What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[iserith]

We seem to be on the same page, but you are I think being biased by that perception and so assuming both that all GMs run their game that way, all game systems encourage that view point, and that all players prefer it. I don't believe that is the case.

Please bear in mind I am speaking solely of D&D 5e and, in particular, a challenge that was presented in my game. I might argue differently if we were talking about D&D 4e or someone else's game. That said, I cleave to the rules and processes of D&D 5e quite closely and I think to some extent any DM who does the same is likely to reach the same conclusion. I make no judgment here about what players prefer, only what are usually optimal decisions in this paradigm (avoiding the d20, for example).

It's possible to run this challenge you've described using a only flow chart which at every branching point features, "Character failed or succeeded?" and never branches on player choice at all, and I think some GMs lean very strongly to preferring that process of play. If I used such a flow chart, this would be entirely a character challenge, and even if it wasn't a pure character challenge because a few trivial decision points for the player remained, it would still be close enough to a pure character challenge that I wouldn't feel amiss calling it a "character challenge".

I would likely call it "random number generation." The important choices were made at character creation/advancement, short of the few trivial decision points you mention.

Some games, at least as written in the rule book, have a process of play where every player proposition ALWAYS is mapped to a particular rules proposition which calls for a fortune test, and for each proposition offered to the GM, the GM's role is to interpret correctly which rules proposition the player actually made. I've even read rule books where it called out that if the player made a natural language proposition, and it was unclear which rules proposition - which character 'move' - the player was making, that the GM should invalidate the natural language proposition and force the player to phrase the proposition as a rules proposition.

Dungeon World is something like this, where a fictional offer made by the player is judged as to whether it "triggers" a move and that both the GM and players are tasked with making sure that moves are used when appropriate. Most but not all moves require a die roll. That's a different kettle of fish for sure than D&D. (And I really like that game, for different reasons. I was a playtester for it as well.)

 

[5ekyu]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]: The thing I like most about your post in which you describe your 4 different categories of challenge is that we almost entirely agree on the definitions and meanings of the terms, but having done so, you express an entirely different set of preferences and processes of play which you also present a reasonable case for. I don't agree with your preferences, and I have different ones and different processes of play, but I can't actually prove that you are right or wrong.

Yet, we also agree that "challenge the player" and "challenge the character" are reasonable labels and define very different things.

You probably won't be surprised to discover that just as you are trying to eliminate all category #1 challenges for your game, I'm trying to eliminate all category #2 challenges from mine.

Not at all. And let me be clear, the ratio of 1-4 for me varies from gsme/syste/campaign by setting, theme and tone.

I will **never** want a lot of #1 in any significant chargen gamebecause to me it bypasses too many choices the player makes, but the balance of 2-4 will alter fairly dramatically in a spy game modern or scifi, a Vampire gothic game, even a supers team game using relatively indie tules or a horror game like say ten candles or... the list goes on.

That dial helps set the tone.

A key element to me is owning and respecting the work.

If I make my players go thru 5e chargrn and go level after level of stats, choosing to trade off ABC for def, then I as GM try and respect that by presenting the value of those in play - which means few obstacles like #1s. The #1s turn into opportunities that might well pay off later and help #2s or be critical in #4s.

But if it's a 10 candles game, where chargen is like five index cards with a word or sentence each - thrn it's much more about choices and story and those stats, obviously, are a one time edge sort of thing.

But imagine if it's an rpg where "chargrn" is. "Its you in another world" like many novels have gone, taking a modern guy thru a portal. Then a greater number of #1 might well have more of a place.

 

[Charlaquin]

Eh, in the sense that "facing the challenge" means the same thing as "deciding to do a certain thing a certain way," sure. But that wasn't what I was getting at. See, the player can decide actions, but the player doesn't decide to pass a skill DC, or decide to score a critical hit...those results come from luck, and are influenced by the numbers on the character sheet.

I think this gets at why I personally dislike the philosophy that “challenge the character, not the player” is shorthand for. I hate feeling like my successes and failures are primarily a matter of luck. RNG can be a great way to introduce some unpredictability into a system, which can make it more exciting, but for me if player choice is not a bigger factor in determining success than RNG, I don’t find it very satisfying.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So to me the phrase "challenging the character" means tailoring to make something that will be difficult specifically for that character to accomplish.

So maybe "challenging the character" really means "challenging the players in such a way that each player approaches the problem differently, depending upon their character."

(And even that can mean from a roleplaying perspective and/or a mechanical perspective.)

I could get behind a definition like that.

Although I still think that the player has to actually be challenged for it to be interesting. As I said in the other thread, if "I roll Skill X" conveys enough information to the rest of the table that everybody understands the intent, the challenge isn't really a challenge, and it isn't really very interesting. It's just a speed bump toll booth.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think this gets at why I personally dislike the philosophy that “challenge the character, not the player” is shorthand for. I hate feeling like my successes and failures are primarily a matter of luck. RNG can be a great way to introduce some unpredictability into a system, which can make it more exciting, but for me if player choice is not a bigger factor in determining success than RNG, I don’t find it very satisfying.

Totally agree. "Can you roll above a certain number on a die?" is really not a very interesting challenge, even if one player has an easier target than another player. So if that's all that's behind "challenging the character", count me out.

But I don't think that's really what its proponents mean. At least not all of them.

 

[Oofta]

So maybe "challenging the character" really means "challenging the players in such a way that each player approaches the problem differently, depending upon their character."

(And even that can mean from a roleplaying perspective and/or a mechanical perspective.)

I could get behind a definition like that.

Although I still think that the player has to actually be challenged for it to be interesting. As I said in the other thread, if "I roll Skill X" conveys enough information to the rest of the table that everybody understands the intent, the challenge isn't really a challenge, and it isn't really very interesting. It's just a speed bump toll booth.

Or it rewards/punishes players for the decisions they've made while building their character which to some people is important.

If I've built my character and made decisions that maximized my diplomacy because my PC has a silver tongue and the DM never calls for a single diplomacy check but rather relies solely on what the player says, I wasted my time. I should have just focused on combat abilities instead.

If a PCs skill proficiencies don't matter, I don't see why anyone would anyone ever focus on anything other than combat skills.

That's why I try to have a balance of PC challenges and Player challenges, or more often encounters that challenge both.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or it rewards/punishes players for the decisions they've made while building their character which to some people is important.

If I've built my character and made decisions that maximized my diplomacy because my PC has a silver tongue and the DM never calls for a single diplomacy check but rather relies solely on what the player says, I wasted my time. I should have just focused on combat abilities instead.

If a PCs skill proficiencies don't matter, I don't see why anyone would anyone ever focus on anything other than combat skills.

That's why I try to have a balance of PC challenges and Player challenges, or more often encounters that challenge both.

The only nitpick I would have with this is the implication, perhaps imagined by me, that the DM is designing challenges that are specifically meant to be solved in a certain way by certain PCs, or that are meant to force other PCs to use skills they are bad at, just to remind them that they are bad those things.

However, I'm all for:
a) Creating a variety of challenges, across all three pillars, without the DM expecting (or requiring) specific solutions to each one.
b) Rewarding players who find interesting ways to solve those challenges using the unique strengths of their characters by allowing those solutions to succeed (or giving them a decent chance, at least).

As I said upstream, if the player has to figure out how to use his/her character's unique strengths to solve a problem, that's far more interesting than cases where it's obvious which character should use which strength.

So, yeah, include a neutral PC who has something the players need, as well as trait/bond/flaw/ideal. If the silver-tongued player learns the flaw or ideal or whatever, and wants to leverage that to convince the PC to help the party, either give him an autosuccess or have him roll a die, depending on how effective you think that approach will be.

Another less eloquent character trying the same thing might have a much harder time, and might want to use a different strategy.

But I think the important part here is that persuading the NPC to help is just one possible "solution" to the problems the party faces. They might be able to progress without his help, or steal the McGuffin that he has locked up, or blackmail him with a secret they find, or cast a Charm spell, or....etc. The adventure shouldn't be planned such that persuading this NPC is a "toll booth" that must be passed.

Does that make sense?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

Spoken like someone who has never gone to Vegas!

I dunno; different parts of the game appeal to different parts of the lizard brain at different times. There is certainly something ... satisfying ... about a good roll. Even if the payout is in hit points instead of cold, hard cash.

High stakes can make it exciting, but that’s different from it being a challenge.

 

[Oofta]

The only nitpick I would have with this is the implication, perhaps imagined by me, that the DM is designing challenges that are specifically meant to be solved in a certain way by certain PCs, or that are meant to force other PCs to use skills they are bad at, just to remind them that they are bad those things.
...
Does that make sense?

Without getting into the weeds, I think we do agree on general approach for this. How that goal is accomplished is going to vary, and how we express what we do and why may vary.

I try to put a lot of variety into my encounters (and fights). Some game days will go by where the dice are being rolled constantly, others they may be used a few times.

So I agree. I strive for a mix of challenges, and have multiple possible approaches whenever possible, including some I didn't even think of but my players do.