Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tilenas" data-source="post: 5693710" data-attributes="member: 71414">The whole "What I want from 5e" and recent Legends & Lore discussion revolved a lot around player challenges vs. character challenges. Some folks believe that characters are but a proxy or a puppet that inhabits the game world in their stead, while others try to make the game all about the characters.The divide becomes apparent in the discussion of the skill system proposed by Monte Cook. Some argue that good player ideas should result in a bonus for their characters' checks, while others want them to auto-succeed.Another line of reasoning is that if a player likes to role-play a certain aspect of the game, he cannot optimize his character toward that particular end, as that character is going to auto-succeed on most tasks, while a merely moderately gifted character would rely on player input, and thus role-play, to succeed.Myself, I am all for character challenges. I don't exist in the game world.That's of course true in combat. If your player is a big guy who is a martial arts champion, but plays a meek little rogue, he wouldn't make his character charge at the minotaur and try to beat it to pulp with his bare hands, nor would he be mad at the DM if he tried and failed.From the actual role-playing perspective, you get the same result, even without any involvement of game mechanics. Ideally, the character you play is someone other than yourself. And luckily, that's how it's usually done: people play characters that have different outlooks and opinions from their own.I am a lawful guy, obedient to a fault towards those I consider to be an authority, but also punctual and reliable. If my next character is a CN priest of Xhaos or whatever, and the other PCs want to make a plan, he'd go "screw you guys. Why, you ask? F*** you, that's why!", because he doesn't make plans, he just does. Granted, if my player and character views come into conflict, I will express my character's view, but often be secretly glad if he is overruled by the majority.What I don't get is that while your character is (or should be) completely independent of the player both in combat and in interacting with the game world, why should he have the same logical and perceptive capabilities as the player? We all know that playing a stupid character is sometimes hard and often frustrating, but playing a character who's smarter than the player is downright impossible without some aid from the game system or DM. It strikes me as being inconsistent (which might be okay of you, btw) to say that a character is a different person in combat, but pretty much like the player when it comes to solving riddles and finding clues.</blockquote>

Verification