Challenging the player rather than the character

[nnms]

I'm also a bit taken aback by your description that the player solved "tons" of riddles but still blew up real good. From the sounds of it that makes it seem that the player had little or no realistic chance of success.

No, the person kept on taking the challenge again and again, knowing the backlash was building each time they added to it. The reward (treasure and information) they were getting for each right answer tempted them too much for him to stop. They all knew that the backlash was built up when the dungeoneer got a riddle wrong and that after two wrong answers, it could be very, very dangerous, they just kept going and going.

As for hardness for riddles, if 4 10 year olds can manage it most of the time, I expect as much from people in their 20s and 30s that regard themselves as intelligent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVj1t5ZU5EQ&feature=related

 

[nnms]

I'm not exaggerating by saying that the game session ended right after my revelation, and I had to pack up and get out of the host's house almost immediately...I basically didn't have a chance to write anything down 'till morning.

Overall, though, no biggie- I still game with that group, and other than that one thing, that guy's been pretty good to game with.

DMs screw up some times. It happens.

My point was that your bad experience wasn't the result of the DM challenging you as a player, but the result of the DM reversing your success to safeguard "his story" (as if you can be the author of a story where other people control the main characters). If the DM was putting the mystery there as a challenge to the players to solve it, your success would have been applauded rather than squashed.

Just admit it: You kicked ass.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My point was that your bad experience wasn't the result of the DM challenging you as a player,

My point was that in screwing me, he crossed the line between player & PC. And if you do that to bring good to your game, you may feel tempted to bring bad to your game in the same way.

Better, then, not to cross the line at all: restrict challenges in the game to targeting PC strengths and weaknesses, not your players'.

 

[nnms]

My point was that in screwing me, he crossed the line between player & PC. And if you do that to bring good to your game, you may feel tempted to bring bad to your game in the same way.

Better, then, not to cross the line at all: restrict challenges in the game to targeting PC strengths and weaknesses, not your players'.

I generally don't like to assess the utility of a given tool by what happens when people misuse it.

Seems like a pretty typical example of the old baby and bathwater cliche. It's a good demonstration of what I was talking about when I mentioned prejudging whether or not something is enjoyable based on the idea of a principle (in this case formed as a result of a negative experience in the past) rather than assessing each instance as it comes.

The thing that made my last session the most enjoyable was that no one at the table predetermined whether or not to enjoy something because of some belief they held about whether or not a particular element was good in terms of RPG theory.

 

[nnms]

I think the best strength of challenging the players directly is that they can't coast through the session.

In 4E, the encounter budget system works. The DCs for skill challenges grow by level and will always be appropriate for your character's ability. If you're reasonably competent, you can basically go with the flow, roll dice, talk some and be reasonably assured of your success. Every adventure is written with the assumption that the PCs will experience all of it and if you pay a marginal amount of attention, you'll get by.

4E, using the normal DCs, level appropriate encounters, hazards, traps etc., is basically Dungeons & Dragons on easy mode. My usual approach is to compensate for this with an engaging situation and giving players the plot authority. I've found though, that when people aren't necessarily warmed up for a lot of story based roleplay, engaging the players with challenges directly and playing the game on hard mode really demands their attention.

You can win D&D. Ask Angry:
http://angrydm.com/2010/07/winning-dd/

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I generally don't like to assess the utility of a given tool by what happens when people misuse it.

Neither do I, but the thing is, it is a tool that is sooooo easy to misuse, and in so many ways. While what I posted was one example, I've seen it numerous ways. Most commonly: DMs who don't let players play their PCs stats. You know, like Average Joes playing super geniuses but who can't RP being smart, so all that in-character intellect is effectively nullified. Or expertise in specialized skills, like Survival when the player's a city slicker.

Sometimes, the best way to avoid the pitfall of tool misuse is to lock the tool away.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

With riddles and puzzles, I'm either "on" or I'm not. That is, I can tear through them like wet noodles, much like Danny's example. Or I sit there totally clueless even after someone else figures it out and explains it. While not that extreme, most people I have played with have had some tendency in that same direction. And that doesn't even take into account the variableness of the DM explanation.

I had a large college group where it didn't matter. I could throw any puzzle at the group, of any kind, and someone would be "on" and solve it--every time. We are still a large group, and still some of the same people, but our brains seemed to have slowed down over the decades. I blame the kids.

Somewhere along the way I switched to what I do now: Puzzles are in, puzzles are challenging, but they are always optional. You can solve the puzzle and get a nice edge. Or you can use the means available to the character to do it without the edge. I'd rather do that than make such challenges critical but watered down to fit our current mental capabilities.

 

[nnms]

Sometimes, the best way to avoid the pitfall of tool misuse is to lock the tool away.

I think the best way is to get competent with it. I think locking it away is basically accepting mediocrity. Or turtling to protect oneself from a perceived repeat of a previous negative experience.

Not every mode of play is for everyone, but I found that engaging in direct challenges to the player really amped up the enjoyment of the session and I think part of that happened because the players did not turtle and demand a tool be locked away because they don't trust my ability to wield it with skill.

 

[Quickleaf]

Hasn't challenging the players been part of D&D since the beginning?

Knowledge of tactical game rules is a challenge. Tracking circumstantial modifiers is a challenge. Building an optimized character is a challenge. Role-playing an interesting and entertaining character is a challenge. Working well as a group is a challenge. Keeping all the character and place names straight is a challenge. Keeping the story flowing can be a challenge.

So what if puzzles challenge the players?

If it goes poorly that means either most of the players don't fit in the "thinker" style of play, or the DM is doing bad DM things like bottle-necking the game, not reading the pulse of the group, taking too long, withholding information, or being a jerk. None of those problems are unique to puzzles.

I mean besides the opening encounter and a final confrontation with the BBEG, aren't all encounters in D&D optional, given that this isn't a railroad module? If they don't feel like fighting the or s maybe they sneak by. If they don't feel like solving the puzzle maybe the fighter picks up the dais and batters the door down with it. Because that's what players do.

Am I wrong?

 

[mneme]

Ql: Exactly what I meant to say. Obviously, all non-trivial rpg play challenges the player, not just the character. If it doesn't, the player might as well not be playing at all; if your decisions don't matter, frankly, who cares? (ok, in a very story+ game you might be challenged to entertain and come up with story elements--or challenged to make moral judgments, or frame valid conflicts. But it's -still- all about the player!)

Of course, the other side of the coin is that one of the main purposes of mechanics is to aid us in playing a character with different capabilities than we have. Some play (particularly playing a character less intelligent, or who just thinks differently than we do) can be handled by roleplay and putting yourself in the right state, but it's more or less impossible to play someone smarter than you are without mechanics (or at least narration) giving a little.

But even so, all functional play involves the player making decisions (and deductions, etc) that matter. So just as the player should have opportunities to make tactical decisions, rather than leaving all tactics to rolls on the dice or the GM moving the minis around based on what the GM thinks the characters would do (sounds fun, no? <eg>) , it's much better to have places where the players can make moral and mental decisions than have everything decided by insight rolls and thievery.

That said, particularly when the characters -are- very different in capabilities than the players, it's good to handicap (positive or negative) things a bit so that players playing an insightful character have more information to make a character judgement, or a tricky character are more likely to be believed with a plausible lie. But while the character abilities should have an impact, it's still better to put a lot of weight on player actions--that's what they're there for, after all.