Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Campbell said:

They also provide cover to players to play with integrity in situations where common tabletop rpg culture would put pressure on them to be more of a team player.

Click to expand...

This could really be a topic all its own.

Elfcrusher said:

isn’t combat (besides being fun) really the result of failing to overcome challenges in more interesting, and in many ways less risky, ways?

Click to expand...

I don't see how this could be a general truth about RPGing. Maybe it's a truth about a certain sort of approach to D&D, Classic Traveller and maybe RQ.

In Marvel Heroic RP, combat - ie fisticuffs between superheroes and supervillains - isn't a result of failing to overcome challenges in some other fashion. It's how heroes defeat villains!

In Prince Valiant, a joust can be anything from friendly sport to a duel of honour. It's not normally the result of faiur in some other domain of challenge.

Etc.

FrogReaver said:

As as a quick example - let’s say your the chaste knight. You are promised Excalibur for giving up your chastity. Do you take that offer? Is that not having your character challenges while still maintaining full control of it?

Click to expand...

Just to add to my post half-a-dozen or so upthread, and also [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s post just upthread of that - what you describe here is an offer, not a challenge. It invites the player to make a calculation or choice of some sort.

You could elaborate on the scenario, so that in some way this is the culmination of a series of events in the fiction - a bit like Ovinomancer's story of the knight on a quest, or my actual play example of Nightcrawler discovering he's neither as nice nor as devout as he thought.

Not all character change or development need be the result of failed checks. It can come about from fidelity to the fiction. But that fiction won't have been established solely by the player!

Lanefan said:

pemerton[/quote said:

This is why I say you don't undertand the 4e combat resolution mechanics. This claim isn't true of 4e; hit points aren't a description of anything. The toughness of a creature is described in the fiction - just as (say) JRRT conveys that the cave troll is tough.

Click to expand...

And by that we can reasonably extrapolate that for game purposes a cave troll has lots of hit points and-or a high Con score.

<snip>

Just as you can't say a creature described as being particularly tough (relative to other creatures) in the fiction doesn't have lots of hit points, you can't say a creature with lots of hit points (relative to other creatures) isn't tough.

Put another way, hit points (relative to the hit points of other creatures) are just one more means of expressing and describing toughness and resilience.

Click to expand...

This is why I keep saying that you don't understand 4e's mechanics and combe resolution system.

Not all tough creatures in 4e have many hp. For instance, the PCs in my game have fought hobgolbins - undoubtedly skilled warriors - who had 1 hp. They have fought devils from the depth of the hells who had 1 hp.

4e uses many mechanical devices to present a creature as tough: hit points; Fortitude defence; various special abilities; and most of all level.

Lanefan said:

And if 4e wants to (rather oddly) claim that this doesn't apply then that's its problem, not mine.

Click to expand...

This is just nuts - you're now saying that 4e is inconsistent and mistaken because it uses a different combat resolution framework from the one that you're used to!

Absolutely bizarre.

Maxperson said:

Look through the Monster Manual and tell me how many mental/emotion control powers there are that don't give a save. D&D does demonstrate quite clearly that the DM is supposed to make these sorts of things resistible. And the comment on the number of saves is just odd. What does that have to do with anything we've been saying?

Click to expand...

In D&D there is no limit - neither a hard one, nor even a soft one based on principles - as to how many special abilities a GM can use and how many saves s/he might force.

This is not a universal truth of RPG design: I quoted the principle from Prince Valiant upthread; Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic uses the Doom Pool to modulate the challenges the GM introduces; other systems have other sorts of devices here.

I therefore find the idea that D&D sits on one side of a "player control over PC" line compared to some of those other systems a strange one.

pemerton said:

In D&D there is no limit - neither a hard one, nor even a soft one based on principles - as to how many special abilities a GM can use and how many saves s/he might force.

Click to expand...

Sure, and the DM can just say all the PCs are dead, too. Being able to do something doesn't mean that it's playing by the social contract. There is an expectation that the DM is going to be fair and follow the way the game is laid out.

This is not a universal truth of RPG design: I quoted the principle from Prince Valiant upthread; Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic uses the Doom Pool to modulate the challenges the GM introduces; other systems have other sorts of devices here.

Click to expand...

Sure. Games can build such things in. I've already said that those games aren't for me. I didn't deny their existence. There are many RPGs were that sort of thing isn't built in.

Ovinomancer said:

Huh? Are you taking Frogreaver's meds, too? The ask is to explore the reasoning behind the sudden change, not to refute it if doesn't meet guidelines. Heck, @Aebir-Toril even says they wouldn't know what to do with "lol, magic sword duh" which strongly suggests that this would just be a confusing answer, not one that's censored.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and AT really is running roughshod over his players, but I haven't gotten that at all, and it requires adding words to what they've posted to get there.

Click to expand...

I don't know what [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] thought, but I am in no way crushing my players.

I allow my players do do whatever the Nine Hells they want 99.9% of the time, but if, for instance, the Lawful Good Paladin says, "I torture her with acid to get information", even though her character's bond is to protect others, even those who have strayed from the path of good, I might ask her if that's what she really wants to do. Furthermore, I always allow the players to do what they want to do with their character, but it would frustrate me if their only explanation for their actions was "lol, magic sword duh".

Maxperson said:

You really can't just say, "Nah, this has no impact." or it's not core to the personality of the character. A challenge to the core will have an impact either way it goes

Click to expand...

I was trying to say that, if you are in complete control, you always have the ability to say, "Nah, this has no impact," and so there is never a challenge to the core. Challenge does not happen in a position of certainty.

Elfcrusher said:

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.

Click to expand...

This isn't at all what I meant [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]. I will ask players why they might want to do something, as in, actually question their motivations, but I always allow them to do what they want to do. If the player decides that their Chaotic Good Rogue has no qualms about torturing innocents in order to find out where the Drow Demon-summoners hide, I won't prevent them from doing it, but I'll ask them why their character has decided this is a thing they want to do.

In fact, I have had players tell me, whilst slaughtering dozens of cultists in their sleep, that they think that their character has fallen into the depths of madness and evil, and is now Chaotic Evil. In this case, I allow them to change their alignment to Chaotic Evil, and play proceeds.

My point about role-playing is not that players should be forced to make their characters feel regret or remorse, but that I like to ask them how their characters feel about what they are doing or what they have done. If the player decides that, "lol, I'm gaming, duh" is their answer, I allow them to do that, but it's not exactly a rewarding role-playing moment.

In my games, players can do whatever they want, but they will be asked how their character justifies an action. If a player wants to change their character's alignment, they can say that their character has become good/evil/neutral or whatever, and I allow them to do so.

Honestly, I don't think this is really a controversial opinion. I don't "thought police" players, I just question their motives.

Did you even read my entire post?

Elfcrusher said:

I might be wrong, too. Let me break down how I read it:

In my book, that's something that DMs do only if they are trying to enforce "correct" roleplaying.

Again, maybe I'm mis-reading it all.

Click to expand...

You were, but it's okay, I see how my verbiage became a little confusing. All I meant by "perfect" and "standard of accuracy" was just that I expect a Lawful Good knight to have to explain himself if he slaughters innocents, causes chaos, and generally makes a mess of things.

I will still let the player do these things, as I can't "police" what they do or what their characters think, but I do ask them what their motivations are.

Elfcrusher said:

Folks keep using the dice rolling of combat as some kind of standard against which other activities are measured, but isn’t combat (besides being fun) really the result of failing to overcome challenges in more interesting, and in many ways less risky, ways?

Click to expand...

"interesting" is subjective, so no, this is not generally true. Especially when you call out that combat is "fun" - fun things aren't interesting? I know players who find tactical combat or cinematic combat scenes very interesting. Don't you?

I think most of us use dice-rolling combat not as a "standard" for measure, but as an example/analogy that is ready to hand. If this analogy does not fit, that strongly suggests that "challenge" has multiple meanings in this discussion.