Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

Mallus · Oct 8, 2008

Fenes said:
I hate puzzles.

That's fair.

They are one of the surest ways to get me to stand up and leave a game.

What if you friends did enjoy the occasional puzzle? Wouldn't you cut them a break and let them have their fun?

xechnao · Oct 8, 2008

pemerton said:
This is also a challenge to the player, if the player has to come up with the plan (ie is not just allowed to roll the PC's "planning" skill and have the GM tell her what the optimal plan is).

Players have to only come up with the stuff that influence their relations with the other players (through PCs).

Fenes · Oct 8, 2008

Mallus said:
What if you friends did enjoy the occasional puzzle? Wouldn't you cut them a break and let them have their fun?

Sure. I might even buy them a magazine full of riddles and puzzles. But as DM I won't spend time coming up with a puzzle. If the mysteries to solve are not enough then they are out of luck - I'll not present them with some "solve this mathematical riddle".

And as a player I'll not deal with puzzles. Let me character roll int, wisdom. whatever, and be done with it. I rarely get to play as it is, I'll not waste the time trying to solve a puzzle.

xechnao · Oct 8, 2008

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
I'm sorry, I don't understand you.

I am sorry I see I do not express myself clear enough. I was saying that the only thing that matters for players to know is what their characters think their risks and opportunities are so that their choices are socially meaningful to the rest of the team, since each member of the team is dependent on the rest of the members.
It never has to resort to physics: just economics. This is what roleplaying is about: economy, not pure physics. Of course economy takes into consideration the results of physics: but it need not analyze physics themselves.

TerraDave · Oct 8, 2008

Yes:

MerricB said:
What Psion and Mouseferatu said.

Cheers!

But also, the thing that bothers me systemically about statements like the one in the OP is that they seem to be about older version of D&D.

But older versions of D&D are not free-form, story telling, make this up as we go along games. They have rules for stuff. Including "skill like" activities. And in older versions of D&D, some charecters (not players, charecters) work better then others. Often much, much better.

I think in the drive over the last 20 years to make rules for skill like activities more consistent, and to give players cases where they can "be there own sage" and access world info they as players wouldn't know, just make the game better.

Silvercat Moonpaw · Oct 8, 2008

xechnao said:
If by online play you intend online descriptions (messaging) of the gameplay decisions roleplaying requires so that all participants can see and share, then this is equally valid in theory IMO as messaging qualifies for practically any information one may need to transmit.

I was making a comment on the "face-to-face with friends" method.

From experience I know online play with only text takes a lot out of social interaction. Having a mechanic to determine how well one negotiates is very useful.

Silvercat Moonpaw · Oct 8, 2008

xechnao said:
I am sorry I see I do not express myself clear enough. I was saying that the only thing that matters for players to know is what their characters think their risks and opportunities are so that their choices are socially meaningful to the rest of the team, since each member of the team is dependent on the rest of the members.
It never has to resort to physics: just economics. This is what roleplaying is about: economy, not pure physics. Of course economy takes into consideration the results of physics: but it need not analyze physics themselves.

But still how do you adjudicate the case of "sneak past the guard" without a mechanic for replicating what happens in the game world?

xechnao · Oct 8, 2008

TerraDave said:
I think in the drive over the last 20 years to make rules for skill like activities more consistent, and to give players cases where they can "be there own sage" and access world info they as players wouldn't know, just make the game better.

I think the errors of new school is making explicit rules for some artificially abstract skills such as searching, spot, bluff... while it should be limited in making explicit rules only about skills that players understand the specific type or kind of information-knowledge one needs to have to possess the ability the rule implies : example of desired rules for skills are history, languages, perform or thief abilities.

xechnao · Oct 8, 2008

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
But still how do you adjudicate the case of "sneak past the guard" without a mechanic for replicating what happens in the game world?

I am saying you only need one mechanic: the mechanic that gives you the risks. This means knowledge of the odds of failure (chances) plus what happens if you fail in regards to what choices you may have in this case (weight or importance of the event of failure).

Delta · Oct 8, 2008

Hypersmurf said:
But does that mean you have to leave the room if your character falls unconscious?

If another PC moves up to the corner at the end of the corridor, do you have to put your hands over your ears and chant "LA LA LA!" while the DM tells him what he sees?

No, I don't (which was precisely my point). Maybe you should present your recommended process instead of ridiculing mine.