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.