What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[S'mon]

You can definitely challenge the abilities of the PC, which may be at least partly random rather than build-derived.

 

[pemerton]

In my experience, in my play, in many systems it's more explicitly expressed this way but DnD doesnt ignore it - these chargen choices are less a forsee or guess by the player about what may come but a choice by the player of what kinds of things they want to be doing.

That player choosing a fighter over a mage is doing do cuz that's what he wants to be playing - not a guess that the fighter will be needed more than the mage or less. That guy choosing criminal over craftsman is doing so cuz those are activities he hopes to pursue - using those traits and features.

To quote from Gygax's PHB, p 18:

The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class . . .​

Although a different perspective is then suggested on p 107:

Once the objective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. Will the characters have the means of accomplishing the goal? Is it well-balanced, so that it can cope with typical problems expected in the fullfillment of the objective? Will it be necessary to find mercenary non-player characters or hire men-at-arms in order to give the party the necessary muscle? . . .

Characters must know each other's strengths and weaknesses, physical and mental, in order to meet the problem posed with the correct character or combination thereof. . . . Do we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells?​

I think reconciling these two concerns, in D&D play, has tended to rely on optimism about the distribution of preferences among the players: ie that when players choose character builds as per the p 18 imperative (ie what do you want your role in the game to be) this will also, by dint of good fortune and varied tastes, produce a "balanced" party as per p 107.

When it doesn't, then maybe the last person to turn up has to play the cleric!

(Of course there are non-D&D systems where the notion of "balanced party" isn't applicable.)

I don't expect players to be able to swing swords in real life. But I *do* expect them to avoid being surrounded, to not clump up (more than once, anyway) against Wizards, to finish off nearly dead opponents rather than attack fresh ones, etc. etc. etc. None of that requires genuine sword-fighting ability, but neither does it abdicate decision-making to the dice.

As I said in another thread, this speaks to me of classic "skilled play".

I think that the player of a rogue probably should seek to avoid being surrounded. But a paladin should relish it!

 

[5ekyu]

To quote from Gygax's PHB, p 18:

The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class . . .​

Although a different perspective is then suggested on p 107:

Once the objective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. Will the characters have the means of accomplishing the goal? Is it well-balanced, so that it can cope with typical problems expected in the fullfillment of the objective? Will it be necessary to find mercenary non-player characters or hire men-at-arms in order to give the party the necessary muscle? . . .

Characters must know each other's strengths and weaknesses, physical and mental, in order to meet the problem posed with the correct character or combination thereof. . . . Do we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells?​

I think reconciling these two concerns, in D&D play, has tended to rely on optimism about the distribution of preferences among the players: ie that when players choose character builds as per the p 18 imperative (ie what do you want your role in the game to be) this will also, by dint of good fortune and varied tastes, produce a "balanced" party as per p 107.

When it doesn't, then maybe the last person to turn up has to play the cleric!

(Of course there are non-D&D systems where the notion of "balanced party" isn't applicable.)

As I said in another thread, this speaks to me of classic "skilled play".

I think that the player of a rogue probably should seek to avoid being surrounded. But a paladin should relish it!

"When it doesn't, then maybe the last person to turn up has to play the cleric!"

Or the druid or the bard or the divine soul sorcerer or they say "let's go without a cleric" and as the ancient text above mentions they find other means and methods.

One of our more memorable 1e campaigns had a very imbalanced party where nobody had anything more than leather armor, no fighter, a half-cleric half thief and we completely changed how we approached problems than we did with the typical "balanced party". This gets to the point I made above, character choices in game can influence or decide a lot about the nature of challenges they face, unless the GM is taking that away.

Another game, in 3.5 equally memorable had no cleric, only a ranger-druid multi-class as any healing, so, again they adjusted their choices, managed to find non-standard solutions and find ways to fill in some of that gap by other means. Its played very different than it would have with a typical standard well balanced party.

The last 5e one shot FLGS, the four players chose a warlock, a sorcerer, a bard and a rogue from the 15 pre-gens - adventure unseen. Ran thru it taking very different choices and methods and means thsn if they had chosen the barbarian, fighter, wizard and cleric from the pile.

All this to me boils down to... in my experience direct and indirect - players in the vast majority of cases *do have* choices in character abilities chosen by them to play and that in a lot of those cases it is done by preference, not to "forsee" as much as to inform their choices going forward.

If one is forced to treat rpgs like a adventure book solo thing, then when they choose rogue, they then also decide as much as possible to the pick up to play the "sneaky tunnels of loot" book as opposed to the "tunnel of raging trolls" book.

But, others may have different experiences, especially if their primary basis is only or mostly in flavors of DnD or even only the recent editions.

My gaming and GMing draw a lot from a wide variety of games - some with as much playtime under my belt as the various DnDs together, and quite a few with more than DnD5e.

That is for better or worse of course. Someone who puts value in *running 5e how it was intended by designers" likely sees this as a poor choice that leads to getting less out of it. Me? I long ago dismissed "how strangers think we should play their game" as irrelevant to our fun.

 

[pemerton]

One of our more memorable 1e campaigns had a very imbalanced party where nobody had anything more than leather armor, no fighter, a half-cleric half thief and we completely changed how we approached problems than we did with the typical "balanced party".

My two most memorable AD&D campaigns both involved two PCs: one all-thief, the other all-warrior (a bushi and a kensai from Oriental Adventures).

I'm not saying that it can't be done: just that it's not consistent with Gygax's advice on p 107, and that this tension between his two bits of commentary reflects a known phenomenon in D&D party building, of the tension between players choosing their approach, and having a "balanced" party which is widely seen as a desirable thing.

In my own case, the campaigns involving "unbalanced" parties didn't look very much like the sort of thing Gygax had in mind, and I would say didn't closely resemble the sort of scenarios that most posters in this thread tend to put forward as examples.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or, put another way, there's a series of pressure plates that I can see because they are sticking out a little more than the others, along with spikes in the wall and various other things.

So, I Indiana Jones through the corridor and miss all the traps. I mean, to me, that scene in the Raiders of the Lost Ark, where stepping on a pressure plate launches a dart is a perfect example of player makes a skill check to notice the trap, and then avoids it entirely. Doesn't take a bunch of declarations or checks or anything else. Heck, he knew the trap was there just by looking.

On the way back, he just runs fast enough to avoid getting darted.

So, what exactly was his "approach" that required more than either a skill check (automatic success) or a Dex saving throw?

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.

 

[5ekyu]

My two most memorable AD&D campaigns both involved two PCs: one all-thief, the other all-warrior (a bushi and a kensai from Oriental Adventures).

I'm not saying that it can't be done: just that it's not consistent with Gygax's advice on p 107, and that this tension between his two bits of commentary reflects a known phenomenon in D&D party building, of the tension between players choosing their approach, and having a "balanced" party which is widely seen as a desirable thing.

In my own case, the campaigns involving "unbalanced" parties didn't look very much like the sort of thing Gygax had in mind, and I would say didn't closely resemble the sort of scenarios that most posters in this thread tend to put forward as examples.

Sure...

To be honest, I have not once in my years of actual gaming had someone bring up what "Gygax had in mind". Its always been "What are we playing? What do we want? Not "What would Gygax do?"
The only place I see that brought up is on forum discussions, not in anything tied to actual play.

But again, that's me. Maybe there are streams out there where the will of Gygax is printed out and hanging on their set backdrops.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I see all challenges in the game as challenging the player.

For almost every situation in the game that comes up, it's the player, via their PC avatar, that is being challenged. The PC doesn't act on its own. In response to a challenge, the player decides how that PC thinks and acts in the context of their abilities, proficiencies, background, traits, bonds, flaws, experiences, etc.

Now, once in a while, there could be a puzzle that appears in the game world that is solved without using anything from the character sheets. The "one truth telling/one lying/one question only" guard problem, perhaps. Or maybe a combo lock on a door that is solved by busting out your Mastermind board game. If no PC stats are used to come up with clues/solutions and there have been no clues presented in the game world that PCs discovered previously, then we've kinda stepped out of D&D 5e for a moment. The whole table needs to be on board for these moments - something that should be discussed in a session 0 to get buy-in or likely should be avoided altogether.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Just going to point out that (IMO) the bolded part is an odd statement to make given the history of D&D.

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."

Fair enough. I have amended my statement to specify 5e.