Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Lanefan]

1) I was speaking about a challenge *to the core of the character*. You are talking about a challenge to *you*, the player. You don't get to change th referent, and then asses my statement against the new referent.

Given a decent level of immersion there shouldn't be all that much difference between the two.

2) I was also pretty clear about what I was talking about when I spoke of challenge in this context. If Chris Claremont writes a comic book about a conflict between Professor X and Magneto, there is no actual challenge to Professor X - only the illusion of one.

2a) You, the player/author may feel anxiety, uncertainty, angst, or other emotions over making a decision - but in the sense I defined it, this is not a "challenge", for the simple reason that there is no success or failure to be had. Mr. Claremont does not "succeed" if Professor X wins the comic book fight. You don't "fail" if the knight chooses chastity over Excalibur. The choice *isn't a test!*

Not all tests are strictly pass-fail.

Sometimes all options lead to varying degrees of failure and-or success e.g. choosing the lesser of two (or more) evils.

The questing knight, for example. Forget Excalibur for a moment, and let's just say he's on a quest to retrieve a McGuffin. (let's for argument's sake say he's also straight; and betrothed) At some key moment, probably when he meets her, he realizes the McGuffin's final guardian is its current rightful owner, a very comely commoner lass who seeks a noble husband. Before long he realizes that seducing her is an option, thus presenting him with a lot of to-him-unpalatable choices:

He can choose not to seduce her and thus maintain his chastity while failing his quest
He can choose to seduce her and succeed on his quest while breaking his vow of chastity (and maybe also his betrothal)
He can take the item by force or guile, thus marking himself as a thief and-or liar - though a chaste one
He can denounce her as evil (whether verified mechanically or not) and kill her, thus marking himself as a murderer
He can, rather unchivalrously, kick the problem down the road via letting the rest of his party deal with her while intentionally standing aside.

Every one of these options has elements of pass and elements of fail, all in one; because every one of them tests at least two of: loyalty to vows made; loyalty to quest; respect for laws of the land; and general chivalry. And I'd say this would represent a challenge to all of the character, the character concept, and the player.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What conclusion?

If you are going to accuse folks of jumping to things, please be clear. Misunderstandings cannot be corrected when you are being vague.

If you need me to tell you what conclusion you reached that you then blamed on another poster's phrasing... well, I'm just gonna have to let you wonder about that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's simply untrue. I have been in a position where I can make the decision and I have been plenty challenged. I am frequently significantly challenged by situations that come up in game. Which way do I go with my character? It's not certain until the decision is made, which occurs after the challenge. The result of that challenge may be in my total control, but the challenge is there.

Yeah. Once again I find myself in the unfamiliar position of agreeing with you.

"You feel your heart melt, despite your vow. What do you do?" is one kind of challenge.

Having the maiden wink at you, and knowing that you both have to seduce her if you want to achieve the McGuffin, and knowing that it's going to jeopardize something if you do so, is another kind of challenge.

Or, heck, even just being tempted by the awesome story developments of letting your character break his vow, presents an interesting roleplaying challenge.

Then what does a success on this challenge look like and how does it differ from a failure?

You're confusing a choice, even a hard one, with a challenge. You can fail to overcome a challenge, or succeed at it, but you can't fail or succeed at a choice.

 

[generic]

With respect - I think it is more that you expressed your idea here... very poorly.

It became controversial because... well, your words didn't say this. Sorry.

Perhaps, if so I apologize.

 

[generic]

So why did you say you don’t know what you would do if they said for the super magical sword duh?

Because that's a silly answer.

What am I, as a DM supposed to infer from that?

"Oh, you don't like RP'ing, okay..."

 

[generic]

Yes, and IMO that's an outright glaring error in how 4e handles these things.

Put another way, it dredges up the old glass-cannon monster design issue from 1e and dials it up to 11. Why in the name of sweet bejeebers would a designer take a known problem and intentionally make it worse?

No. Just no. Read 4e sourcebooks, and then come back.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then what does a success on this challenge look like and how does it differ from a failure?

You're confusing a choice, even a hard one, with a challenge. You can fail to overcome a challenge, or succeed at it, but you can't fail or succeed at a choice.

Oh, I see. You're trying to look at the choice itself as a challenge. I was looking at the choice as a small component of a larger challenge. Or, really, a piece of two larger challenges, with the dilemma being that choice A gets you closer to succeeding at the first challenge, but further from succeeding at the second, and vice versa. So the two challenges are: a) maintain your purity, and b) get the girl. (For whatever larger purpose both serve.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because that's a silly answer.

What am I, as a DM supposed to infer from that?

"Oh, you don't like RP'ing, okay..."

Like Boromir?

He was obviously a roleplayer. Some knight.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because that's a silly answer.

What am I, as a DM supposed to infer from that?

"Oh, you don't like RP'ing, okay..."

And you wonder why we read into your post that you would not condone a player doing that at your table. I’d say we were right on all counts...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm saying it's mkstaken because to make that system work one has to make a conscious decision to throw out internal consistency when it comes to creatures within the setting

Greater internal consistency, actually. Hit points are /very/ abstract, and they goof up the internal consistency of a world quite a lot. Particularly in the oddity of high-hp creatures being un-killable when fresh, by attacks that can kill them when worn down a bit (or when caught helpless). I mean, what's "deadly" in AD&D? A dagger, at 1-4/1-3? Laughable! ...until you're killed by one because in your sleep.

The ways you can die are just too varied for Xhps and Y dice of damage to capture, even adding saves and critical hits didn't solve it, just created more issues with said highly-dubious internal consistency.

Secondary roles were a step in the right direction. The 'same' monster could be /much/ harder for one set of characters to kill than another to a degree that would have required giving the more powerful set untenably high damage to represent. So hps & defenses, instead, moved relative to the league a creature was operating in. Greater challenges could be handled in greater detail than just bigger numbers, lesser challenges handled quicker & more simply than just smaller numbers without becoming irrelevant. (What's the complaint about 5e monsters? Giant sacks of hps? Because they're being arbitrarily kept on one hp scale.)

It modeled fiction much better than arbitrarily locking each creature into a set of fixed numbers that only modeled it well in one sort of situation (typically facing enemies of similar power levels)Which is fair, from a game-design perspective, since that's what's likely most common and germaine in play, and limiting scope isn't beyond the pale when designing a game.
But it's possible for a game to go further and enable more sorts of situations, challenges, & stories.

and given as there's systems out there which work perfectly well without forcing this decision, it boggles the mind that someone would design a system that requires it.

Except those systems never worked perfectly well, they have well-known and increasingly serious issues as level increases.

As a pure game-play mechanic I'm sure it works great.

Well, in a game, that's ultimately what matters. If a mechanic creates a superior play experience, and expands the possible scope of fiction that play can model, that's a pretty worthy mechanic.