Challenging the player rather than the character

[nnms]

So I had a session today where I explicitly challenged the players rather than their characters.

Usually in 4E, it's the DM's job to challenge the players through challenging the characters. I've been reading/running a more hardcore/challenging take on 4E (see saveversusdeath.com for info on that sort of approach) lately and decided today to include things directly challenging the players rather than the characters. In this case, puzzles, mysteries and riddles.

I was really worried about the reception I would get from the players. I was worried about the typical objection. That a player's ingenuity, intelligence and problem solving skills are not the same as a character's. That using player skill instead of character skills is inherently meta-gaming (and thus usually considered bad). I've even made such a case myself in the past.

I know think that objections based on that idea are simply objections based on principle. That if one's reaction to seeing a puzzle or riddle in the game (where a player can't go to the system mechanics to solve it) is to immediately dismiss it as bad play, then that is a form of turtling. My players forgot to object "because of the principle of the thing" and just engaged fully with the riddles.

My usual method of DMing is to be a guardian of the dream. Where it's my responsibility to ensure that play produces fiction in keeping with the themes appropriate to the genre of D&D fantasy. I set up the situation and the players create the plot with their decisions and I make sure we emulate the narrative of heroic fantasy in a faithful fashion. In our current campaign, the party is a group of nobles and the like and they are shaping the world around them in big ways.

So I proposed a side/mini-campaign. I told everyone it was D&D on hard mode. Deadly traps, interesting tactical situations, puzzles, riddles, mysteries, etc.,. The players can use skills as part of meeting the challenges, but they can't bypass/fulfill the challenges by appealing to the system. They need to step on up and win. In a difficult tactical encounter, they outplayed me and won where I warned them they needed to flee. In another challenge though...

A hazard that built up damage for each riddle you get wrong took the life of a PC today. A character died because of choices/knowledge/skill of the player. There was no skill challenge to mitigate wrong answers and bypass the hazard. No saving throw. No attack on their defenses. The player took a risk, did his best to figure out some riddles (and got a ton of them right) and built up the backlash that would come his way. Then he triggered it and took the damage and went well past negative bloodied and was instantly killed in a conflagration of force and fire, charred bones flying everywhere.

We had an absolute blast. It was probably the most enjoyable session we had so far this year.

So what about you? Does such a thing sound horrible because the character might be smarter and better at riddles and puzzles than you as a player? Would you enjoy yourself or do you reject that kind of play because metagaming/using player knowledge is bad as a principle you hold??

 

[Aulirophile]

I've run skill challenges that involved trivial pursuit cards. Basically I assigned a "category" to a particular skill (history, arcana, nature, etc.) 1-5 random category, if I roll a six the character got to pick. They rolled a knowledge check, in character, for that skill. For every 5 over a DC (which I had rules for varying) they got a hint.

Correctly answering the question with no hints: 2 successes.
Correctly answering the question with any number of hints available: 1 success
Correctly answering the question but failing the check: the arbiter of their fate was amused, no failure, no success.
Incorrectly answering the question but passing the check: 1 failure.
Incorrectly answering the question and failing the check: 2 failures.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So what about you? Does such a thing sound horrible because the character might be smarter and better at riddles and puzzles than you as a player? Would you enjoy yourself or do you reject that kind of play because metagaming/using player knowledge is bad as a principle you hold??

I would rather in-game challenges remain within the realm of PC capabilities. While it doesn't bug me enough to make me not enjoy a game at all, it does diminish it.

Here's why: I've been on the flipside of it.

I'm a smart guy, and I was playing a smart PC. I had a flash of insight that revealed the hidden meaning of certain symbols used by this cult, and by doing so, i was able to lay out the campaign's grand metaplot.*

The DM sat there with jaws agape; my fellow players wer pleased. Then, due to it being the holiday season, we had to take 2 months off- too many scheduling conflicts. By the time we got back to the table, I had forgotten the fist of my big reveal, as had all the other players. But only 1 campaign day had passed.

The DM ruled my PC had forgotten what he had said just the day before. I was ticked, but played on.

So, no- regardless of the side if the screen I'm on, I don't like player challenges.







* I'd done this once before in a different campaign.

 

[nnms]

we had to take 2 months off- too many scheduling conflicts. By the time we got back to the table, I had forgotten the fist of my big reveal, as had all the other players. But only 1 campaign day had passed.

The DM ruled my PC had forgotten what he had said just the day before. I was ticked, but played on.

I think one of the most important things to remember when challenging the players is to be fair. You figured it out. You got it. The DM taking that away from you after the fact is not a fair challenge for the players.

Yes, I suppose one could argue that you should have written it down. But when it comes down to it if you're going to present a mystery for the players to solve and they do-- then they met the challenge and it's counter to the approach of challenging of players to undo their victory in that matter.

 

[pauljathome]

So I had a session today where I explicitly challenged the players rather than their characters.

So what about you? Does such a thing sound horrible because the character might be smarter and better at riddles and puzzles than you as a player? Would you enjoy yourself or do you reject that kind of play because metagaming/using player knowledge is bad as a principle you hold??

On the specific subject of riddles, this sounds poor. Not so bad as to be horrible but poor.

One of my main problems with riddles is that it is incredibly difficult to gauge how hard they are. And different riddles can be very different for different people. Or very different for the same person on different days.

What I've found works best for riddles is to present the riddles and let the players try and solve it. If the players solve it, great. If they're having fun trying to solve it then also great. But when they start to get frustrated and bored then its time to bring in the skill checks.

I'm also a bit taken aback by your description that the player solved "tons" of riddles but still blew up real good. From the sounds of it that makes it seem that the player had little or no realistic chance of success.

Which sucks whether its player OR character skill being challenged.

 

[pemerton]

So I had a session today where I explicitly challenged the players rather than their characters.

<snip>

In this case, puzzles, mysteries and riddles.

I was really worried about the reception I would get from the players. I was worried about the typical objection. That a player's ingenuity, intelligence and problem solving skills are not the same as a character's. That using player skill instead of character skills is inherently meta-gaming (and thus usually considered bad).

<snip>

So what about you? Does such a thing sound horrible because the character might be smarter and better at riddles and puzzles than you as a player? Would you enjoy yourself or do you reject that kind of play because metagaming/using player knowledge is bad as a principle you hold??

I have nothing against metagaming - for the sort of game I like to play it's pretty important - but it depends a bit on what it is the players metagame. For example, if one player who (for whatever reason) doesn't know a piece of campaign lore is running a PC engaged in a complex negotiation where that information would be useful, but it also makes sense that the PC in question would be as ignorant as the player, then I think the whole table would regard it as a little unsporting for someone to blurt out the information just to help the player get out of a tricky spot!

On the other hand, I expect my players to play their PCs, and to contribute to the game more generally, keeping in mind not only what is going on in the fiction but what is happening at the table, and what would make for a fun time. So (for example) if one PC has scouted ahead and been attacked and knocked out, and if the other players then come onto the scene and see that there are two doors through which the scouting PC might have gone, I would never object if a player, knowing which door the scouting PC went through, said "My PC has a feeling that this is the one to go through" even though there is no ingame basis for such an intuition. What does it add to the game for the unconcious PC to lie there any longer than necessary, with his/her player missing out on the game and pointlessly running the risk of losing the PC altogether?

As for puzzles/riddles - I had one in my last session, a password needed to open a door. The players had their PCs try lots of forms of words, with various Intimidate and Diplomacy checks used to deliver them in a range of tones, and History checks to try and get extra relevant information. In the end the players realised that there was one salient name that they hadn't tried - and when they tried it, the door opened. (There was another way around the puzzle - the PCs had the magical ability to discover a question hidden on the door asking, in effect "What was my creator's name?" - to which they knew the answer. But despite mooting the use of this magical ability a couple of times they didn't try it, because the player in question was worried that it might cause a very dangerous magical backlash to his PC.)

I regard this sort of "challenging of the players" a permissible variant on all the other challenges I pose to them, like how to deploy their resources and use the mechanics to manipulate the fiction so as to succeed at skill challenges and combats. I wouldn't do it all the time, though, just because it is a bit more divorced from those resources and mechanics.

 

[LostSoul]

So what about you? Does such a thing sound horrible because the character might be smarter and better at riddles and puzzles than you as a player? Would you enjoy yourself or do you reject that kind of play because metagaming/using player knowledge is bad as a principle you hold??

I am trying to run things that way, though I'm not a huge fan of puzzles and riddles. Some crop up from time to time - like a hexadecimal puzzle and one with a magic potion that gave some PCs resistances and 3 STR - but for the most part I challenge the players based on simple risk - reward & NPCs.

I allow players to "metagame" - players can use any knowledge they have to make decisions. I like that a lot better than faking it for this style of game.

 

[S'mon]

I don't generally like* riddles myself; but I certainly have nothing against challenging the players. Building an effective PC is a challenge for the player. Making good use of the character's abilities in 4e's highly tactical combat is a challenge for the player. Saying the right thing in diplomatic negotiations is a challenge for the player - although a good Diplomacy roll can make it 'come across' better. Figuring out and exploiting the web of interpersonal NPC relations is a challenge for the player.

*Although I did love Tolkien's "Speak, Friend, and Enter" at the gate to Moria.

 

[S'mon]

I'm a smart guy, and I was playing a smart PC. I had a flash of insight that revealed the hidden meaning of certain symbols used by this cult, and by doing so, i was able to lay out the campaign's grand metaplot...

...By the time we got back to the table, I had forgotten the fist of my big reveal, as had all the other players.

Smart but forgetful, eh?

I think as DM I'd have reminded you of what you'd discovered, but yeah you did screw up badly not writing it down!

Edit: Personally I'm extremely forgetful, pretty much an 'absent minded professor' type, so I tend to write everything down.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not exaggerating by saying that the game session ended right after my revelation, and I had to pack up and get out of the host's house almost immediately...I basically didn't have a chance to write anything down 'till morning.

Overall, though, no biggie- I still game with that group, and other than that one thing, that guy's been pretty good to game with.