Hope?

[Reynard]

From Dave Noonan's Blog:

And (here's a big one I've been thinking about a lot) give me a cool hazard/obstacle that tests both the characters and the players--something you've got to think your way through. Especially if it's something we can put under time pressure or dudes-are-shooting-at-us pressure, that's solid gold. I want the player thinking to be organic--none of this "you must solve this sudoku to get through the door" stuff.

If anything in 3E really drove me batty -- aside from the minis/battlemat problem -- it was the loss of the "challenge the players" playstyle in favor of a "challenge the build" playstyle.

Is it possible that 4E might be trying to bring back a little bit of that "1E feel"? And if so, is it enough?

I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but damn do I want to like 4E, but still "play 1E".

 

[Doug McCrae]

Isn't "You must solve this sudoku to get through the door" very 1e? Puzzles are very old school. Also nothing will open the door except the sudoku, no open lock skill or knock spells. And the door is invulnerable to any force. They should make castle walls out of the stuff.

 

[Nifft]

I had to click on "Abandon" when I joined this site. Have they changed procedures?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Reaper Steve]

Hope...the first step on the road to disappointment.

I love dropping that bomb when someone's entire plan (I'm talking real-world, here) is hoping that something will change. You can't be more passive or less proactive than just hoping.

(Now, if you have no control whatsoever over the situation, then I guess all you can do it hope. No barb intended for the OP. Just trying to show how I use that little gem when someone willfully takes a course of inaction when they could take positive steps.)

The topic at hand: yes, it would be nice if these types of challenges were reinvigorated in the game.

 

[Pygon]

Those kinds of challenges aren't edition specific, though. So if products in 4e adopt challenges that are more widely praised, that's a credit to the writers, not the edition.

 

[Reynard]

Those kinds of challenges aren't edition specific, though. So if products in 4e adopt challenges that are more widely praised, that's a credit to the writers, not the edition.

I understand each of the words individually, but when they are put in that order, they confuse me.

Let me be more specific: I see a glimmer of hope because one of the people directly responsible for the new edition of the game I adore has proclaimed that player-oriented (as opposed to PC oriented) challenges are fun for him. therefore, it is reasonable, I think, to hope that such challenges get more than just a one sentence lip service in the DMG and are engineered into the system. This is because 3E pretty much ignored the idea save for tactical situations and the character build.

Doug: I took his mention of sodoku to mean that he wasn't interested in giving the players math problems to solve, but rather wanted to embed player-focused challenges like puzzles and riddles in the adventure. This is always how we did it. Since gaming is essentially metagaming, it is okay to have stuff that focuses on the players instead of their characters so long as it is well integrated and doesn't pull the players out of the situation anymore than their character sheet does.

Nifft: the issue isn't having to abandon earlier editions -- I am currently running 1E for one group -- but that my other group is pretty much gauranteed to go with 4E and I want to be able to run it in a way that suits all of us. Otherwise, I lose a group.

Reaper: Cynic.

 

[mhensley]

I had to click on "Abandon" when I joined this site. Have they changed procedures?

lol

 

[dmccoy1693]

Hope...the first step on the road to disappointment.

There is always hope, ... if for no other reason then it is the one thing no one has figured out how to kill yet.
-JMS

I think I see things like Doug, not like the OP. I think Noonan is saying that there will NOT be those kind of puzzles (at least from WotC) in 4E.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Nifft: the issue isn't having to abandon earlier editions -- I am currently running 1E for one group -- but that my other group is pretty much gauranteed to go with 4E and I want to be able to run it in a way that suits all of us. Otherwise, I lose a group.

Reaper: Cynic.

I really hope that a deliberate stating of Rule 0 stays (and if it doesn't, then it's a requirement of anyone that expects to play with me). Once you have Rule 0, then you can run your game however you want. I prefer cross sums to sudoku and deductive logic problems to either. So I'll add in the type of puzzles I like.

However, here's the catch--I know what my intelligence is and which of the multiple intelligences I'm strongest and weakest in. I can also generally figure out which ones are prevalent in my gaming group and play to them. However, when the really average intelligence person is playing a wizard with intelligence maxed at 18 + whatever bonuses then it breaks the suspension of disbelief to say that they can't do a trigonometry problem (simple ones probably in his or her head) or when someone that is new to the game is playing a tracking specialist ranger, giving them a picture of a footprint and then refusing to help out the player even though their tracking skill should definitely solve that puzzle, then that breaks the suspension of disbelief.

People play characters that are different from themselves. Sickly people play characters with high con. It's wrong to penalize the player because he himself can't come within 60 feet of anyone with a cold without coming down with it. Really non-charismatic people play charismatic characters. It's wrong to say that the highly charismatic character can't charm anyone because the player is going to insert his foot into his mouth as soon as he has to interact with another human being. This puzzle thing is exactly the same.

 

[Snapdragyn]

There is always hope, ... if for no other reason then it is the one thing no one has figured out how to kill yet.
-JMS

This made me laugh.