D&D 5E What actions by a PC Don't need to be stated?

[iserith]

I think it's about "things on a sheet" versus "things not on a sheet"

Example:
DM: You are in a room. There are no exits you can see as the large stone door you entered has shut tight, seemingly of its own volition. As you look around you see figures in bas relief on one of the walls and a number of skeletons on the floor.

Player: My character tries to deduce the answer to this riddle. (Or "I want to make an Intelligence check to solve this riddle.")

DM: Okay - roll an Intelligence check.

^ Here, rather than "challenge the character," the DM has simply removed the challenge altogether since no skill or choice was required to overcome the obstacle. Which is why "challenge the character" makes no sense in a nutshell.

 

[robus]

Old School is usually about challenging the Player.
New School is usually about challenging the Character.

I have no opinion about which is better. That's not a value statement. Just the way it almost always works out.

You can't challenge the character without challenging the player. This is a role-playing game isn't it?

 

[thethain]

Personally, I don't assume any actions by the players beyond what is stated or would be pretty much automatic. If you dove into a lake, you probably held your breath first, if you ran into a cloud, thats up to you to mention it first. And if you tell me you are always going to attempt to hold your breathe when fighting in a cloud, you are going to be rolling for exhaustion if there's a fog cloud you are in.

(FYI I think the standard breathe holding rules are absurdly inaccurate for combat, 1 min per con bonus +1 makes sense for being totally still and conserving energy, but for actually fully exerting yourself in combat, its more like maybe 2 rounds per con bonus.)

I do think its fair for a player to give his "standard conditions" That is, if he says he normally is walking around with a rapier in one hand, and a hand crossbow loaded in the other hand, He always attempts to remove and stow any ropes he ties if possible, always leaves doors open, closed, or the way they originally found them, maybe every 15 feet he marks the right wall with chalk or charcoal to mark the ways he has been, or he sets up his meditation area 25 feet outside of the party camp.

 

[thethain]

You can't challenge the character without challenging the player. This is a role-playing game isn't it?

The comment is more aimed at encounter design. For example in Tomb of Annihilation, there are many puzzles which requires the players to do a specific action. There is no specific clues in some cases, and no skill checks to pass to continue. That means it is up to the player to determine the right actions. An Int 30 artificer-wizard has the same chance of figuring out the puzzle as an int 6 barbarian orc. It is entirely determined by the player, not character.

However, in a modern dungeon, you would probably allow either a resourceful player to figure out, OR allow an investigation check to determine the proper sequence. If there is a riddle, a high insight check should probably give some guidance on how to continue. If you are negotiating release of a captive, a player could give a good argument, or they could pass a persuasion or intimidate check. Basically, modern versions attempt to create a structure for you to play as a character who is smarter than the player. Which is good, because I commonly see people attempt to force players to come up with charismatic persuasion lines, or solve puzzles, However, they don't bring a 45 lb weight for players to lift when their character tries to force open a door. You are guiding your character, and the character is very likely to be smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than the player, as the characters are typically almost super hero levels of what they excel at.

 

[iserith]

The comment is more aimed at encounter design. For example in Tomb of Annihilation, there are many puzzles which requires the players to do a specific action. There is no specific clues in some cases, and no skill checks to pass to continue. That means it is up to the player to determine the right actions. An Int 30 artificer-wizard has the same chance of figuring out the puzzle as an int 6 barbarian orc. It is entirely determined by the player, not character.

However, in a modern dungeon, you would probably allow either a resourceful player to figure out, OR allow an investigation check to determine the proper sequence. If there is a riddle, a high insight check should probably give some guidance on how to continue. If you are negotiating release of a captive, a player could give a good argument, or they could pass a persuasion or intimidate check. Basically, modern versions attempt to create a structure for you to play as a character who is smarter than the player. Which is good, because I commonly see people attempt to force players to come up with charismatic persuasion lines, or solve puzzles, However, they don't bring a 45 lb weight for players to lift when their character tries to force open a door. You are guiding your character, and the character is very likely to be smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than the player, as the characters are typically almost super hero levels of what they excel at.

A character doesn't have a chance of success unless the player puts him or her in the position to succeed. That means stating a goal and approach appropriate to overcoming the challenge. So, using your example, negotiating the release of a captive means the player must state an argument and, if that argument doesn't succeed or fail outright, make an appropriate ability check. Coming up with an effective argument is the challenge (regardless of the difficulty which is a separate thing). If the DM does not require the argument to be stated and just calls for a check (or allows the player to dictate when checks will be made), then it's not "challenging the character," - it's removing the challenge in its entirety. Which is fine if that's how you like to roll. But that's a game without challenge (at least in that instance).

If I had players that wanted to go to the dice instead of use their noodles to come up with answers to puzzles and riddles - and make no mistake, the negotiation for the captive is just another form of riddle, essentially - I would then have a conversation with them about whether they enjoyed that sort of content. After all, I don't want to present things the players don't enjoy and maybe exploration or social interaction challenges should be minimized in favor of combat challenges. But "challenge the characters?" Nah. Not a thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here, rather than "challenge the character," the DM has simply removed the challenge altogether since no skill or choice was required to overcome the obstacle. Which is why "challenge the character" makes no sense in a nutshell.

Modeling the character is central to assuming a role distinct from that of the players, themselves. D&D doesn't give fantasticly evocative mechanics for that outside of spellcasting and the occassional cool class ability or feat, much of the time it's just d20+bonus vs a DC. But, if that's all you've got to work with, that bonus needs to matter enough to evoke the character.

In the sense of the game being played at the table, you're always challenging the players, they make choices about & for their characters to meet the challenge as presented by the DM. In the sense of the fiction being generated, it's the characters who are being challenged and who succeed or fail based on their own abilities.

In the context of Seramus's post, though, there's a kernel of truth. Old School, the game lacked spelled-out(npi) mechanics to model many abilities, especially outside of combat & spellcasting, so a player would describe exactly what the player did, and the DM would decide if he'd done everything right or not. It could get silly - a ranger being unable to light a fire, for instance, because the player's boyscout training wasn't the same as the DM's.... 'New' School (since 2e non-weapon proficiencies? S&P? since 3.0 skills at the latest) there are some mechanics that players can use to designate a character being good at something, even if the player (or DM) has no clue about what that realistically entails.

5e, of course, being all D&Ds for all D&D fans, splits the difference, with the DM free to narrate success/failure based on the action declared (player 'challenge'/resolution) or call for a check (character 'challenge'/resolution). Not only does that allow the DM to embrace 'Old' and/or 'New' schools of challenge to whatever degree he cares for, it establishes the central/vital function of the DM in all resolution, laying a firm foundation of DM Empowerment.

 

[iserith]

In the sense of the fiction being generated, it's the characters who are being challenged and who succeed or fail based on their own abilities.

I understand that, but in my view it's irrelevant in the context of the discussion of the approach being used by the DM which is "player-facing," for lack of a better word. All DMs are challenging the players or they are not. The DM is not "challenging the characters." An adjudication method that takes the player's skills and choices out of the process is just removing the challenge. Which is fine if that's what the table likes, of course.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I understand that, but in my view it's irrelevant in the context of the discussion of the approach being used by the DM which is "player-facing," for lack of a better word. All DMs are challenging the players or they are not. The DM is not "challenging the characters."

I think "challenging the characters" is a fair way to put "basing resolution on the abilities of the character." Not a perfect way of putting it, perhaps, but not completely nonsensical. Anyway, that's how I understand the phrase, and the use of the phrase up-thread in describing Old vs 'New' school challenge.

An adjudication method that takes the player's skills and choices out of the process is just removing the challenge.

It's pretty hard to actually take out, though, isn't it? 'Skilled play' or 'system mastery' is virtually impossible take out of any mechanical resolution, and player skill at reading/manipulating/gaming the DM is virtually impossible to take out of non-mechanical resolutions (and hard to completely remove from mechanical ones, for that matter).

They may not be wonderfully evocative examples, but optimizing a PC for a skill, and declaring actions to bring that skill into play, are applications of both player skill and player choice.

 

[S'mon]

Player: My character tries to deduce the answer to this riddle. (Or "I want to make an Intelligence check to solve this riddle.")

DM: Okay - roll an Intelligence check.

^ Here, rather than "challenge the character," the DM has simply removed the challenge altogether since no skill or choice was required to overcome the obstacle. Which is why "challenge the character" makes no sense in a nutshell.

Yes, you definitely can remove challenge to the player like this. A better approach is to use skill checks to gain hints & tips, just as successful combat rolls rarely solve the fight in 1 roll.

 

[iserith]

I think "challenging the characters" is a fair way to put "basing resolution on the abilities of the character." Not a perfect way of putting it, perhaps, but not completely nonsensical. Anyway, that's how I understand the phrase, and the use of the phrase up-thread in describing Old vs 'New' school challenge.

I mean, I get it. The issue with that term is that it confuses what "challenge" is in the context of this game. And that's a very fundamental concept in my opinion, something all DMs need to learn (among other things) but very few in my experience seem to understand. If you could find posts of mine from the WotC forums, you will most certainly find me saying stuff like "challenge the characters," which was a common thing to say when D&D 4e was the current edition. I have since learned that it's not a thing.

It's pretty hard to actually take out, though, isn't it? 'Skilled play' or 'system mastery' is virtually impossible take out of any mechanical resolution, and player skill at reading/manipulating/gaming the DM is virtually impossible to take out of non-mechanical resolutions (and hard to completely remove from mechanical ones, for that matter).

They may not be wonderfully evocative examples, but optimizing a PC for a skill, and declaring actions to bring that skill into play, are applications of both player skill and player choice.

It's not hard to remove the challenge at all, in terms of challenge that happens during game play. All you need to do is remove the need for a player to apply skill to overcoming the challenge. Rolling a die isn't skillful. Coming up with the action that will net you automatic success or at least allow you to roll for a chance at success is skillful. (I discuss "reasonable specificity" in my first post in this thread.) Difficulty, of course, is a separate but related matter.

As for reading, manipulating, or gaming the DM, you would also find me arguing that point in old forum posts as I railed against "DM Empowerment." I have since learned that these are acts of bad faith on the part of the player and the response to that is not to play with people who act in bad faith rather than go to the mechanics to help deal with it.