What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[Tony Vargas]

One wonders if the person making these claims believes their own person extends to encompass all that they can observe or think on?

What? Like Solipsism?

I think they are less serious arguments than attempts to justify a process of play that includes a gentlemen's agreement over what different participants can introduce to the fiction in an effort to improve the game - something I think that is neither justified by these red herrings nor which needs to be justified. It's not badwrongfun to cooperate together.

There's a lot of that still goin' around, even though you'd think in the 5e era there'd be less. Ideally, DMs should just feel free to run their games in their style, using the rules as a toolset & starting point to do so, and leave it to other DMs to do so in their ways, too. (With the obvious exception of organized play, like AL, were some consistency from table-to-table is desirable). But, invariable, someone is too insecure in their prefered style to just do it, and instead need to justify it to themselves as 'how the game is really meant to be played,' (whether that's based on a by-the-book reading of rules, or an assumed intent of the designers, or immemorial tradition or simulation/verisimilitude/whatever) and, then, by extension, to get on-line and make that argument to the circumambient ether.
Of course, as soon as the second person does that, the circumambient ether erupts in flames.

However, as soon as the player tries to declare something that is not about his PC's beliefs, feelings, or actions, but rather about the beliefs, feelings, or actions of NPCs or the existence of novel things in the fiction, then he's not playing his character. I can't believe I'm saying that, because I would have thought it was obvious and axiomatic, but here we are.

Or as the Forge might've said, he's "not in Actor Stance." ::shrug::

There are fundamental differences in approach among playing a character as if you were: creating & developing a character in fiction vs choreographing the actions of a fictional character to fulfill its role in a story vs portraying a fictional character on stage or screen vs inhabiting an alternate self in a dream or dissociative state vs literally 'playing' a typed or unique game-piece in accord with rules governing its moves.

IMHO, those approaches mostly, at worst, conflict on an aesthetic or theoretical level, they're not only compatible at the same table and/or workable in a variety of systems, but it's likely any given player's style is a mix of several of them rather than 'pure.'

 

[5ekyu]

Forgive me, but this interpretation seems like a lawyerly effort to screw over the players. I think it's pretty clear that hazardous assistance refers to assistance that would be hazardous to the priests themselves, not hazardous to anyone in general.



What's wrong with sticking to only the conditions of the spell or feature, and not imposing additional restrictions that the DM deems "compelling" in his/her judgement?



This all seems good to me and sounds like it avoids mismatched expectations. If the "why" has already been established though, I wonder why you would ever get to the "no", unless I'm misunderstanding you.

On the lawyerly part... well if you mean its lawyerly to point out what was written in contrast to what you claimed, then guilty.

But, if one accepts that the actual text is telling you to only consider hazardous to the priest, then on gets the door opened to a lot of very strange results. If it means the priest spends his time casting raise dead instead of using a cantrip to stabilize an injured child then hey, if that's good for you, great.

As for sticking to the components... in 5e and in the games I run, NPCs are not under the control of the player and its recommended they be played as characters, not as tools or props. There are certainly some exceptions with compels and the like.

But as a very broad rule of thumb, NPCs are handled very very different than the other components. So, yes, that means that your cleric might have to wait and get your healing or remove curse tomorrow because you are not "casting my NPC" feature but rather asking this person for help knowing they will help me but not *controlling* the specifics of it.

What the Acolyte describes in general and more specifically with phrases about keeping in good standing and remain on good terms us a relationship - not a slot machine of free Healing, housing, care and assistance- just insert your acolyte chip.

Many of the background work this way, setting up prior established contacts and allies and avenues... not just "meat-spells" like some "cure wounds with feet".

So, yeah, even if it wont cause specific hazard to the priest, he may say "no" when you ask him to flame strike the innkeeper for overcharging you.

In my game, NPCs are not just "features" even when they are from backgrounds.

 

[Celebrim]

What? Like Solipsism?

If a player believes he is the only person playing at a table, my solution would be to make this conclusion a fact and leave him to it.

As far as the whole, way things are meant to be played thing goes, I'd say there are certainly ways that RPGs are traditionally played, and often they are played in this way for very good reasons. But, I've got no problem with people experimenting beyond the way things are traditionally played if they can make that work for them. Typically though, I find that real problem is that they can't explain how they make that work for them, and sometimes when you scratch the surface there is less there than the raging flame war in the heavens would at first lead you to believe.

Or as the Forge might've said, he's "not in Actor Stance." ::shrug::

Speaking of raging flame wars, and badwrongfun, and the devil appears.

I kid a little, because occasionally the Forge produced something actually worthwhile, and the stance language is one that tends not be too bad as long as it is descriptive and not judgmental. Pawn stance is easier to do than some others, but if you are doing pawn stance because you like it and not just because you are unaware of any other approaches, feel free to play pawn stance at my table without me telling you, that you are doing it wrong.

I agree with you whole hearted about the sort of statements that would have caused an auto-de-fe at the Forge, that the stances and aesthetics of play are compatible and that most players are pure about neither.

However, there is a difference between a player not being in Actor Stance or Author stance or some other stance normally associated with play, and assuming a Director Stance or some other stance associated with GMing in a game that has a GM and no mechanics for sharing the Director's chair. It would I think require a phenomenal degree of interpersonal understanding to share a Director Stance without conflict if you had no mechanism to ensure equitable allocation of the Director chair. Heck, I generally advice GMs to avoid Director Stance as a GMing stance as much as possible, since - as the term applies - it becomes too easy to start telling the players what to do in order to get your story done.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If a player believes he is the only person playing at a table, my solution would be to make this conclusion a fact and leave him to it.

He'll be fine.

As far as the whole, way things are meant to be played thing goes, I'd say there are certainly ways that RPGs are traditionally played, and often they are played in this way for very good reasons.

… and often to not so good effect and/or for not so good reasons … really, most of the time, said tradition is unexamined.

Typically though, I find that real problem is that they can't explain how they make that work for them, and sometimes when you scratch the surface there is less there than the raging flame war in the heavens would at first lead you to believe.
Speaking of raging flame wars, and badwrongfun, and the devil appears.

I kid a little, because occasionally the Forge produced something actually worthwhile, and the stance language is one that tends not be too bad as long as it is descriptive and not judgmental. Pawn stance is easier to do than some others, but if you are doing pawn stance because you like it and not just because you are unaware of any other approaches, feel free to play pawn stance at my table without me telling you, that you are doing it wrong.

I agree with you whole hearted about the sort of statements that would have caused an auto-de-fe at the Forge, that the stances and aesthetics of play are compatible and that most players are pure about neither.

OK, you deserved XP already, but you're getting it for that reference.

However, there is a difference between a player not being in Actor Stance or Author stance or some other stance normally associated with play, and assuming a Director Stance or some other stance associated with GMing in a game that has a GM and no mechanics for sharing the Director's chair. It would I think require a phenomenal degree of interpersonal understanding to share a Director Stance without conflict if you had no mechanism to ensure equitable allocation of the Director chair. Heck, I generally advice GMs to avoid Director Stance as a GMing stance as much as possible, since - as the term applies - it becomes too easy to start telling the players what to do in order to get your story done.

Honestly, back in the day, I recall what we'd now call 'sharing director stance' /just happening/ as part of the GM* & player trying to get through the fuzzy/dysfunctional/non-existent resolution systems we had to work with.










* normally if I'm talk'n 'bout "back in the day" it'll be DM, but the specific memory is of something that happened more than a few times in a Traveler campaign, so GM it is.

 

[Satyrn]

I agree.

The smelly chamberlain example is just the latest example of attempt to assert that the boundaries of the PC extend to encompass all that the PC can observe or think on.

One wonders if the person making these claims believes their own person extends to encompass all that they can observe or think on?

As I was typing up a reply for another thread, it dawned on me that I was also writing up a real-life example akin to the smelly chamberlain:

I had . . . . . . a cat, a very beautiful cat with flowing white fur and the most gorgeous silver-blue eyes. And though he was a charming buffoon, he carried himself with a natural elegance, like the whole world was his catwalk.

I also had a neighbour . . . insisted on calling him by a flowery name she christened him with and referring to him as her. The cat was so beautiful, my neighbour just could not she him as masculine. This went on for years, I just stopped correcting my neighbour.

But for all her thinking my cat was female, her thoughts never changed the sex of my cat.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As I was typing up a reply for another thread, it dawned on me that I was also writing up a real-life example akin to the smelly chamberlain:

I had . . . . . . a cat, a very beautiful cat with flowing white fur and the most gorgeous silver-blue eyes. And though he was a charming buffoon, he carried himself with a natural elegance, like the whole world was his catwalk.

I also had a neighbour . . . insisted on calling him by a flowery name she christened him with and referring to him as her. The cat was so beautiful, my neighbour just could not she him as masculine. This went on for years, I just stopped correcting my neighbour.

But for all her thinking my cat was female, her thoughts never changed the sex of my cat.

I'm glad you didn't take away her agency.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What is the Arcana check for? I don't see an action declaration from the wizard in your breakdown.

I'll assume that was a serious question. For seeing if the wizard's character does actually know that knowledge. Arcana is the skill linked with knowledge about elementals and their strengths and weaknesses after all. And as a DM, I can call for checks, correct?

That's not the DM's problem. It's up to the players to play their characters effectively.

I'm not saying it is a problem, but you keep using it as a defense. Everything is fine, because the smart play is to verify. But, just because it is smart does not mean that is what the player will do.

And you know what is a DM problem? The players not having fun. Which is something which I could see happening in extreme cases of this whole discussion.

My players do because they have an incentive to. As an example from my current Eberron campaign, the players found a chamber in the dungeon containing crates covered in brown mold. I telegraphed an unusual chill in the adjoining chamber. A couple of characters ran afoul of it and took a bit of cold damage when they kicked down the door to said chamber. Everyone in my group is an experienced player. They knew this was brown mold and how to do deal with it (cold damage) and how not to use fire on it. But, they know that I change things up from time to time and, with the wizard having no cold-damage cantrips and only one spell slot remaining, they could not take any risks on this.

So the wizard used mage hand to collect a small sample of the brown mold, not enough to do damage to anyone, with a test tube. He handed it off to the warforged fighter who has integrated alchemist's supplies. Ten minutes of testing and analysis, a wandering monster check (no wanderer), and a successful Intelligence (Alchemist's Supplies) check later, they verified it was brown mold. The wizard cast an ice knife spell, destroyed the brown mold, and they were able to obtain the schema they were seeking to complete their quest.

The players chose to play effectively. All I had to do was describe the environment and narrate the results of the adventurers' actions.

What you described isn't incentive. They were cautious, yes, but if later in the campaign they encounter a brownish mold in a cold room will they check it again? How about the third time? The Fourth?

Sure, you might change it, and then you'll telegraph it by describing something different about the mold this time, maybe by adding yellow stripes to it or something.

But, despite their caution, look at how you describe the thought process. Cold room, brown mold. It is probably brown mold, but we don't have more than one spell slot and no cold-based cantrips so we should verify it is brown mold first. The entire verification was based upon their lack of resources, if they had had a cold cantrip, they would have just shot it at the mold, because there would have been no loss of resources to the party. Unless you had changed it to do something else. That is what I've been talking about. Verification will not happen every time.

I can't speak for any one else, but for my part its because I repeat the same things over and over and they just bounce off. I have a hard time believing that you aren't at this point able to answer your own questions. I mean just considering what you've now posted, the answers to your own questions are present if you are willing to see them. I admit I have weird pet peeves and my social-emotional framework doesn't well align with the rest of the human race, but honestly if you made attacks and cast open aspirations or said "You make me so angry", it would be less frustrating to me and more understandable than what you are doing.

I try not to assume what people will say, I can sometimes predict what an answer will be before I see it, but then I'd be talking to myself and not the actual other person.

I apologize if it frustrates you, but repeating the same thing over and over does not necessarily convince me of anything, and in fact, if I bring up a counter-point that doesn't get addressed, then it is nothing more than circular movement.

How is it that when you've well understood that people were saying "players have absolute authority over their character's thoughts and actions" that you've now added to that something of your own invention in order to condemn their position as illogical, namely that the players also have absolute authority over the character's background, and by which you mean something that they never said, that they also have absolute authority to create any background that they like at any time in the game?

I've added nothing, just followed the logic.

Absolute Authority over thoughts and actions is translating to absolute authority over the character's mind. That's what thoughts and actions are, since the Player does not have the authority to automatically succeed. This would then include authority over your own memories. Barring an outside influence, if I have absolute authority over my character's thoughts, then I should assume I have absolute authority over what they do and do not remember. We even include emotions in this, relationships.

That means they have the same authority over their past that they have over their actions, because they are the ones telling that story.

Now, you can lock backgrounds, tell the player that they are not allowed to alter or add to their background after the first session, but most tables do not do this. It is perfectly acceptable at a lot of tables to allow players to flesh out backgrounds over the course of play, because writing the full life story of a 25 year old soldier who lost his way in war and converted to the worship of a peace goddess... well that is hard.

Also, I just confirmed this character was 1) in a military unit, 2) fought in battles if not a full war 3) joined a temple or religion 4) worships a goddess of peace. All of that is setting information, the existence of these things should be in the realm of the DM, but, I have full control over my character's thoughts. I can say that my character believes in peace because he has buried too many friends, by the way, he know has dead friends.

I'm not being a problem player, I'm not going beyond the pale, but I've been adding to the setting. Now, the DM is fully within their rights to veto any of this, but if they, for example, say that there has been no war for the last 20 years, then my character drastically changes, because he can no longer have the thoughts he had about war, because he no longer has the experience of war. I did not have absolute authority over my character's thoughts, because the DM declaring a peaceful era immediately changed those thoughts.

So why is it surprising that someone who you admit said "players have "absolute authority" over their characters thoughts and actions" should think that absolute authority over their background is a step too far? And further, in the Francis example, we have gone even one step further past claiming that the player has absolute authority over their background, and are now asserting that the background has absolute authority over the setting.

Why should it even be confusing that someone who only started from the proposition "players have absolute authority over their characters thoughts and actions", should not able to answer your question regarding whether Francis exists in the city? After all, even if someone did assert that players had absolute authority over their background, that would only mean that the player could assert that Francis existed sometime in the city in the past. You could not assert on the basis of your authority over background, that now in the present Francis is still alive, still in the city, and still serving in the guard. All of those things could have changed between the point you asserted Francis had existed and the present moment in game, and regardless of your absolute authority over background you could not decide those things without absolute authority over the setting. So of course people can't answer your question in any general way or give you any other answer but "Maybe."

And remember, these people by your own admission never began by asserting players had absolute authority over their background in the first place.

In point of fact, while I've asserted that players do have a sort of absolute authority over their background, I asserted that only in the sense that a player character's background is inviolable. That is to say, a player may absolutely refuse any other participant's suggestion to alter their background. A GM cannot force a player to have a backstory they don't want. A player can say, "Mess with me. I want to have complications and drama because that's the sort of game I want to play.", and thereby give the GM permission to introduce backstory elements. But a player can also say, "My backstory is meant only to serve as backstory, and I only want my character to evolve through forestory, and not by making unwanted revelations about his past." All that is fine, but it is also very different from the assertion that a player has an absolute right to introduce backstory, much less that having introduced backstory, he has some absolute right to insist that present situations conform to his desires and expectations. Even if the player's relationship to Francis is inviolable and even if their is a table agreement to be "hands off" with respect to Francis, such a social contract does not mean Francis is here now in the present. The GM, being absolutely in charge of the setting, could say, "This guard isn't Francis. The Guard says, "So you're a friend of Francis? Yeah, he has the night watch tonight. I'm Robert. We agreed to switch because I'm going to see a lovely little lady tonight at the festival.", or any number of other things. Francis is after all, an NPC, whether he's in your backstory or not.

So, I think I cover some of this up above, but a few salient points.

There is no "sort of absolute authority". If authority is not absolute, then it is not absolute authority.

Secondly, while you very much could respond to the player searching the city for Francis with "Well, Francis is dead" that feels a bit... squicky, to me at least. "Hey, I want to look for an old friend in this city." "Okay, he's dead, let's move on"

Now, you can turn any of these into interesting points. Maybe with him moving you'll encounter him later because the player is curious why Francis decided to leave. Maybe with him no longer being a guard you can explore some aspect of the city or have a personal character building moment. Maybe with him being dead you can get a personal sub-quest to avenge your friends death. All of these can be interesting. All of them also mean the player changed the setting, because Francis did not exist until the player said so. The DM okayed it, the DM allowed it, but the Player changed the setting here, which is why I've said these lines are not burnt into the ground. Authority over thoughts leads to emotions and memories which leads to relationships with NPCs which leads to the player changing the setting.

In point of fact, the GM could say that. The GM could for example overrule a character whose IC motivation is to kill the other members of the party, or could overrule a character whose concept is that he's working for the bad guys. I'm not saying a GM should always do that, but it takes an extraordinarily mature group to deal with that in a cooperative fashion.

So, reading this it seems we are actually in agreement.

A DM can tell a player what their character does not do or does not think. Therefore their is no absolute authority. If you claim an absolute authority, then you must accept everything that flows from that.

I especially agree that a DM should be very receptive to players who point out aspects of their character or backstory that are inviolable. Making sure the players are invested and feel like their investment matters is key to a successful game.

It seems after reading this entire post that you think I'm being unfair by saying if you give a player absolute authority over their character's thoughts, that will apply to memories, emotions, and relationships as well. But, our thoughts are shaped by are past, by how we are raised, by what we feel. You cannot separate them.

One wonders if the person making these claims believes their own person extends to encompass all that they can observe or think on?

This made me chuckle, because I thought about someone who would claim to have absolute authority over their own thoughts. I find that idea to be wrong, we do not have that sort of authority over our own minds.

 

[iserith]

I'll assume that was a serious question. For seeing if the wizard's character does actually know that knowledge. Arcana is the skill linked with knowledge about elementals and their strengths and weaknesses after all. And as a DM, I can call for checks, correct?

Yes, if the player declares an action that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. In this example, including what you added, we have two action declarations: (1) The barbarian wants to go to Ye Ole Magick Shoppe to buy some thunderwave scrolls for the wizard and (2) The wizard's player wants to retroactively give the barbarian a reason to take the aforementioned action to satisfy what appears to be an incredulous DM's questions about the validity of the action declaration.

So what is the Arcana check for? What uncertain outcome does it resolve? What is the meaningful consequence for failure? Or, if you decide you don't like that rule, what actually happens if the wizard's player botches the Arcana check? Does the wizard not have the knowledge to retroactively give the barbarian a reason to buy the scrolls? If so, does that mean the barbarian's action declaration is made invalid and he or she can't take that action at all?

I'm not saying it is a problem, but you keep using it as a defense. Everything is fine, because the smart play is to verify. But, just because it is smart does not mean that is what the player will do.

Again, not the DM's problem, which appears to be something upon which we agree.

And you know what is a DM problem? The players not having fun. Which is something which I could see happening in extreme cases of this whole discussion.

What wouldn't be fun here in your opinion?

What you described isn't incentive. They were cautious, yes, but if later in the campaign they encounter a brownish mold in a cold room will they check it again? How about the third time? The Fourth?

Sure, you might change it, and then you'll telegraph it by describing something different about the mold this time, maybe by adding yellow stripes to it or something.

But, despite their caution, look at how you describe the thought process. Cold room, brown mold. It is probably brown mold, but we don't have more than one spell slot and no cold-based cantrips so we should verify it is brown mold first. The entire verification was based upon their lack of resources, if they had had a cold cantrip, they would have just shot it at the mold, because there would have been no loss of resources to the party. Unless you had changed it to do something else. That is what I've been talking about. Verification will not happen every time.

Again, not the DM's problem - which we appear to agree on. Going back to the thread's topic, if they had cold-damage cantrips, that just reduces the difficulty of the challenge to the player. The difficulty was higher because they didn't have that resource, so they had to work a bit harder to overcome the challenge.

But they do have an incentive, since they are encouraged by the DM changing things to verify assumptions before acting upon them. This doesn't mean they will always do it. Incentives don't guarantee an outcome; they merely motivate or encourage certain behaviors. In this case, reasonably cautious engagement with the environment to avoid additional resource expenditure.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, if the player declares an action that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. In this example, including what you added, we have two action declarations: (1) The barbarian wants to go to Ye Ole Magick Shoppe to buy some thunderwave scrolls for the wizard and (2) The wizard's player wants to retroactively give the barbarian a reason to take the aforementioned action to satisfy what appears to be an incredulous DM's questions about the validity of the action declaration.

So what is the Arcana check for? What uncertain outcome does it resolve? What is the meaningful consequence for failure? Or, if you decide you don't like that rule, what actually happens if the wizard's player botches the Arcana check? Does the wizard not have the knowledge to retroactively give the barbarian a reason to buy the scrolls? If so, does that mean the barbarian's action declaration is made invalid and he or she can't take that action at all?

Okay, let us take this a bit at a time.

Let us cover the check first. Thinking is an action, to think is an action verb, so it counts. We do not know if the character has the knowledge, therefore we have uncertainty.

Now, meaningful consequences are hard to really nail down, and I don't like that stipulation. I can however point to the PHB, pages 177 and 178 where they lay out that Intelligence checks (including Arcana, History, Religion and Nature) all can involve checks to "recall lore" and Arcana specifically is used for recalling lore about the denizens of different planes of existence. Like Elementals.

So, an Arcana check to know the weaknesses of Earth Elementals seems to fit entirely within the game structure. Even without potential "meaningful consequences" beyond not knowing the information.

Now, since this check was to give the barbarian the reason to act on out-of-character knowledge, then yes, if the roll fails and they do not know that Earth Elementals are weak to Thunder damage there is no reason for the player to continue going to shop to buy scrolls of magic that the elementals are weak against.

In fact, knowledge checks and out-of-character knowledge really highlights the crux of this. Because the entire thing is predicate on knowing something their character does not know.

To give an example I'm sure you would not allow at your table. A player receives a secret letter from the Mob, and hides it in their bag. None of the other characters know about this letter. Later that night one of the players declares they are searching the Mob players bag for the hidden letter. Not only is this rude to the other player, but there is no reason for the character to do this. And sure, I can come up with reasonable answers to why they would suddenly go rooting through their companions bag and "accidentally" find the letter I know about but my character doesn't, but that does not change the fact that they were just finding a work around to act upon knowledge they did not have.

Also I enjoy you slipping in "to satisfy what appears to be an incredulous DM's questions about the validity of the action declaration". Because there is nothing wrong with questioning the validity of an action declaration, as a DM I am supposed to make sure that actions are valid. You can't climb a wall that doesn't exist after all. So the DM isn't "incredulous" they are simply confirming where the character received the information they are acting upon.

Again, not the DM's problem, which appears to be something upon which we agree.

What wouldn't be fun here in your opinion?

Nice job breaking up one statement into two.

Yes, I think we would agree that it is not the DMs problem if the players are not playing the game optimally. Generally, it isn't even a problem. However, we have two opposing perspectives of the game going on here. We have the DM who is going forth assuming the players will double check everything, and the players going forward assuming that they are allowed, perhaps even encouraged to use out-of-character knowledge in regards to settings, monsters, and NPCs.

These can come into conflict, especially the rarer it is that the DM changes something. Because if those changes just happen to be worse for the PCs, invalidating plans and actions they thought were clever because of some secret knowledge that is actually not viable, then it can give a poor impression on the DM. IT can cause tension at the table.

And I am fully aware, "this doesn't happen if the players trust the DM" and "That isn't the DMs problem" and "You are talking about problems away from the table, not at the table, and they should be handled away from the table". Yeah, I get all that. But, if one isn't careful with our their actions at the table effect things away from the table, then it is an issue. It is something that can cause problems. So, you have to examine things carefully, you have to weigh pros and cons.

Again, not the DM's problem - which we appear to agree on.

You know, I wonder if one of these days we will have something we are discussing that you will say is the DMs problem. So far, nothing involving the players or their characters is ever the DMs problem.

Maybe that is a side benefit of playing with the same group for decades instead of getting a new table every year, the DM concerns themselves with less and less.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thinking is an action, to think is an action verb, so it counts. We do not know if the character has the knowledge, therefore we have uncertainty.

Ok, so you are policing their thoughts.