Challenge the character, engage the player.

[Kzach]

A point came up recently in some other discussion about 5e and how someone's preference was for challenges in the game to be up to the player to solve, not their character. I took issue with this and felt it was worthy of a separate discussion.

In my incredibly righteous and most humble of opinions, which also happens to be 100% and inarguably correct, I think a game should CHALLENGE the character, but ENGAGE the player.

To me, I'm playing a game as a form of escapism. I want to live vicariously through my character. I am completely and utterly hopeless when it comes to riddles and puzzles. In fact, I despise them and any joy in the world that I've managed to scrape together and hoard in a little dark corner of my psyche is obliterated whenever I'm forced to deal with either one of these. But I love to play characters that are excellent at solving these things.

Just like I can't swing a sword and jump epically over walls, I want to do these things with my character, not be forced to reenact them in real life. I can't slay dragons in real life either or steal the crown jewels and murder the king and usurp his throne. That, to me, is the magic of RPG's.

The problem, I find, is that games sometimes become ALL about the mechanical aspects and forget to engage the player. This can be boiled down to the old "hack'n'slash vs. roleplay" dichotomy but I think it's more complex than that. Roleplay isn't necessarily engaging the player just as much as challenging the character doesn't always come down to rolling the dice.

I, as a person, need to be drawn into the conflict of the story. I need to be part of the drama and see events unfold and transpire all around my character. I need to have some impact or influence over those events both through mechanical solutions and roleplaying scenarios.

And this is where I think most DM's and modules fall short. They tend to focus solely on challenging the player or the character, in an attempt to engage the player. To me, these two things are fundamentally different and yet not mutually opposed.

 

[pming]

Hiya

...snip...

Just like I can't swing a sword and jump epically over walls, I want to do these things with my character, not be forced to reenact them in real life. I can't slay dragons in real life either or steal the crown jewels and murder the king and usurp his throne. That, to me, is the magic of RPG's.

...snip...

True, but what you, the player, *can* do is decipher the code, figure out the riddle, or decern from the clues who the true traitor is in the Kings Court. I'm sure that if the Star Trek Holodeck actually did exist, you'd be in one (along with every other person in the world), and in it you would be able to swing that sword expertly, jump epically over walls, slay dragons, etc. But, alas, we don't have the tech yet...so we'll have to settle for doing all that with dice, and just use our imaginations for the rest.

I think that is why a lot of RPG'ers prefer (or at least really enjoy) the whole "challenge the players mind" style. It's something that we can, litterally, "do ourselves, as if we were there". That by it's self automatically gives a 'real', tangible connection between the player and his character and the campaign milieu.

And this is where I think most DM's and modules fall short. They tend to focus solely on challenging the player or the character, in an attempt to engage the player. To me, these two things are fundamentally different and yet not mutually opposed.

I agree completely with this. Personally, I think one of the big draws of the "old skool" style modules (and, IMHO, their superiority over pretty much anything written since), is that they were designed in a way that challenged the character directly, but player influence could have a HUGE effect on those challenges. New 'adventure modules', again IMHO, unfortuneatly seem to focus on "deep NPC personalities with engaging story lines". This detreacts from letting a player become immersed into the world via his own "thinking and imagination" by virtue of the GM feeling like he somehow needs to 'trick' the players into going along with the story that they don't acutally know is going on in the background.

Story? NPC motivations? Plots? Sub-Plots? Give me 20 minutes and I can have enough of those jotted down to last an entire YEAR of weekly, 6-hour play sessions. Now tell me to map out a 4-squar mile wilderness area, three cave complexes, a ruined keep with 2-level dungeon, the base town and floorplans for the local inn, tavern, jail, meeting hall and castle...and now design some random encounter charts for the various wilderness areas, town, ruins, caves and dungeons...and then stock each one of them with monsters and appropriate treasures... That? That will take *SIGNIFICANTLY* more than 20 minutes.

So, when I buy a 'modern' style adventure module that is 38 pages long, and 35 pages are taken up by huge, full-page stat blocks with another half or more page detailing "motivations and plot/story conenctions", with three pages containing a 6-monster encounter table and but 3 maps, each with no more than 5 'rooms'...all the time prep is still to be done. I feel ripped off most of the time.

Anyway, I digress. Sorry for that. So, uh, yeah...there ya have it...my 2¢.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I agree. Sometimes I want to focus in combat not boring plots. Then I prefer real old school modules of D&D and AD&D. It went downhill from 2nd edition, worse in 3rd edition and totally boring in 4th edition if i just speak in history of D&D.

Part of interesting combat is unusual areas, strange monsters, strange mystical things that can mess you up or give you benefits, depending in blind stupid luck. I kinda like it that way. Also no too much fuss about balance.

Only thing I really hate about them are stupid boring secret doors they seem obsessed with. Most old time gm:s running them make players figure out them with boring pixel bitching and mapping. Two things I most hate about pen%paper as equally as in computer games. I hate being challenged with things I am not bad with, but which I find uttterly boring show stoppers.

I hate puzzles as well, though I really liked old school "poetic" versions related to them. I am found of forming theories around what those or other semi-there-plot-stuff might mean.

There has been some hits in later editions of adventures too. And some longer adventure paths including both hits and misses, also within same module.


When I am not looking for only combat but want more plot-stuff and story I tend to hate most of modules. At least unchanged. I am not speaking of encounters which tend to change anyhow when contacted with pc:s at least order of them, but that very background stuff.

Sometimes background plot is even fun, but mostly it's irritating and irrelevant. Doesn't engage players too much, expect in sense "guys we are playing module so let's be nice to dm and do the adventure it tells us to do": Combat encounters are often boring too. It's not fault of system I can do really fun combats in all systems I've ever run.

Paizo (and some prior dungeon magazine mega-modules) contain some pretty sweet encounters and lot what I call "fillers". I find color-maps annoying though, they are harder to read if editor missed that lacking secret door marker, which is most common bug. By fillers I don't mean meat-grinding, but actual plot-type combat encounters with named npc and trappings, which has really no relevance in story and doesn't come up agian, should players kill that one. It's waste of pages. Special mobs should matter.

Again some stories are good, but some elements in them are really lackluster. Really epic storylines, lacking everthing else epic. Which is mostly shyly hidden from players when adventure proceeds. I don't like it at all when story text speaks of true power, and statwise it sucks. This is almost like unspoken rule. Maybe partially because lowbie plots kinda get old and most modules nowdays are up to lv 12. I don't play that way. I actually save world shaking content for higher levels and then I can use things with proper power level. Most modern modules seem to cut-paste highter lv story elements and putting them on lower tier and making some "special artifact" with really lame powers gamestatwise.

Oldie modules didn't do that. Mere idea of "balanced for level" artifacts and templates gives me allergic reaction. I like streamlined systems. I don't like that in stories however. And honestly fighting is much more interesting with unexpected dangers rather than "well-balanced encounters".

 

[theredrobedwizard]

My Wizard has a 25 Intelligence and 16 Wisdom. I have a 13 at best in either. Why shouldn't my character have an easier time solving riddles than I do?

More to the point, this goes back to the "just RP out your interaction skills, rolling is badwrong" mindset. Why should Charismatic/Intelligent players get a bonus in game when Strong/Dexterous players get nothing.

I'm a semi-professional rapier duelist. Do I get a bonus to hit/damage in combat? No. That's idiotic. Why should it work for mental attributes if it doesn't work for physical attributes?

 

[ExploderWizard]

My Wizard has a 25 Intelligence and 16 Wisdom. I have a 13 at best in either. Why shouldn't my character have an easier time solving riddles than I do?

More to the point, this goes back to the "just RP out your interaction skills, rolling is badwrong" mindset. Why should Charismatic/Intelligent players get a bonus in game when Strong/Dexterous players get nothing.

I'm a semi-professional rapier duelist. Do I get a bonus to hit/damage in combat? No. That's idiotic. Why should it work for mental attributes if it doesn't work for physical attributes?

I would say that it all depends on WHAT engages the player. The commandment of ' know thy players' applies here. If you have a group of players that love solving riddles and puzzles then let them. If your group has no interest in solving these things on their own then build a mechanical solution.

Different aspects of the game are engaging to different people.

 

[Henry]

...snip...

True, but what you, the player, *can* do is decipher the code, figure out the riddle, or decern from the clues who the true traitor is in the Kings Court.

You may have missed his whole "hopeless with puzzles" part. "Know the players" is the best course here, I think. It's why books like Hamlet's Hit Points and Robin's laws make really good reading for a Game Master, I think -- knowing the emotional "on" switch for each separate gamer at your table is paramount to having a good time. If at least one or two players at your table love puzzles and are good at them, throw one in for them -- but give a way around it through force or an alternate route for the sake of the rest of the group. Good example: the Sphinx at the entry-way for White Plume Mountain:

[sblock]
She is a Sphinx with a classic riddle, blocking with a wall of force; however, the wall of force can be brought down with sufficient damage, and the Sphinx is not insurmountable, so the party can either solve the riddle and pass, or waste resources plowing through both Wall and Sphinx if needed - which conveniently placates the "desire for combat" lovers in case the puzzle solver can't deliver on his part of the deal.
[/sblock]

Do you have RP-Heavy players in the group? Be sure to involve them in local politics, or offer them a tough moral choice in play; be sure to balance this in that any roleplay that shifts focus disproportionately long off of the rest of the group can be handled out of session, by email, or what have you.

In summary: Know your players.

 

[Umbran]

True, but what you, the player, *can* do is decipher the code, figure out the riddle, or decern from the clues who the true traitor is in the Kings Court.

Yes, but the fact that the player can do it does not mean it engages the player. You say it "automatically gives a real, tangible connection", and I don't think you are correct. Having an interesting and relevant task for the player may help with immersion, but the connection is by no means automatic.

As an example: I play in a few live action games. For a little while, one group I worked with simulated pretty much any challenge to the character that was computer, engineering, encryption, or math related with a sudoku puzzle for the player. Their thought was yours - pretty much everyone in the game could manage simple sudoku. Everyone *could* do it.

Let me tell you, flat out, that when my post-apocalyptic mechanic is trying to repair an engine while under fire by cannibal barbarians, handing me a sudoku puzzle and a pencil is about the last thing that'll engage me. I do sudoku in the newspaper on my way to work, it is *not* a suitable stand-in for a tense moment. (see footnote*)

The trick to engaging the player is not merely in presenting something that it is possible for them to do, but to present them with things they actually like to do, that seems appropriate to the player in a frame that makes them feel like the character is invested in doing it.

So, as Henry said - know your players.

The corollary for the players is, "Don't make your GM guess what you want."


*That scene under fire actually happened, but the GM in question *didn't* hand me a sudoku puzzle - he thought those were lame. He did something completely else, that made the scene one of the most memorable of the three-year campaign.