What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[Satyrn]

I think I've come up with the perfect example of challenging the character versus challenging the player, although it's not in-genre. Let's say that we are playing a game where the PCs are the bridge crew of an exploratory starship that often comes across new and exciting situations and sometimes does battle with aggressors, alien and otherwise. Let's also pretend that we're writing up the various actions that the crew can take in battle and we write up one for the Tactical Officer:

Shields!
When you take this action, you can reallocate the shields' strength between the Forward, Starboard-Bow, Starboard-Stern, Port-Bow, Port-Stern and Aft locations*. The total shield strength is equal to the Ship's current Shield Strength plus your passive Intelligence (Tactical Operations) and each location must receive at least one point.

Example: Wumbo has an Intelligence (Tactical Operations) of +6 and their Ship has a current Shield Strength of 10, meaning that the total shields' strength must add up to be 26. Anticipating an attack on the port side, they set Port-Bow and Port-Stern to 11 each, and assign only 1 point to the Forward, Starboard-Bow, Starboard-Stern and Aft sections.

OR

Shields!
When you take this action, you try to anticipate your attackers' most likely targets and reconfigure the ship's shields to prevent damage. Make an Intelligence (Tactical Operations) check against your opponents' highest passive Dexterity (Targeting Systems). On a success, the ship has resistance to damage until the beginning of your next turn. If you succeed by 5 or more, the ship is immune to damage until the beginning of your next turn.

—•—

Now obviously those are two different kinds of rules and you'd never intermix those rule styles. But both rules consume the same resource (a player's action on their turn). One challenges the player to anticipate the attack position. The other challenges the character — the player is under no obligation to figure out where to reallocate the shields, but we figure that the character does do a good job if they succeed at the skill check.

—•—

* Of course our theoretical starship game uses a hex-grid for combat, because anything else would be barbaric.

It's an excellent example, I think, but would've been made better with less complexity in the first option. As you quickly saw, the bit about the characters passive ability score confused the issue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's an excellent example, I think, but would've been made better with less complexity in the first option. As you quickly saw, the bit about the characters passive ability score confused the issue.

What I do like about it, though, is that it involves decision-making by the player combined with associated mechanics determined by the character.

So many people arguing for "challenging the character" keep invoking examples where it's pure puzzle-solving by the player (riddles, logic problems, breaking codes and ciphers, etc.), even though most of the "challenge the player" crowd keeps saying that those sorts of problems are not what they're arguing for.

So if zed's example had been totally divorced from the character it would risk further confusion. And as I said in my last post, examples that are closer together, rather than further apart, is where we are all going to learn something (as opposed to simply continuing to ridicule a caricature of the other side's position...which is admittedly kinda fun, but not very productive.)

 

[Satyrn]

True, it does show how "challenging the player" does involve the character sheet, too.

And it does show the sort of mix of player decision and character stats that is seen a lot in my game. So yeah, it was simply an excellent example that does show what we mean when we talk about challenging the player.

 

[5ekyu]

True, it does show how "challenging the player" does involve the character sheet, too.

And it does show the sort of mix of player decision and character stats that is seen a lot in my game. So yeah, it was simply an excellent example that does show what we mean when we talk about challenging the player.

So, if you go back to even page one, you see descriptions of what challenge the charscter and challenge the layer divisions are - stated by some on iirc both sides.

If the challenge the player "side" is now wanting their position to be that it's about having both charscters stats and player choices relevant to resolution of encounters, not having player-only puzzles sndvriddles where literally any character can resolve it successfully with the right action statement - then I think that's wonderful and we have certainly made progress.

 

[Mort]

The character represents, among other things not relevant to this topic, a suite of options the player may be able to employ to help overcome the challenge or, as in D&D 5e and ability checks, backup for when the proposed action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

Here, I think, is the fundamental issue:

You state "The character represents, among other things not relevant to this topic, a suite of options the player may be able to employ to help overcome the challenge..."

But Shouldn't the character be the suite of options?

If Gary is playing Plunk, half-orc barbarian with muscles the size of mountains and a brain the size of a pea, should Gary really be employing higher level strategic planning in social and exploration challenges?

By choosing Plunk and his suite of abilities/options, Gary has decided how he wishes to interact with the game. That's the player being challenged through the character.

 

[Umbran]

So many people arguing for "challenging the character" keep invoking examples where it's pure puzzle-solving by the player (riddles, logic problems, breaking codes and ciphers, etc.), even though most of the "challenge the player" crowd keeps saying that those sorts of problems are not what they're arguing for.

Those sort of puzzle solving examples are invoked to demonstrate the logic of the issue, using an example that many of us have probably actually seen in practice at some time or other. There are other examples, but they have connotations that allow for deflection*.

There's a completely different problem that arises in arguments - Person A says that in some given context, it is better to challenge the character, not the player, and then describes what they mean by that. Then, Person B counters, saying, "But I want to challenge the player, and I don't do the sort of thing described," but then persists as if Person A is against what they do. It is a form of rhetorical bait-and-switch.

If a problematic behavior is outlined, and you don't fit the description... then maybe there's no issue, and you can stop arguing over it.




*For example, resolving social encounters without reference to the game's social mechanics - basing the result purely on the player's glib tongue, and not noting the character has a Charisma of 6. The usual deflection I have seen is, 'Well, that's the GM just playing favorites," which misses the point.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here, I think, is the fundamental issue:

You state "The character represents, among other things not relevant to this topic, a suite of options the player may be able to employ to help overcome the challenge..."

But Shouldn't the character be the suite of options?

If Gary is playing Plunk, half-orc barbarian with muscles the size of mountains and a brain the size of a pea, should Gary really be employing higher level strategic planning in social and exploration challenges?

By choosing Plunk and his suite of abilities/options, Gary has decided how he wishes to interact with the game. That's the player being challenged through the character.

What are you calling “brain the size of a pea”? Int 8? 6? 4? Lower?

Regardless, if Gary wants to play Plunk as a moron I think he should be welcome to. But I don’t think it’s anybody else’s job to police exactly how he chooses to do that.

 

[5ekyu]

Those sort of puzzle solving examples are invoked to demonstrate the logic of the issue, using an example that many of us have probably actually seen in practice at some time or other. There are other examples, but they have connotations that allow for deflection*.

There's a completely different problem that arises in arguments - Person A says that in some given context, it is better to challenge the character, not the player, and then describes what they mean by that. Then, Person B counters, saying, "But I want to challenge the player, and I don't do the sort of thing described," but then persists as if Person A is against what they do. It is a form of rhetorical bait-and-switch.

If a problematic behavior is outlined, and you don't fit the description... then maybe there's no issue, and you can stop arguing over it.




*For example, resolving social encounters without reference to the game's social mechanics - basing the result purely on the player's glib tongue, and not noting the character has a Charisma of 6. The usual deflection I have seen is, 'Well, that's the GM just playing favorites," which misses the point.

"If a problematic behavior is outlined, and you don't fit the description... then maybe there's no issue, and you can stop arguing over it."

Yeah, after this latest swerve, it really seems we are all in favor of having challenges where the player makes choices *and* those combined with the references to the character stats and traits lead to the resolution, but that those where the player choices alone without reference to character traits are enough are right out, not what we are expecting.

I call that a win-win.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Those sort of puzzle solving examples are invoked to demonstrate the logic of the issue, using an example that many of us have probably actually seen in practice at some time or other. There are other examples, but they have connotations that allow for deflection*.

I'm not sure I buy that. I mean, I agree that it would be valid to use a pure-logic challenge for illustrative purposes, for example if you were asking another poster to clarify their position.

But what I'm seeing from some posters (and really this is a pattern that repeats itself in all these debates) is a willful exaggeration of the other side to the most extreme version of the position, in an attempt to discredit it.

Exhibit J: "Telegraphing" a trap becomes "Signs that say 'trap here'."

There's a completely different problem that arises in arguments - Person A says that in some given context, it is better to challenge the character, not the player, and then describes what they mean by that. Then, Person B counters, saying, "But I want to challenge the player, and I don't do the sort of thing described," but then persists as if Person A is against what they do. It is a form of rhetorical bait-and-switch.

Maybe that also happens, but some have argued pretty explicitly that they think the adjudication of anything important should fall to the dice using ability/skill mechanics, and that no cleverness on the part of the player should alter the probabilities. That, for example, "I disarm the trap" with no description should have exactly the same odds of disarming the trap as proposing a clever and logical way of doing so.

If a problematic behavior is outlined, and you don't fit the description... then maybe there's no issue, and you can stop arguing over it.

It gets pretty frustrating when you try repeatedly to clarify your position, and others continue to (willfully?) ignore it, preferring the more extreme caricature instead. For example, in the thread about Insight, how many times did a bunch of us explain "it's not about the quality of the performance, it's about the approach taken" and still a couple posters kept going on about how we're rewarding people for being glib.

I mean, I guess you're right in the sense that maybe we should just stop arguing with those people.

*For example, resolving social encounters without reference to the game's social mechanics - basing the result purely on the player's glib tongue, and not noting the character has a Charisma of 6. The usual deflection I have seen is, 'Well, that's the GM just playing favorites," which misses the point.

And as I just said above, continually accusing somebody of DMing that way, when it's been explained to them repeatedly that they are totally misinterpreting what you mean by 'approach', also misses the point.

 

[Umbran]

And as I just said above, continually accusing somebody of DMing that way, when it's been explained to them repeatedly that they are totally misinterpreting what you mean by 'approach', also misses the point.

Yep.

Now, go through the thread, and check - how many times have you actually been accused, explicitly? How many times can you quote someone as saying *you* do a thing you don't actually do, and have said you don't do? Leave out all cases where they are speaking in general, or about a person who is not you.

This is another things that happens, to people on all sides - perception of wrongs that are not actually in the text. Humans read into stuff, a lot. One person perceives a slight, and that gets under their skin, and they get irked, and it shows, so the other side senses the irk and figures that means an intended slight... and both sides end up feeling they are being accused, when little actual accusation has actually happened.

You have no idea how often two people will be arguing, and report each other for saying things that never actually got said. This is especially common in what I call "dichotomy wars". Like this one - you can Challenge the Player or Challenge the Character, and these somehow become two styles that are like matter and antimatter, and any critique of one becomes a Big Deal for the other.

If you don't feel the other folks are listening to you... why continue talking?