merely lightens one aspect of it.

Basically, single-note challenges are boring and too-easily trivialized. Real challenges should have multiple facets that affect different people differently. No more than a "first person to hit the enemy wins" combat challenge is an appropriate one[1]. I have a strong dislike of people claiming that a locked door, in the absence of anything else, should be a challenge. Even a trapped locked door. That's still a solo challenge requiring a single (or a couple from the same person) roll(s) or a single spell. Boring! Either roll it into some larger, multifaceted challenge or just skip it (narrating how cool the rogue is as he pops the lock effortlessly, but not wasting any time with mechanical resolution of boring things).

Horrible flashback of a Pathfinder DM constantly reminding the party the need for proper equipment to open a door. Because we didn't do it in his One True Way opening doors always took forever. Doors are always supposed to be hard and take time to open. The worst case was needing to open large heavy iron doors. We had to make strength checks, could help another to give +2, or whatever bonuses. Because we didn't care how long it took or how much noise we made I told the DM we can take 20 but he refused the option. He insisted we keep rolling the die until we beat the DC, so everyone kept rolling until finally someone rolled a Natural 20 and got the door open, cue the DM berating us for our ineptitude. He finally took pity on us later giving the party a Ring of the Ram just so we could blast open a door.

[King of Nowhere]

I think this is where we're hitting a disconnect in play style. For me the bolded part is not the ideal.

Ideally, the obstacles are based on their place in the world.

yes, for me too.
the world must be consistent and it must provide a framework to adjudicate stuff, otherwise the game boils down to "dm may I?"
but at the same time, as dm you have considerable leeway with it. ok, if you're visiting a lone woodsman in the wood, and he wasn't supposed to be some retired high level adventurer, then the world dictates he's not a challenge.
but you decide how strong the final boss is. how many minions he can call. what kind of traps he has available. you decide how difficult the terrain is exactly, if the terrain is just difficult enough to stop charging, or whatever. you decide if the zombie plague was started by a 5th level cleric with delusions of grandeur or by a 20th level opponent with layers upon layers of backup plans.
even for the lone woodsman, he may have set a couple of snares tied to an alarm or he may have turned his land into a minefield or deep pits and spikes coated in poison from the black lotus that spontaneously grow in his backyard. both are within what you can justify for the world. you can also change the traps dc within a +/-5 range (this trap was particularly well/poorly hidden) and it's reasonable.
you are also the one giving them plot hooks, so you can direct them towards the lone woodsman or the dragon's lair.

and so, when you decide the traps dc, you are really deciding how likely the players should be to find them.

EDIT: you should not change your world to create difficulties for the players, as that would make their efforts pointless. but you should look into your world for things that would make good challenges for your players

[Quertus]

I beg to disagree. you are the dm, you are making obstacles specifically tailored to your players.

Well, no. First, as others have brought up, sometimes, it's the *players* who have set the forest on fire.

Second, sometimes you're challenging the *players*; other times, the *characters*.

But, when I write content, it is written for its versimilitude, for its place in the world, not to ping at a specific level on some challenge metric. And certainly not specifically tailored to my players *or* their characters¹.

Nor would I want content specifically tailored to my characters (I could do with this world being better tailored to me, though).

¹ unless, like, Bob is afraid of spiders, so I removed all spider references or something

Whether designed intentionally or accidentally the DM has 3 responses to this situation:
1) Remove it (skip, fast forward, delete, etc) because it will have no mechanical impact on the PC.
2) Keep it because the lack of impact demonstrates something about the PC.
3) Alter it to make it a challenge.

All 3 have their uses (subject to the group's play preferences) but personally I prefer a big serving of #2 with some #1 for seasoning.

Strongly agree. (And similarly prefer a hearty helping of 2, with a side of 1).

not wasting any time with mechanical resolution of boring things).

Depending on the mechanical resolution (Take 10 or Take 1 for example), narrating how cool the rogue is could be #2 (keep it) rather than #1 (skip it).

Narrating past the challenge can *definitely* qualify for my original comment (your #2). And doesn't necessitate "wasting time".

Bad rules tell you to use them all the time. Good rules give guidance on when to set them aside and do what works. Bad (TTRPG) rules dictate. Good (TTRPG) rules assist.

Disagree. 3e "Lock is DC 15”, "d20+ bonus vs DC" should always apply in 3e. *If* someone has enough knowledge, and knows that the Rogue has "I have +50 bonus to Open Lock", they can simply have the Rogue "take a 1" and succeed, to expedite past the physically rolling. But the underlying mechanics should always apply.

Regarding information… if the Rogue doesn't *know* that the guard is coming back in 30 seconds, he could *declare* that he is "taking 20".

[LordCdrMilitant]

Not all challenges need to challenge all players. As long as the challenges themselves require the whole team. Sure, one person can skip across things. But that doesn't solve the challenge, merely lightens one aspect of it.

Basically, single-note challenges are boring and too-easily trivialized. Real challenges should have multiple facets that affect different people differently. No more than a "first person to hit the enemy wins" combat challenge is an appropriate one[1]. I have a strong dislike of people claiming that a locked door, in the absence of anything else, should be a challenge. Even a trapped locked door. That's still a solo challenge requiring a single (or a couple from the same person) roll(s) or a single spell. Boring! Either roll it into some larger, multifaceted challenge or just skip it (narrating how cool the rogue is as he pops the lock effortlessly, but not wasting any time with mechanical resolution of boring things).

I think a locked door is very much a far challenge to the party, because the means of how they chose to overcome it are very significant.

In a non-prisoner related scenario, whether they breach the door with explosives, cut through it with a torch, pick the mechanical locking mechanism, or hack the door controls all have different consequence of success and failure via those methods.

In a prisoner related scenario, more on topic, how a party overcomes doors at all could be of critical importance to the scenario. If they're in a cell, a cell door is designed inherently not to be opened by the people within. The lock and hinges are on the outside, the door is usually reinforced relative to other doors, it may be guarded, and of course, you don't have any of the tools that you would use ordinarily to open it. How a character overcomes this problem, and whether they can at all, is decisive and a significant puzzle for the players.