Investigative Skill Challenges

[Quickleaf]

I've been following Mike Mearls' skill challenge articles on the WotC website and I've learned a lot about the intentions behind (and creative manipulation of) the skill challenge concept.

But, seeing how my campaign has lots of mystery in it, I'm really curious about investigative skill challenges. I've run one based on the investigation SC presented in Khyber's Harvest and it went really well, though I feel there's a lot of unexplored potential in using SC to model an investigation.

I'm going to lay out a couple of ground rules...

1. Make the players think and sythesize information
Part of the excitment of a mystery is that it challenges the players to figure out what is going on. While skill checks give them a base of information to work from, there must be some mystery left, something where the players have to put two and two together, or use their instinct, or process of elimination to realize the big picture.

For example, the SC might reveal the murder victim was in debt to the thieves' guild and their modus operandi matches how he died. However, the PCs might have already found another person with a strong motive to kill the victim - could it be the true killer is trying to frame the thieves?

2. Weave the challenge into the adventure
Good mystery stories break up the investigation into bite-size pieces, with action and drama occurring in between. Not only does this keep the pace moving, it also allows you to include more variation within the SC. Ideally, the SC responds to what occurs in intervening encounters, creating complications, tangible repercussions, or opening new avenues of investigation.

For example, the first part of the investigation lays the groundwork, identifies usual suspects, possible motives, background of the person, the corpse, scene of the crime, and so forth. Another murder happens leading to a furious footchase, rooftop fight, and the villain escaping. However, new clues from the confrontation move the investigation in a different direction, while at the same time making the murderer more cautious. Perhaps later on the murderer will directly target one of the PCs while snooping around.

3. Create investigation tracks
To organize the complexity of a mystery, it's helpful to create different "tracks" of information PCs can learn depending where they focus their investigative resources. Each track encourages certain skills, so that the Paladin & Bard could interview witnesses while the Rogue could sneak into the victim's home.

For example, with the murder example there might be five different tracks: (a) corpse & scene of crime, (b) witnesses, (c) victim's home, (d) likely suspects, and (e) villain's hideout [unlocked after PCs face villain there]. More complicated investigative tracks might include revenue stream,

4. Do the twist
Players have a knack for disrupting a DM's carefully laid plans, cutting right to the heart of an investigation as quickly as possible. And sometimes the DM provides too strong of a clue too early on. Whatever the case, this is the perfect time to introduce a plot twist into the investigation. Sure, these can take the SC in a completely different direction, but they allow you to keep running the investigation SC without batting an eye.

For example, the DM might record 3 potential plot twists which can occur during the investigation of the killings: (1) The murder victim was seen after the time of death, behaving quite normally, (2) The murderer is protected by a partisan law (diplomatic immunity/"just retaliation" clause), (3) The killing implement belongs to a highly-respected priest.

5. Consider divination rituals
Especially as PCs advance in the paragon tier, they gain access to divination rituals which can provide them with revelations which bypass lots of footwork. In such cases consider allowing an automatic success with the ritual, but also find a way to make the information revealed able to be interpreted in multiple ways, or make it deceptively metaphored, or use it as an opportunity to introduce a twist!

What happens if the PCs use Speak with Dead on the Corpse? Does that open up a "Dead Witness" SC or is the victim willing to talk? What do they learn and is it admissable evidence in court?

...

I think that's a safe framework to design from. Next time I'll look at the guts of the investigative skill challenge I'm designing.

Any investigative skill challenge stories of your own?

 

[LostSoul]

That's interesting.

My game saw a bit of investigation over the past two sessions. At one point the players asked if we were going to run a skill challenge, but I decided against it. I didn't know how I would do it.

I'm still not sure how it would work.

What if PCs discover the big clue right off the bat? Or just deduce it? If they succeed, do you tell them the solution? What happens if they fail? What if they take off on some red herring - do you call for a check or not?

More importantly, what are they rolling against? What actions are the bad guys taking?

And what happens if they fail?

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's interesting.

My game saw a bit of investigation over the past two sessions. At one point the players asked if we were going to run a skill challenge, but I decided against it. I didn't know how I would do it.

I'm still not sure how it would work.

What if PCs discover the big clue right off the bat? Or just deduce it? If they succeed, do you tell them the solution? What happens if they fail? What if they take off on some red herring - do you call for a check or not?

More importantly, what are they rolling against? What actions are the bad guys taking?

And what happens if they fail?

I think one of the most important things to think of when designing any skill challenges is determining what exactly is gained by success (other than-The PC's win ) and what happens in the case of epic fail.

Ideally, unless the challenge is literally life or death, the PC's move on after failure and continue somehow. This is why information based challenges are so.......umm......challenging.

How do the events of the campaign move forward when the purpose of the challenge was to gain vital information that the completion of an important task depends on? The answer is simple-do do that. If the PC's need X, figure out how objectives can be completed without X. It might be tougher, and the rewards of achieving the goal might be of less value but it should be possible.

Some challenges are more binary such as a timed challenge. Don't be afraid to let the PC's utterly fail from time to time. It makes the victories sweeter and seem more well deserved. When I design NPC plots and plans I always include a rough idea of what is likely to happen if the PC's do not get involved. Utter failure should result in a very similar situation. Sometimes there can be no silver medal.

 

[Quickleaf]

What if PCs discover the big clue right off the bat? Or just deduce it? If they succeed, do you tell them the solution? What happens if they fail?

This is just like the what if we kill the BBEG on the first round question. The good DM rolls with it, but ideally 4th edition's combat mechanics are balanced so this is unlikely given a well-designed encounter. In a well-designed investigative skill challenge the Big Clue is the result of succeeding at the SC, and is dependent on lots of other smaller successes.

For example, to learn that whoever killed the victim was trying to conceal knowledge of a secret society called the Wyvern League, the PCs need to accumulate X number of successes spread across all the investigative tracks.

What if they take off on some red herring - do you call for a check or not?

Great question, LostSoul! Red herrings are to investigative skill challenges what traps/hazards are to combat. They are meant to hinder and provoke strategy, not totally throw off track, demoralize, and destroy. I'm thinking the best way to handle red herrings is to create clues that have multiple interpretations. The more clues you gather the closer you are to pinning down the actual events (though even then the players need to do some thinking), so with incomplete information it's entirely possible to jump to the wrong conclusion.

One of the benefits of breaking up the investigative SC with encounters is that it allows the PCs to course correct. Making a mistake by pursuing a red herring is fun and dramatic. Having it throw off the story and make the PCs look like idiots is a drag.

For example, the PCs learn the victim was in debt to the thieves' guild and the method he was killed matches up with a notorious guild assassin's modus operandi. They might pursue the red herring of the assassin being the murderer, when in actuality another clue would point them in the direction of a noble framing the thieves guild. This leads to a tense encounter with the thieves guild where the PCs learn that the thieves' guild preferred having the victim around as an indebted toady (and some appropriate drama with the assassin..."now that you have seen my face, you cannot leave alive!"). What he was doing for the thieves guild might provide a clue to get them on the right track for the next round of the SC.

More importantly, what are they rolling against? What actions are the bad guys taking?

The idea is when the PCs are in investigation mode (i.e. a round of the skill challenge), it's their show, they are the stars - they roll against DC determined according to their level as normal for a SC. When the encounter occurs (in between rounds of the SC), that's when pushback happens and the villains get to complicate things.

In a way it's a lot like the initiative system simulating the ebb and flow of combat. Only in this case it's more like "I burn the bad guy's lab to the ground and set a trap if he returns"; to which the villain goes "ok, fine, I kidnap your mom!"

I think one of the most important things to think of when designing any skill challenges is determining what exactly is gained by success (other than-The PC's win ) and what happens in the case of epic fail.

Exactly. For example, you can gather all these clues *during* the SC, but the actual goal is to keep your investigation under the radar of the BBEG, so that your success/failure determines how much the BBEG learns of your nosing about. Or you are trying to find the murderer's hideout before he strikes again, success meaning you get to fight him, failure meaning someone will be pushing daisies by midnight. Or you are looking for a break in the investigation, a big clue which will allow you to release a bunch of detained suspects (some with quite a bit of clout and long memories) and issue a warrant for an arrest; if you fail then there's fallout with the innocent NPCs you've had to detain. There are so many ways to define success/failure, though I wonder if it might be convenient to catalogue the kinds most common to investigative SCs.

How do the events of the campaign move forward when the purpose of the challenge was to gain vital information that the completion of an important task depends on? The answer is simple-do do that. If the PC's need X, figure out how objectives can be completed without X. It might be tougher, and the rewards of achieving the goal might be of less value but it should be possible.

Great point ExploderWizard! That's the crux of SC design - succeed or fail the story moves on, and (for the sake of DM sanity) usually to the same encounter. So once the SC is complete, regardless of whether the PCs found the killer's hideout or not, the next encounter has to make logical sense. Make it a masquerade ball where the killer is likely to strike next. If the PCs found the hideout they might have learned a clue about how to identify the killer by his choice of mask or his collection of fine imported leucrotta shoes. Without the information, the PCs will have a harder time stopping the murder, but either way the action scene takes place with the PCs chasing down and confronting the killer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I use a dungeon analogy.

The different passageways are different breadcrumb trails of clues.

Rooms exist at decision points: which trail do we follow? Divinations might help them figure out what lays down each "hallway" to a few rooms down.

Information as treasure. It's part of the goal of the encounter or adventure to get this information. Once they get it, they're closer to the truth.

A "map" of the adventure like this actually really helps me do more complex scenarios pretty handily.

 

[LostSoul]

Hmmm... yeah, I think I can see it now.

You have a list of clues that define progress in the challenge:

a) MO
b) Potential Suspects
c) Tracking down suspects
d) Getting an alibi from each suspect
e) Cross-referencing each alibi with witnesses, persons of interest, etc.
f) Identifying the killer, tracking him down
g) Getting the killer to spill on who hired him
h) Tracking down the noble behind the assassination

Failure in at any one of these points leads to a red herring. Success from there moves the PCs back on track.

Failure of the challenge in general - depends where the PCs are on the track; they might never be able to track down the suspects, or the evidence might not point to anyone, or the noble might skip town, or someone might tell them to quit it or face arrest.

Success moves them up a notch. It's possible that the players could deduce things and jump a few steps; they might get the alibi from the killer and think, "He's our man." Or even figure out the identity of the killer from the very first success! That's fine, those are automatic successes. You want to reward smart play.


Anyways, that's how I would approach this sort of thing. I bet I would have trouble running it in-game, though!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Are you familiar with GUMSHOE's approach? Essentially, in an investigative game, essential clues are gimmes. That is, the PCs can gather the clue without relying on die rolls at all. If they're in the right place or doing the right thing, they get the clue automatically. The flow of the investigation is never dependent on the success or failure of a die roll. Non-essential clues and other tasks (e.g. combat, other challenges) don't receive this benefit, obviously, so the PCs can still fail in various other ways.

A key idea behind the "essential clues are gimmes" concept is that finding or gathering the clues isn't the whole picture. Interpretation of the clues (which often relies on the players, more than the PCs) is typically the important thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not sure yet what is the best approach, but some ideas:

- The Investigation itself is done just as you'd do it without skill challenge.
- Individual checks required as part of the investigation are counted for the skill challenge.
- Each check can introduce a complication if failed. For example, failing a Perception check to find a clue might not mean the PCs don't find the clue, but that they take longer for it then it should be. A failed Streetwise check might lead to a brief combat encounter, or tip the opposition off. A failed Diplomacy check might mean you only get a clue for paying a hefty bribe.
Generally, any failed check might lead to a red herring.
- A failed challenge means that the investigation introduces a major complication. For example, whoever you are investigating is fully prepared for your arrival and you run into an ambush. Or you have stirred up so much trouble that the city watch takes you off the case or wants to arrest you. Or the opposition has enough time to turn some of your allies against you.
Or you find proof that won't be admissible in court, or the opposition leaves the area once you have secured enough evidence, but before you or the authorities can take them.

The idea behind this is that the goal of an investigation is to avoid too many waves and quickly reach your goal. You don't want to tip of the opposition you're investigating into. You don't want to give them the time to strike against you, conceal more traces, or run away.