Adding in player challenge would be me deciding, as the Player, to get a log that all the party could use together to break down the door, which may give my Character advantage on that Athletics check.
D&D 5E Player challange Vs Character challange (Metagaming)
- Thread starter GMforPowergamers
- Start date
Adding in player challenge would be me deciding, as the Player, to get a log that all the party could use together to break down the door, which may give my Character advantage on that Athletics check.
ExploderWizard
Hero
It would indeed and with any luck that guy wouldn't return to the table. Mission accomplished.
mightybrain
Villager
I voted for character skill only. But that doesn't mean I don't like to challenge players. It means, I don't rely on players' prior knowledge to challenge them. Everything the players need to know to face their challenges should be presented in the game. I think it would be unfair for a DM to present inexperienced players with situations that were by design insurmountable without previous D&D experience.
It's true that previous experience of monster vulnerabilities might offer an advantage to an experienced player but it's really only a minor mechanical advantage and of little consequence. The interesting challenges for players have nothing to do with beating the DM or the game system, they are moral choices which players will have to justify through their characterisation to themselves, their party members, and any NPCs they might meet.
The opposite situation, though, can be interesting. An experienced player, playing a novice character could even flat out state the well known vulnerabilities of a particular monster, but also that it's not something their character would know and so they can't take advantage of it. What about other characters, would they know? How will the party discover these weaknesses? These additional questions only add to the adventure. I would probably grant such a player an inspiration point and feel confident that they'd use it to further enhance the adventure and not simply to beat the system.
It's true that previous experience of monster vulnerabilities might offer an advantage to an experienced player but it's really only a minor mechanical advantage and of little consequence. The interesting challenges for players have nothing to do with beating the DM or the game system, they are moral choices which players will have to justify through their characterisation to themselves, their party members, and any NPCs they might meet.
The opposite situation, though, can be interesting. An experienced player, playing a novice character could even flat out state the well known vulnerabilities of a particular monster, but also that it's not something their character would know and so they can't take advantage of it. What about other characters, would they know? How will the party discover these weaknesses? These additional questions only add to the adventure. I would probably grant such a player an inspiration point and feel confident that they'd use it to further enhance the adventure and not simply to beat the system.
I'm in a certain belief system on this idea.
You can have as much player challenge as you want. But if you have player challenge, the DM is allowed to abuse player biases and assumptions.
If a red dragon's affinity for red is not common knowledge, the DM can switch it to fire if the PCs don't know what affinity it has.
If the puzzle is for the players, the DM can make the puzzle have any difficulty they wish or ban the stupid barbarian's player from helping.
You can have as much player challenge as you want. But if you have player challenge, the DM is allowed to abuse player biases and assumptions.
If a red dragon's affinity for red is not common knowledge, the DM can switch it to fire if the PCs don't know what affinity it has.
If the puzzle is for the players, the DM can make the puzzle have any difficulty they wish or ban the stupid barbarian's player from helping.
redrick
First Post
Player challenge vs character challenge is a bit of a false dichotomy.
I guess the question is more, "should the character be able to solve problems for the player because of all his or her skills, ability scores and proficiencies?" And, conversely, "should the player be able to override character deficiencies through his or her own intelligence, skill and knowledge?"
The former is a little silly. I don't want characters to be on autopilot. Players have to point their character in the right direction, and the more effectively they can do that (by interacting with the game world created by the DM and other players), the easier things will be for their character. Obviously, players should get a little help from their character skills. I don't expect my players to know how to pilot a ship or disarm a lock. But I do expect my players to know how to listen to what I tell them and ask questions about it.
The latter is, I think, mainly a DM problem, unless players are truly playing in bad faith. (eg, keeping a copy of the Monster Manual under the table, or going home to crib from the adventure, or sneaking a look at the DM's notes while he or she is grabbing another beer from the refrigerator.) Players should be expected to have some degree of meta-knowledge, and while players are always encouraged to play with what their character would and wouldn't know, they shouldn't be expected to completely switch off their own knowledge. That's lazy DM'ing. If the adventure becomes boring because one of the players happens to know stock monsters from the monster manual, the DM hasn't chosen or run the adventure very well. A successful game of D&D should not rely on players willfully ignoring their own good instincts.
Oh, and as for barbarians solving puzzles and what-not, I think we slightly undersell even an 8 intelligence. 8 intelligence is below average, but it's not a drooling vegetable. Furthermore, a negative ability score can be shown in all sorts of different ways. I played a character with 8 intelligence who was capable at talking to people and solving basic puzzles, but he was also incredibly gullible. That was my "this guy is dumb" flaw — he believed everything he read or heard from a person he believed to be an authoritative source. (Decent insight, so not necessarily easy to lie to straight up, but no critical thinking.)
I guess the question is more, "should the character be able to solve problems for the player because of all his or her skills, ability scores and proficiencies?" And, conversely, "should the player be able to override character deficiencies through his or her own intelligence, skill and knowledge?"
The former is a little silly. I don't want characters to be on autopilot. Players have to point their character in the right direction, and the more effectively they can do that (by interacting with the game world created by the DM and other players), the easier things will be for their character. Obviously, players should get a little help from their character skills. I don't expect my players to know how to pilot a ship or disarm a lock. But I do expect my players to know how to listen to what I tell them and ask questions about it.
The latter is, I think, mainly a DM problem, unless players are truly playing in bad faith. (eg, keeping a copy of the Monster Manual under the table, or going home to crib from the adventure, or sneaking a look at the DM's notes while he or she is grabbing another beer from the refrigerator.) Players should be expected to have some degree of meta-knowledge, and while players are always encouraged to play with what their character would and wouldn't know, they shouldn't be expected to completely switch off their own knowledge. That's lazy DM'ing. If the adventure becomes boring because one of the players happens to know stock monsters from the monster manual, the DM hasn't chosen or run the adventure very well. A successful game of D&D should not rely on players willfully ignoring their own good instincts.
Oh, and as for barbarians solving puzzles and what-not, I think we slightly undersell even an 8 intelligence. 8 intelligence is below average, but it's not a drooling vegetable. Furthermore, a negative ability score can be shown in all sorts of different ways. I played a character with 8 intelligence who was capable at talking to people and solving basic puzzles, but he was also incredibly gullible. That was my "this guy is dumb" flaw — he believed everything he read or heard from a person he believed to be an authoritative source. (Decent insight, so not necessarily easy to lie to straight up, but no critical thinking.)
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Were I the DM in this scenario the conversation would next go:
Me: "OK, you've sat there for a week getting bored. Let's see if you've given the door its payment yet, via dying of thirst and hunger. What have you got listed on your character sheets for rations and drinking water?"
Lan-"and, in other news, this DM has a whole adventure (that was behind the demon gate) in reserve for when later stuck for ideas"-efan
EvanNave55
Explorer
I'm not really sure what you mean in the poll. I run it where it's based on character knowledge. That means you shouldn't know about the trap 15 feet in front of you based only on a previous run through of this adventure, or the exact weakness of some rare, unheard of monster. However most things like trolls are weak to fire, vampires to sunlight, and _____ dragons spit ______ would be common knowledge of the beasts of legend and folktale in this world.
Similar Threads
