What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

Tony Vargas said:

The distinction I see is not 'challenge' - the game is challenging (or not) to the player - but /resolution/.

Click to expand...

Now, I think we are only arguing over which term of art that we have just made up is most appropriate.

"Challenge the Character" => "Indirect Challenge to the Player" => "Resolution Through Capabilities of the Character"

We're talking about the same thing.

Or, resolution can be purely random ("roll even/odd, on odd something bad happens").

Click to expand...

Oh, that's a good one. Yes, you can introduce or resolve a conflict without challenging either the player or the character. You don't see it much any more, but in some old 1e AD&D encounter designs there were some encounters that seemed more or less to introduce and resolve the challenge randomly, through a pure random check, without any recourse to either the player's skill and choice or the character's abilities. You'd find some encounter where, "There is a 20% chance X will happen to a random member of the party.", and it didn't matter what that character was capable of.

These seem to a be a pure case of what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] calls "random number generation", where we just seem to be introducing randomness into the fiction for no reason other than the feeling that the fiction out to be random.

But I think cases of "pure challenge to player" (as I've called them) are simply this in disguise, differing only in that we're inspecting the player before setting what we think the proper odds of random forks in the road ought to be. Further, I think these "challenge to player" cases were we introduce something purely to create a small possibility of a random fork in the fiction are more common than you might think. In MMORPGs it is typical for a player in combat to have few real choices regarding their action or their fictional positioning. Typically they'll engage in the entire combat without moving because movement is meaningless within the fiction, and typically they will cycle through a list of abilities with particular refresh timers according to some optimal sequence and timing without needing to make any choices along the way. In MMORPGs, its not unusual for some encounters to be relatively straight forward and tacticless, where no choices matter beyond performing these mindless tasks as efficiently as possible and success is determined solely by the level, character build, and equipment of the characters involved in the encounter. In MMORPGs these are referred to as "pure damage races", but for our purposes we could equally refer to them as pure character challenges.

It strikes me that in many adventures there are encounters that are designed to be these sort of pure damage races, where the players best strategy is just to use their best damage attack each round and hope to overwhelm the foe before the foe overwhelms them. Each round each player declares something like, "I attack", and then uses the fortune mechanics to determine how much damage they inflict and receive. Success depends less on player choice than strong builds and good luck of the dice.

Those are cases of random number generation. They are complex random number generators, but that's all they are. You might as well turn a crank and have it tell you what the new fictional positioning is. They are combats that largely resemble late game Risk combats, where you grind through large stacks of armies with repeated attacks.

And this reminds me of another thread, where we argued over the utility of ending a combat early, where I suggested the utility of that depended on whether or not the fiction was still evolving. If it was, then there was no point in truncating the combat. Well, in the context of this thread, I might have just as well phrased my point as there is no point in truncating the combat as long as it is the player's skill that continues to be tested, and it's not just the character's skill we are challenging, because as long as the player's skill is being tested the player will be engaged and tend to enjoy the combat. Whereas, if it is just a damage race, we might as well figure out a simpler random number generator to use to arbitrate the outcome.

*Deleted by user*

Elfcrusher said:

First, I cringe at your use of "should have". But maybe you meant, "An example of interesting roleplaying might be..." (Although I also cringe at cliches about what classes and ability scores represent.)

Click to expand...

If we don't have generally accepted ideas of what the scores stand for, then we can't talk about them until after we define, in excruciating detail, what it means to each of us. That is a thread on its own. Getting pedantic about this serves as a deflection. I prefer to stick to the point, which I think was generally understood - it is a cliche because it is common and understandable, after all.

To use the criterion I proposed above, the approach is obvious and the solution is hard.

Click to expand...

You claim the Zork puzzle is a good one, but I (and I expect most who played the games when they first came out) know a bunch of people who quit Zork because it's puzzles were too hard and frustrating. Whether you put the hard part at the approach or solution isn't a determiner - it is still *hard*. Any hard challenge will stymie some people more than others, no matter the form. This is a problem when the player thought they were designing a character who was supposed to be good at such things, but in play is not, because of the adventure design.

Each player's got their own capacities and competencies, and the point is that those competencies should not need to match their character's. This is why I included the rope-climbing example, to show that in a different form. If a player builds an avatar that's supposed to be great at something, to do an end-run around the mechanics is not particularly fair to them.

Now, when you are designing for your own home table, for people and characters you know, it may not be a big deal - you have a particular relationship and understanding you can lean on there. But, this guidance comes from the context of publishing, where you don't know the people who will be playing the scenario. In publishing, it is perhaps better to design for the avatar - the accepted and agreed upon interface - rather than to design for the player.

And, you can do that and still have puzzles - just make sure there are mechanical elements included in the puzzle resolution. In the game, a Strength 6 character can, in theory, punch their way out of a situation, but they can see the mechanics and know what they are getting into if they try, and maybe leave the punching to those who are good at it. Same should be true for puzzle-challenges. Maybe the characters with the right skills and stats can get clues, or it is structured akin to a skill challenge, so that those with the mechanical build for it will be better at it.

Or, look at it that combats really are themselves a sort of puzzle, with random dice elements. Why should your other puzzles not be of the same form?

lowkey13 said:

Spoken like someone who has never gone to Vegas!

I dunno; different parts of the game appeal to different parts of the lizard brain at different times. There is certainly something ... satisfying ... about a good roll. Even if the payout is in hit points instead of cold, hard cash.

Click to expand...

May be a tangent, but if I always win a game is boring. I almost always play video games on the hardest setting, I want a realistic chance that my plan could fail. I would want the game to still go forward of course but if there's no risk (as represented by the roll of the die) then the reward is minimized.

I don't play D&D to get a "good breathing" award. I'm perfectly okay with having to make a diplomacy check now and then even with my dwarven tank with an 8 charisma. Hopefully I came up with a way to get advantage or lower the DC because of some leverage, but if I roll a 1 and get a -1 on my diplomacy that can be part of the fun.

Umbran said:

You claim the Zork puzzle is a good one, but I (and I expect most who played the games when they first came out) know a bunch of people who quit Zork because it's puzzles were too hard and frustrating. Whether you put the hard part at the approach or solution isn't a determiner - it is still *hard*. Any hard challenge will stymie some people more than others, no matter the form. This is a problem when the player thought they were designing a character who was supposed to be good at such things, but in play is not, because of the adventure design.

Click to expand...

And that's why I said the problem with that particular challenge is that there was only one solution. Which is typically going to be the case when it's a computer (or a rule system!) adjudicating, not a human using judgment.

Were that same scenario to happen in a TTRPG, I would instead say it was a great solution, instead of a great problem.

Each player's got their own capacities and competencies, and the point is that those competencies should not need to match their character's. This is why I included the rope-climbing example, to show that in a different form. If a player builds an avatar that's supposed to be great at something, to do an end-run around the mechanics is not particularly fair to them.

Click to expand...

The rope-climbing example, in all its forms, is an old argument, but I don't really buy it. I mean, not the lesser form of the argument: sure, you shouldn't require the player to be able to climb a rope in real life to be able to do so in-game. But I don't think it's a relevant analogue to problems where players are required to think of creative solutions, rather than just invoke mechanics.

Your rope-climbing example is more commonly presented as a sword-swinging example. And, sure, 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.

So (to try this from one more angle) I don't expect players to know how to climb a rope, but I do expect them to have some good ideas about when to climb a rope, even if their character has a low Int.

And, you can do that and still have puzzles - just make sure there are mechanical elements included in the puzzle resolution. In the game, a Strength 6 character can, in theory, punch their way out of a situation, but they can see the mechanics and know what they are getting into if they try, and maybe leave the punching to those who are good at it. Same should be true for puzzle-challenges. Maybe the characters with the right skills and stats can get clues, or it is structured akin to a skill challenge, so that those with the mechanical build for it will be better at it.

Or, look at it that combats really are themselves a sort of puzzle, with random dice elements. Why should your other puzzles not be of the same form?

Click to expand...

I think we are mostly in agreement here, which leaves me puzzled (ha!) as to what impression I conveyed in earlier posts. I'm all for mixing genuine puzzle solving with using the numbers on the character sheet. It's when the actual problem-solving is left out, and it's must a mechanical process of "Oh, challenge X requires skill Y; who has the highest score?", that I wonder what the point is.

5ekyu said:

Not at all. And let me be clear, the ratio of 1-4 for me varies from gsme/syste/campaign by setting, theme and tone.

I will **never** want a lot of #1 in any significant chargen gamebecause to me it bypasses too many choices the player makes...

Click to expand...

It's obvious that we look at this problem in a very different manner. I think we agree that there is a fairly sweet spot where there is a mixture of player agency and choice with character simulation of abilities, where the character's abilities are informing the player's choice and no one's choices in character creation are being invalidated and conversely no one is able to get away with purely gaming the system by, for example, as you suggested dumping charisma and trying to treat all social situations as a matter of pure player skill.

But while we seem to agree over the sweet spot, we both are doing exactly the opposite in the pure cases - #1 and #2 - and yet we state that we have basically the same reasoning behind our opposite approaches. So either something is screwy about what we mean by pure player challenge and pure character challenge, or we have a hugely different perspective on what invalidates play.

I understand that you don't want to see the chargen mini-game invalidated, but while I understand that, the risk incurred by invalidating player agency by taking their choices out of the equation seems to be vastly greater.

Let's return to my hypothetical "Choose Your Own Adventure Book". In it I defined two cases, one of which, pure player choice involves no reference to character ability, and the other pure resolution by character ability, involves no player choice. Of the two, which book do to you think makes a better game to play, the one where all the problems are of pure player choice (your #1) or all the problems are of pure resolution by character ability (your #2)?

Umbran said:

Each player's got their own capacities and competencies, and the point is that those competencies should not need to match their character's.

Click to expand...

I think this is one of the biggest myths or misconceptions in all of table top gaming. It sounds really appealing, and you can build an obvious superficial argument for why it ought to be so, usually revolving around the players at the table aren't actually able to swing swords with heroic prowess or cast world shaking spells.

But defining the character as being able to swing a sword heroically or cast spells heroically turns out to only be scratching the surface of the problem. You can do that, and it works, but it won't make the character a mighty heroic warrior or a great spellcaster all on its own, because regardless, it requires the input of the player to animate that character and you can't make the player play the character well. Nor, it turns out, would you even want to do so.

Or, look at it that combats really are themselves a sort of puzzle, with random dice elements. Why should your other puzzles not be of the same form?

Click to expand...

And this is precisely the issue. Combats are themselves a sort of puzzle, and as long as the combat are not pure damage races where the two sides make no choices and simply hammer on each other toe to toe in each round, then the fact that they are a puzzle to solve means that different people will possess different degrees of talent at solving them. A player can stat out his character as a great battle captain, leader, soldier, and warrior all that he wants, but unless he also possesses great tactical acumen himself, then in play he will be continually frustrated that his mighty character does not create the heroic figure he wants.

As an example, when I was in high school, I was over at my girlfriend's house and I met her younger brother and a friend who were engaged in playing D&D. I immediately rose in the esteem of the younger brother by evidencing knowledge of his hobby - "My sister has a cool boyfriend, unpossible!" kind of thing. One of the players was bragging about his character, a 30th level Paladin (cavalier subclass). Apparently the kids were playing D&D by flipping through the monster manual, selecting an entry, and pitting the entry against this myrmidon of virtue. The player bragged that he'd also slain many of the foes in the Deities and Demigods. Amused, I suggested I take over as DM for a short while and run the monsters. Within a very short order, his previously invincible Paladin was naked and on the verge of death. The only thing that changed, is that in the encounters I run, I didn't explicitly tell the player what he was facing, nor did I necessarily have all my monsters go toe to toe, nor did the combats occur on featureless arenas lacking in terrain. Faced with the need to make choices beyond hacking away with his +6 holy avenger every round, the player who had slain deities was struggling to overcome as much as a giant octopus.

That's an extreme case, but in my experience it is typical. Some players are good combat tacticians. Others aren't. Some players are good social tacticians. Others aren't. Some players are good at dungeon crawling, have a good sense of direction, exercise care in dungeon hygiene and trap detection, and are good at picking up telegraphed clues in the environment. Others don't. Players can improve their player skill through experience, but some times otherwise highly intelligent people just have the sort of mental gaps when it comes to tactics or social skills that a person who his learning disabled might have with regards to math, or one that is dyslexic might struggle more to read.

As a DM who has to play every character of every sort, I am made to be keenly aware of my own limitations. Just because I want to play an NPC who is witty and funny, doesn't in fact mean that I can successfully pull this off. There is no ability I can put on an NPCs character sheet that will make the PCs actually laugh at my jests and japes. If I want to be funny, I have to be funny. The character cannot be. No amount of charisma on the character sheet can do this for me.

Likewise, if I want an NPC to be perceived as a brilliant mastermind, as the DM I have many tools at my disposal to help me out, but ultimately I still have to plot and plan in such a way that the player's - not their characters - perceive the NPC as a brilliant mastermind. No amount of INT or INT based skills on the sheet will make the character so if I am not.

A player's mind is intrinsically something that extends into the fiction. If we try to remove the player's mental abilities from the fiction, we reduce the player to a mere observer who is watching the character act without their input. If we only challenge the character rather than the player, then we have a process the player can experience as vicariously as my now brother in-law's young friend, but in which they are making no real choices and that makes for a very limited 'game'. As such, the limits of what a player character can be are always constrained by the player's capacities and competencies.

Celebrim said:

Now, I think we are only arguing over which term of art that we have just made up is most appropriate.

"Challenge the Character" => "Indirect Challenge to the Player" => "Resolution Through Capabilities of the Character"

We're talking about the same thing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a connotation and clarity thing. "Challenge" is loaded - as a gamer, there's a perception that you must want to be challenged, that if you don't, you're a lesser species of gamer. Challenge can be found in different ways and in different phases or aspects of the play experience. A 'numbers race' that's played out in a pat, mechanistic, way may not seem like a challenge to the player, but choices he made in setting it up may have been challenging to get right.

'Resolution' is more technical, and more explicitly about determining the outcome of uncertain events in the course of play.

Challenging the Character usually goes like this:

"None shall pass...Then you shall die."

Charlaquin said:

I think this gets at why I personally dislike the philosophy that “challenge the character, not the player” is shorthand for. I hate feeling like my successes and failures are primarily a matter of luck. RNG can be a great way to introduce some unpredictability into a system, which can make it more exciting, but for me if player choice is not a bigger factor in determining success than RNG, I don’t find it very satisfying.

Click to expand...

I totally agree...having story elements reduced to a matter of sheer luck can be exciting, but usually it just leads to boredom.

I think that was the intent behind putting the responsibility of Inspiration, Advantage, and Disadvantage adjudication on the DM. Random number generation is vital to the suspense of the game, but player choice should matter more than the bonuses and penalties on a character sheet. So the DM is expected to evaluate the situation and actions of the character, and adjust the math accordingly using the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. This falls apart when Advantage, Disadvantage, and Inspiration become the expectation rather than the exception...which is why I'm pretty stingy with them.

Just saying "...and I help, you get Advantage!" isn't good enough. I ask the player to describe how their character is helping the rogue to pick that lock, and then decide if it's really helpful enough to merit Advantage.