Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[tomBitonti]

MrMyth:
The player thinks for the character, so take the entrance to Moria "Speak friend and enter".

Frodo, not Gandalf solved the puzzle. Which would you figure to have greater knowledge based stats about magic doors, dwarves, elves, etc? Gandalf who has been around, or Frodo who has only heard some stories from Gandalf's visits and Bilbo's stories.

Maybe Frodo got a lucky roll of the dice, or the player just had an idea that transcends the characters stats.

Actually, Hobbits had a fondness for riddles. Gandalf was more learned, certainly, but Frodo had a better practicality at solving riddles. Frodo's insight, in opening the door, was to figure out that the question was in fact a riddle.

 

[justanobody]

Actually, Hobbits had a fondness for riddles. Gandalf was more learned, certainly, but Frodo had a better practicality at solving riddles. Frodo's insight, in opening the door, was to figure out that the question was in fact a riddle.

Being no riddle/puzzle solving stat then it means that the possible lower INT/WIS character came up with the answer outside the confines of the stats.

Meaning that even a low INT/WIS character can surpass a higher INT/WIS character at times when the actual situation would be something more prone to be known by the lower INT/WIS character.

If not even fully solved, just the random idea gave Gandalf the power to accidentally open the door by saying "friend" in elvish when Frodo asked what it was to see if there was more to the riddle than what may have been written or if the elvish word for "friend" was the actual password for the door.

They worked together since it was a riddle Frodo (wasn't it really Merry that did it in the book?) neede the knowledge about the magical doors from Gandalf, and the actual word itself.

So they shared in solving this riddle.

 

[Mallus]

If someone else solves it before me, then that is fine, but if dice do it that will make me very unhappy.

I quote the Rolling Stones; "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need".

 

[xechnao]

How does a system model comparasons of skill if it doesn't have a mechanical way of modifying the random element that the dice roll represents?

The modifiers you are talking about factor to the odds. The dice is just a way of deciding the result of the odds. Dice do not represent the random element: dice decide the result of a random element you are already aware of. Mechanics do factor to the odds. One type of such a mechanic is one that uses modifiers. There are different mechanics to factor to the odds though.

 

[justanobody]

I quote the Rolling Stones; "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need".

I quote Keith Richards (Captain Teague): "The code is the law." ~bang~

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

There are different mechanics to factor to the odds though.

Such as what? (I'm having trouble with "factor to the odds". What does that mean?)

 

[xechnao]

Such as what? (I'm having trouble with "factor to the odds". What does that mean?)

With "factor to the odds" I am talking about an established rule system that influences choice by dictating certain standards regarding risks (in theory this may include all possible standards except the one that ultimately dictates the PCs behavior regarding his relations with the other PCs of the group)
There is a pdf around the internet (dont remember where) that has an extensive analysis of various commercial games that use different systems. To give you some examples, there are systems that use tables or other systems that use dice pools -then there are many kinds of dice pools regarding how they work.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

……there are systems that use tables or other systems that use dice pools -then there are many kinds of dice pools regarding how they work.

When I used "modifier" I meant in the sense that it is anything that changes the probability of the outcome when dice are rolled. Dice pools do this, and I assume most table-based systems do this as well in some fashion.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am late to the party, so I hope I don't repeat to much.

While Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats sounds neat and catchy, I think it doesn't really help us.

Particularly, I do not think a skill system is at odds with this.

If you wanted to challenge the character stats in an RPG, you just would set high DCs. But that is not what we do in any game.

In a way, you always create various "puzzles" the players have to solve with the tools given to them. Sometimes, that's really just their ability to solve a word-riddle, and has no bearing to character statistics. Other "puzzles" can be the mini-game of optimizing a character, or coordinating the party to use the optimal combination of attack powers and tactical positioning to defeat their fictional opposition.

I think the "old school" approach is not really defined by the idea that you challenge the player, it is more defined by the fact that you focus on more "direct" puzzles. Stuff like "which lever to pull" or a word-puzzle, but also by hearing the NPCs words and discover the lies in his words.
"New School" doesn't encourage this as much, since the desire is to role-play a fictional character whose mental abilities, skill-set and even personality might differ from that of the playing character.
If you want to play a character really different from you, you can't just rely on your own abilities.

That's why we use mental ability scores and skills, but also spells. So the nature of the puzzles change, involving the new sub-systems. A very simple example: You don't have to know which lever to pull, but if your party has no one with the Thievery Skill, maybe the Wizard player should remember that he has a wizard spell (or a ritual) that might help him here.

Many RPGs contain a certain degree of "resource management" that is a puzzle in its own right. D&D (even "old school") always had its spells for most of this. Many classical D&D spells are "game-breakers" because they solve a puzzle. A simple spell like Detect Evil can make an investigation a lot easier, while a Knock spell avoids solving the "find the right key"-puzzle, and aFind the Path can avoid all that little and large legwork required to get to your intended location. But while you avoid the "classic puzzle", you get a new one - which spells do you prepare today? Do you cast this spell now, risking that you need it later?


Still, in any case, both old and new games work best if you still challenge the players. You might give their PCs skills, spells, feats or powers, but in the end, they are just tools the player has to use.

The only case where we really get into a "callenge the stats" scenario is if the player would not make any decisions, and just roll dice. It is possible to get there - imagine a 3E or 4E like combat system that abstracts movement and positioning and replaces it with a "Tactics" skill roll - and remove all spells, powers and combat options. Suddenly it's a game of luck and statistics. But even then, there might be a hint of "challenge the player" - if the player could build that character on his own, "system mastery" might help him to select those options that work best.

I think these extremes show one thing what people like about "old-school" - you are "closer to the action". It's not enough to make a stealth check to hide. You need to describe where and how you want to hide. "I turn the lamp so that it blinds anyone entering the room, and hide behind the door." This feels a lot closer to the game world then "I roll 24 on Stealth. I am wearing an Elven Cloak, so as long as I have concealment and don't attack or move, I stay invisible, so even if he beats my roll, he can only hear me, and I use my daily "Ninjas Hiding" power so I can reroll my first failed check."

What people like is entirely a personal preference. I can see the appeal of "old school gaming", but I am more in the "new school" faction where I want to solve the puzzle of using the right character abilities, since I want to have the feeling of being someone else then me. And if it is me to pull levers or come up with a clever ghilie suit in swamp instead of my character, I don't feel like that.

 

[El Mahdi]

What Psion and Mouseferatu said.

I hope I'm not too late too the party either, or repeat too much what others have said.

I agree with what Psion and Mouseferatu said also (in the posts just above Merrics). You should challenge both the players and the characters. Obviously the game is meant for the enjoyment (and challenge) of the players, but there's a reason the "character" has stats. If no challenges are actually geared toward challenging the character, then of what use is an Intelligence score, a Wisdom score, a Charisma score, or any Skills that use them. If challenging the player is the only thing that matters, than you may as well throw these parts of the game out, since they no longer serve any purpose.