What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[5ekyu]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] said
"Maybe that also happens, but some have argued pretty explicitly that they think the adjudication of anything important should fall to the dice using ability/skill mechanics, and that no cleverness on the part of the player should alter the probabilities. That, for example, "I disarm the trap" with no description should have exactly the same odds of disarming the trap as proposing a clever and logical way of doing so."

It would be nice to have cites for this claim. However, so far I dont think I have seen this on the challenge the character side. I am pretty sure many or most have at one point of another explicitly said that either advantage or disadvantage can come from the choices made by the player.

Do you have examples from this thread?

Or is this one of those pretending extremes?

 

[iserith]

The problem is self correcting if the DM calls for checks to essentially keep the player honest. But, while it's a long, long thread, I get the impression those checks don't see a lot of play at certain tables, certainly not in the examples provided.

DMG page 236-237: "By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world."

Notably, this is the the only one of three approaches the DMG doesn't say has potential drawbacks.

 

[Monayuris]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]: After 30+ years of GMing, I've discovered that if you are worried about the players metagaming, it's almost certainly the case that the fault is with you, and that then instructing the players to not metagame is simply digging your own hole deeper. The only time metagaming is poor play is when it is a symptom of some other sort of poor play (such as cheating by buying a copy of the module you are playing). Otherwise, you should really not even try to identify metagaming, much less assert GM force to prevent it.

Agreed!

Honestly meta-gaming isn't really something I particularly care about. I look at it like this: I run D&D for people who've been playing for 30+ years, I also run D&D for people who have never played before. I'm not going to look a 30 year veteran of D&D in the eye with a straight face and tell them that their 1st level character wouldn't use fire against the troll they're fighting. I mean how many times has this person fought trolls before?

If you want to avoid meta-gaming then bring some new . If your players are metagaming then push the boundaries and do something new. Have your orcs burst tentacles from their chests... they won't see that coming no matter how many monster manuals they read.

You can't admonish you players for studying the game... hell... you want people who are that committed at your table. You just got to 'bring it'. Show them something new that they can't prepare for. Don't worry about the obvious... how many times do you want to 'pretend to be surprised when the troll gets up'?

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure how it is possible to create a character without player agency.

Create a character or play a character? I can give many examples of a player having a character to play, which they had no say in the creation of.

a) Character is pregenerated for a published scenario either for quick start to play, or to ensure characters have the tools to solve the scenario, or because it is assumed the players are novices.
b) Character is pregenerated by the GM to match a desired setting or story.
c) Character is generated by another player, and you take over that character.
d) Character is generated by a random character burner or similar random methodology.

I guess if you want a game where only the character is challenged, you would end up with a pretty boring game.

I imagine it would work like this:
DM: You enter a room. It is DC 15
Player: My character rolled 18!
DM: You solved the room... next room..

Perhaps reducto ad absurdum...

We are in total agreement. Among other things, I've used the argument you develop here before as part of a refutation of The Forge GNS, to show that any pure implementation of one of the three aesthetics of play that The Forge calls out in GNS results in something that is not an RPG.

Your example of what a pure simulation would be like shows that if anyone did only have simulation as an aesthetic of play the result would cease to be a game at all, as the player would cease to have agency and be unable to make choices. Pure simulation results in a toy, which can amuse through observation of the results, but where you cannot make choices, since the character's decision making process must also be simulated.

Similar problems result with any other purist approach to the three aesthetics of play in GNS. Thus, GNS fails because aesthetics of play are not mutually exclusive, it fails because an RPG does not try to meet a single aesthetic of play alone, and finally because there are more than three aesthetics of play.

...but it is what I think of when I see a lot of modern D&D game play.

I don't know about that, but you'll note that earlier I said that I tried to minimize and remove all challenges that were pure challenge to character from my encounter design, and my reason is precisely the objection you are making now.

 

[Mort]

DMG page 236-237: "By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world."

Notably, this is the the only one of three approaches the DMG doesn't say has potential drawbacks.

You are quoting the middle path. This cuts both ways.

The player should also not be able to coast on his own knowledge without occasionally having to roll - always avoiding the dice has drawbacks too.

That's why I said self correcting.

 

[Monayuris]

Here, I think, is the fundamental issue:

You state "The character represents, among other things not relevant to this topic, a suite of options the player may be able to employ to help overcome the challenge..."

But Shouldn't the character be the suite of options?

If Gary is playing Plunk, half-orc barbarian with muscles the size of mountains and a brain the size of a pea, should Gary really be employing higher level strategic planning in social and exploration challenges?

By choosing Plunk and his suite of abilities/options, Gary has decided how he wishes to interact with the game. That's the player being challenged through the character.

This is solely the choice of the player. IF the player rolls up a dim-witted half-orc barbarian and the player WANTS to run that character as such then exactly.

But the player at the table may not be so dim-witted. That player may want to contribute to puzzles or strategy or planning. Should that player be removed from such just because their character is dim-witted?

Are you going to force a person at your table to not be a part of the in-game discussions because of their character's stats?

Characters only matter in the context of the people playing them.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not going to look a 30 year veteran of D&D in the eye with a straight face and tell them that their 1st level character wouldn't use fire against the troll they're fighting. I mean how many times has this person fought trolls before?

It's simply impossible to simulate the absence of knowledge. No one can know how someone would act in a counter-factual situation. No one could know how long it would take them to solve a puzzle if they didn't already know the answer to the puzzle. Suppose someone gives you the answer to a riddle, and then gives you a riddle. How could you possibly know how many wrong answers you might have guessed before hitting on the right answer? Zero? One? Forty? Who knows!

If this was the first time a player encountered a troll, how many rounds before they would attempt to burn it with fire? Zero? One? Forty? Who knows!

If something is impossible, you should not demand it.

It never is becoming of a GM to play "gotcha" games, to try to impress the players with your power, or try to play the player's characters. As a GM you have an infinite amount of power and will always inherently garner more than your share of attention. You can afford to relax.

 

[Mort]

This is solely the choice of the player. IF the player rolls up a dim-witted half-orc barbarian and the player WANTS to run that character as such then exactly.

But the player at the table may not be so dim-witted. That player may want to contribute to puzzles or strategy or planning. Should that player be removed from such just because their character is dim-witted?

Removed, no, but also not encouraged.

He wouldn't be getting inspiration for playing against his character.

But, more directly, designing challenges that can't always entirely avoid checks solves this issue.

Are you going to force a person at your table to not be a part of the in-game discussions because of their character's stats?

Force, no, but I may inquire if the dumb brute is really the character they wish to play.

Characters only matter in the context of the people playing them.

The character provides the tools the player can use, otherwise why even have the rules?

 

[Monayuris]

Create a character or play a character? I can give many examples of a player having a character to play, which they had no say in the creation of.

a) Character is pregenerated for a published scenario either for quick start to play, or to ensure characters have the tools to solve the scenario, or because it is assumed the players are novices.
b) Character is pregenerated by the GM to match a desired setting or story.
c) Character is generated by another player, and you take over that character.
d) Character is generated by a random character burner or similar random methodology.

Good points. I would maybe point out that in a lot of these cases the player 'should' have some choice. Like they can pick which pre-gen is cool to them, or maybe the GM would ask them what they would like to play. But I didn't think of these and yeah that's possible.

We are in total agreement. Among other things, I've used the argument you develop here before as part of a refutation of The Forge GNS, to show that any pure implementation of one of the three aesthetics of play that The Forge calls out in GNS results in something that is not an RPG.

Your example of what a pure simulation would be like shows that if anyone did only have simulation as an aesthetic of play the result would cease to be a game at all, as the player would cease to have agency and be unable to make choices. Pure simulation results in a toy, which can amuse through observation of the results, but where you cannot make choices, since the character's decision making process must also be simulated.

Similar problems result with any other purist approach to the three aesthetics of play in GNS. Thus, GNS fails because aesthetics of play are not mutually exclusive, it fails because an RPG does not try to meet a single aesthetic of play alone, and finally because there are more than three aesthetics of play.

I've never bought into the forge theory. I don't really know much about GNS. I guess I really should edit my assertion that a 'pure simulation game would be boring' I think I was going a little too far.

But my assertion is that a role-playing game requires that the player be challenged... otherwise it wouldn't be a role-playing game: In that a RPG is a game that a player plays the role of a character. If that player is not able to have direct input within the rules of the game (player not character)... is it really a an RPG? What we may have instead is a wargame or a dungeon crawler boardgame.

I don't know about that, but you'll note that earlier I said that I tried to minimize and remove all challenges that were pure challenge to character from my encounter design, and my reason is precisely the objection you are making now.

[/QUOTE]
Ha... sorry may have been a reaction to not having read every post. I apologize if I misunderstood and missed something.

 

[Monayuris]

Removed, no, but also not encouraged.

He wouldn't be getting inspiration for playing against his character.

But, more directly, designing challenges that can't always entirely avoid checks solves this issue.



Force, no, but I may inquire if the dumb brute is really the character they wish to play.



The character provides the tools the player can use, otherwise why even have the rules?

The rules already account for penalties for abilities. I see no need to penalize a real person at my table, further... by telling them they can't contribute in the game. I get the idea behind the 'all in with method acting' when it comes to D&D. I just disagree with it.