What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

5ekyu said:

Well, see, here we go to the jump to exaggerated...

Click to expand...

If someone purposes something to be true, and yet places no boundaries on, you have to assume that the first thing I'm going to try is reductio ad absurdum. The boundary I purpose is at minimum, "And the DM agrees." Yet this boundary was suggested to violate the separation between the player and GM's prerogative. Thus, reduction to the absurd is not a logical fallacy, because we have no rule to suggest when or how the player's authorial power is to be kept in check, and players - unlike the GM - have no reason to not employ the tools provided to them to solve problems because that's the players role in the game. Fundamentally, if you give the power to author things to the players with no limits or boundaries, you've put the GM hat on the player and they can then resolve everything by fiat.

I have seen games, screentime comes to mind but that may be off, where the "check" or roll is to determine the fpoutvome and control. So, making a "check" against your "soldier" rank gets you past the guard by you then describing "Joe, hey, how are you? Hows the boy?He join the guard yet?"

Click to expand...

If that is just a bluff check, how does it have any authorial power? I mean this is the sort of scene which in a movie, the protagonist walks by, and then the camera turns back to the guard who says, "Seemed like a nice guy, but my names not Joe."

Other games for instance the search check is not "to find a clue if iit's there" but to determine "is there a clue here and find it" etc.

Click to expand...

That may be true, but speaking as a GM, being asked to invent clues on the spot would be incredibly hard. Games that I'm aware of that go down this route do not do either of these things, but instead assume clues are found automatically and checks are made (or narrative resources are spent) to interpret what the clue means. That way, the GM can prepare the clues necessary for the scenario and you don't get into a situation where the player can keep trying different things until they finally browbeat the GM into inventing another clue.

They shift whole hog away from the more overcome set challenge to create a shared fiction and rely on the players in good faith to not be a jerk and break the fiction with overboard BS that's not fitting.

Click to expand...

Yes, but these games tend to forgo most of the aesthetics of play normally associated with an RPG, and tend to take a form more resembling a story-telling game or a theater game. And even they tend to have a token that is passed between the participants which indicates who currently has the authorial control, so as to break ties and avoid endless contradiction.

I mean, maybe walking into town and everyone calls me king is tobyou outlandish, but A Man Called Jayne might be a great episode theme song for that very scenario if the group ran with it.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you can't have fun in a game of make believe, but it will very quickly stop being an RPG. In particular, the problem with this is that in an RPG you are normally trying to achieve the experience of being Jayne Cobb in the episode "A Man Called Jayne". But if you the player are the one introducing the mystery, and the conflict, and providing the resolution to it, then the since of wonder, mystery, emersion, fear, frustration, and so forth that Jayne experiences will be inaccessible to you. It's one thing for the player to introduce a hook, "I'm a wanted outlaw." or "I had a botched heist on this world." It's quite another for the player to introduce the actual conflict.

They may even have a more developed karmic system of say "good stuff" and "bad stuff" where finding that wand in the alley is great, but after you use it headhunters who have tracker it back by its energy find you "the assassins we have been hunting" and hilarity begins.

Click to expand...

Most karmic systems go back to my statement that games that have authorial control in the hands of the players in some way tokenize that control and force the players to pay for it. For example, you may get to make a call to resolve a conflict using one of your 'chits', but if you do so, you have to give a 'chit' to the GM that they can then use to call an unexpected complication. Often they also let a player do the reverse, introduce a complication into a conflict that they were otherwise winning, in order to get a 'chit' that they can use in a later scene.

As for "c" that sounds like one hell of a horrific curse storyline in the right setting.

Click to expand...

Or, it just sounds like a player uncreatively adopting Deadpool's backstory. And again, sure, it might be fine for a player to begin play with this background and pay the appropriate character building resources to support that backstory, but introducing this into the middle of a game in response to the players imminent death is not really that fun for anyone. If the player can solve problems by fiat, then there is no reason for the player to face problems. You might as well play the old game were everyone writes a page in a notebook before advancing it along to the next player. And if you've played that game for any reasonable period of time, you know well why that game is not even remotely as popular as RPing an usually becomes an exercise in frustration for everyone.

"D" sounds fine for a group with divine purpose mission in mind for the setting. Whether you go for "being drug around bybthe sword" or "it's harder to keep the sword than to get the sword" or some other style of amazing gameplay fodder.

Click to expand...

I guess... to me it just sounds like a player who wants to have all the spotlight and does not realize that they are playing a cooperative game.

Ovinomancer said:

Actually, there are a number of RPGs that this kind of declaration is possible in, without the use of plot point tokens. The GM can either say yes, or challenge the assertion by asking for a roll....The mechanics of these games are pretty heavily weighted so that success with a complication is the likely result of a check, with small bonuses to things the PC is skilled at. Fail forward is also the default assumption o play.

Click to expand...

Can you point me at an example. And can the GM set the difficulty of the roll?

Celebrim said:

And I say that as a player. If I'm tasked with both setting the obstacles and resolving them, or if I have authorial power to overcome obstacles by fiat, then it is boring. *yawn*

Click to expand...

Well yes that's why the DMPC is typically a Gandalf. They don't really overcome obstacles so much as provide guidance to the players overcoming obstacles and occasionally present the players with interesting situations beyond their power that the players must decide how to handle.

Which is why I will typically make healers for parties (and is one reason I encourage players not to worry about the "holy trinity" when assembling their party). I rarely have to do anything other than support the party members in what they are doing and occasionally say "I prayed to Pelor and he told me we should go that way." Or "I sense a great disturbance in the Force near Questtown."

The GM has a vested stake in the game. It's both their games. The DM is not, and never will be, your desktop computer running whatever you want it to at your beck and call. The DM needs to enjoy their time DMing just as much as the player needs to enjoy their time playing. The way in which they get their enjoyment may differ, the DM from presenting interesting content and the players from overcoming it, but both sides have a vested interest in the game.

Immortal Sun said:

Well yes that's why the DMPC is typically a Gandalf.

Click to expand...

Since Gandalf is the most overtly powerful character on the side of the forces of good, this seems like a terrible choice for a DM PC - if indeed there is ever a good choice for one.

The GM has a vested stake in the game.

Click to expand...

Only in the sense that the GM wants the game to be fun for himself and for their players. I'm not suggesting the GM ought to be sacrificing their enjoyment. I am suggesting that if the DM's enjoyment is predicated on achieving a particular ending, plot, or outcome, they have absolutely no business being behind the screen.

The way in which they get their enjoyment may differ, the DM from presenting interesting content and the players from overcoming it, but both sides have a vested interest in the game.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. But if the DM's enjoyment of the game comes from overcoming it, then they are on the wrong side of the screen. A game is dysfunctional if the same participant introduces the conflict is tasked with overcoming it.

Celebrim said:

Can you point me at an example. And can the GM set the difficulty of the roll?

Click to expand...

I believe Burning Wheel has these mechanics. And, generally, no, the difficulty is usually fixed with the weighting I described above. The PbtA games are adjacent to this, although somewhat more codified. In Blades in the Dark, for instance, players can actually establish similar things as attempted actions. The "difficulty" of the roll is fixed -- you roll your d6 pool (usually 2 or 3) and take the highest one. A 6 is a success, a 4-5 is success with cost, and 1-3 is a failure. The GM can set the position based on the fiction and goal (and skill chosen by the player), but this mostly affects the level of cost for rolls of 1-5. The GM also sets the effect, which is the level of success, usually standard, but perhaps great or limited. Again, this is based on the action, the skill, and the fiction.

If a player tried this play in my Blades game, he'd probably choose a Consort or Sway action, which are usually schmoozing type actions, although they'd be free to pick something else. Let's say they're doing a Sway because they have 3 dice in it. I, as GM, would evaluate the situation -- is this a risky action, a controlled action, or a desperate action? Seems controlled -- there isn't anything in the situation that seems overtly dangerous, but it could go that way. This limits the consequences. I also deem this effect to be standard -- it doesn't seem like a great effect is warranted, nor a limited one. But, in a twist, this guard is a Tier higher than the PC, so the effect is dropped down one level. So the PC is rolling 3 dice on a controlled, limited action.

If they roll at least one 6, it's a success! The guard recognizes them and greets them warmly, but, since it's a limited success, more will be needed to achieve the goal of entry. They've taken a step in the right direction. The player could, at this point, chose to burn Stress to improve the Effect, in which case it bumps to Standard, and they'll gain entry. Or, if they rolled two or more 6's, that's a critical success that bumps the Effect up one.

Let's look at a 4-5. The situation is controlled, so no great harm cost will occur, but there will be one. In this case, the guard will recognize the player, and not be hostile or angry, but will be cool and say something like, "Ah, you. Don't you owe me money after that last card game?" Now I've put the problem of owed money on the table, but the guard is still not hostile and is open to further play if this money issue is resolved. More play will occur here.

And, on a failure, there's a cost but I, as GM, should thwart the intent of the action. In this case, I could have the guard say something like, "You must have me confused with someone else. Get back in line, lout, and wait your turn. I have my eye on you."

Celebrim said:

Since Gandalf is the most overtly powerful character on the side of the forces of good, this seems like a terrible choice for a DM PC - if indeed there is ever a good choice for one.

Click to expand...

You're missing the forest by focusing on the tree.

Only in the sense that the GM wants the game to be fun for himself and for their players. I'm not suggesting the GM ought to be sacrificing their enjoyment. I am suggesting that if the DM's enjoyment is predicated on achieving a particular ending, plot, or outcome, they have absolutely no business being behind the screen.

Click to expand...

I disagree strongly. If the DM doesn't have some interest in certain outcomes over others they are lazy and careless and have no business being behind the screen. "Any outcome" is not and never will be as valuable as a "good outcome". Part of the DMs job is not just to ensure there is an outcome, but that the outcome is good and enjoyable for everyone.

Yes, exactly. But if the DM's enjoyment of the game comes from overcoming it, then they are on the wrong side of the screen. A game is dysfunctional if the same participant introduces the conflict is tasked with overcoming it.

Click to expand...

Which, again is why I used Gandalf as an example. There are very few things that Gandalf actually does through the story. He exposits a little information. He defeats an encounter that clearly wasn't intended to be fought by the party. He exposits a little more information. He provides some street cred when the bumbling moro..I mean party needs to get in somewhere.

He really doesn't do much. Heck, in the "big encounter" that IS supposed to be fought by a party member (namely: the Witch King), he loses, only for the Witch King to be defeated by a party-level character.

Celebrim said:

I'm not sure that a game that validates pemerton's proposed proposition actually exists, at least not in the form he suggests. Most games that have shared authorial control of the setting or backstory have some sort of rules framework that limits how much anyone other than the game moderator can introduce new setting or backstory elements. Typically these games grant players one or more variously described 'tokens' which must be spent (either put back in a pot or given to another participant) if you as a player are going to introduce new setting or backstory elements in author stance, and typically the other game participants can bid their own tokens to overrule the newly asserted element. No RPG I'm aware of allows as much arbitrary unlimited authorial control as pemerton's example of "Francis the Guard".

pemerton's hypothetical game where author insertions were valid player propositions at all times, would very likely cease to be an RPG and revert to a game of make-believe, as it would quickly degenerate toward the problem of no authorial control that RPGs were trying to solve with shared games of make-believe.

In other words, you might as well be playing "Cowboys & Indians" or "Cops & Robbers" where you have no mechanism for handling the mutually contradictory assertions, "I shot you!" and "No, you missed!"

If the player can propose on the fly a background that establishes or even overturns who a particular NPC is - whose to say that "Francis" doesn't already have a name and a stat block - what stops the following propositions from being valid:

a) "I notice that some has accidently dropped a wand of lightning bolts in the ditch!"
b) "My coming to this town fulfills a long awaited prophesy, and the inhabitants great me as their king, carry me on their shoulders, and shower me with gifts."
c) "When I was a youth, the goddess of death fell in love with me. As such, whomever I hate, she hates, and I am incapable of dying."
d) "Although I am a simple seeming rogue, for many years I was a secret student of the Grand College of the Archmagi, where I was a favored pupil that absorbed all that could be taught by the ancient masters. Now, recalling my long training and my great success their, I cast Polymorph Other to turn the dragon into a toad."
e) "My father was a master swordsmith so I pull out my +5 holy avenger which he gave to me as an heirloom."

Games of make believe can be fun, but they are not RPGs.

The fundamental problem that underlies this turn of discussion is that the truth of a backstory is expressed by and validated by the player's mechanical abilities. Backstory cannot be used to conjure abilities or resources out of thin air. You cannot assert new wealth, patrons, titles, rank, knowledge, allies or really any other sort of advantage on the basis of backstory. Backstory proceeds from and justifies the choices taken in character creation. You don't get to bypass character generation or other rules of the game just because backstory, nor can you reasonably introduce backstory to the game without consulting the rules (if the game allows for the possibility of found allies or resources, for example something like Mouseguard does with a Circles test) and the DM (as even with a circles test, the DM decides the obstacle to overcome). It's perfectly possible to create a backstory which cannot be expressed by character generation, but that doesn't mean that character generation is wrong and that you get all the resources you want simply because you wrote them down. Again, this is a player who isn't playing an RPG, but is engaged in playing "make believe".

Click to expand...

And, as I have a moment more to go back to this post and discuss your conjecture that such a game would devolve. This is actually well discussed as the Czerge Principle, and comes in when a player can both set the problem and propose the solution. It's most often avoided in games that allow the players the latitude to make such declarations by the reason you cite for Mouseguard -- the DM sets up the obstacles and the players' attempted solutions are tested. I find it interesting that you're familiar with Mouseguard to this extent but don't recognize a Circles test in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s example. I haven't played MG or BW, but I could easily see the Circles test lurking.

Immortal Sun said:

You're missing the forest by focusing on the tree.


I disagree strongly. If the DM doesn't have some interest in certain outcomes over others they are lazy and careless and have no business being behind the screen. "Any outcome" is not and never will be as valuable as a "good outcome". Part of the DMs job is not just to ensure there is an outcome, but that the outcome is good and enjoyable for everyone.


Which, again is why I used Gandalf as an example. There are very few things that Gandalf actually does through the story. He exposits a little information. He defeats an encounter that clearly wasn't intended to be fought by the party. He exposits a little more information. He provides some street cred when the bumbling moro..I mean party needs to get in somewhere.

He really doesn't do much. Heck, in the "big encounter" that IS supposed to be fought by a party member (namely: the Witch King), he loses, only for the Witch King to be defeated by a party-level character.

Click to expand...

I think you may be unaware of a number of games where what occurs is solely generated in play, at the table. The GM has no "plan" and is playing to find out what happens alongside the players. This kind of game puts a lot more burden on the players to bring the game, but often generates exciting content. It does this by making the characters have strong traits and goals that the GM can then put into challenging positions, and by having mechanics built to generate interesting results. This requires the players to take on a more of the burden of pushing play by advocating for their character's more strongly and taking and accepting risks more often. This works very well.

For an easy(ier) introduction to this kind of play, I recommend Dungeon World. It similar enough to D&D play that you'll not be pushed far out of your comfort zone too quickly, but relies on the play of the game to generate the content. Players learn to take risks because there's fun play even in failure, and the game has strong themes that are easy to get behind and push.

Ovinomancer said:

I think you may be unaware of a number of games where what occurs is solely generated in play, at the table. The GM has no "plan" and is playing to find out what happens alongside the players.

Click to expand...

Then, no offence, he's not the GM. He's a player.

And I'm not saying anything is wrong with that kind of play. But if the only functional difference between the GM and the players is that they defer to the GM for rulings, then all he amounts to is a player with two hats. His "PC"s are simply the opposing forces.

And I don't think talking about games where everyone is kinda the GM and also kinda a player, really applies to what I was describing, and it certainly doesn't sound anything like what Celebrim was talking about.

This kind of game puts a lot more burden on the players to bring the game, but often generates exciting content.

Click to expand...

BZZZT! Judgement call detected! I've been there. I've played these games. If the players are skilled and up to the task of being a GM-lite, then yeah, it can. But if they're not? And quite frankly: most of them aren't, then it doesn't. There's a reason there are far more players than GMs. Most people A: don't wanna. And B: can't.

It does this by making the characters have strong traits and goals that the GM can then put into challenging positions, and by having mechanics built to generate interesting results.

Click to expand...

This sounds suspiciously like one of those statement reversals that people trying to steal your money say.
Like: In order to discover the love in others, we must have others discover the love.
Also: this isn't limited to non-GM-centric games. This occurs and only occurs when players (all of them, GM included) are willing to step up to the plate. Again, most aren't.

This requires the players to take on a more of the burden of pushing play by advocating for their character's more strongly and taking and accepting risks more often. This works very well.

Click to expand...

Sure, again if you've got players who are up to the task.

For an easy(ier) introduction to this kind of play, I recommend Dungeon World. It similar enough to D&D play that you'll not be pushed far out of your comfort zone too quickly, but relies on the play of the game to generate the content. Players learn to take risks because there's fun play even in failure, and the game has strong themes that are easy to get behind and push.

Click to expand...

While I haven't played Dungeon World, I have played this a lot. Because this is how I run a great deal of my games. I provide a base world with some various details and work with my players to detail in more things based on their characters and what they want to see. It is not procedurally generated, or randomly generated as I find this terribly boring (on both sides) and no, my players don't have equal control to the DM, they have a lot more control than just "their characters".

Ovinomancer said:

I believe Burning Wheel has these mechanics. And, generally, no, the difficulty is usually fixed with the weighting I described above.

Click to expand...

So the GM can set and adjust the difficulty in a whole variety of ways, it's just done in a slightly different fashion, success as by setting the level of success ("limited") that success will obtain and the degree of failure that failure will result in ("desparate"). Plus, you have an additional control in that you can claim that the action is one or more Tiers above the character, with a commiserate increase in the degree of success required. I don't know the rules, but I'd guess this is what prevents a player from just declaring that they summon lightning bolts from the sky and fry the guard. A high Tier character probably could, if they had the right actions, but then you'd be playing by agreement of the fiction some sort of demigod or superhero.

Also, you mention the character could "burn Stress to improve the Effect", which sounds like a case of narrative currency.

Additionally, there is a huge panoply of other potential checks and balances here, not the least of which is that as with a traditional RPG full narration of the consequences is in the hands of the GM, as well as full rights to set the difficulty of the tasks, and in most cases the stakes (as the player can only set the positive stake, and then only is rarely going to achieve it, unless and until the GM wants them to or unless the player spends their narrative currency "Stress".)

To a certain extent, I'd say that the "Blades" game empowers the GM far more than even I'm used to in my traditional play, it just compartmentalizes the player's narrative force less. Yes, the player can introduce Myth into the setting, but only at the cost of allowing the GM full rein to introduce whatever Myth that they want for whatever reason that they want at all times - something that when I'm running a traditional RPG I tend to see as cheating and misuse of my GM authority - metagaming against the player to obtain the result I prefer.

Still, what you describe has boundaries and a GM in a role as referee, so it seems like it would be functional for a functional group. I really need to go to a Con and try a few of these games, if only to stretch my abilities as a player a bit.