L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
No, I don't require a mechanical test. That was merely the easiest example, and the way we typically form challenges in RPGs.
What is required for a challenge is
1) More than one possible end state, in which one is preferable to others.
2) Significant question over whether you can attain a preferable end state.
3) Some ability to influence the course of events.
So, a fight between a 20th level fighter and a base goblin - not a challenge, as there's no real question about being able to reach the preferred state. Similarly, flip a coin, and that's the result you get, no matter what you do? Also not a challenge, as no effort on your part influences results.
If you maintain full control of the choice, there is no challenge, as there no doubt you can reach your preferred end state.
In this context, no. That isn't a challenge. That is a question. "Who are you? What do you want?" You can have either just as easily. There is no difficulty in attaining either. Angst over not being able to have your cake and eat it too does not constitute a challenge. Questions over what really is your preferred end state, similarly, do not constitute a challenge.
This is something we should note - a difference between the real world and authored fiction. In the real world, resisting temptation may be a challenge for a person. For an authored fiction, there is the *illusion* of a challenge. If we suspend our disbelief, it makes us *feel* like a challenge took place. But, really, the author just decided - there is no person whose will was honestly tested. If someone has full, or zero, control over the result, there is no test.
We could say that, even with total player control, within the fiction, we decide that a thing was a challenge for the character. There's no problem with that broadly speaking, though we are then walking the line between role-playing, and straight authorship. That's a significant reason why I describe challenges as being something not fully in the player's control - to stand back from that line, where the player cannot be an outright author of the character's fate.
There's still a significant mechanical /element/ there, in that you'll get a powerful item, which, in some games, will make a huge difference to your experience of play for quite a while.
I agree, for the most part.
After all, If the player chooses to role=play in perfect character, this would not be an issue. But, if the player disregards the character in order to take a magic sword (Excalibur), the most we, as DMs, can do, under the RAW, is exhibit the consequences to the character from the perspective of outsiders.
Conversation's not over yet.This is the weirdest turn in the whole conversation.
Yep. Players do that. Seen it more often than I'd like.And even if you insist on calling it cheating, the only person he can possibly be cheating is himself.
But, if the player disregards the character in order to take a magic sword (Excalibur), the most we, as DMs, can do, under the RAW, is exhibit the consequences to the character from the perspective of outsiders.
....
When moments like this come up in my game, when the player says something that seem entirely out of character, I first ask them why their character has chosen to take this action. With my players, it's not too difficult, but what am I supposed to say if their response is "lol, magic sword duh"?
This is the weirdest turn in the whole conversation.
I'm not sure it can ever be that simple. Regardless of the player's motivation he roleplayed the character as choosing the sword. If that was how he always conceived his character then great. If that choice made him have to rethink who his character is in the world and evolve his conceptualization of the character then that's great too. He broke his character concept but that's okay because it was his choice to do so. There's no wrong answer here. There's no cheating, there's just progress.
And even if you insist on calling it cheating, the only person he can possibly be cheating is himself.
Sounds like roleplaying thought police to me.
Ever seen/read a fictional noble character who succumbed to temptation or other base instincts? Like...all of Greek literature? Shakespeare?
Conversely, imagine the opposite: the noble and pure character who *never* does. Like...in moralizing cartoons for small children?
Now, maybe said player is just greedy, and isn’t trying to roleplay a dramatic fall from Grace, but in trying to distinguish between the two you’re falling into the same trap as the anti-metagaming crowd and trying to police their thoughts.
Don’t play with people you don’t want to play with, but expecting (or trying to force) people to roleplay a character the way you think it should be role played just ain’t gonna end well.
Somebody above referred to immersion. Put the player in the situation where he is genuinely agonizing over a moral choice, and he will feel like his character feels. That’s a win before he even makes the decision.