What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[Guest 6801328]

What's the objection to the player changing the game state to gain advantage? Isn't that something that good players try and do?

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Changing the game state by having your character do something is fine. I was talking about changing the game state from the DM's side of the table. E.g., "Suddenly, and for no apparent reason, a piece of the ceiling collapses, landing on the evil necromancer."

(Maybe there are RPGs where that's part of game play? Could be fun. But this is the 5e forum.)

Like all these things there are gray areas in the middle, of course, and I'm sure we could both come up with examples of players narrating a change in game state for advantage that would be fine. But the existence of twilight does not disprove the difference between day and night.

 

[Satyrn]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Changing the game state by having your character do something is fine. I was talking about changing the game state from the DM's side of the table. E.g., "Suddenly, and for no apparent reason, a piece of the ceiling collapses, landing on the evil necromancer."

(Maybe there are RPGs where that's part of game play? Could be fun. But this is the 5e forum.)

Like all these things there are gray areas in the middle, of course, and I'm sure we could both come up with examples of players narrating a change in game state for advantage that would be fine. But the existence of twilight does not disprove the difference between day and night.

Remember how last month a couple people were asking that we include an edition tag to our new threads? When I saw that, I wondered "why the heck would we bother doing that when this is the 5e forum?" . . . and that's when I noticed this is now the D&D forum.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Remember how last month a couple people were asking that we include an edition tag to our new threads? When I saw that, I wondered "why the heck would we bother doing that when this is the 5e forum?" . . . and that's when I noticed this is now the D&D forum.

Oh, right.

Well it is the D&D forum, anyway.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What's the objection to the player changing the game state to gain advantage? Isn't that something that good players try and do?

It's something skilled players do - but you can leave their alignment out of it.

It's never been clear to me exactly how a 5e GM is meant to decide that some action has an uncertain outcome, or not, and how the DC is to be set.

The DM uses his judgement, based 36 years of D&D experience (since the mode-average DM presumably started with the storied Red Box).

Or he fakes it.

 

[pemerton]

The DM uses his judgement, based 36 years of D&D experience

OK, but that doesn't quite fit witih "playing by following the rules".

It's something skilled players do - but you can leave their alignment out of it.

So "skilled" is to "good" as "smoother" is to "better"?

 

[ExploderWizard]

When a town guard says " Halt who goes there?" then the guard is challenging the character. The player isn't present in the setting.

Do I win?

 

[Satyrn]

When a town guard says " Halt who goes there?" then the guard is challenging the character. The player isn't present in the setting.

Do I win?

Yes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, but that doesn't quite fit witih "playing by following the rules".

When the rule calls for the DM to exercise judgement, it does. Circular? Maybe, but dems da rulez.

So "skilled" is to "good" as "smoother" is to "better"?

Skilled is to good as legal is to lawful or beige is to neutral.

It was a pun.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So "skilled" is to "good" as "smoother" is to "better"?

Whoooooooosh

 

[Hussar]

Isn't the issue, regardless of how we're playing, that the player is trying to game the DM? I mean, [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] talks about a player who asks a stream of questions in order to hit upon the "magic question" that allows the player to overcome the challenge without referring to the rules. I talk about players that try for a stream of action declarations in order to hit the "magic declaration" that allows them to overcome the challenge without referring to the rules.

The problem isn't in the strengths or weaknesses of a given approach, the problem is with players playing in bad faith. It's not that goal:approach solves the problems, it just shifts the problem of the player playing in bad faith to the left.

What I find rather ironic though is how folks jumped up and down and yelled at me for not understanding how things are played when I talked about players hunting for the "magic phrase" in the goal:approach method, but, when talking about other ways of playing, we immediately jump to dysfunctional play where the players will ask endless streams of questions in order to hunt for the "magic question".

Perhaps folks just don't understand what we're talking about when we don't use goal:approach methodology.