What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[iserith]

I think there is at least a modest tension between these two posts - which are from different posters, but posters who generally seem to be in agreement on most of the issues under discussion on these threads.

A GM judging whether an approach is a clever and/or logical one seems to be imposing shoulds - and relying on robust counterfactual assumptions more generally.

I think it makes sense to talk about who has authority over what aspects of the fiction; but I don't think it helps to explain this in terms of the robustness of "should" in a game of imagination.

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I mean when a player consistently uses knowledge his character really shouldn't have.

And there are rules. The DM can expressly call for ability/skill checks. If for example a player consistently points out weaknesses of monsters his character really shouldn't know, or uses knowledge of history (as an example) the character couldn't possibly know, the DM can curb that.

But if the DM allows the player to play however they want on mental stats, the DM is favoring players who design characters a certain way.





Using out our character knowledge to aid play is in no way subjective, it's metagaming.





I never said the DM should tell the player what to think - but to discourage using out of character knowledge in playing the game.

The problem is self correcting if the DM calls for checks to essentially keep the player honest. But, while it's a long, long thread, I get the impression those checks don't see a lot of play at certain tables, certainly not in the examples provided.

All those bits I bolded are subjective.

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.

 

[5ekyu]

That's right there in the rules - well, using a portable ram is, anyway. So, yeah, maybe. But, then do you give advantage for using any tool? If I have a great axe do I get advantage to break open the door? How about a maul? Size 12 boot?

See, that's where the problem starts. Maybe I figure that because my character is a big, muscular barbarian, he should be getting advantage on breaking open a door. After all, Thunder is 6'2" and 260 pounds. Why am I not getting advantage?

Yet, I'll bet dollars to donuts that most of the DM's I play with or ever will play with, won't give me advantage for breaking down the door.



No, why? The only reason you can sneak in the first place is because of the distraction. Otherwise, you'd just get spotted.



Most often? Yes, you would be wrong. In these specific cases? Yes, you would be wrong. What you are doing is the basic requirements for getting the check in the first place. You can't hide if there is a direct line of sight to you, so, that distraction is a base requirement for being able to hide and sneak.

Honestly, thinking about it, having a crowbar probably wouldn't grant you advantage either. Maybe, but, unlikely.

Advantage isn't all that easy to get. And, in my mind, doing the bare requirements for performing a skill isn't enough.

--------

But, in any case, I would define challenging the character as any challenge in which the character being played impacts how that challenge is resolved. If the challenge is resolved the same way regardless of what character is being played then that is a player challenge.

The crowbar description says you get advsntage on strength checks ehere its leverage can be applied.

I should have been more clear on the others.

My assumption was that the basic situation was one where a statement of. "I sneak past the guards using hide" was possible (obscurement, cover, crowds etc ) and where these were added efforts to help the attempt, not that these were the enabling factors.

To me, the first (distraction by ruckus raising ally) is a pretty textbook "help action" (or more precisely working together) for advantage. The last is not using an ally but using your own prior actions to aide your effort - the DMG on advantage specifically calls out use of prior actions by the actor or others that help as one of their four bullet points for advantage.

But, hey, seems I was definitely wrong on where I saw the other positions.

 

[5ekyu]

What if they describe something that obviously would work, that would take no specialized knowledge or skills? I.e., something your grandmother could do without trouble. Do you still roll?

Like walking across the floor or lacing boots, sure.

There are tons of no-character-traits-needed actions in my games. There are even ones you can do for benefit - anybody can "share my rations with the hungry" or "go buy blankets for the refugees" and those might well pay off down the road.

That is different from the "challenges that matter" which are not (in my game) so simple that "your grandmother could do without trouble" or that "take no specialized knowledge or skills."

As GM I choose to not have those be the nature of "challenges that matter" or "not an obstacle" and leave them to the plenty of room of other stuff your character does.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's right there in the rules - well, using a portable ram is, anyway. So, yeah, maybe. But, then do you give advantage for using any tool? If I have a great axe do I get advantage to break open the door? How about a maul? Size 12 boot?

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

See, that's where the problem starts. Maybe I figure that because my character is a big, muscular barbarian, he should be getting advantage on breaking open a door. After all, Thunder is 6'2" and 260 pounds. Why am I not getting advantage?

The effect of high strength on that task is already accounted for in the rules. Just like the effect of low Intelligence and Charisma on other tasks is already accounted for in the rules.

But, in any case, I would define challenging the character as any challenge in which the character being played impacts how that challenge is resolved. If the challenge is resolved the same way regardless of what character is being played then that is a player challenge.

Q.E.F.D.

 

[Celebrim]

But my assertion is that a role-playing game requires that the player be challenged... otherwise it wouldn't be a role-playing game

Agreed.

If that player is not able to have direct input within the rules of the game (player not character)... is it really a an RPG?

No, it's a simulation or toy. I haven't seen a lot of these lately, but some of the old 'Sim' video games were correctly defined by Will Wright as not games but as electronic toys.

What we may have instead is a wargame or a dungeon crawler boardgame.

In a wargame or boardgame, the player still has control of the pieces in some manner, so your assertion is not true. The mind of "the general" is not simulated, but provided by the player, so a wargame or boardgame is not pure simulation. Your choices are not controlled by some algorithmic process and you do more than observe how the game plays out. Imagine the difference between the experience of playing a wargame, and observing a wargame where all the participants are AI. The later is what happens when your game stands on the simulation aesthetic alone.

To create a wargame or boardgame from a role-playing game, you remove the narrative and simulation pillars.

 

[Hussar]

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



The effect of high strength on that task is already accounted for in the rules. Just like the effect of low Intelligence and Charisma on other tasks is already accounted for in the rules.



Q.E.F.D.

High strength? Yup. High size - as in height/weight? Not so much. My halfling with an 18 strength has exactly the same chances of smashing that door as a half-orc, despite the half orc being several times heavier. So, when my DM says, "Nope, you don't get advantage", well, I suppose we just trust our DM right?

The rules are hardly so robust as to account for every aspect of stats. There is no "check" to account for when that 8 Int character comes up with the really smart plan. Or the 8 Cha character makes that really good speech, negating the need for a check to influence the NPC.

 

[Yardiff]

All those bits I bolded are subjective.

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.

If the bold part was part of the characters original background/backstory then I would have no problem with this answer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

well, I suppose we just trust our DM right?

This is the D&D forum, so: Yes.

 

[Hussar]

It's kinda funny. The whole "I listened to stories at the feet of my elders" thing doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's plausible, and I applaud players who want to add more backstory into their characters during play. I think that sort of thing is great.

What does bug me though is when players try to, what I see as, game the system. 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.