Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4507170" data-attributes="member: 42582">I like this as well. But there is not just one way to do this. When it comes to puzzles, I know of at least five:Method 1:The GM presents a puzzle to the players as something that their PCs have, in game, stumbled across. The players sit down and try to solve it. If they do so, they declare that their PCs have come across the solution in the gameworld. The game then progresses with the PCs having solved the puzzle. And the players were challenged - as a group they had to solve a puzzle.Method 2:Similar to method 1, except that each player takes the part of his/her PC during the course of solving the puzzle. This means that the clever player, who is playing an unclever fighter, does not contribute any more to the group's endeavours at solving the puzzle than his/her fighter would be able to contribute. Conversely, the less clever player, who is playing the 20 Int wizard, is not able to contribute as much as one would expect his/her PC to be able to, because that player is actually not as clever as the PC. If the group solves the puzzle, the game then progresses. And the players were challenged - as a group they had to solve a puzzle, and furthermore they had to do that within certain constraints on each member's contribution to the solution imposed by his/her PC's stats.Method 3:As method 2, except that the GM takes pity on the player of the wizard and allows him/her to roll Int checks to be given some clues. This lessens slightly the challenge for that player, but does not eliminate it. This method probably produces the highest degree of correlation between the challenge faced by the players and the ingame challenge faced by the PCs.Method 4:As method 1, but the player of the 20 Int wizard is also allowed to make Int checks as per method 3. This lessens the challenge for all the players, but does not eliminate it.Method 5:The GM presents a puzzle to the players as something that their PCs have, in game, stumbled across. The puzzle is then resolved as a skill challenge, with each player explaining what contribution his/her PC is making to the solution of the puzzle, and on the basis of that explanation making a skill check at a DC determined by the GM. (As a certain number of successes is achieved the GM may choose to give the players further information/clues about the puzzle which help them in deciding what further skill checks to make.) If the party succeeds at the skill challenge, then the PCs have solved the puzzle in the gameworld. The players were challenged, because they had to explain and narratively justify the skill checks that they made. This method probably produces the least degree of correlation between the challenge faced by the players and the ingame challenge faced by the PCs.The 4e DMG canvasses the use of methods 1, 4 and 5 (page 81, the sidebar on that page, and page 84 respectively).Personally, I can enjoy either method 1 or method 5. I'm less of a fan of either method 2 or method 3 (but if I found myself playing in a group that was inclined towards method 2 I would at least try and nudge them towards method 3). But I assume that there are some players out there who would strongly prefer methods 2 or 3 to method 1, because method 1 involves an interruption to the roleplaying by the players of their PCs. So if all I knew of a play group was that they like to challenge the players and not the stats, I wouldn't know whether or not I would enjoy playing with that group; and likewise for those players who prefer methods 2 and 3.</blockquote>

Verification