What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[Celebrim]

I agree that separating that knowledge is difficult if not impossible. It rarely comes up at my table, and people are generally more concerned with avoiding resistances and immunities that exploiting vulnerabilities, so the few times people do know something, it is a minor effect. However, I am a person who gets bugged by inconsistencies in stories, so if your character has knowledge about how mindflayers are created, despite being a poor street rat with no encounters with anything more arcane than a magic lantern, I'm going to wonder how you came by this explicit and detailed secret knowledge. It will bother me, simply because it alters your story and would seem out of place.

As far as inconsistencies in stories go, there have been at least 3 origin stories for Mind Flayers that I know of (and that's before we even finished 2e) and I wouldn't be surprised to find recent editions have introduced more of them, or that 2e settings I'm not that familiar with (Planescape, Spelljammer) had their own backstories that weren't completely congruent. Beyond that, I'd never assume that a particular DM was using one canon or another. Running a game in say a Marvel or DC universe would be equally ambiguous. The comics are full of retcons.

If a poor street rat knows a bunch about Mind Flayers because his player knows a bunch about Mind Flayers, and he chooses to act on that knowledge in character by relating all the stuff he knows, that's nothing I can do anything about. I can't tell a player how to play their character, and I can't make players forget what they know. They'll have to make choices about what they are comfortable doing. If we need to establish how he knows it, well, that's never that hard to do and in my experience often makes for fun story hooks especially if the player is willing to let me run with that.

Lots of things that players do used to bother me that elicit shrugs these days now that I'm older.

And myself and the entire table is going to be a little taken aback if their reaction to their kid being strapped to a torture device isn't some form of horror.

Maybe so, but that's the players choice how to play it as far as I'm concerned. If the player wants to play this as, "Don't worry Johnny, this will only hurt for a little while...", that's the player's decision, and the fact that everyone is taken aback by this reaction might well be interesting. I prefer not to tell players how their character acts. The player has little enough control over the game as it is with me stepping on the one prerogative that they unambiguously have.

 

[iserith]

I haven't followed very closely on the argument you are having, but what passage from 5e do you think is a rule?

It's been my experience that a lot of things that people claim are rules aren't rules. For example, "wealth by level" in 3.X was not a rule, it was a guideline. Thirteen encounters per adventuring day, was not a rule, but a guideline. That this percentage of encounters should be above CR and this below it was not a rule, but a guideline. Yet I often got into arguments online that insisted that if the PC's didn't receive their suggested wealth by level that I was breaking the rules.

Generally speaking, I don't classify things that don't have to do with process resolution as "rules". Much of the DMG in every edition tends to be just good advice to novice DMs on how to play D&D according to its default assumptions.

I would say anything that isn't specifically called out as a rules variant (e.g., encumbrance or different resting options) or the like is a rule. This includes the stuff that doesn't seem very "crunchy," such as the section on "How to Play" or what the player gets to determine about the character. I think to parse it into various other words like "guidelines" or the like doesn't really help and certainly doesn't make for interesting discussion in my view. The books are instruction manuals on how to play a fairly complex game. Ignore or downplay parts of it at your own risk. Doing so may change nothing appreciable about the outcome. Or it may result in an undesirable experience - but so too might playing by the rules if the play experience isn't to your tastes. That might suggest a need for house rules, variant rules, table rules, or a wholesale change of game.

I want to be clear here: I am not advocating slavish devotion to RAW. I change rules depending on the campaign I am running to better support the campaign's theme. But like you said, I think it's a good idea to play as intended first before deciding whether things need to change and how.

 

[iserith]

I agree that there are NPCs that the game suggests are "extensions of the PC" and thus under the control of the player. This is nowhere more apparent than in the background features.

From the acolyte's "Shelter of the Faithful":

While near your temple, you can call upon the priests for assistance, provided the assistance you ask for is not hazardous and you remain in good standing with your temple.​

From the criminal's "Criminal Contact"

You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you.​

From the noble's "Position of Priviledge":

You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.​

From the sage's "Researcher":

When you attempt to learn or recall a piece of lore, if you do not know that information, you often know where and from whom you can obtain it. Usually, this information comes from a library, scriptorium, university, or a sage or other learned person or creature.​

These are abilities, on the order of class and racial features on the character sheet, that the player can invoke that give his/her character access to NPCs with which s/he is connected and over which the player can exert some degree of influence.

Sure, but all of the organizations, locations, and NPCs are under the full control of the DM during play as are the outcomes of all action declarations by the player related to the background features above, since you still have to declare an action to seek assistance from the priests of your temple, get messages to your criminal contact, secure an audience with a noble, and so on. This does not suggest control over the environment outside of the character to me; rather, they are rules the DM may choose to use to decide on the outcome of the action declaration. As DM, I'm inclined to say your action declaration to get an audience with the local noble automatically succeeds if you have the "Position of Privilege" feature. But that might not always be the case, for example, if there is no local noble in the town or (for reasons I sure I hope I telegraphed previously) the noble refuses all audiences due to some plot-relevant reason.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would say anything that isn't specifically called out as a rules variant (e.g., encumbrance or different resting options) or the like is a rule. This includes the stuff that doesn't seem very "crunchy," such as the section on "How to Play" or what the player gets to determine about the character. I think to parse it into various other words like "guidelines" or the like doesn't really help

There's definite differences among, say, a crunchy mechanic, a clearly stated but vague rule, an a section explicitly labeled 'advice.' Since such distinctions exist, labeling them isn't unreasonable.

If you want to use 'rule' in every label, why not. Maybe: 'rule mechanic', 'procedural rule,' 'rule of thumb,' respectively, for the above instances.

Or, we could call none of them rules: resolution mechanic, sequence of play, advice.

It shouldn't make a difference.

The books are instruction manuals on how to play a fairly complex game.

They're closer to self-help books than technical manuals. Again, intentionally so, other WotC eds were more manual-like, heavier on the jargon and all, less conversational, etc, and 5e design explicitly moved away from that.

Ignore or downplay parts of it at your own risk. … I want to be clear here: I am not advocating slavish devotion to RAW.

It's a good thing you clarified, because the bolded bit, sounds like exactly that (and stated none too gently, at that). Language is ambiguous, that way.

By the same token, absent Mike Mearls sitting at your table, clarifying every word of the books, interpretation is called for, and different interpretations may well be equally valid.

 

[iserith]

Maybe so, but that's the players choice how to play it as far as I'm concerned. If the player wants to play this as, "Don't worry Johnny, this will only hurt for a little while...", that's the player's decision, and the fact that everyone is taken aback by this reaction might well be interesting. I prefer not to tell players how their character acts. The player has little enough control over the game as it is with me stepping on the one prerogative that they unambiguously have.

I agree. I think it may have been this thread where I mentioned that even if the DM "gives" the player the freedom to react however he or she likes after the DM establishes how the character feels about something, the DM still established a constraint in which the player may feel compelled to take into account when deciding what to do. As [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] points out, the rest of the table might be taken aback if the character acts in a manner that is incongruous with what the DM established about the character's feelings. This is a subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) form of control, even if the DM doesn't intend it that way. Better to steer clear in my view.

 

[iserith]

There's definite differences among, say, a crunchy mechanic, a clearly stated but vague rule, an a section explicitly labeled 'advice.' Since such distinctions exist, labeling them isn't unreasonable.

If you want to use 'rule' in every label, why not. Maybe: 'rule mechanic', 'procedural rule,' 'rule of thumb,' respectively, for the above instances.

Or, we could call none of them rules: resolution mechanic, sequence of play, advice.

It shouldn't make a difference.

Yeah, we can play all kinds of word games if you want. But I don't think that's very interesting or helpful.

They're closer to self-help books than technical manuals.

More word games.

It's a good thing you clarified, because the bolded bit, sounds like exactly that (and stated none too gently, at that). Language is ambiguous, that way.

It looks more to me that you're reading into my words an intent I do not have.

 

[iserith]

At that rate, it should only take a few sessions to get everyone equipped and to the dungeon.

And who among us old-timers haven't been in games like that?! I sure as heck have.

 

[Satyrn]

And who among us old-timers haven't been in games like that?! I sure as heck have.

One of the guys at my table spends way too much game time trying to buy a nice sword.

Meanwhile, I'd pay double, triple or even tenfold, the listed gold price to just buy the thing without playing out the shopping scene.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, we can play all kinds of word games if you want. But I don't think that's very interesting or helpful.
More word games.

Insisting everything between the covers be called a 'rule' is a word-game, in that sense, too.

There are valid distinctions between a crunchy mechanic, an overarching procedure, flavor/color text, etc... denying those distinctions by insisting on just calling them all 'rules' is as much a word game as picking one set of labels over another.

It looks more to me that you're reading into my words an intent I do not have.

Exactly. And, unless the designer is right there (and his memory good) to clarify (and, heck, if he were, he'd probably say something like "don't sweat it, the rules are just a starting point"), you might be reading an intent into any given 'rule' that wasn't there, either. That's language being ambiguous, and decoding ambiguous language means using judgement and coming up with reasonable interpretations. Not everyone reading the same passage will have the same interpretation - any that fit the wording may be equally valid.

 

[iserith]

Insisting everything between the covers be called a 'rule' is a word-game, in that sense, too.

There are valid distinctions between a crunchy mechanic, an overarching procedure, flavor/color text, etc... denying those distinctions by insisting on just calling them all 'rules' is as much a word game as picking one set of labels over another.

All your position means is that we're at an impasse and there's nothing left to discuss on this front. I won't be changing what I call the rules.

Exactly. And, unless the designer is right there (and his memory good) to clarify (and, heck, if he were, he'd probably say something like "don't sweat it, the rules are just a starting point"), you might be reading an intent into any given 'rule' that wasn't there, either. That's language being ambiguous, and decoding ambiguous language means using judgement and coming up with reasonable interpretations. Not everyone reading the same passage will have the same interpretation - any that fit the wording may be equally valid.

I mean in a kind of postmodern sense, sure, anything can mean anything. But in a pragmatic sense, only some interpretations will actually be valid in that they actually work reliably in achieving the intended goal. If you're saying that some people can have a perfectly fine game by running it differently than I do, I have never disputed that and even acknowledged it just a few short posts ago (which you even partially quoted). So as above there is really nothing to discuss here. It's rather exasperating that you keep harping on these points, frankly, when it seems we're in agreement on just about everything.

Edit: And besides, we don't have time for this. There's a D&D sex scandal on and we have pearls to clutch.