Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
Voadam
Legend
When he's playing an oafish brute and trying to be suave and charming, is he trying his damnedest to be suave and charming and relying upon the stats and die rolls to create the oafishness aspect of the character or trying hard to first person roleplay an oafish brute trying to be suave and charming?
I find the latter style more fun for myself and to see in others at the table.
WalterKovacs
First Post
One problem with challenging the player not the stats.
Do you get the players to move your coach to prove if their character can succeed on their strength check? Have them race, or hold their breath, etc. Mixing things up is good, but ultimately a person isn't "punished" for not having his physical stats anywhere near the character's stats ... but not letting someone with tons of charisma and training in diplomacy be able to talk his way out of a sitution because the person playing them is shy [and, I can definitely see a motivation for a shy person to play someone that is completely unlike them] is punishing a player for playing against type.
In general, challenging the players keep them engaged. However, if you don't challenge the character's stats/skills ... you make the choices for stats and skills matter a bit more in the long run. People have complained about how INT can be an easy dump stat ... without the skills it gets worse. Part of this is mostly making sure the players know what to expect going in. It's not just "players only train in combat relative skills" abuse ... it's that, as a player, I would be annoyed to find out I made choices that my DM has rendered moot. Like someone that has taken a number of feats to improve their opportunity attacks finding out that the DM avoids OAs like the plague. Or in earlier editions, bringing a Rogue into a game and finding it's an undead heavy campaign.
Ultimately though, the important thing is that DM's and players know each others play styles, especially before hand. Most conflict or problems "with the game" come out of players and DMs having different play styles and not having made it clear ahead of time. Retraining is nice ... as it lets a player change something that isn't useful given how the group functions.
Do you get the players to move your coach to prove if their character can succeed on their strength check? Have them race, or hold their breath, etc. Mixing things up is good, but ultimately a person isn't "punished" for not having his physical stats anywhere near the character's stats ... but not letting someone with tons of charisma and training in diplomacy be able to talk his way out of a sitution because the person playing them is shy [and, I can definitely see a motivation for a shy person to play someone that is completely unlike them] is punishing a player for playing against type.
In general, challenging the players keep them engaged. However, if you don't challenge the character's stats/skills ... you make the choices for stats and skills matter a bit more in the long run. People have complained about how INT can be an easy dump stat ... without the skills it gets worse. Part of this is mostly making sure the players know what to expect going in. It's not just "players only train in combat relative skills" abuse ... it's that, as a player, I would be annoyed to find out I made choices that my DM has rendered moot. Like someone that has taken a number of feats to improve their opportunity attacks finding out that the DM avoids OAs like the plague. Or in earlier editions, bringing a Rogue into a game and finding it's an undead heavy campaign.
Ultimately though, the important thing is that DM's and players know each others play styles, especially before hand. Most conflict or problems "with the game" come out of players and DMs having different play styles and not having made it clear ahead of time. Retraining is nice ... as it lets a player change something that isn't useful given how the group functions.
RyvenCedrylle
First Post
No, but this isn't a bad idea in theory. A simple addition to the 4E Skill Challenge that helps 'correct' their use (besides the now-vaunted mathematical issues) are FTW (For the Win)! and FTL (For the Loss)! conditions. These are automatic failures or victories that are completely based on player decisions rather than character skill.
Example:
Price Haggling
Two PCs enter an alchemist's shop looking for various magical and alchemical components. The PCs note, upon looking around, that the prices seem awfully steep! They engage the alchemist in some friendly roleplaying conversation before getting down to brass tacks.
Win Conditions:
Damage – none. Fighting him brings the town guard.
Skill Challenge – 4/2 DC 15 He is very proud of his store and will not take much crap from the PCs.
FTW! - Name Dropping. Mentioning “(So-and-so) said you had a good setup here” from an appropiate NPC at the GM's judgement nets the win.
FTL! - Insults or Attempted Theft
Win – a 15% discount
Lose – a 10% markup; further argument results in being kicked out of the store
Given that the players know these conditions exist, it provides a challenge for them to find the 'shortcut.' If the players fail, the characters can pick up the slack.
If you're referring to linking physical chalanges with physical exerts for the player - well I can't disagree more. The player is not the character, why would D&D want to encourage players to only play characters similar to themselves?
While used well this may be a good idea, the problem I see is the game degenerating into "guess what the DM is thinking?"
RyvenCedrylle
First Post
Mort -
The term 'in theory' was supposed to cover the concept of a player acting out the character's action, not actually moving a couch. My apologies if I was too brief in my statement.
The point has been made several times in other threads that much of the fun or difference between later D&D and early D&D has to do with who holds narrative and world-control. Early versions have the players controlling only their characters in the DM's world. 'Guess what the DM is thinking' is a standard MO for these editions if you stop and think about it. You tell the DM what you're doing and he (or she) tells you what happens. If there's a rumor of a hidden treasure in the last room of the dungeon, you must 'guess where the DM thought' to have placed it to find it. Roleplayed negotiations require you to 'guess what the DM thinks' will be a satisfactory position or offer.
Later editions allow players to define facts and NPC's actions in the now shared gameworld (see the Fighter's "Come and Get It" or any 4E cleric trying to solve all skill challenges with Religion checks, for example) The DM doesn't need to decide where the treasure is in 3E or 4E - she just needs a DC for you to roll your Perception or Search against. You could even decide where it is so long as you pass the skill check.
The FTW! and FTL! conditions recall some of that early DM-centric flavor for 4E Skill challenges. You're welcome to try to read the DM's mind to determine 'the right' (or 'a right') course of action to take. If not, you can still rely on your character's abilities to accrue enough successes to see you through.
The term 'in theory' was supposed to cover the concept of a player acting out the character's action, not actually moving a couch. My apologies if I was too brief in my statement.
The point has been made several times in other threads that much of the fun or difference between later D&D and early D&D has to do with who holds narrative and world-control. Early versions have the players controlling only their characters in the DM's world. 'Guess what the DM is thinking' is a standard MO for these editions if you stop and think about it. You tell the DM what you're doing and he (or she) tells you what happens. If there's a rumor of a hidden treasure in the last room of the dungeon, you must 'guess where the DM thought' to have placed it to find it. Roleplayed negotiations require you to 'guess what the DM thinks' will be a satisfactory position or offer.
Later editions allow players to define facts and NPC's actions in the now shared gameworld (see the Fighter's "Come and Get It" or any 4E cleric trying to solve all skill challenges with Religion checks, for example) The DM doesn't need to decide where the treasure is in 3E or 4E - she just needs a DC for you to roll your Perception or Search against. You could even decide where it is so long as you pass the skill check.
The FTW! and FTL! conditions recall some of that early DM-centric flavor for 4E Skill challenges. You're welcome to try to read the DM's mind to determine 'the right' (or 'a right') course of action to take. If not, you can still rely on your character's abilities to accrue enough successes to see you through.
But that's just it - I think it's a bad application. Why should my character be benefited by my physical ability?
For example, I know several ways of knocking someone down. If I'm playing a character (say a mage) who has no clue how, should my character get a bonus to his roll to try because I can show the DM exactly how he'd do it?
Because D&D is a game of words social applications are trickier - but the theory is the same. If I'm playing a cha 6 character, I shouldn't be talking my way past any guards or persuading mobs to my bidding, even if I, as the player, am a persuasive guy.
Modern RPGs at least present a choice - The DM can gauge the playstyle of his group and adjust accordingly (more or less rolling for results to the taste of the players).
It also alows the DM to call BS on a player ocasionally. If Bob the player is constantly having his character Thelgar the oafish fighter (+ 0 search/and or perception) look under every nook, cranny floorboard etc. to find hidden stuff; the DM needs to have Bob roll in the open then based on the roll straight out tell him "Sorry Bob, Thelgar can't find squat!" whether it's under the floorboards or not (the player made a choice to not have a perceptive character and needs to see the consequences of that choice).
RyvenCedrylle
First Post
Fair enough. I am agreeable to this in the same context that you don't get a to-hit bonus in D&D by simply describing a unique or colorful combat technique. You DO, however, in Feng Shui. This hearkens back to earlier discussions of character as stand-alone entity or simply a vehicle for the player to enter the game world. I won't rehash that as we've all read through it already.
Perhaps the Ghostbuster-esque moral of this thread is "Don't cross the systems!" 4E D&D is character as standalone. Games like Dogs in the Vineyard or Feng Shui are more character as vehicle. No game is ever truly one or the other, but most have given one distinct attention over the other. Pick the system that matches your character model. Eh?
Voadam
Legend
Challenging the character stats sure you can. Its just a -3 on the d20 charisma check. Success depends on the relevant stats, the DM set DC, and the die roll.
Low charisma characters can try just as much as high charisma characters.
If your concept is a guy who is not persuasive (say a half-orc with no people skills), that is something you can roleplay as a player regardless of actual stats.
This seems to be a heavy emphasis of character concept and game reality through mechanic stats instead of through game play portrayal and common sense.
If a trap door is under a rug and my fighter with no search skill/perception pulls back the rug he needs to make a search check to see the trap door he uncovered?
I'd hate to have my game play actions negated by a DM calling for inappropriate rolls that lead to ludicrous results. "But you need to see the consequences of your choice to play a fighter" is not an argument to endear me to that style of game.
Yup. And if he doesn't tackle them too hard and they can get up from it then they can have their character try to do whatever....
There are two "sets" of stats. Everyone follow me?
Physical: STR, DEX, CON
Mental: INT, WIS, CHA
Challenging the players means you challenge them mentally with those stats and how they choose to put the physical stats to use.
This excessive hyperbole of trying to have people lift stuff is a bit silly and old over the years.
I really wish people would stop trying to move furniture and sit on it and play the game instead.
So when you challenge the players, it can involve those physical things, but not the players themselves doing these activities, but simply how there character would do it other than just "I make a strength check."
So what are they trying to accomplish with this check. It might succeed without even needing the check if worded correctly to give the DM the idea that it would.
This allows players to outsmart bad dice rolls.
Similar Threads
