Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nnms" data-source="post: 5517805" data-attributes="member: 83293">So I had a session today where I explicitly challenged the players rather than their characters.Usually in 4E, it's the DM's job to challenge the players through challenging the characters.  I've been reading/running a more hardcore/challenging take on 4E (see <a href="http://www.saveversusdeath.com" target="_blank">saveversusdeath.com</a> for info on that sort of approach) lately and decided today to include things directly challenging the players rather than the characters.  In this case, puzzles, mysteries and riddles.I was really worried about the reception I would get from the players.   I was worried about the typical objection.  That a player's ingenuity, intelligence and problem solving skills are not the same as a character's.  That using player skill instead of character skills is inherently meta-gaming (and thus usually considered bad).  I've even made such a case myself in the past.I know think that objections based on that idea are simply objections based on principle.  That if one's reaction to seeing a puzzle or riddle in the game (where a player can't go to the system mechanics to solve it) is to immediately dismiss it as bad play, then that is a form of turtling.  My players forgot to object "because of the principle of the thing" and just engaged fully with the riddles.My usual method of DMing is to be a guardian of the dream.  Where it's my responsibility to ensure that play produces fiction in keeping with the themes appropriate to the genre of D&D fantasy.  I set up the situation and the players create the plot with their decisions and I make sure we emulate the narrative of heroic fantasy in a faithful fashion.  In our current campaign, the party is a group of nobles and the like and they are shaping the world around them in big ways.So I proposed a side/mini-campaign.  I told everyone it was D&D on hard mode.  Deadly traps, interesting tactical situations, puzzles, riddles, mysteries, etc.,.  The players can use skills as part of meeting the challenges, but they can't bypass/fulfill the challenges by appealing to the system.  They need to step on up and win.  In a difficult tactical encounter, they outplayed me and won where I warned them they needed to flee.  In another challenge though...A hazard that built up damage for each riddle you get wrong took the life of a PC today.  A character died because of choices/knowledge/skill of the player.  There was no skill challenge to mitigate wrong answers and bypass the hazard.  No saving throw.  No attack on their defenses.  The player took a risk, did his best to figure out some riddles (and got a ton of them right) and built up the backlash that would come his way.  Then he triggered it and took the damage and went well past negative bloodied and was instantly killed in a conflagration of force and fire, charred bones flying everywhere.We had an absolute blast.  It was probably the most enjoyable session we had so far this year.So what about you?  Does such a thing sound horrible because the character might be smarter and better at riddles and puzzles than you as a player?  Would you enjoy yourself or do you reject that kind of play because metagaming/using player knowledge is bad as a principle you hold??</blockquote>

Verification