Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Maxperson]

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.

It's probably a good thing for me, then, that success/fail challenges are just one type of challenge and I can indeed be challenged in ways that are not success/fail.

 

[Maxperson]

Just putting this additional thought out there for you to consider: Some DM's ask "why" as a form of "preemptive policing". That is they realize (maybe not even consciously) that people feel a bit of social pressure when put on the spot to answer a question and know they will want to provide a good and acceptable answer. It's not hard to realize that a particular DM would disapprove of some non-in-character reasoning and so the player that sees such a DM occasionally ask "Why?" gets deterred from doing things not-in-character (or at least lying about it and finding a justification if they are). Not saying that you are doing it for this reason or that it's even having that effect but such does happen.

I've seen this mentioned twice now. I ask "why" all the time. Not in an effort to police the action, but to understand the action. If the player is getting from A to C and I don't understand how the PC got there, I'm going to ask why. The follow-up explanation sometimes helps me narrate the response properly or better. I also award bonus XP based on good roleplaying, and a lack of understanding will hurt the player's chances for that award, where the clarity gained by the explanation will often turn on the light bulb for me and help get the player the bonus.

 

[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.

It's probably a good thing for me, then, that success/fail challenges are just one type of challenge and I can indeed be challenged in ways that are not success/fail.

If you cannot succeed nor fail, how are you challenged? You keep insisting that there are other challenges that don't include possibility of failure, but you haven't presented the case -- you just assert it. Show the work.

Edit: multiquote is stuck

 

[Ovinomancer]

failure = not being able to obtain both states at the same time.

So, success would be maintaining your chastity and getting the girl. How pseudo-zen of you.

 

[Maxperson]

If you cannot succeed nor fail, how are you challenged? You keep insisting that there are other challenges that don't include possibility of failure, but you haven't presented the case -- you just assert it. Show the work.

Edit: multiquote is stuck

By making the hard choice obviously. I you can't fail to pick a choice, but none of the choices may be what you want, so there is no success. Challenge has more than one definition and not of them are binary. Trying to limit a challenge to success or failure is a False Dichotomy.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, success would be maintaining your chastity and getting the girl. How pseudo-zen of you.

Note my example didn’t have getting the girl as the alternate goal. It was getting the sword.

But Yes! To keep your chastity and get the girl is success if those are your goals. They used to call it marriage...

 

[FrogReaver]

If you cannot succeed nor fail, how are you challenged? You keep insisting that there are other challenges that don't include possibility of failure, but you haven't presented the case -- you just assert it. Show the work.

Edit: multiquote is stuck

Because there are other states than full success or full failure. The challenge is due to risk which is due to uncertainty. Pushing for full success can sometimes cause a greater risk for full failure

 

[FrogReaver]

By making the hard choice obviously. I you can't fail to pick a choice, but none of the choices may be what you want, so there is no success. Challenge has more than one definition and not of them are binary. Trying to limit a challenge to success or failure is a False Dichotomy.

I really don't understand why @Ovinomancer and others can't grasp this simple concept.

Challenges are about risk. Risk is based on uncertainity. However, even in a perfectly deterministic world, there is still uncertainty which means there is still risk which means there's still challenges. Thus, you don't need a randomization method like dice to produce uncertainty.

Chess actually makes a great example. Chess is a deterministic game and it's very challenging. It's challenging because there's always uncertainty because as a human we don't possess the knowledge of all game states. That lack of knowledge causes uncertainty which causes risk which causes challenge.

Now consider a simple game of a coin flip where you win if a heads is flipped. There's uncertainty there. You have a great chance to lose the game and no control over winning or losing (without cheating). That kind of a game doesn't present a challenge even though there could potentially be risk and uncertainty. The real challenge with such a game is the betting aspect. Do you continue to bet to try to win one more time or do you walk away. That's where the challenge in such a game really lies.

In RPG terms. I struggle to see a challenge simply resulting from the DM saying random maiden approaches you, make a save. That's not a challenge, even though there's risk and uncertainty IMO, as there's no decision point for the character or the player.

 

[generic]

I really don't understand why @Ovinomancer and others can't grasp this simple concept.

Challenges are about risk. Risk is based on uncertainity. However, even in a perfectly deterministic world, there is still uncertainty which means there is still risk which means there's still challenges. Thus, you don't need a randomization method like dice to produce uncertainty.

Chess actually makes a great example. Chess is a deterministic game and it's very challenging. It's challenging because there's always uncertainty because as a human we don't possess the knowledge of all game states. That lack of knowledge causes uncertainty which causes risk which causes challenge.

Now consider a simple game of a coin flip where you win if a heads is flipped. There's uncertainty there. You have a great chance to lose the game and no control over winning or losing (without cheating). That kind of a game doesn't present a challenge even though there could potentially be risk and uncertainty. The real challenge with such a game is the betting aspect. Do you continue to bet to try to win one more time or do you walk away. That's where the challenge in such a game really lies.

In RPG terms. I struggle to see a challenge simply resulting from the DM saying random maiden approaches you, make a save. That's not a challenge, even though there's risk and uncertainty IMO, as there's no decision point for the character or the player.

Yes, it's not a real challenge. Exactly.

Maybe [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] means that it's mechanical challenge, which it is (your character's probability of succeeding is tested, but that makes it less of a challenge and more of a "save or get charmed", which is honestly more of an attack than something that challenges the player.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, it's not a real challenge. Exactly.

Maybe @Ovinomancer means that it's mechanical challenge, which it is (your character's probability of succeeding is tested, but that makes it less of a challenge and more of a "save or get charmed", which is honestly more of an attack than something that challenges the player.

I wanted to add, it's not just about challenging the player. Everything I've said also applies to the character.