Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I am saying you only need one mechanic: the mechanic that gives you the risks. This means knowledge of the odds of failure (chances) plus what happens if you fail in regards to what choices you may have in this case (weight or importance of the event of failure).

I'm sorry, I still don't get it:
Are you saying it doesn't matter how well the sneaking past the guards goes?
Are you saying you should only have a skill that tells your character (or you, the player) how well the action might succeed or fail but not one that tells you how well it does succeed or fail once the choice is made?

 

[xechnao]

I'm sorry, I still don't get it:
Are you saying it doesn't matter how well the sneaking past the guards goes?
Are you saying you should only have a skill that tells your character (or you, the player) how well the action might succeed or fail but not one that tells you how well it does succeed or fail once the choice is made?

I am saying that you do not need to know the physics. What needs to be known is what is at stake for the members of the group, members' choices and the results. It may matter how well the sneaking past the guards goes, it may not. This will depend on what is at stake. If there is/there are a point/s of relief regarding your risk, then this/these point/s is/are at stake. If time or something else to sneak past matters then time or that something else is at stake too. These things you need to know. The next thing to be made known is choice and eventually the result.
Sometimes what will be known is only results. This is the DM time or setting only input time.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I am saying that you do not need to know the physics. What needs to be known is what is at stake for the members of the group, members' choices and the results. It may matter how well the sneaking past the guards goes, it may not. This will depend on what is at stake. If there is/there are a point/s of relief regarding your risk, then this/these point/s is/are at stake. If time or something else to sneak past matters then time or that something else is at stake too. These things you need to know. The next thing to be made known is choice and eventually the result.
Sometimes what will be known is only results. This is the DM time or setting only input time.

So you are saying the player needs to know what happens if they succeed or fail.

But how do you know if they succeed or fail? From your final sentence you seem to be saying that this is purely the DM's decision. But why in this instance? Why not all the time? Why do impartial rules exist for some actions but not others?

 

[TerraDave]

I think the errors of new school is making explicit rules for some artificially abstract skills such as searching, spot, bluff... while it should be limited in making explicit rules only about skills that players understand the specific type or kind of information-knowledge one needs to have to possess the ability the rule implies : example of desired rules for skills are history, languages, perform or thief abilities.

We kinda have two issues, and the second part of my post was this: Older versions of D&D also had those rules! You could just go into a room, roll to see if you found traps and secret doors, and move on. Just like now. There where also rules for social interaction...the difference was that those rules were ad-hoc and inconsistent, and did have gaps: two ways to listen at a door, but unclear how you could try to see things at a distance.

On the flip side, you can still play out exploration and social interaction with a more detailed skill system, though how skills should work in that context can sometimes be a little unclear. I will concede that. (though again, this was also true in older versions of D&D)

 

[xechnao]

So you are saying the player needs to know what happens if they succeed or fail.

But how do you know if they succeed or fail?

They also need to know the odds. After knowing these players make meaningful choices. If they eventually make choices that need to be decided by the chances they are aware of they roll dice that serve as the generator of randomness that give the answer of what eventually happened. This could very well mean that they get to know something new, they were not exactly sure beforehand how it affects them (enter experience points). Of course the answer or better the result dice give at some point certainly influences the reason the dice could be used again.

EDIT:clarification

From your final sentence you seem to be saying that this is purely the DM's decision. But why in this instance? Why not all the time? Why do impartial rules exist for some actions but not others?

No, I was talking about a different thing. I was saying that what the DM announces are things that players can only accept and not interpret regarding the social contract among the members of the team.

 

[xechnao]

We kinda have two issues, and the second part of my post was this: Older versions of D&D also had those rules! You could just go into a room, roll to see if you found traps and secret doors, and move on. Just like now. There where also rules for social interaction...the difference was that those rules were ad-hoc and inconsistent, and did have gaps: two ways to listen at a door, but unclear how you could try to see things at a distance.

On the flip side, you can still play out exploration and social interaction with a more detailed skill system, though how skills should work in that context can sometimes be a little unclear. I will concede that. (though again, this was also true in older versions of D&D)

Perhaps one needs to introduce characteristics such as character relation to the subject (ie what he is trying to observe-explore) plus the resources a character may dispose for the event. So one makes a roll reflecting the chance of resources at disposition for the event versus a target number that reflects his familiarity with the event. "Resources" could be influenced by situations such as stress-pressure, interest.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

They also need to know the odds. After knowing these players make meaningful choices. If they eventually make choices that need to be decided by the chances they are aware of they roll dice that serve as the generator of randomness that give the answer of what eventually happened. This could very well mean that they get to know something new, they were not exactly sure beforehand how it affects them (enter experience points). Of course the answer or better the result dice give at some point certainly influences the reason the dice could be used again.

So sometimes dice need to be rolled. And in that context it's better to have a modifier to the roll in some form, which is the point of the skill. The roll represents the element of chance inherent in the game world regarding an action, and the modifier represents a character's ability to modify that chance.

 

[xechnao]

So sometimes dice need to be rolled. And in that context it's better to have a modifier to the roll in some form, which is the point of the skill. The roll represents the element of chance inherent in the game world regarding an action, and the modifier represents a character's ability to modify that chance.

No you certainly do not need a modifier, nor can you say it is better to have one. Modifiers you are talking about are tools some systems may need to function properly by their design. Another system of a different design might not use modifiers yet be equally or even more functional.

 

[Wolfwood2]

My view is, challenge the players. The abilities of the character are the tools that the players use to meet the challenge. I would never, ever tell a player, "Your PC isn't smart enough to come up with that plan." If they are using their character's abilities to meet the challenge, then their solutions will play naturally to their area of strengths anyway.

A player with a strong-but-dumb character as his tool will naturally seek ways to applies his character's strength to a problem. Whether it be solving a mystery (find someone who knows what's up and beat it out of them), getting past a puzzle (figure out a way to bash my way through), or resolving negotiations (speak with deeds, not words), they can be as smart as they like in using their dumb character to solve the problem.

The important thing is to try something. Come up with something. Be creative, be imaginative. Don't just ask for a skill roll. Tell me what the skill roll is intended to do. A player can roll a PC's Stealth to sneak somewhere, but it is on the player to determine where they are sneaking and what they hope to accomplish from doing so.

And if you're not creative, can't think on your feet, and have trouble coming up with ideas, then I wonder.... Why am I playing with you?

 

[Korgoth]

I have little interest in challenging the character. The character doesn't exist and isn't very interesting.

The player... that's the guy who showed up at the table for a game. He's the one I'm going to challenge.

The stats on the sheet don't represent the things that the player can represent. For example, a high Intelligence just means that the character picks up in-game skills quickly, etc. A high wisdom means that he has good willpower, empathy, etc. A high charisma means that you can sometimes get away with a gaffe, and your henchmen default to a higher loyalty level. You absolutely don't get to roll those to get out of playing the game: making tactical decisions, solving riddles/puzzles and knowing the right things to say.

In fact, I can enumerate the things I expect the player to do:

- make tactical decisions in combat
- solve puzzles, riddles and problems
- know the right things to say and say them well
- come up with creative solutions to complications
- manage available resources correctly

The game is a challenge to these skills. If you don't know how to talk to other human beings, you can't hide in my D&D game! You have to learn how to talk to people to succeed. If you can't make reasonable tactical decisions, you may suffer in combat (or your underlings may suffer after you get them chewed up). If you can't solve a riddle or think your way past a trick... why are you dungeoneering again?

Now, from the looks of it, 4E does some of this better than 3E. There's this terrible notion of 'skill challenges', which are just a dicefest, but at least the game explicitly challenges tactics and resource management.

I'm just not interested in which player is going to have hot dice tonight. If I were, we could play Yahtzee or Farkle. I'd rather see who has hot brain cells tonight. And that means running their persona through that gauntlet of deadly weirdness called the dungeon.

I have no problem requiring the player to use his real world knowledge. I don't care if Thorax the Barbarian has no knowledge of circuitry or magnetism. I care if you have that knowledge. As far as 'explaining' why Throax can have such flashes of insight... I don't know or care. Maybe he's an idiot savant or something. Thorax might not know such things, but he probably doesn't bathe or wipe his behind with paper, either. I still expect the player to do those things.