What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

Guest 6801328 · Apr 26, 2019

Oofta said:
But the real question is: did the player of Indiana say "I make an investigation check to figure out how this trap works."

Or even just, "I roll Investigation...45."

Because it's obvious why he's doing that, right?

Oofta · Apr 26, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
Or even just, "I roll Investigation...45."

Because it's obvious why he's doing that, right?

If he's standing in front of a hall and the players are discussing that it might be trapped, yes. Although given his track record of failing to achieve his goals I wouldn't put his investigation check would be quite that high. Or maybe it's just his wisdom that was low ... unable to judge the weight of an idol, pretty much delivering the treasure into the hands of his nemesis, finds the McGuffin for the nazis instead of just letting them dig in the wrong place, fails his deception check and gets captured. Hmm.

Hussar · Apr 27, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
I like this. The player describes an approach, the DM thinks that approach would succeed, given the character's abilities, and so no roll is needed.

Goal-and-approach. You nailed it.

Umm, in my example, the player never actually said a word. So, no goal and approach needed. It was, "You see the traps ahead of you and avoid them." "You are running, make a Dex save". The player was barely involved at all. Certainly no approach was even implied. And, well, "Perception 45" would have been perfectly fine in the context.

I mean, you're looking down a hall and rolling a perception check, what exactly do you think the player is doing? If I, as the player, need to spell it out in more detail than that, I'm in the wrong game.

Oofta said:
But the real question is: did the player of Indiana say "I make an investigation check to figure out how this trap works."

Heck, I'm going a step further. But, sure, it might have started with that. You see a hallway. "Perception 45" Ok, you see the trap in the hallway. You can avoid it if you wish or you could disarm it. "Naw, we'll go around, ain't got time to fiddle with it".

Done.

Pretty much pure character challenge, since the player didn't actually have to really do anything - the perception check in my example was passive. But, even if you want to argue rolling the perception check at this point in time is a player challenge, well, that's splitting hairs too finely for me.

AFAIC, there's a nice venn diagram here. One sliver on the left is Pure Player Challenge. One sliver on the right is Pure Character Challenge. And the two circles overlap about 90% and is labeled "mix of the two".

Tony Vargas · Apr 27, 2019

lowkey13 said:
While someone could certainly say that the game has moved away from that (for some people), the history of D&D is one that emphasized player ability. I wouldn't say that a game that had some focus not using PC stats to come up with clues/solutions is "not D&D," as opposed to "D&D for the first 25 years or so."

Well, "skilled play," certainly. The game also simply neglected to model much beyond combat and spellcasting in any sort of consistent way until 3.0/d20 and skills/DCs/ranks, so you very often fell back on DM/player interaction and player ability as gauged by the DM as a resolution system. Rather than having a Passive Perception based on the character's ability, the DM would describe the room, carefully being certain to describe the clues that showed there was a trap there, and wait for the player to describe his investigation of the room in a way that either resulted in the trap being sprung, or being noticed. It was an art. You wanted to describe things just so, so that the player would kick himself /after/ he set off the trap, rather than just whine what an unfair killer game you ran.
Similarly, while there were reaction adjustments for charisma, and a reaction check, that was about it, so interaction was primarily how well the player persuaded the DM that his character was being persuasive/intimidating/diplomatic. If you were good at convincing your DM, you didn't need CHA, if bad at it, no amount of CHA helped.
Of course, there was a lively debate over how realistic it was to play a low-CHA character that way, rather than intentionally grounding it's every interaction (or the need to play dumb when your PC had a low INT, say) - but little on the other side of it, how you were supposed to play a very high INT or CHA 'right' if your own INT/CHA (as filtered through the DM) wasn't so high...

...really, the d20 skill system, borked class balance, diplomancers and all was a massive improvement over the classic game. Just night and day … well, blackest night and gloomy, stormy, wouldn't-go-out-if-I-was-you day.

#goodoldaze

pemerton · Apr 27, 2019

5ekyu said:
I have not once in my years of actual gaming had someone bring up what "Gygax had in mind".

Not in so many words. I have had the issue of "balanced parties" come up, and have seen people post about it.

A variation of the same problem, which I've also encountered and heard accounts of, is one player building a LN character and another a CG one.

Immortal Sun · Apr 27, 2019

I'm gonna throw this hook out here and see what fish I catch:

I don't like challenging the player. I'm not a fan of riddles. I'm not a fan of puzzles. Even though I actually enjoy these things personally, and so do some of my players, I really don't like the idea that I'm challenging the puppetmaster and not the puppet. That may sound weird but I guess the way I think about it is...if everything is really a player challenge, why do we have characters? Is even having a character a player challenge? Keeping it alive like some kind of pen and paper Tomagotchi? Forever trapped in a world it has no functional control over or influence on, with no ability to leave or even make a choice without the interaction of the player?

That's dark man.

Yeah, I mean you can't separate the player/character unit. They are and aren't a single unit. The character can only think what the player thinks, even if the player is trying to think like the character. The character can't do anything the player doesn't want to do (unless you're one of those DMs, boooo hisssss!) but the player can't do anything the PC isn't capable of. But at the same time, there are things the PC is capable of the player isn't, there's a level of "experience" the PC has which the player doesn't and the player only comes to understand or do these things via rolls of the dice. The PC casts spells, the player rolls for their effects. The PC swings a sword, the player only rolls to hit and damage.

The Player is and isn't the Character. The Character is and isn't the Player. I feel like we devalue the existence of the Character if we frame our thinking of challenges as challenging the Player. The Player will play regardless of which side of the coin the challenges are aimed at. But the Character? Well, we can actually remove him from the equation completely if we wanted.

So, by the very nature of even having a Character, we must, to some extent, be challenging the Character somewhere along the road here. Otherwise, for what purpose does the Character exist?

Hmmm, that's a little more existential than I intended....

Guest 6801328 · Apr 27, 2019

Hussar said:
Umm, in my example, the player never actually said a word. So, no goal and approach needed. It was, "You see the traps ahead of you and avoid them." "You are running, make a Dex save". The player was barely involved at all. Certainly no approach was even implied. And, well, "Perception 45" would have been perfectly fine in the context.

I mean, you're looking down a hall and rolling a perception check, what exactly do you think the player is doing? If I, as the player, need to spell it out in more detail than that, I'm in the wrong game.

Oh, I thought the player was describing all that. Nvm!

Pretty much pure character challenge, since the player didn't actually have to really do anything...

And that's my goal for a fun and exciting game!

I like it when I can take a bathroom break and when I get back my character sheet has defeated the BBEG.

5ekyu · Apr 27, 2019

pemerton said:
Not in so many words. I have had the issue of "balanced parties" come up, and have seen people post about it.

A variation of the same problem, which I've also encountered and heard accounts of, is one player building a LN character and another a CG one.

And alignment is another case of "what would gygax do" that we ignore too.

pemerton · Apr 27, 2019

On riddles: I think I used in 3 in 6 years of a 4e campaign. I don't think they required the players to depart from character to answer them.

5ekyu · Apr 27, 2019

pemerton said:
On riddles: I think I used in 3 in 6 years of a 4e campaign. I don't think they required the players to depart from character to answer them.

I have used them less than thst. L much prefer the blue delving to be in-game mysteries and the like.

The last riddle session I was in was three weeks ago. One of them hinged on the english spelling and pronunciation of a word, so it did not even cover the scope of our own real world, much less have a "in character in a fantasy world tie." So its answer definitely required leaving character.

And, it was not one that seemed uncommon as rpg riddles go.