Challenging the player rather than the character

[pemerton]

Puzzles are best when they don't force the players to go out of character to solve them -- if the players are spending half an hour working out a word puzzle, or doing practical cryptography, that means that's a half hour they're probably not roleplaying much; the game's just hit a brick wall in which play didn't happen.

Agreed.

Puzzles are best when they don't cause the entire rest of the game to cease motion while they're worked on; consider how this is done in a novel or movie. The characters don't hit a door and sit for the next ten minutes mulling overs solutions (not usually, anyway). They either encounter the puzzle or riddle or whatever and then go off adventuring, getting to mull it over in the spaces between fights, chases, and revellations; or they hit it, and more or less immediately act to push through it -- achieving comparatively instant success or taking the penalty for failure.

Mostly agreed, but I feel that perhaps this is a matter of degree. And it probably depends a bit on playstyle at the table. For example, what counts as "comparatively instant success" may vary a lot from group to group. In my case, we have players who routinely take multi-minute turns in combat, and the group as a whole is known to spend quite a bit of time discussing options, planning etc. And there is also a fair bit of out-of-game conversation taking place as well. So a puzzle that takes fifteen or twenty minutes to solve is sufficiently instant (provided that it has pushed the players out of the game, as per your first point).

 

[mneme]

Mostly agreed, but I feel that perhaps this is a matter of degree. And it probably depends a bit on playstyle at the table. For example, what counts as "comparatively instant success" may vary a lot from group to group. In my case, we have players who routinely take multi-minute turns in combat, and the group as a whole is known to spend quite a bit of time discussing options, planning etc. And there is also a fair bit of out-of-game conversation taking place as well. So a puzzle that takes fifteen or twenty minutes to solve is sufficiently instant (provided that it has pushed the players out of the game, as per your first point).

It does -- and it is.

Really, while the first issue is an immersion (for some definitions of immersion, etc, but yeah) problem, this one is a pacing issue. And as such, it's subject to how you're treating pacing in general in your games.

Mind, as a pacing issue, it can be mitigated somewhat by introducing a puzzle right before the end of a session. By giving the players (if not the characters) some time to mull over their ideas between sessions, and then picking up where you left off, you can keep the pacing dramatic without too much GM force. There's still (assuming it's still functionally a door puzzle) a risk of the puzzle stopping the actiong--but assuming the puzzle isn't too hard or badly hinted, the risk is lower.

 

[Mika]

On the other hand, I have problem with players who want to play dumb characters. They just don't make any sense to me, as a GM. I would not, as a real person or a D&D character, risk my life alongside a stupid guy that is dumb...

I think you may be confusing a low IQ with a lack of common sense (usually reflected by a low wisdom rather than a low intelligence).

Most player characters should have both strengths and weaknesses and be reasonably aware of both. A character's ability scores would suggest what sorts of things he finds easy and what he finds hard. For example, as a typical well-educated geek with a desk job, I would find it much easier to memorize a long list of trivia or solve a complex puzzle than to attempt to lift a heavy weight. However, if I am playing a barbarian with a strength of 20 and an intelligence of 8 or less, the reverse would be true. In the absence of any reason to prefer one approach over another, each character's first inclination would and should be to try what he is best at.

That does not mean that he would do foolish things -- even the stupidest barbarian would quickly learn to let the highly perceptive rogue check a door for traps before he forces it open.

 

[Tymophil]

Far be it from me to claim your experiences are false -- your experiences are your experiences.

I never claimed otherwise...

But in my experience, the greatest indicator for how well a character would jibe with a group is how good the player is--and secondarilly, how compatabible the character is with the player's abilities and preferences. Everything else is secondary to that.

It is hard to disagree with you there... My experience, though, is that some people will play stupid character in a way that will ruin everyone else fun. Other play them as forgetfull, clueless ones, without trying to ruin the scenario, nor the other players fun. I guess you would call them good players, and then we would agree.

A dumb character can get in the way of others roleplaying--playing the character as a useless bore. Or they can sit back and let the smart people decide what to do. Or they can make a funny comment or two and then let people get on with it...and then make a "dumb" comment that actually turns the entire conversation on its head. Good players (or players having good days) will choose better options here; worse players will choose worse ones.

I may be a little too demanding, but I think a good player is someone that will enhance the experience of other people with his roleplay : players and gamemaster alike.
Moreover, what I like with Dungeons & Dragons 4 is that all player characters are involved.

In combat, a "dumb" character could set his head on fire or move quasi-randomly -- or they could suddenly become a tactical genius -- or they could act out of character motivations and capabilities, using simple and practiced tactics, but avoiding novel tactics unless pointed out by someone else (thus allowing other players playing smarter characters to shine).

Would you still play with someone that insists on playing stupidly on each and every combat ? How long would such a character last ? How long would your character last with such a stupid character on your side ? How the gamemaster would feel when the stupid guy is acting in a way that makes each encounter a deadly one, when it should be a challenging one ?

I guess your answer is that a player that ruins the game because he insists on playing in a way that ruins everyone else fun is a bad one... My point is that it is very easy to do that with a stupid character, and it is even easier to justify ruining the fun all around.

In puzzles? Well, see above; the same options more or less apply.

I try to put my puzzle inside a skill challenge of sorts. I also try to build them in character. Every player should put all efforts to play this kind of scene as any other kind of scene, especially in D&D4, where all is done to involve everyone.

Some memorable stupid characters:

In a theater style larp, Arabian Nights, a player was playing an ogre. The ogre was converted to Islam by a sage, but being an ogre, he got a few things wrong. So he started going around demanding that people "worship floor!". Eventually, someone figured out what was going on and explained he needed to say worship -on- the floor. (of course, this was a storytelling rpg more than an adventuring rpg--but D&D isn't limited to only pure adventuring either!)

It is not a stupid character. It is a clueless one. A real stupid one would have insisted in keeping telling people to worship floor. In fact, this is not the kind of behaviour I pointed out.

As you surely guessed, the behaviour I dislike is people insisting on playing stupid people stupidly, even at the expense of other players and gamemaster alike.

In a parody run through the Grimhawk Dungeons of Doom (and with the option to give everyone 9 lives), I decided to play a paladin with a miniscule Int. And lots of courage. I charged everything, failed to learn from experience, and set off many, many traps (usually only endangering myself). It was fun for everyone--if anything the over-careful wizard was the real downer in the that game. Despite my best efforts, I even survived the adventure (with one life left).

In a parody, such a behaviour is "in character".

And...frankly, all decent roleplay efforts involve playing your character "a little bit stupid." Your character isn't you, and doesn't have your experiences and perception. So at some point, it's good to hit a point where you realize what the "right" thing to do there is...and then decide that, for one reason or another, your character isn't going to do that; they're going to do what they think is the right thing, regardless of the flaws you see in it. Even Sherlock Holmes is going to underestimate (most) women--despite otherwise being brilliant.

I could not agree more. It is always a good idea to spice up any kind of character with a little bit a "dumbness" or "cleverness".

The problem I have with stupid characters is that most people I met (who instist on playing them) play them dumbly in a selfish way, and justify their (bad) attitude by pointing at the Intelligence score on the character sheet.

Sure it is nice to have some flaws in a character, they enhance the experience. But they should never get in the way of other players and gamemaster fun. With a stupid characer it is much too easy to cross this line... At least, this is my experience.

I guess that most of my players play dumbly from time to time, and so do I (both as player or gamemaster). The "good" player would (role)play in character (dumbly at times) without interfering in a bad way with the fun of everyone else. So this behaviour goes unnoticed by me. Therefore, I only remember the bad behaviours.

Your labelling of players in "good" or "bad" player maybe the best one.

 

[Tymophil]

I think you may be confusing a low IQ with a lack of common sense (usually reflected by a low wisdom rather than a low intelligence).

I have never seen a player that "hide behind" a low Wisdom score to justify a stupid behaviour of sort...

Most player characters should have both strengths and weaknesses and be reasonably aware of both. A character's ability scores would suggest what sorts of things he finds easy and what he finds hard. For example, as a typical well-educated geek with a desk job, I would find it much easier to memorize a long list of trivia or solve a complex puzzle than to attempt to lift a heavy weight. However, if I am playing a barbarian with a strength of 20 and an intelligence of 8 or less, the reverse would be true. In the absence of any reason to prefer one approach over another, each character's first inclination would and should be to try what he is best at.

As I said on another post, this style of play would go unnoticed by me : this is good roleplay. What I dislike is the selfish behaviour I encountered too many times : " My barbarian is stupid, I act stupidly... Look at my INT score ! "

That does not mean that he would do foolish things -- even the stupidest barbarian would quickly learn to let the highly perceptive rogue check a door for traps before he forces it open.

A barbarian is seldom that stupid. Surviving, for a barbarian, is a fulltime job.

Once again, I guess that it is a question of generation. I am quite old now (48). For me, the iconic barbarians are Conan, Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan the Mongol.

Robert E. Howard did not portray a stupid Conan. He may have lacked some knowledge initially, but he learned, and learned fast. Moreover, he is wise, very wise in the sense that you described : common sense, and keen sense of danger.

Attila and Genghis Khan managed to form huge coalitions and threw down empires using quick wit, clever diplomacy, sound tactics, good logistics and brilliant strategy.

For ME, the clueless barbarian is an oxymoron. If I play a barbarian, I would play him cunning, maybe initially lacking knowledge, but keen on learning. He could display a naivete of a sort to spice up the roleplay at times. But I would NEVER play it in a way that would make the experience of other players less fun. I would also try my best to avoid ruining the fun of the gamemaster by refusing to get inside the plot just because I want to play in a certain way.

 

[mneme]

It is hard to disagree with you there... My experience, though, is that some people will play stupid character in a way that will ruin everyone else fun. Other play them as forgetfull, clueless ones, without trying to ruin the scenario, nor the other players fun. I guess you would call them good players, and then we would agree.

Yep! We're running out of things to argue about (and I can hardly disagree on that).

I may be a little too demanding, but I think a good player is someone that will enhance the experience of other people with his roleplay : players and gamemaster alike.
Moreover, what I like with Dungeons & Dragons 4 is that all player characters are involved.

Very much so on the first.

Regarding the second, while it's very true, one still wants to move the spotlight around a bit--so having some characters deemphasized in some scenes is a fine thing as long as nobody's always on the sidelines or actively spiking the fun.

Would you still play with someone that insists on playing stupidly on each and every combat ? How long would such a character last ? How long would your character last with such a stupid character on your side ?

Well, no -- but again, this is the difference between a good player and a bad player playing "stupid".

The bad player will (assuming they don't simply play the character like a tactical genius) play essentially randomly, or pick some "stupid" tactics and stick to them stubornly regardless of the situation. And, of course, occasionally do some stupid stuff that not only get themselves killed but get all or most of the party killed too.

The good player will decide on some basic sound tactics and priorities based on the character's skills and abilities, and tend to stick to them in an ordinary combat, doing generally well with them (as they after all, have built the character to be capable with those abilities). When things get tough? They'll have the character do something appropriate based on the character's abilities and within the character's limits -- and if party members have a better idea, they'll take those into account.

As you surely guessed, the behaviour I dislike is people insisting on playing stupid people stupidly, even at the expense of other players and gamemaster alike.

Yep. My touchstone for "good stupid" is, if anything, the Bill and Ted movies -- where yes, the characters aren't amazingly bright, and yes, they're slackers. But the -writers- are very bright, and will occasionally have the characters put things together just in time to save the day.

I could not agree more. It is always a good idea to spice up any kind of character with a little bit a "dumbness" or "cleverness".

Indeed. And in every smart character, it's worth putting a blind spot; some flaw where they're not mentally completely perfect. In every stupid character, it's worth letting them have the occasional flashes of almost brillance--when it's plausible and interesting, and doesn't break character. Monotony is monotonous.

The problem I have with stupid characters is that most people I met (who instist on playing them) play them dumbly in a selfish way, and justify their (bad) attitude by pointing at the Intelligence score on the character sheet.

And -this- is central. Bad/unfun play is bad play, and doesn't get to be excused by what's written on your character sheet -- because -you- are in control of your character sheet and how you play the character, not the other way around.

I guess that most of my players play dumbly from time to time, and so do I (both as player or gamemaster). The "good" player would (role)play in character (dumbly at times) without interfering in a bad way with the fun of everyone else. So this behaviour goes unnoticed by me. Therefore, I only remember the bad behaviours.

Exactly so. In the same way, I've seen people react badly to the idea of playing children, or chaotics (in pre-4e D&D), or bards, or humorous characters in general. All these concepts (and more -- I've seen a player playing an over-cautious "leader" type cautious a game almost to death) can act as an avenue for a player to derail a game, acting out, upstaging everyone, and overall being an unfun hindrance. They can -also- be an avenue for players to enhance the game, pushing concepts that enhance fun and make for a more interesting and engaging story--but people usually don't remember the good moments as much as the bad ones.