What is a character to you?

[The Shaman]

Characters don't exist, only players. The difference between challenging the player vs. challenging the character is probably better defined in terms of decisions the players make.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


I don't play to be the passive observer of my character. I play because I enjoy putting myself in the shoes of my character.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

[MENTION=71414]Tilenas[/MENTION] while I understand your point of view about the troll scenario, the way I feel about it is that if a character wants to know more about dungeoneering or the physiological makeup of monsters, the character needs to either "roll" highly to have "heard" of how to defeat these monsters or have more points/ranks placed into the skills/feats/etc that will allow them to automatically know what strengths/weaknesses are of certain creatures.

It's also about trial/error and character knowledge, not about meta-gaming because a person has come across it before in their previous PC adventures. That's my feeling about it and that's how I play my games. Others may play it differently and that's their own choice, I just think we should all have fun playing the game.

 

[Ariosto]

why should he have the same logical and perceptive capabilities as the player?

Because it's the player who is able actually to enjoy playing a game.

 

[Tilenas]

It's also about trial/error and character knowledge, not about meta-gaming because a person has come across it before in their previous PC adventures.

I think it touches on both. Some characters might simply know how to kill a troll, others might be smart enough to figure it out on the spot. If none of those apply, savvy players will simply "help out" their characters by conjuring up a situation where the monster's weakness becomes apparent (or, more blunt, will just go ahead and burn it). What I mentioned in the last sentence is what I call meta-gaming, as it's about knowing how to play this kind of game. As such, asking the DM whether your character may roll a check to see if his character has heard that a troll is vulnerable to fire and acid is also by that loose definition meta-gaming. But in this case, if you abide by the outcome of the roll, you aren't using your player knowledge to help out your character. Any player could have asked to roll if his character knows about any weaknesses that monster might have.

I think there is a big difference, but maybe I don't understand what you mean by consistently allocating character resources and behaving like your character.

Simple example:

[sblock]Room 1 of the dungeon has the following scrawled on the wall:

"To reach your goal you must pass through the wilderness. Follow the stag."

The walls of Room 3 are covered in different frescoes: a city, a saint, and a forest scene with a stag. The stag is looking at a specific branch. Pushing on the branch opens a secret door.

In one game, the players have to figure out that they have to manipulate the branch.

In another game, the players have to allocate enough character resources to their "Find Secret Doors" or "Understand Clues" skill and roll high enough.

These are fundamentally different choices the players are making. I don't think that you can say that the difference doesn't matter.[/sblock]

Anyway, that should clear up my point of view. I'd be interested in hearing you expand on your point above.

My idea of a P&P RPG is that the players take on the roles of the characters rather than their own.
They do that by coming up with a character concept and making that concept viable within whatever system is played by allocating resources, which might or might not work so well, depending on how well your concept is transferable and how balanced the system is. That's what you do during character creation.
The other part, what you do during actual play, is behaving like the character you have made up would, and maybe gradually evolving as the character grows in experience and power. What I mean by consistent is that you play your character roughly the same way across sessions, and that you continue to use the game resources you gain to simulate your concept within the rules framework.

So, in your riddle example, players with no clue rely on the die roll to see if their characters figure it out (the DM doesn't have to give it all away, he can give clues to the players because come on, riddle solving with a check isn't fun).
Those players who have figured it out by themselves...also rely on the die roll, IF a roll is even called for. If the first player to figure it out plays a sufficiently perceptive character, he cracks the riddle and the story can continue, but if he plays a certified idiot, he has to roll at any rate. Otherwise, where's the balance? I'd dump all mental stats and put the points into strength, because that's where I can't substitute for my character.

I don't know if that's any clearer. One important thing is that I don't think everything should be relegated to rolls. As the DM, you should keep an eye on the ideas put forward by the players. If you believe that those ideas could have come from the respective characters, you allow them, and if there are any other factors that introduce a reasonable chance of failure, you call for a roll.

Because it's the player who is able actually to enjoy playing a game.

I know what you mean, but as you put it's not really an answer, since you can enjoy a game where your choices and ideas as a player matter, or one where you try slip under the skin of a fictitious character. You are referring to the former.

 

[The Shaman]

Because it's the player who is able actually to enjoy playing a game.

*DING!* Winnah!

 

[steenan]

The focus of the game is probably already established in whether it's rules-heavy or rules-light. Rules-heavy systems are about character challenges, but tend to paradoxically encourage the disconnect between player and character, as there is a lot more to gain from metagaming.
Rules-light systems seem to be more focused on player challenges, but in my view, they also make it easier for players to simply play out their characters the way they imagine them.

We are talking about different kinds of focus here. For me, the focus is thematic. It's "what is this game about?". And the game may be about "challenging" in the sense of "presenting obstacles to overcome" - but it definitely does not have to.
Another way of looking at it: the focus of the game is what players spend time on, it's where they make choices and have those choices matter. Things outside of the focus should be simplified so that they don't require a lot of attention.

It should be clear, in the light of the above, that "focusing on challenging the character" is an oxymoron to me. The character does not make any choices, I do. If something takes a lot of time in the game and does not give me a chance of meaningful input, it's a problem with the system. There is no challenge, there is just time wasted on dice rolling. And if my input matters, it's not "challenging the character".

Good rules-heavy games use the character mechanics to channel player's tactical skill. It's the player who is challenged - and the player uses rule-defined tools skillfully to succeed (as opposed to using tools defined by shared setting and genre conventions in rules-light games). But the game does not have to - and should not - present this kind of challenge in everything the characters do. That's where the game's focus comes into play. In focus, game mechanics frames the conflict, sets up obstacles and gives players tools to use. Out of focus, it resolves things in a simple way so that players may quickly get back to what is important. At least, that's how it works in a well-written game.

Of course, if the game is not about overcoming obstacles, the whole "challenging" thing does not matter. System still highlights the focus, but it is not tactical; players still make meaningful decisions, but they are not (or, at least, not primarily) about winning. For example, in Dogs in the Vineyard the conflict system focuses the play on deciding what players care for and how far will they go to achieve their goals - typically, it's obvious that characters can get what they want, but the price may be higher than they are ready to accept. In Nobilis, the project system makes plot twists, revelations, complications and partial failures more efficient way to pursue long-term goals than a string of successes - it's in players' best interest to make things interesting instead of finding simplest solutions. And so on.

 

[Kzach]

My character is a vehicle through which I can dominate the attention of the DM, lord my power over level-equivalent creatures, and ruin the fun of other players by any means possible.

 

[ExploderWizard]

My character is a vehicle through which I can dominate the attention of the DM, lord my power over level-equivalent creatures, and ruin the fun of other players by any means possible.

Yeah but do you need to roll for that?

 

[Kzach]

Yeah but do you need to roll for that?

Not if I've min-maxed, optimised, power-gamed and munchkined my character right.

 

[steeldragons]

My character is a concept role-played through the stats.

He or she is an accomplished hero...or diabolical villain.

He or she might be a "legend in his/her living room." Namely, the halfling fighter who is "above average" for the Dale but finds him-/herself severally underpowered out in "the real [game] world."

He or she might be delusional. i.e. believe themselves to be significantly more strong/intelligent/wise/tough/charismatic than they actually are.

They are the concept that I have to work with, tweaked through the prism of their numbers/stats, and empowered by the magic/items they control/possess.

He or she is a personality through which I interact with the game setting/world. An individual intelligence (to varying degrees) and realistically emotional being who grows and develops (or doesn't) through the course of play.

That is what a character is to me.

--SD