Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7611382" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>I was off for a few days because holidays lead to crazy schedules, and looking back over this... I'm just not sure if there is a point in continuing this conversation. I mean, looking at this part here</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The smart play is to recall lore... on the lore they already decided? Again, sure, you might have changed earth elementals, but the player stating "Earth Elementals are vulnerable to Thunder Damage" has read the monster manual. They know this is true for standard earth elementals, and they also know that if the ones they face are not standard, then you will telegraph that, so they will just ask to roll arcana then. Wait, no, you don't allow that. They will say they try and deduce the nature of these strange earth elementals calling upon their knowledge of the arcane arts, so they can make an Arcana check. And even then, these elementals are still likely weak to thunder or ambivalent to thunder, so it isn't like the scrolls are a waste. There is just no good reason. </p><p></p><p>I also love how you describe the action of recalling lore. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And then somehow don't seem to understand that my claims about why they shouldn't just be able to declare "Earth Elemental are weak to Thunder Damage" as a fact. After all, to recall knowledge they need to draw upon their memories (which the player controls as well, but let us not get back down that Francis-shaped rabbit hole) or their education (which... seems like that part would help determine what things they could declare as things they know, like a barbarian that has never studied the arcane knowing all the lore of the various planes of the multiverse) and coupling that with their experience (like how low-level new adventures probably don't know the secrets of the multiverse that the player discovered three years ago in a previous game). These are the things that I am talking about why players can't just know these things. </p><p></p><p>And, of course, the difference between "Thinking" and "knowing". Problem with that is, the player does know what the Monster Manual said. And they may rightfully assume that since it is an objective source, they are right. Yes, the DM can change things, but the rules of the game state that Earth Elementals are weak to Thunder Damage and are siege monsters that deal double damage to structures. They know this, so they declare that their character knows this. You, however, are stating "well, they think it. If they want to know it they need to make a check" which will.... what? The player has been playing their character as knowing it, but now that they stop and think they remember they are wrong? I mean, confirmation bias is a thing, people will think they are right unless given evidence they are wrong. And even then they will likely keep thinking they were right. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm just going off what iserith has said. There seems to be no meaningful consequence (by their definition) so even if I was allowed to ask a player to make a check to declare their out of character knowledge as in character, then they would auto-pass. </p><p></p><p>The character might know a lot about the world. But, how much? To give an IRL example, I know poison ivy is dangerous to touch. Didn't know what a fully adult vine of poison ivy looks like if it doesn't have leaves on it. (Turns out is looks like a slightly hairy wooden vine) so I didn't take proper precautions a few years ago when pulling some off an apple tree. </p><p></p><p>So, I don't like players just telling me things they know because it was in the Monster Manual and they read it, and assuming their character has the same knowledge (despite Iserith trying to distinguish between thinking and knowing in this scenario). I feel like there should be a check. Because while it might be something your character knows, it might not be. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what exposition has to do with it. </p><p></p><p>Yeah, if it something I want the players to know, I'll just tell them. Like, for example, I've told my groups that there are no such things as metallic and chromatic dragons in my world, because color-coded alignment is boring as heck. I don't even tell them through an NPC. I just tell them, because they grew up in a world with stories of dragons, but they never heard of a "green" dragon or a "blue" dragon. They might have heard of a storm dragon able to breathe lighting and possessing the primal force of a thunderstorm that terrorized a kingdom from the mountains. Or one born of stone and flame whose breath could melt the very stones of the castle and kidnapped a princess. So, I'm telling the players "don't go forward with this assumption, it is a bad assumption." </p><p></p><p>And yeah, I've noticed players who figure out lore or discover a clue often aren't super excited about relaying what I've let them in on. I like using notecards, so I'm not vocalizing only for them to parrot, other times I'll just relay the information they've learned and the player will say "I tell them that" and we move on, but none of that has any bearing on what me and iserith are discussing, so I'm really not sure what the point is. </p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I can sometimes pull on that. But, I'm the type of person who then try and figure out how that effects how the world works. Or I'd be worried about opening a new avenue of shenanigans.</p><p></p><p>Easier if players just don't try and bring modern knowledge into a distinctly non-modern world.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7611382, member: 6801228"] I was off for a few days because holidays lead to crazy schedules, and looking back over this... I'm just not sure if there is a point in continuing this conversation. I mean, looking at this part here The smart play is to recall lore... on the lore they already decided? Again, sure, you might have changed earth elementals, but the player stating "Earth Elementals are vulnerable to Thunder Damage" has read the monster manual. They know this is true for standard earth elementals, and they also know that if the ones they face are not standard, then you will telegraph that, so they will just ask to roll arcana then. Wait, no, you don't allow that. They will say they try and deduce the nature of these strange earth elementals calling upon their knowledge of the arcane arts, so they can make an Arcana check. And even then, these elementals are still likely weak to thunder or ambivalent to thunder, so it isn't like the scrolls are a waste. There is just no good reason. I also love how you describe the action of recalling lore. And then somehow don't seem to understand that my claims about why they shouldn't just be able to declare "Earth Elemental are weak to Thunder Damage" as a fact. After all, to recall knowledge they need to draw upon their memories (which the player controls as well, but let us not get back down that Francis-shaped rabbit hole) or their education (which... seems like that part would help determine what things they could declare as things they know, like a barbarian that has never studied the arcane knowing all the lore of the various planes of the multiverse) and coupling that with their experience (like how low-level new adventures probably don't know the secrets of the multiverse that the player discovered three years ago in a previous game). These are the things that I am talking about why players can't just know these things. And, of course, the difference between "Thinking" and "knowing". Problem with that is, the player does know what the Monster Manual said. And they may rightfully assume that since it is an objective source, they are right. Yes, the DM can change things, but the rules of the game state that Earth Elementals are weak to Thunder Damage and are siege monsters that deal double damage to structures. They know this, so they declare that their character knows this. You, however, are stating "well, they think it. If they want to know it they need to make a check" which will.... what? The player has been playing their character as knowing it, but now that they stop and think they remember they are wrong? I mean, confirmation bias is a thing, people will think they are right unless given evidence they are wrong. And even then they will likely keep thinking they were right. I'm just going off what iserith has said. There seems to be no meaningful consequence (by their definition) so even if I was allowed to ask a player to make a check to declare their out of character knowledge as in character, then they would auto-pass. The character might know a lot about the world. But, how much? To give an IRL example, I know poison ivy is dangerous to touch. Didn't know what a fully adult vine of poison ivy looks like if it doesn't have leaves on it. (Turns out is looks like a slightly hairy wooden vine) so I didn't take proper precautions a few years ago when pulling some off an apple tree. So, I don't like players just telling me things they know because it was in the Monster Manual and they read it, and assuming their character has the same knowledge (despite Iserith trying to distinguish between thinking and knowing in this scenario). I feel like there should be a check. Because while it might be something your character knows, it might not be. I'm not sure what exposition has to do with it. Yeah, if it something I want the players to know, I'll just tell them. Like, for example, I've told my groups that there are no such things as metallic and chromatic dragons in my world, because color-coded alignment is boring as heck. I don't even tell them through an NPC. I just tell them, because they grew up in a world with stories of dragons, but they never heard of a "green" dragon or a "blue" dragon. They might have heard of a storm dragon able to breathe lighting and possessing the primal force of a thunderstorm that terrorized a kingdom from the mountains. Or one born of stone and flame whose breath could melt the very stones of the castle and kidnapped a princess. So, I'm telling the players "don't go forward with this assumption, it is a bad assumption." And yeah, I've noticed players who figure out lore or discover a clue often aren't super excited about relaying what I've let them in on. I like using notecards, so I'm not vocalizing only for them to parrot, other times I'll just relay the information they've learned and the player will say "I tell them that" and we move on, but none of that has any bearing on what me and iserith are discussing, so I'm really not sure what the point is. Yeah, I can sometimes pull on that. But, I'm the type of person who then try and figure out how that effects how the world works. Or I'd be worried about opening a new avenue of shenanigans. Easier if players just don't try and bring modern knowledge into a distinctly non-modern world. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
Top