Players choose what their PCs do . . .

lowkey13 · Jul 10, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Campbell · Jul 10, 2019

Although I fought the label at first I have found that I'm fairly immersion focused as a player. Mechanics that help me feel the pressure of social expectations, emotions, and weight of character beliefs only serve to aid in immersion. I'm not a huge fan of mechanics that dictate behavior, but ones that impact success and failure like strings in Monsterhearts or Conditions and Influence in Masks really help me to get inside my characters' hearts and heads. 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.

Guest 6801328 · Jul 10, 2019

Umbran said:
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.

I have to admit I fully agree with FrogReaver on this one. Maybe chastity vs Excalibur is too binary, too simplistic, but I think it’s a far more interesting sort of personality challenge than some of the other examples thrown around.

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?

In some ways this is starting to remind me of the recent mega-thread(s) about challenging the player vs challenging the character, with much of the same underlying philosophy, but (apparently) shifting sides.

generic · Jul 11, 2019

Umbran said:
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.

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.

For example, the chaste knight who relinquishes his chastity will, if role-played to a standard of accuracy, respond appropriately. Otherwise, the horror of his fellow knights can be one of the only indicators of the consequence that the character experiences. In this case, it is not a good simulation, because the character has experienced no regret or character change.

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"?

So, yes, this is a good point.

FrogReaver · Jul 11, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
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.

If that's what mechanical means to you then that's a good part of the reason we are getting no where in this discussion.

FrogReaver · Jul 11, 2019

Aebir-Toril said:
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.

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.

Tony Vargas · Jul 11, 2019

FrogReaver said:
This is the weirdest turn in the whole conversation.

Conversation's not over yet.

And even if you insist on calling it cheating, the only person he can possibly be cheating is himself.

Yep. Players do that. Seen it more often than I'd like.

Guest 6801328 · Jul 11, 2019

Aebir-Toril said:
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"?

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.

Ovinomancer · Jul 11, 2019

FrogReaver said:
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.

Yes, I agree, it is the weirdest turn. No one's mentioned calling the choice cheating, yet here you are arguing as if this was said. It's like before, when you tried to use "roll-playing" to dismiss arguments. I though that had to be the most ridiculous thing in the thread, but, no, I was wrong. This is going a bit further. I'm not sure if you just don't understand what's being said, or if you do and feel the need to do this anyway. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

Ovinomancer · Jul 11, 2019

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.

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, [MENTION=6923088]Aebir-Toril[/MENTION] 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.