Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[Delta]

In one case, I (the player) had an epiphany about the puzzle of symbology that was being constructed by the DM by the 5th adventure in a campaign just as we were breaking down the game for the evening. I did so so thoroughly that it would have revealed the campaign's overall metaplot...skipping ahead perhaps a year of gaming. Due to RW events, we couldn't game again for several weeks, and by that time, I forgot the structure of clues I had once assembled in my mind, and asked the DM to remind me.

He said no.

I said that, while it had been months of RW time- long enough for me (the player) to forget my insight- only 8 hours had passed in game, so I (the PC) wouldn't or shouldn't have forgotten what he figured out.

His response was that it was highly unlikely that my PC (whose mental stats were lowish) would have figured out the mystery in the first place, at least with the events up to that point.

He was right. While it was possible that he (the PC) could figure it out, I knew that part of why I solved the puzzle was because of my personal RW knowledge. I used knowledge and mental skills my PC simply didn't have.

So, to shorten an already long post, I'd have to say that even though I've been playing for 30+ years, I've always favored challenging the PC than the player. Going the other way has too many potential pitfalls.

Personally, I would call that whole long situation a pretty big "pitfall" to my gaming enjoyment. I would much rather just collapse PC/player knowledge and avoid the whole debate in the first place. It's precisely those complicated (and OOC) in-vs-out of game debates that are the single biggest drag on my playing a role and enjoying it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, if Bob can help Verys with the Sphinx, it's a pretty short slide down the slope to have Bob "help" Verys in other ways; in other words, you can quickly end up with people part-playing characters not their own. And that, believe me, gets messy.

Bob doesn't help Verys; Bob helps Mike.

Bob has no control over Verys. Mike always has the final say over Verys' actions, so there's no part-playing involved. But Bob can offer advice and sugestions to Mike, which Mike can take on or ignore as he sees fit.

As long as Bob doesn't cross the line, and start dictating Verys' actions - as long as Mike is always in control - there's no messiness.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I would call that whole long situation a pretty big "pitfall" to my gaming enjoyment. I would much rather just collapse PC/player knowledge and avoid the whole debate in the first place. It's precisely those complicated (and OOC) in-vs-out of game debates that are the single biggest drag on my playing a role and enjoying it.

Not me- there are some things I know that my PC shouldn't, and vice versa.

I like to think I do a good job of keeping them separate, but having those mechanical elements- stats, skills, etc.- in existence to help reinforce those boundaries between the player and the PC.

Not that those boundaries always exist, of course. Sometimes I do play PCs that are but thinly veiled alter-egos, or paragons of what I aspire to be IRL.

Usually, however, there are huge areas in which Player and PC knowledge simply don't overlap. When the PC has the skills I don't, its nice to be able to depend on a simple skill check.

After all, in a very real sense, its like magic or other surreal/supernatural/high-tech campaign elements. I'd hate to go into combat slinging only the spells I (the player) know- far better that I can use my PC's spell list.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Personally, I would call that whole long situation a pretty big "pitfall" to my gaming enjoyment. I would much rather just collapse PC/player knowledge and avoid the whole debate in the first place.

But does that mean you have to leave the room if your character falls unconscious?

If another PC moves up to the corner at the end of the corridor, do you have to put your hands over your ears and chant "LA LA LA!" while the DM tells him what he sees?

Otherwise, you may become privy to knowledge that your charcter has no way of knowing... and if PC/player knowledge is collapsed, your character is now able to act on that knowledge despite not being present at the location it was revealed, or not being able to see it for himself...

It's where you end up with Krunk the Barbarian 'inventing' gunpowder, because the player read a book detailing the process. Or knowing the vulnerabilities of a particular devil because different PCs met them in the last game.

-Hyp.

 

[Fenes]

I'm generally with Umbran on this.

I "challenge" PCs, not players. Players decide what their characters want to do, stats and rolls decide how the chosen course of action is done. How detailed the chosen course of action is varies from "my character tries to use the annual market's foot race as a distraction by engineering a betting scandal to incite a riot, which will draw off the guards so we can sneak into the dungeon" to "I sneak past the guards".

My group separates pc and player knowledge - like in last session's scene when every player knew (from the charm spell's save rolls) that there's a disguised fiend acting as a spy within the party's midst, but no PC saw through the disguise yet, or had cause to suspect something.

 

[pemerton]

I "challenge" PCs, not players. Players decide what their characters want to do, stats and rolls decide how the chosen course of action is done. How detailed the chosen course of action is varies from "my character tries to use the annual market's foot race as a distraction by engineering a betting scandal to incite a riot, which will draw off the guards so we can sneak into the dungeon" to "I sneak past the guards".

This is also a challenge to the player, if the player has to come up with the plan (ie is not just allowed to roll the PC's "planning" skill and have the GM tell her what the optimal plan is).

 

[Fenes]

This is also a challenge to the player, if the player has to come up with the plan (ie is not just allowed to roll the PC's "planning" skill and have the GM tell her what the optimal plan is).

If the player comes up with the plan, good. If he doesn't, or doesn't want to, he can roll, and I give him a plan. I do not expect or even force players to plan if they do not want to. Not that any of my PCs ever manages an optimal plan.

 

[Walknot]

If the player comes up with the plan, good. If he doesn't, or doesn't want to, he can roll, and I give him a plan. I do not expect or even force players to plan if they do not want to. Not that any of my PCs ever manages an optimal plan.

Yep. You can have your cake and eat it too here. You *can* play 4e like MtG if you like, and what's wrong with that? And, if you find the rules lite enuff, then you can practically ignore them and RP to your heart's content.

Another tip from our group. In many cases your players as a group have more knowledge than any one player, so if you are not too hard-headed, then your character can benefit from the collaboration. It gives a nice occaision for group RP'ing.

For instance, say you are playing a Wiz with high INT, like a genius. Now I am not a genius. Even our whole group is not a genius. But nonetheless when the Wiz needs to make a decision that shows off his INT, then you can ask the group and get some pretty good ideas to RP with. Try it you'll like it!

 

[xechnao]

4E is about challenging the player's skills. After all, isn't one of the most widespread sentiments about 4E that it is more tactical, and that it punishes bad tactics and rewards good tactics much more than previous editions?

This tactical challenge is not a roleplaying challenge though. You could program a computer to give you the best tactical solution. A roleplaying challenge on the other hand is a social challenge (among the players) that no computer program is able to solve.

 

[xechnao]

It's a good definition and distinction. It's the primary reason I dislike old school gaming and grognards in general; to me, it's a limiting factor in what I can do. I play a game to be something or someone better than myself; smarter, stronger, or more charismatic, etc. In other words, to possess abilities that I do not.

To me, 'challenge the players' just sounds like legitimized metagaming, or as was so often the case, an exercise in frustration.

You roleplay a game to do-live things with other people (your friends) you do not have the chance to do our life. The roleplaying experience is developed in this social environment.
What you are describing instead is called "fantasizing".