What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[Charlaquin]

Heck, I have a PC in my group right now with the Observant feat (is that the right one that bumps your passive perception?) and an insane Passive Perception score. This trap wouldn't even be a challenge, I'd just go ahead and tell him he sees everything and how to avoid it because the character has the scores that allow for that.

I'm curious how you imagine keen senses allowing the character to determine how to avoid the trap.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, combat tends to have a lot of dice rolling. But imagine a combat where nobody was ABLE to do anything except use their default attack. No movement, no dodging, no spellcasting, no special abilities. On each player’s turn their only option is to roll their attacks.

Is that challenging? Or interesting? (Maybe it is the first time, once, as a novelty.)

Now imagine, more easily because we see it all the time, including in official adventures, an analogous thing happening in non-combat pillars.

That pretty much describes Theater of the Mind combat. At least, unless the players are REALLY good at visualization of combat, it pretty much lines up as movement doesn't matter after contact and you pelt each other with dice until one side falls down. Heck, that describes 1e and 2e combat to a T. Other than the spell casting anyway, and, at lower levels, you had so few spells that many combats were resolved without a single spell or special ability. We did this for DECADES.

So, no, it's not like it's not interesting.

And, just as a point about "there's only one solution". Let's be honest here, most of the time, in most situations, there is one or two really obvious solutions. That locked door or chest for example. Sure, there are other possibilities, but, let's be honest here, smash or pick are the two most likely outcomes.

Talking to that NPC, by and large, while you can argue all these other approaches, most likely is going to come down to "do we talk nice, or not nice?". Positing that non-combat encounters are always resolved, or even often resolved, by these wondrous, creative solutions, isn't all that likely. That non-combat encounter gets resolved in a fairly predictable way, most of the time because, well, frankly, groups are predictable most of the time.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That pretty much describes Theater of the Mind combat. At least, unless the players are REALLY good at visualization of combat, it pretty much lines up as movement doesn't matter after contact and you pelt each other with dice until one side falls down.

Huh. Not in the games I play in. In fact, it tends to work exactly like iserith describes: players will describe what they want to do, and the DM will tell them the outcome, or if a roll is called for. Sometimes players will ask questions to better understand the scene, and sometimes we estimate/improvise distances. But otherwise all the decision-making is still there. (For climactic battle scenes we often pull out the grid, though.)

EDIT: See? I've already forgotten iserith's excellent advice to not use specific examples. I can't wait to see how this example gets twisted to prove that I'm contradicting myself. Or worse.

As an example of skill check resulting from DM judgment call, in a recent game a player wanted to hit all the bad guys with a sleep spell. I said he could easily hit all but the captain, or he could try to include the captain but would have to make an Int check to avoid hitting friendlies at the same time. He decided to skip the captain. (And succeeded only in putting the cow in the shed to sleep, which he had forgotten about. Sometimes TotM is like that.)

And, just as a point about "there's only one solution". Let's be honest here, most of the time, in most situations, there is one or two really obvious solutions. That locked door or chest for example. Sure, there are other possibilities, but, let's be honest here, smash or pick are the two most likely outcomes.

For DMs who still bother to include those sorts of speed bumps/toll booths, sure.

Talking to that NPC, by and large, while you can argue all these other approaches, most likely is going to come down to "do we talk nice, or not nice?". Positing that non-combat encounters are always resolved, or even often resolved, by these wondrous, creative solutions, isn't all that likely. That non-combat encounter gets resolved in a fairly predictable way, most of the time because, well, frankly, groups are predictable most of the time.

Well, I'm glad that works for your group.

 

[iserith]

/me Raises Hand!

Yup, I'm very much in the mechanics camp. Sure, player fictional positioning is part of it too, but, for me, the more important part would be the mechanical resolution. To the point where [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s entire trap could be bypassed by a Perception roll that the player calls for.

Heck, I have a PC in my group right now with the Observant feat (is that the right one that bumps your passive perception?) and an insane Passive Perception score. This trap wouldn't even be a challenge, I'd just go ahead and tell him he sees everything and how to avoid it because the character has the scores that allow for that.

I would say it is still a challenge in that the player can make a decision to affect an uncertain outcome to the situation. In this case, the player has to at least decide which "skill check" he or she might "use" to bypass the trap or, if you are relying upon a passive check, establish the character as "passive skill checking" while traveling the dungeon which might include establishing a marching order where the character is in the front rank.

It's just the way you adjudicate may reduce the difficulty to somewhere between Laughable and Easy Peasy straight out of the gate since somehow this "skill check" can bypass 60 feet of corridor lined with pressure plates, jutting spikes, pit traps, and tilting floors. Not how I'd do it, but not important to show how challenge and difficulty are different concepts.

 

[5ekyu]

When I introduced my example of the two doors to open, did you object to the details of the example?

When I introduced my example of the two different sorts of pages in a "Choose your Own Adventure Book", did you object to the details of the example?

Would you like to object now?



These "indirect challenges to the player" are fundamentally what we are talking about as "challenges to the character". First, I object that this is a challenge to the player because the player may have not had any agency in CharGen. The player could be using pregenerated characters, as for example in the case of the "Lone Wolf" choose your own adventure books, or the D&D choose your own adventure books, or many RPG scenarios. The player could use a game system that randomly generates his character, giving him little or no control over what sort of character he is playing. Or for example, in my own campaign one player left and the incoming player took over playing his PC. Which player is being challenged by these "indirect challenges"? Isn't it obvious that it is the character that is being challenged either way you answer?

Secondly, I object that even if this is a sort of challenge to the player, challenging the player in a Chargen minigame to foresee the sorts of problems that they face and will need answers too is not the same sort of challenge as challenging a player to solve a problem through choice of strategy, deduction, and so forth in the moment and as such we can meaningfully distinguish between them. I'm not particular stuck on terminology. We can call them "A" and "B" or "1" and "2" as well as "challenge to the player" and "challenge to the character" for all I care. That's just labels. The point is, the two things are different.



False choice, and just another example (generally) of an indirect challenge. Having appropriate tools or equipment is just part of a character preparation and doesn't involve a meaningful choice. Why would you not use the crowbar?



False choice. Why would you not choose to use the guy who is best? And if you didn't choose to use the guy that was best because the choice was forced on you, that's still not a choice.



None of which has any bearing on the challenge of opening a door. Introducing the possibility of a larger puzzle unrelated to the door, or more importantly to the door puzzle examples as previously presented as examples of type, is simply evading the issue. And ultimately, even things like, "Did you check for traps?", "Did you listen at the door?", "Did you have a listening cone with a screen across it to block ear crawlies?", become non-choices as well, as they players are likely to just assert, "Standard procedure for doors." at some point.



Generally, false choice as well if this doesn't really involve expending any crucial resources and retries are allowed, etc. This is just adding up more plusses anyway.



Sure, but that's all still just challenge to character. You've just impacted the odds. You've modified the strength check or the open locks check that is testing the character, and really not in a meaningful way other than impacting the odds. If a choice is obvious and routine and requires no particular insight, it's not a choice. No cleverness is involved in using a crowbar to force open a door, and choosing to take a crowbar is no different than choosing to have a strong character or skill in opening locks. That's back to your "indirect challenge".



Wait a minute... let's not get this conversation side tracked on "fail forward" stuff. I see no need to add in more terms, especially to one that seems so tangential.



I am not convinced. Tell me that you can alter the odds of passing a strength check to open a door by applying a guidance spell and a crowbar is still chargen choices of the type you describe as indirect.



No, we have established in the thread that there are purely random things that are neither challenge to player or challenge to character. Being forced to draw from a deck of many things would seem to be a case in point of. But, I have provided simple examples of pure challenge to player and pure challenge to character. If you have a quibble with the examples, I'd prefer you start from that point just so we have a framework of discussion.



Again, why assume chargen choices exist? And to the extent that they exist, they are obviously different than making choices in the moment. Again, for the proof of this, consider my previous examples of the types.

I dont remember the two doors example. I do remember your adventure book example snd did not like parts of it, did not see them as overly applicable to my position either way.

I am not going into cases from the adventure book of roll die vs stat with no choices allowed or involved, so that's why I brought that point up here. The closest to that in typical plaupy are saves, but they have options too.

For your player not involved in chargen, even in the pick up con games with pre-gens I have encountered, there were choices of pre-gens. Someone can choose from sets the types of characterscthry want. It's also usually very true for campaigns. If you want to limit the dupiscusdion to the subset where players have zero input in character capabilities, that's fine, have a ball, but I prefer to discuss the vast majority of play in campaigns or one-offs where they do.

False choices? Well, if that's how you see them, that's cool. They are choices I see made in games frequently. Why not use crowbar, why not use the best guy, why not use spells, etc... depends 9n the complexities involved. I almost added a whole lot more such as noise, alerting others, etc to another door example but realized it was gonna be a long post that only scratched the surface of possibilities every seasonedvplayr knows and likely has seen. If you dont see the possibility of reason to choose or not choose any of these, have not seen them in play, we have amazingly different experiences.

But, fact remains these choices impact the odds and so they are counted. So, the "choices" are not removed in a challenge that requires a character stat references, particularly if those can reach auto-success in combo with the stats.

You want to throw out the basic 5e ability check resolution mechanics of setback with progress, okay, but I will keep it in my play. 5e even has explicit call outs to using the margin of failure for different skill check results. So these "choices" that alter the odds or raise minimums play significant role, or rather might play significant roles, so I will keep including them.

Why assume chargen choices exist? Because the vast majority of rpg play evidenced and the vast majority of rpg systems make that assumption as well. It's kind of a big deal. You know that right? You have seen that before right?

But for this...

"Secondly, I object that even if this is a sort of challenge to the player, challenging the player in a Chargen minigame to foresee the sorts of problems that they face and will need answers too is not the same sort of challenge as challenging a player to solve a problem through choice of strategy, deduction, and so forth in the moment and as such we can meaningfully distinguish between them. "

In my experience, in my play, in many systems it's more explicitly expressed this way but DnD doesnt ignore it - these chargen choices are less a forsee or guess by the player about what may come but a choice by the player of what kinds of things they want to be doing.

That player choosing a fighter over a mage is doing do cuz that's what he wants to be playing - not a guess that the fighter will be needed more than the mage or less. That guy choosing criminal over craftsman is doing so cuz those are activities he hopes to pursue - using those traits and features.

These choices show the players intent and planned course, much more often than it shows his guesses of what is coming.

It's this way because in many games and in many rpg campaign expectations characters have choices as to influence some of the types of challenges they encounter.

But I do agree, the chargen, pre-scene and in-scene choices are different which is why I listed them as direct and indirect. If you prefer other names, that's fine. But direct and indirect seem good enough to me.

 

[5ekyu]

That pretty much describes Theater of the Mind combat. At least, unless the players are REALLY good at visualization of combat, it pretty much lines up as movement doesn't matter after contact and you pelt each other with dice until one side falls down. Heck, that describes 1e and 2e combat to a T. Other than the spell casting anyway, and, at lower levels, you had so few spells that many combats were resolved without a single spell or special ability. We did this for DECADES.

So, no, it's not like it's not interesting.

And, just as a point about "there's only one solution". Let's be honest here, most of the time, in most situations, there is one or two really obvious solutions. That locked door or chest for example. Sure, there are other possibilities, but, let's be honest here, smash or pick are the two most likely outcomes.

Talking to that NPC, by and large, while you can argue all these other approaches, most likely is going to come down to "do we talk nice, or not nice?". Positing that non-combat encounters are always resolved, or even often resolved, by these wondrous, creative solutions, isn't all that likely. That non-combat encounter gets resolved in a fairly predictable way, most of the time because, well, frankly, groups are predictable most of the time.

I have to say, especially now, this just do rolling is not indicative of most combats in my games.

Die rolls are used, but the real meat and potatoes are the choices thst focus them towards a goal. Are we focusing on one or trying to tie down several? Are we staying put or trying to advance, end run or draw them to a favorable spot. Are we hitting the mage yo break the concentration, exposing their hatred fighter or the cleric with the bless up? Are we burning spell slots or trying to get through with them available for the next more critical fight ?

If a game features a lot of combat scenes ehere it's just a damage chase scene without meaningful choices, that's a choice the GM made, not a default or typical status in my experience.

A lot of those ewould get dull to me.

It's also not even how our typical 1e and 2e fights were... but I confess, that is based on "our memories" which are certainly biased by "memorable or not". So, how many totally forgettable fightsxwe had back then is a mystery, but we liked more complex tactical situation even then. They loved the fight scenes I setup and the swerves. Thst was part of the reason I became the default GM for our group- back in the day.

 

[Monayuris]

Yes, but in an attempt to give the player so much of their due, you can end up missing a point that isn't so much about the player or the character, but is about adventure design.

The focus isn't on how the player makes all decisions for the character, both tactical and strategic. The point is that there are times when the adventure or challenge does an end run and goes for the player directly, bypassing the character and game mechanics.

Logic puzzles where the GM does not give hints via skill checks are one example. Social scenes where the GM bases entirely off what the player says, without using the system's social encounter resolution mechanics, would be another. Telling a player that their character can climb a 60' rope if the *player* can climb a 10' rope would be another.

Much of the point is that the player has already made strategic decisions in their character build. If you challenge the player directly, those decisions are voided! And that's not always cool.

We can easily construct a scenario that makes this obvious. We have one player who is a total mechanics, powergaming and logic rockstar, and has built himself a super-effective combat barbarian, with an Int of 6. We have another player who isn't such a grand with manipulating the rules, isn't stunning at logic puzzles, but has a wizard character with an Int of 18.

If you challenge these with the classic "One guard always tells the truth, the other always lies" logic puzzle, the barbarian player can get it easily, but the wizard player won't. But, within the story, the wizard should totally have figured it out before the problem was fully posed, while the barbarian should have gotten bored, shouted "TOO MUCH THINKY!!!" and tried to stab a guard.

I understand your point of view, but I just disagree with it.

Personally, I prefer game adventure design that bypasses the character mechanics and applies to the player directly. The mechanical aspects of a character should only come into play when there is no clear way to adjudicate the action in the player world (a perfect example is attack rolls and combat damage, along with spells and such... ). I have a group of real, living people at my table. I run the game for them... not for their sheets of paper with numbers on it.

I guess for my style of gaming, I don't think about adventure design in that manner. I think about what would be cool or interesting or challenging and I think about what makes sense in my game world. I don't put a moments thought into challenging specific builds or providing chances for players to roll high against a target number. It has never occurred to me that I have to provide specific challenges to the numbers or abilities that are expressed mechanically. I build my world organically and let the players figure out how to deal with it.

As far as the situation of the Int 6 Barbarian vs the Int 18 Wizard, goes... my opinion is this: In every version of D&D, there are already mechanical penalties for having a low Int (penalties to Int based skills, lack of languages, limits to spell levels prepared, etc.), I don't see the need to further penalize a player by having them have to sit out or pretend to be a drooling fool when presented with logic puzzles.

If the player of an Int 6 barbarian figures out the answer to a puzzle before the player of the Int 18 wizard does then so be it... I have zero problem with that. Every person at my table gets to play the game and shouldn't feel that they should sit out just because of a number on a piece of paper.

This kind of delves into my pet-peeve of barbarians being murderous 'TOO MUCH THINKY" morons. I mean you can be from an uncivilized region but still have intelligence and wisdom. I usually assume this is a by product of point buy and standard array. I think its b.s. that you can't have an intelligent barbarian because you have to dump INT to be effective.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, combat tends to have a lot of dice rolling. But imagine a combat where nobody was ABLE to do anything except use their default attack.

All Champion Fighters, then?

I SEE YOU TRYING TO HIJACK THIS THREAD FOR YOUR OWN NEFARIOUS PURPOSES.

::villain laugh::

 

[Hussar]

I'm curious how you imagine keen senses allowing the character to determine how to avoid the trap.

Hrm... there's a giant hole in the ground in front of me that my keen senses let me see, maybe I won't jump in it?

Or, put another way, there's a series of pressure plates that I can see because they are sticking out a little more than the others, along with spikes in the wall and various other things.

So, I Indiana Jones through the corridor and miss all the traps. I mean, to me, that scene in the Raiders of the Lost Ark, where stepping on a pressure plate launches a dart is a perfect example of player makes a skill check to notice the trap, and then avoids it entirely. Doesn't take a bunch of declarations or checks or anything else. Heck, he knew the trap was there just by looking.

On the way back, he just runs fast enough to avoid getting darted.

So, what exactly was his "approach" that required more than either a skill check (automatic success) or a Dex saving throw?

 

[Charlaquin]

Hrm... there's a giant hole in the ground in front of me that my keen senses let me see, maybe I won't jump in it?

Or, put another way, there's a series of pressure plates that I can see because they are sticking out a little more than the others, along with spikes in the wall and various other things.

Sure, sure. Personally, that’s the extent of what I would give with Perception. Direct sensory information. What to do with that information, I’d personally leave to the player to decide. But your call makes sense too, I was just curious.

So, I Indiana Jones through the corridor and miss all the traps. I mean, to me, that scene in the Raiders of the Lost Ark, where stepping on a pressure plate launches a dart is a perfect example of player makes a skill check to notice the trap, and then avoids it entirely. Doesn't take a bunch of declarations or checks or anything else. Heck, he knew the trap was there just by looking.

On the way back, he just runs fast enough to avoid getting darted.

So, what exactly was his "approach" that required more than either a skill check (automatic success) or a Dex saving throw?

Nothing. Translating that scene to a hypothetical game scenario, I’d say he noticed the odd details in the timing and on the wall with passive Wisdom (Perception) pushed a pressure plate to confirm his suspicion - personally I’d say that would succeed without need for a roll of any kind, though an Intelligence (Investigation) check might make sense there too. And then yeah, on the way back it might have been one or more Dex saves, or the darts missing his AC, depending on the mechanics of the dart trap.