Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 5053922" data-attributes="member: 5724">In some way, I'd agree. I think 2e became more about "playing the character" but that doesn't have to mean it was about "challenging" the character as opposed to the player. I think "playing the character" can be entirely separate activity from challenging the character.IMO, the issue of player challenging vs. character challenging becomes more and more character challenging with the increase in  detailed (quantified) information concerning the abilities of the character (the more powers, feats, skills, spells, magic items, etc..).IMO, the fewer quantified aspects of a character, the more all challenges become player challenges. The more quantified a character becomes the more the challenges become challenges about the character and "player challenges" become more about tweaking rules-systems for maximization.A good example is the chess-board puzzle in Ghost Tower of Inverness. That's purely a player challenge - do you know the rules of chess and do you know that that's what's going on? The same thing in 3e and 4e would include some such language as "If the players don't realize they're on a chess board, allow for a Skill X check at DC X for them to figure the problem out."It moves from player challenge to character challenge with such language.joe b.</blockquote>