Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[Mouseferatu]

I reject the entire dichotomy. RPGs aren't an "either/or" situation.

Do I challenge the characters? Yes, every time I run a combat, pit them against a skill challenge, or have them pick up a die in any way, shape, or form.

Do I challenge the players? Yes, every time I introduce a mystery plotline or require them to solve a problem based on a clue I dropped six games ago (and yes, I do that), every time I run a combat--since they have to decide tactics--and every time I pit them against a skill challenge, since they have to decide which skills to use, and how.

Riddles? Players first, but if it's going to stop the game dead, resort to dice. Ditto puzzles, though I don't use puzzles very often.

AFAIAC, the game doesn't happen without challenges to both. The notion that you must pick one or the other, or that any given edition disallows one or the other, is utter nonsense. One edition may do so differently than other editions, and that might not be to everyone's tastes, but that's not the same thing at all.

Edit: And it looks like Psion beat me to at least part of my point.

 

[MerricB]

What Psion and Mouseferatu said.

Cheers!

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Are we talking about eliminating all skill rolls, or only some types of skills. Because the argument that "your character does the heavy lifting, you do the heavy thinking" implies that there is still a need for a rule defining certain traits that in no way could pass from the player into the game world.

Take sneaking: You can say "My character sneaks past the guards", and if the player has a good idea of what's in the area that can be used as cover you could possibly require them to state what they are hiding behind. But how do you adjudicate how silently they walk? Without a Sneak skill you either can't or you have to give a player such a detailed knowledge of their character's body and the surface they'll be walking over and then hope they know something about how walking silently works and the whole process becomes "describe the physics".

You can make similar arguments for many skills: players can't pick a lock when they aren't actually holding the pick and feeling how the mechanism is moving, they can't make a disguise without knowing how all the parts look fitted together. I can't see how to adjudicate these actions without a mechanical system that reflects the interior of the game world.

 

[jdrakeh]

If the entire focus of a challenge is on challenging the player, what is the point of having a character at all?

Well, while this is a little fart-fetched, I was thinking in the same vein. If a character's Intelligence and Wisdom are not to be tested in actual play, then why were these things hard-coded into many games as stats with rules for testing them in actual play?

I often hear the idea espoused that 'old school' games were about challenging the player, but certain elements of the games (such as hard coding character intellect in the rules) suggest that this argument reflects less truth in game design than it does departure from the RAW at individual tables.

This being the case, it seems to me that what many people promote as 'old school' today seems to be less about using rules as written or any inherent mechanical superiority of older systems and more about personal interpretation (or deliberate ignorance) of said rules.

[Edit: That said, I'm of the mind that challenging both the players and characters seems to be the best (i.e., most entertaining) route for me and, indeed, the kind of play that most game are designed to facilitate.]

 

[Irda Ranger]

That is all fine and dandy until your DM introduces a puzzle.

Sure you can think for your character and tell him to go left or right, jump over that pit or raise that portcullis. But as soon as your Wizard has Genius level intelligence, and you do not, the limitation of that play style shows how lacking it can be.

Lacking? I guess that depends on what you're looking for.

A person who is exercising their theory of mind muscles by pretending to be someone else will often find rolling d20+Int+1/2 level to be lacking.

A person who playing at negotiating a contract for release with the raiders who took them captive will often find rolling d20+Chr+1/2 level to be lacking.

If you fail a Str check to Open Doors, do you want to roll an Int check so the DM can tell you to use the statue of the Baron Crozy as a battering ram, or would you rather figure that out yourself? There's no wrong answer to that question, but it is the difference (I think) between Old School and the style of play you are suggesting.

---

As for the puzzle the DM handed you, please don't take it literally. It's an abstract representation of the puzzle your 18 Int character is actually solving. The real puzzle is much harder, but the DM has scaled it down for you to present an equivalent level of difficulty.

 

[D'karr]

There's no wrong answer to that question, but it is the difference (I think) between Old School and the style of play you are suggesting.

Since I wasn't suggesting any style of play what did you think I was suggesting?

As far as I can remember D&D has had some form of ability checks (Opening Doors, Bonuses to Resist Magic, To Hit adjustments, and Adjustments to Reactions, to name a few.) So what is so far-fetched about using those "numbers" for the conflict resolution that cannot be accounted for by the player's natural abilities?

I'm sorry if I'm not getting the "funny" in your "humor."

 

[Irda Ranger]

Since I wasn't suggesting any style of play what did you think I was suggesting?

It seemed to me you were advocating a style of play where a puzzle could be "solved" with an Int check.

As far as I can remember D&D has had some form of ability checks (Opening Doors, Bonuses to Resist Magic, To Hit adjustments, and Adjustments to Reactions, to name a few.) So what is so far-fetched about using those "numbers" for the conflict resolution that cannot be accounted for by the player's natural abilities?

What part of a word puzzle can't be solved by the player's natural abilities? Open Doors and Reflex Saves are useful to have mechanics for. Things the player can interact with socially or verbally not so much.

 

[D'karr]

What part of a word puzzle can't be solved by the player's natural abilities?

If word puzzles were the only type of puzzle ever encountered maybe, maybe your suggestion that character abilities should not "influence" the outcome would fit. However, there are quite a bit more puzzles than those.

I'll just agree to disagree, the discussion is pointless.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think "challenge the players" or ""challenge the character" works alone. When I play an RPG, I take on the character's abilities, knowledges, and physyque. "Challenge the players" is legalizing metagame. "Challenge the character" is just dice rolling. The player chooses what the characters do, but it's up to the characters to actually do it, if they are even able to. You have to do both.

 

[joethelawyer]

If you fail a Str check to Open Doors, do you want to roll an Int check so the DM can tell you to use the statue of the Baron Crozy as a battering ram, or would you rather figure that out yourself? There's no wrong answer to that question, but it is the difference (I think) between Old School and the style of play you are suggesting.

thats a perfect example of what i am talking about as a main difference. i am not trying to say one style of play is better than the others, just saying the distinction drawn in the article i quoted sums up the difference better than any other explanation i have ever been able to articulate.