What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[iserith]

It's kinda funny. The whole "I listened to stories at the feet of my elders" thing doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's plausible, and I applaud players who want to add more backstory into their characters during play. I think that sort of thing is great.

What does bug me though is when players try to, what I see as, game the system. Yes, my character has no training whatsoever in persuasion and a below average Cha, but, because me the player can do good talky talky, I don't need to spend any resources there because I know that most of the time anyway, I can convince my DM that I don't need to make a check.

Play the character you brought to the table or bring a different character.

How about instead the player plays his or her character how he or she sees fit - provided it's fun for everyone and helps contribute to an exciting, memorable story - and the DM describes the environment and narrates the outcome of the character's actions without telling the player how he or she ought to play that character?

How about the DM gives Inspiration for "playing the character you brought to the table" instead of seeing a player playing a game that puts no limits on action declarations as "gaming the system?"

 

[Tony Vargas]

How about the DM gives Inspiration for "playing the character you brought to the table" instead of seeing a player playing a game that puts no limits on action declarations as "gaming the system?"

JMHO, but Inspiration is a pita. (Yes, a tasty flat bread, thank you, autocorrect.) But it's not the (blessed) lack of hard restrictions on action declaration that makes a game susceptible to being, well, 'gamed.'

Heck, in Hussar's example, it's not the system that's being gamed, at all.

It's kinda funny. The whole "I listened to stories at the feet of my elders" thing doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's plausible, and I applaud players who want to add more backstory into their characters during play. I think that sort of thing is great.

Especially if the system leaves enough wiggle room for him throw a few ranks (or whatever) to that kind of knowledge.

What does bug me though is when players try to, what I see as, game the system. Yes, my character has no training whatsoever in persuasion and a below average Cha, but, because me the player can do good talky talky, I don't need to spend any resources there because I know that most of the time anyway, I can convince my DM that I don't need to make a check.
Play the character you brought to the table or bring a different character.

That's not really gaming the system: the system in that case says you suck at Persuasion, and if the DM ever calls for a check based on your declared actions, you likely will (though, binary result, on d20 check under BA - you could always get lucky).

It's just tailoring the character to your expectations of the campaign. You don't expect there to be a lot of call for persuasion, so you invest in something else.

 

[iserith]

JMHO, but Inspiration is a pita. (Yes, a tasty flat bread, thank you, autocorrect.)

I got you covered: The Case for Inspiration.

But it's not the (blessed) lack of hard restrictions on action declaration that makes a game susceptible to being, well, 'gamed.'

Heck, in Hussar's example, it's not the system that's being gamed, at all.

Yeah, and somehow *I'm* the one who gets the "gaming the DM" argument thrown at him all the time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I got you covered: The Case for Inspiration.

Yeah, we've been there, yes, it's a fair way of implementing it to reduce one kind of DM headache (arguably in exchange for another).

Nope, still just something to hold the falafels.

And, y'know, it just doesn't fit with the rest of the game, for me (greybeard that I am). It's like a hummingbird got in the archaeopteryx display. Like a Sponge Bob episode being shown on Shark Week.

Yeah, and somehow *I'm* the one who gets the "gaming the DM" argument thrown at him all the time.

You are on record saying players should try to avoid making checks as much as possible, yes?

(I hope I'm not on record as disagreeing.)

The point "gaming the DM" accusations try to make sound bad is that, under DM Empowerment - or anytime the DM is doing all the heavy lifting - players obviously have to put a lot of faith in the DM.

(Other times, it's just less obvious.)

 

[iserith]

Yeah, we've been there, yes, it's a fair way of implementing it to reduce one kind of DM headache (arguably in exchange for another).

What headache is there in exchange?

You are on record saying players should try to avoid making checks as much as possible, yes?

Players "should" do what they want, as long as it's fun for everyone and helps contribute to an exciting, memorable tale. But the smart play is to avoid the d20.

The point "gaming the DM" accusations try to make sound bad is that, under DM Empowerment - or anytime the DM is doing all the heavy lifting - players obviously have to put a lot of faith in the DM.

(Other times, it's just less obvious.)

I don't see what you're saying here. I thought your previous point was that Hussar was getting gamed because he was cool with players establishing backstory to get past a knowledge deficiency, whereas he took issue with players not playing into some other perceived deficiency.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What headache is there in exchange?

It'd break up the normal flow of play.
At the same time, it seems like it defeats the purpose. Shouldn't a player want to play his character to /his/ satisfaction, in his judgement, anyway? Kinda the point of sitting down to a TTRPG in the first place. The point of carrots like Inspiration is to get him playing the character to the DM's satisfaction, in his judgement.

Which, AFAIC, 5e DM Empowerment already delivers copiously, without anything so tacked-on and indie-feeling as Inspiration.

Players "should" do what they want, as long as it's fun for everyone and helps contribute to an exciting, memorable tale. But the smart play is to avoid the d20.
I don't see what you're saying here. I thought your previous point was that Hussar was getting gamed because he was cool with players establishing backstory to get past a knowledge deficiency, whereas he took issue with players not playing into some other perceived deficiency.

My point was that player expectations about a campaign can reasonably be taken into account when building a character. A player who doesn't believe his character 'needs' a given skill, for whatever reason, isn't gaming the system, he's just putting build resources where they make sense. Whether he feels that way because of the nature of the campaign, the system, or the DM doesn't really make a big difference, it's still fair to try to build a character whose mechanical abilities will be relevant & useful in play.
But, yeah, it's a comment wide-open to "gaming the DM" spin. My feeling, really, is "yeah, so what?" The player maybe feels like he gets away with something, like the system-master who ekes out another 10 DPR (even though the DM is just tacking another 40 hps onto every monster he swings at).
Which, if that's what he needs to be a happy player, fine.

 

[iserith]

It'd break up the normal flow of play.
At the same time, it seems like it defeats the purpose. Shouldn't a player want to play his character to /his/ satisfaction, in his judgement, anyway? Kinda the point of sitting down to a TTRPG in the first place. The point of carrots like Inspiration is to get him playing the character to the DM's satisfaction, in his judgement.

Which, AFAIC, 5e DM Empowerment already delivers copiously, without anything so tacked-on and indie-feeling as Inspiration.

The Case for Inspiration which I linked handles all this.

 

[Hussar]

How about instead the player plays his or her character how he or she sees fit - provided it's fun for everyone and helps contribute to an exciting, memorable story - and the DM describes the environment and narrates the outcome of the character's actions without telling the player how he or she ought to play that character?

How about the DM gives Inspiration for "playing the character you brought to the table" instead of seeing a player playing a game that puts no limits on action declarations as "gaming the system?"

Because when players ignore the character sheet, it hurts my enjoyment of the game because it's so blatantly obvious that the player is simply power gaming rather than actually playing the character in front of him or her?

I fail to see how, "Play the character you created" is a terribly difficult or unreasonable request to make of the players. Apparently, some people do find that to be too difficult and unreasonable. That's fine. They have their own tables to play at because they aren't playing at mine. And, I play that way as a player too. I'm not sorry for having minimal expectations for play.

You want to dump stat stuff and then build your character a certain way? Fair enough. But, that means you have significant disadvantages when attempting to do certain things. And, I'm not going to help you ignore those limitations simply because you can come up with a good idea. Thus, you roll first. Solves all those issues nicely. I don't have to police anything. You don't get to give a great speech and ignore your character sheet. You gave a great speech BECAUSE of your persuasion score.

The dice provide the direction, the player provides the script.

 

[iserith]

Because when players ignore the character sheet, it hurts my enjoyment of the game because it's so blatantly obvious that the player is simply power gaming rather than actually playing the character in front of him or her?

I touched on this with Mort upthread, so I'll just quote myself from that earlier exchange in response to the above:

What Plunk "should" do is nothing the DM ever needs to worry about in my view, provided Gary is otherwise making choices that are fun for everyone and helping to create an exciting, memorable story. And if someone is the sort of person who is not having fun because Gary is not making decisions according to what that person thinks a low-Intelligence barbarian is capable of thinking, saying, and doing, then it might be worth examining if the problem is someone other than Gary.

Nobody likes someone other than Gary.

I fail to see how, "Play the character you created" is a terribly difficult or unreasonable request to make of the players.

Everyone plays the character they created, unless someone created it for them.

You want to dump stat stuff and then build your character a certain way? Fair enough. But, that means you have significant disadvantages when attempting to do certain things.

Yes, and those disadvantages will reveal themselves - sometimes - when the player has to make a check. Those significant disadvantages don't mean the player's action declarations are invalid.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As an add, when people respond to the goal and approach by claiming that you can pass off a low CHA-no-social-skill character because you, as a player, can talk well, you've completely missed the point. I'm not judging how you acted out your goal and approach, I'm judging your goal and approach. If you talk in flowery words, that's your approach -- "I use flowery words at the king to get him to see my point of view." How pretty you, as a player, talk really doesn't matter much, although it may earn you inspiration if that's one of your BITFs. I'm going to judge this approach and goal on if the goal aligns with what the king wants and if the approach is something that would work to get there. If the king already wants to do this thing, no check, you succeed. If the king would never do the thing (say, banish his favored heir) with that approach, then you just fail (and suffer consequences). If it's uncertain, and there's a consequence for failure, then you'll be making a check.

Just because I say that players should avoid making checks doesn't mean that making checks is a very common part of my games. As [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] says, when you delve into danger as adventurers do, stuff's gonna be uncertain and carry consequences. My game focuses on these moments of uncertainty and consequence and not on play that encourages searching every 5' spaces for traps.