Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[Henry]

The PC is a vehicle for the player.

I can’t move at 70mph; but in my car, I can. My car can’t negotiate a maze-like parking lot; but my car with me behind the wheel can.

I don’t care if it is old school, new school, or middle school. That’s what I prefer.

A thought just occurred to me: Your car might have a GPS system. You might not be able to navigate while driving for squat; however, thanks to your GPS, you can act like you're a lot more capable than you really are. Same thing with allowing mental stats on a character - though I drive the character's conscience and morals, he doesn't have to act as dumb as I really am; he can be as slick as greased snail slime in an oil barrel, though it's my decisions that make him succeed or fail.

That said, I get the idea of "character as vehicle only"; and it's certainly one thing that separates older D&D from newer D&D. I was mentioning this week the old "Be Aware, Take Care" article from Lew Pulsipher of Dragon Magazine to someone; that article describes old-school play much better than I could come up with on my own. Great article, very fun.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ultimately a good game and a good DM will challenge the player and the character. Skills have thier place but should never stand in for a description of what a character is doing. Skills help in the resolution of numerous tasks but are a very poor substitute for descriptive narration.

A player should not be punished for not being the greatest public speaker. If his or her character has skills in that area then a good skill skill roll will polish what the player actually says. It shouldn't mean that the player gets to mumble " I inspire the crowd" and roll a die. The player should still convey his or her message clearly. The die roll is to represent the character's delivery of what the player said.

When it comes to riddles or puzzles these can be a lot of fun completely without skill rolls. Its important that the solution to these puzzles be information that the characters have or is relevant to them. Challenging the players to remember something that both they and thier characters know can be a great exercise in using the old noggin. A riddle with an answer based on some out of game knowledge is pointless to the game world and the characters so why use it?

For situations like searching its easy to mix in character skill with player cleverness. If good descriptions of key things to search are given and the player just says " I make a search check" perhaps it takes longer to find and a wandering encounter might interrupt. If the player actually listens and searches specific areas perhaps the goodies are found quickly and maybe (gasp) without a die roll.

Characters having skills and sbilities that the player's don't is a good thing and kind of the point of roleplaying. The reality is that its the players at the table, and not the characters that need to be involved and engaged in what is happening. If a player can't even be bothered to descibe the actions of his or her character then why come to the table.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I'm with Henry: having a GPS (and let's make it one of those really cool models that speaks directions) means that either you can have a navigator when you're not any good at it, or if you can navigate reasonably well you at least have a backup.

Game mechanics can exist both to allow a player's character to carry out something that they, the player, can't quite manage or just to be a backup in case the player gets stuck.

 

[MerricB]

So many roleplaying games seem to be lacking the "game" part to me. Or rather, they make the classic Ameritrash error (MerricB knows what I mean by this, the rest of you can go to BBG and look it up) of assuming that, if you're simulating something cool, you must be having fun, without stopping to pay attention to whether the simulation itself is a fun game. Having a fun game is a key aspect of challenging the player rather than the character's stats.

Interesting analysis.

It's worth noting that the 4e DMG specifically calls out how to challenge players rather than the characters in its discussion of puzzles (page 82). Although it gives a sidebar to aid players who want their high-intelligence characters to have a bonus, the main point of that section is to challenge the player.

Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be a discussion of the skills/roleplaying divide; I wish there was.

Cheers!

 

[Irda Ranger]

You can denigrate it all you like- but rather than say that 4e is like a boardgame now, I'd say that 4e combat is like a good boardgame now, and earlier editions were often like poor ones.

I'm probably kicking off an edition war here even though I don't mean to. Read above again, I really enjoyed my Rules Cyclopedia D&D, I just thought the combat was poorly written once I had the chance to see a broader spectrum of gaming.

Although I agree because I think previous editions of D&D weren't designed to be boardgames at all* (and hence it's no surprise they make lousy boardgames), I'd love to know your thoughts on what RPGs have fun, easy to visualize combat not requiring a hex grid like 3E/4E.



*Combat was designed to not need a board, so it had to be spatially simple.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'm with Henry: having a GPS (and let's make it one of those really cool models that speaks directions) means that either you can have a navigator when you're not any good at it, or if you can navigate reasonably well you at least have a backup.

What if you're playing a game where navigating is part of the challenge to the players? Wouldn't that be a bit like playing basketball with a vacuum-hoop that just sucked the the ball in if you got it within 10' of the backboard? e.g., not as fun because it's not as challenging?

The only point I'm trying to make here is that superficially similar games can be fundamentally different games under the surface. If you're playing for different kinds of challenges than a tactical boardgame has to offer than an Int check or a simple Chr roll to solve your PC's problem defeats the purpose of playing the game in the first place.

 

[Cadfan]

Although I agree because I think previous editions of D&D weren't designed to be boardgames at all* (and hence it's no surprise they make lousy boardgames), I'd love to know your thoughts on what RPGs have fun, easy to visualize combat not requiring a hex grid like 3E/4E.

Feng Shui is a great example. Its solution is about as different from 4e's solution as you can get. But fundamentally its a solution to the same problem- that its not that fun to roll dice until somebody wins, even if the dice represent something interesting. 4e's solution was to make the interface in which the dice exist (the board game) fun, by allowing for more diverse and more important player input. Feng Shui's solution was to redirect your attention as far away from the dice as possible by encouraging and rewarding cool combat descriptions.

 

[justanobody]

I'm with Henry: having a GPS (and let's make it one of those really cool models that speaks directions) means that either you can have a navigator when you're not any good at it, or if you can navigate reasonably well you at least have a backup.

Game mechanics can exist both to allow a player's character to carry out something that they, the player, can't quite manage or just to be a backup in case the player gets stuck.

Isn't that why the game is not played 1-on-1, but the DM has a whole group of people to solve the problem at hand. So one person that isn't apt to the situation to resolve it can rely on the other players?

It isn't that every player or character must be able to do everything. That is why the game has a group of players.

Your GPS situation is not really rules to help the player who got stuck in traffic, but it is another player that offers a solution to a problem. Just as if you had someone sitting beside you in the car reading the map and directions to you. Add two people in the back seat to watch out either side to help find the road you are looking for and then you have a party of people working towards the same task.....

 

[joethelawyer]

Interesting analysis.



Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be a discussion of the skills/roleplaying divide; I wish there was.

Cheers!

here's how our group handles the skills/roleplaying divide.

we had to come to a compromise, balancing my interests in old school play, the guys who like 3rd edition as is, and the guy who plays dnd like his character is a magic card. he utters not a single word the whole game.

the group is composed of new players and old timers. the new player doesnt say jack diddly. doesnt roleplay. he doesnt get the concept i dont think. to him the game is a magic game, his character's stats and abilities vs. others' stats and abilities.

we have one guy who would rolelay all day every day and never swing an axe, even though he is a cleric of the dwarven god of battle. i am more like the dwarf than like the magic card game player guy, although my night isn't complete unless my wizard chucks a fireball at someone.

my brother and i alternate dm'ing. he plays a samurai when he isn't dm'ing, and likes to roleplay.

basically for the roleplaying skills, we dont use most of them. to ask the dm if the dm is bluffing him and base it on a die roll is kinda dumb. same with intimidate. if you want to intimidate someone the player has to stand up and say something badass-sounding. same with the dm. basically we killed off bluff, sense motive, intimidate, and innuendo.

the dm takes into account the players who have knowledge skills, or diplomacy, or gather information, because sometimes the players dont have the ability to know that sort of info, whereas the characters would.

if the players have some special knowledge of the game, like they memorized the monster manual, they are forced to put skill points into the "i've been reading the monster manual since 3rd grade" skill.

the traditional thieves skills based on dex are done as written.

i think the discussion though goes to feats and spells as well.

by having detailed spell descriptions describing exactly what a spell does or doesnt do, you limit spell use creativity. basically a lot of the old creative tricks i used to do with spells have been ruled out in 3rd ed through the detailed descriptions.

as for feats, they took the place of creativity in combat. we never used a grid in ad&d. it was description of the battle through a narrative. is had to be described well, so all players understood what they could or couldnt do. players back then used to try and do cool moves. jump off of here to stab them there, land on this, pushing it into them, while riding it down into the combat, etc. i dont see so much of that anymore since the feats give a character a certain set of moves that they can do which will guarantee damage will be done, or more attacks will be gained. the other more creative stuff we used to do doesn't give such a guarantee. why take a risk and do somehing that might not work, that no one ever heard of, when you can do old reliable cleave or manyshot?

plus with a grid sometimes you cant do certain things. what i mean is, with the older editions, a player would describe what he wanted to try, and if the dm had in his head a different setup to the combat scenario, but the player's move sounded cool as hell and would be the stuf you would talk about over a beer the next day if it worked, he would change the scenario in his head and allow the move. just base it on a dex or strength check or something.


anyhow, thats my 2 cents for now. thanks to the guys who told me what metagaming is.

 

[Remathilis]

I've spoken to this before, coining the term "Avatar" vs. "Persona" playing.

Avatar play is exactly that; the PC is a vehicle of which the PC is challenged via proxy. Persona play assumes the character is a challenged, and the player is responsible for dictating how that character reacts.

A classic example is the Tomb of Horrors. Many of the traps in the ToH cannot be affected by the character's action. There is no skill, save, check, or AC that can save the PC, purely it is the player telling the DM the "correct" answer in the time allotted to do so.

The biggest flaw (and many have pointed out) to Avatar play is that it reduces the character to a mere puppet. If I'm not a wizard, my intelligence score can be a 3 or 18 and it doesn't affect the way I played him. Ditto charisma. I could be the smoothest bard with a 25 charisma, but if I can't convince the DM, my smooth talk fails.

By contrast, Persona play has the problem of personality (and personality conflicts) can get in the way of the game. The classic "whats my motivation?" with characters come up, and inter-PC conflicts can derail the whole game.

Personally, I perfer Persona play. To the point that playing avatar play is akin to playing a video-game; I'm merely controlling a character rather than playing him.