What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

Hussar · Apr 30, 2019

iserith said:
I touched on this with Mort upthread, so I'll just quote myself from that earlier exchange in response to the above:

Nobody likes someone other than Gary.

Everyone plays the character they created, unless someone created it for them.

Yes, and those disadvantages will reveal themselves - sometimes - when the player has to make a check. Those significant disadvantages don't mean the player's action declarations are invalid.

So, because you feel that you should be able to min/max your character whatever way you like, the DM should just nod and smile and say, "Yuppers, it's your character, do whatever you like" and, not only that, but facilitate it by accepting certain descriptions of actions as automatic successes.

No thanks. I don't want to play at that table. If you cannot or will not play the character that you made, you can find another table.

See, to me, no one likes Gary. Gary is a colossal douche bag who ruins the table for everyone.

Which, if that means some folks don't want to play with me? Fantastic. I'll stand by having basic minimum standards for the table over accepting the garbage that players like Gary want to pretend is actually role play any day. Having just had a "Gary" have a giant hissy fit because the DM actually had the temerity to design an encounter that wasn't dove tail tailored to the character that "Gary" played, and leave the group, I'm actually going to stand by that one. I'd much, MUCH rather lose Gary than someone who actually takes the time to honestly attempt to play the character they created.

5ekyu · Apr 30, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
As an add, when people respond to the goal and approach by claiming that you can pass off a low CHA-no-social-skill character because you, as a player, can talk well, you've completely missed the point. I'm not judging how you acted out your goal and approach, I'm judging your goal and approach. If you talk in flowery words, that's your approach -- "I use flowery words at the king to get him to see my point of view." How pretty you, as a player, talk really doesn't matter much, although it may earn you inspiration if that's one of your BITFs. I'm going to judge this approach and goal on if the goal aligns with what the king wants and if the approach is something that would work to get there. If the king already wants to do this thing, no check, you succeed. If the king would never do the thing (say, banish his favored heir) with that approach, then you just fail (and suffer consequences). If it's uncertain, and there's a consequence for failure, then you'll be making a check.

Just because I say that players should avoid making checks doesn't mean that making checks is a very common part of my games. As [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] says, when you delve into danger as adventurers do, stuff's gonna be uncertain and carry consequences. My game focuses on these moments of uncertainty and consequence and not on play that encourages searching every 5' spaces for traps.

"As an add, when people respond to the goal and approach by claiming that you can pass off a low CHA-no-social-skill character because you, as a player, can talk well, you've completely missed the point. I'm not judging how you acted out your goal and approach, I'm judging your goal and approach. "

Just pointing out that wasn't bring said here. The " not talking about flowery language" and " not acting" is not what was just being put forth by Hussar.

Also if you just thought now was a good time to discuss other issues grest.

But, I can tell you that I can usually pick up on the subtle clues about NPCs personality, motives, etc presented by GM I have played with. I can formulate a very good set of arguments or presentations of deals to align our goals etc. So, if its just me... no stat involved... I would say easily I can play thru as 14 or better charisma without touching a fie - regardless of character - so if my GM showed me that those kinds of things were enough to resolve without checks, plus inspiration on hand whrn I do get stuck with a toll, then I would have almost no reason to put more than an 8 in cha - unless it's a casting stat. It would gain me almost nothing in a game and definitely not be worth putting a 14 there and accepting-3 for those ability scores ehere checks- were more common.

At that point, your system is better off removing Cha as an ability score.

But it's not about the player acting... it's about the player being better at navigating the social landscape than the PC.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 30, 2019

Hussar said:
Yes, my character has no training whatsoever in persuasion and a below average Cha, but, because me the player can do good talky talky, I don't need to spend any resources there because I know that most of the time anyway, I can convince my DM that I don't need to make a check.

Play the character you brought to the table or bring a different character.

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], did you include this one in the spreadsheet?

Guest 6801328 · Apr 30, 2019

Hussar said:
Because when players ignore the character sheet, it hurts my enjoyment of the game because it's so blatantly obvious that the player is simply power gaming rather than actually playing the character in front of him or her?

I fail to see how, "Play the character you created" is a terribly difficult or unreasonable request to make of the players. Apparently, some people do find that to be too difficult and unreasonable. That's fine. They have their own tables to play at because they aren't playing at mine. And, I play that way as a player too. I'm not sorry for having minimal expectations for play.

You want to dump stat stuff and then build your character a certain way? Fair enough. But, that means you have significant disadvantages when attempting to do certain things. And, I'm not going to help you ignore those limitations simply because you can come up with a good idea. Thus, you roll first. Solves all those issues nicely. I don't have to police anything. You don't get to give a great speech and ignore your character sheet. You gave a great speech BECAUSE of your persuasion score.

The dice provide the direction, the player provides the script.

Let's say I play a Sorcerer, and I "dump" both Strength and Int with 8's in each. (I won't even go into the fact that an 8, with a 5% penalty, isn't even really that low.) For some reason the sorcerer is separated from his party and now he needs to push a mine cart loaded with heavy silver ingots up a steep ramp, and you (the DM) have already decided that it's a DC 18 Strength check to accomplish this, and if two characters try it then the guy with the lower score makes the roll with advantage. A failed check means the cart makes an attack roll against the pushers, possibly doing a lot of damage.

But then I say, "Hey...I just thought of something. Those ingots weigh 10 pounds each, right? Heck, even with my 8 Strength I can carry 10 pounds. I'll just carry them up one at a time. I may be weak, but I've got Endurance (15 Con)!"

Question(s):
Do you still require a DC 18 Strength check, or does this approach succeed automatically (if taking longer)?

Is it unacceptable that a character with "only" 8 Int would think of this plan?

Am I "using talky talky" to "game the system" to "avoid playing the character I made"?

iserith · Apr 30, 2019

Hussar said:
So, because you feel that you should be able to min/max your character whatever way you like, the DM should just nod and smile and say, "Yuppers, it's your character, do whatever you like" and, not only that, but facilitate it by accepting certain descriptions of actions as automatic successes.

I don't know what you mean by "min/max." It's one of those words like "metagaming" that to me means "that thing I have an uncontrollable emotional response to which I refuse to accept as a personal problem I need to work on." If you have a different definition though, I'm happy to work with what you think it means.

As for the DM's response, yes, I would say it's your character and to do what you like. And because I follow the "middle path" recommended by the DMG, I will balance the use of dice against deciding on success. So sometimes the actions the player decides for the character will automatically succeed.

Hussar said:
See, to me, no one likes Gary. Gary is a colossal douche bag who ruins the table for everyone.

Which, if that means some folks don't want to play with me? Fantastic. I'll stand by having basic minimum standards for the table over accepting the garbage that players like Gary want to pretend is actually role play any day. Having just had a "Gary" have a giant hissy fit because the DM actually had the temerity to design an encounter that wasn't dove tail tailored to the character that "Gary" played, and leave the group, I'm actually going to stand by that one. I'd much, MUCH rather lose Gary than someone who actually takes the time to honestly attempt to play the character they created.

The tragic part about Gary here is that if you go back and read any of the instances in which Gary was used as an example, he never actually did anything except have his low-Intelligence barbarian character Plunk try to participate in a social or exploration challenge.

He was advised to refrain from allowing "metagame thinking" to negatively impact the play experience (per the DMG). It was recommended Gary engage in tasks that his character Plunk would be good at in case he has to roll, which is smart play. Gary was even told to play Plunk to the DM's idea of what a moron should act like in order to get Inspiration (which he could then use on rolls where he's not as good).

This doesn't sound like a bad person to me. Rather, it sounds like a player trying to engage in challenges in D&D 5e.

5ekyu · Apr 30, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
Let's say I play a Sorcerer, and I "dump" both Strength and Int with 8's in each. (I won't even go into the fact that an 8, with a 5% penalty, isn't even really that low.) For some reason the sorcerer is separated from his party and now he needs to push a mine cart loaded with heavy silver ingots up a steep ramp, and you (the DM) have already decided that it's a DC 18 Strength check to accomplish this, and if two characters try it then the guy with the lower score makes the roll with advantage. A failed check means the cart makes an attack roll against the pushers, possibly doing a lot of damage.

But then I say, "Hey...I just thought of something. Those ingots weigh 10 pounds each, right? Heck, even with my 8 Strength I can carry 10 pounds. I'll just carry them up one at a time. I may be weak, but I've got Endurance (15 Con)!"

Question(s):
Do you still require a DC 18 Strength check, or does this approach succeed automatically (if taking longer)?

Is it unacceptable that a character with "only" 8 Int would think of this plan?

Am I "using talky talky" to "game the system" to "avoid playing the character I made"?

I cannot even see the connection.

The character can lift 10lbs is a reference to the characters strength.
The characters Con is such and such so they can do the longer task is a use of the character sheet.
The choice between a quick but risky cart move vs a slow but manageable ingot by ingot haul is a choice between two different uses of the character stats, neither necessarily unforeseen.
Some could a been accomplished by mage hand.

That's very different from the player navigating the maze of social cues and avoiding even a reference to their cha being needed - or any stat - if the GM resolves social situations by that means.

pemerton · Apr 30, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
What if they describe an approach to disarming the trap that obviously would work, that would take no specialized knowledge or skills? I.e., something your grandmother could do without trouble.

iserith said:
I think there's a difference here. Mort suggests (and plenty of others believe) a player should have his or her character act a particular way, when that is not backed by the rules of the game we're playing and is easily explained given the mutability of the fiction. Whereas the rules saying the DM should be judging the efficacy of a player's stated approach to the goal is telling the person choosing to be DM about his or her role in the game.

I follow, but actually am now a bit more puzzled (not by you - by the overall logic of the situation) because of the post of Elfcrusher's that I've posted. (The emphasis is original, though I've changed it from italics to underlining so as to maintain it in the quote format.) And maybe "intrigued" would be a better word than "puzzled" - I'm not sure, but will post on.

Judging that an approach would work very clearly requires a robust sense of a not-too-mutable fiction. But (as you say) the player is permitted to exploit the mutability of fiction to make sense of his/her play of the character.

For this to work requires - I think - very clear boundaries around what is mutable in the hands of the player, and what the GM is permitted to rigdily establish in advance of adjudicating the "woulds" and "coulds".

I think that (eg) [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s use of fortune very close to the framing, and postponing nearly all of the narration to afterwards, might be one way of trying to manage (by trying to avoid) this need for boundaries.

EDIT: I saw this just after posting:

Elfcrusher said:
Who's to say the character can't know these things? You, as the DM? Sure. But maybe your player disagrees. Maybe he/she says, "There was a village elder who was a great adventurer in his youth, and as a child Gord the Barbarian sat at his feet and listened to all his stories."

Now, you, as DM, may want to overrule that and say, "No, it's my game world and that didn't happen." But in that case the problem isn't metagaming (as AngryDM has done a great job of explaining) it's a problem between you and your players.

Presumably if the player disagrees, in the context of disarming a trap, about what would work because even one's grandmother could do it without trouble, the GM is expected to have the last word.

But in the PC backstory case, and the action declaration case (My INT 6 barbarian does such-and-such) which the PC backstory is meant to be ancilliary to, the GM having the last word is flagged as a possible source of problems.

This illustrates what I mean by the need for clear boundaries over who has what sort of authority over which bits of the shared fiction. I'm not suggesting it's going to be tricky in every case, but I think maybe it might be tricky in some cases.

Elfcrusher said:
Do you trust your DM to decide? Or don't you?

I don't think "trust" is the right notion, because in the context of Gord the Barbarian's backstory and action declaration you don't call on the player to trust the GM.

I think what is at issue here is the distribution of authority over establishing the fiction.

iserith · Apr 30, 2019

pemerton said:
I follow, but actually am now a bit more puzzled (not by you - by the overall logic of the situation) because of the post of Elfcrusher's that I've posted. (The emphasis is original, though I've changed it from italics to underlining so as to maintain it in the quote format.) And maybe "intrigued" would be a better word than "puzzled" - I'm not sure, but will post on.

Judging that an approach would work very clearly requires a robust sense of a not-too-mutable fiction. But (as you say) the player is permitted to exploit the mutability of fiction to make sense of his/her play of the character.

For this to work requires - I think - very clear boundaries around what is mutable in the hands of the player, and what the GM is permitted to rigdily establish in advance of adjudicating the "woulds" and "coulds".

I think that (eg) [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s use of fortune very close to the framing, and postponing nearly all of the narration to afterwards, might be one way of trying to manage (by trying to avoid) this need for boundaries.

I'm not sure what you're commenting on or asking, if you're asking anything at all.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 30, 2019

pemerton said:
I follow, but actually am now a bit more puzzled (not by you - by the overall logic of the situation) because of the post of Elfcrusher's that I've posted. (The emphasis is original, though I've changed it from italics to underlining so as to maintain it in the quote format.) And maybe "intrigued" would be a better word than "puzzled" - I'm not sure, but will post on.

Judging that an approach would work very clearly requires a robust sense of a not-too-mutable fiction. But (as you say) the player is permitted to exploit the mutability of fiction to make sense of his/her play of the character.

For this to work requires - I think - very clear boundaries around what is mutable in the hands of the player, and what the GM is permitted to rigdily establish in advance of adjudicating the "woulds" and "coulds".

I think that (eg) [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s use of fortune very close to the framing, and postponing nearly all of the narration to afterwards, might be one way of trying to manage (by trying to avoid) this need for boundaries.

EDIT: I saw this just after posting:

Presumably if the player disagrees, in the context of disarming a trap, about what would work because even one's grandmother could do it without trouble, the GM is expected to have the last word.

But in the PC backstory case, and the action declaration case (My INT 6 barbarian does such-and-such) which the PC backstory is meant to be ancilliary to, the GM having the last word is flagged as a possible source of problems.

This illustrates what I mean by the need for clear boundaries over who has what sort of authority over which bits of the shared fiction. I'm not suggesting it's going to be tricky in every case, but I think maybe it might be tricky in some cases.

I don't think "trust" is the right notion, because in the context of Gord the Barbarian's backstory and action declaration you don't call on the player to trust the GM.

I think what is at issue here is the distribution of authority over establishing the fiction.

Methinks your requirement of "clear boundaries" indicates a lack of trust in other players/DMs.

pemerton · Apr 30, 2019

iserith said:
I'm not sure what you're commenting on or asking, if you're asking anything at all.

Fair enough.

I'm commenting on the apparent need, in the action resolution scenarios being discussed in this thread, for very clear boundaries in respect of who has authority over what bits of the fiction. And adding that notions of "trusting the GM" - which were invoked by another poster - seem to be irrelevant to the context in which they were invoked.

For what it's worth, the "literature" (for lack of a better term) on RPG design has discussed this issue of boundaries at some length, but not normally in the context of presenting D&D rules. To the extent that D&D rules and discussion of them articulate the issue at all, it tends to use very informal notions that mix at-the-table and in-the-fiction notions, like the player has authority over the character and the GM has authority over everything else in the gameworld.

In [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s examples, it's clear that the player is allowed not only to state that Gord the Barbarian believes, but that Gord the Barbarian knows, that the tribal elders told such-and-such tales. Whereas it's equally clear that Gord the Barbarian may believe that a certain approach to disarming a trap could not go wrong, but that only the GM is allowed to decide whether or not this belief is true.

Maybe you disagree that clear boundaries of the sort I describe are needed. Or maybe you agree, but think that they are quite clear and hence this need won't cause any issues in play. My own view is that a lot of the disagreement in this thread seems to be turning on differences of opinion and experience over whether those boundaries are (i) clear, and (ii) drawn in the right place to deliver a fun play experience.

Elfcrusher said:
Methinks your requirement of "clear boundaries" indicates a lack of trust in other players/DMs.

No. It indicates that if I'm going to fit in properly at youe table, it would be hellpful to know what bits of the fiction (like Gord's elders) I have authority over, and what bits of the fiction (like what will or won't work to disarm a trap) you the GM have authority over.

That's not a trust issue. It's an allocation of roles issue.