Hope?

[Reaper Steve]

Reaper: Cynic.

Well, I say it with a smile on my face and always seem to draw laughs from it. It's meant mostly in jest.

I'm still working on my ability to explain humor in text format. Not working. better stop trying or I'll be labelled insane.

 

[Nifft]

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.

I was more thinking of a famous quote involving hope.

It's okay to run two different games, no? If not, it sounds like 4e will be more easily customized than 3.5e was, so we'll see if it can suit your 1e crowd.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Celebrim]

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".

I think he's saying nearly the opposite of what you want him to be saying. I think he's saying that they are getting away from "challenge the players" (ei solve this soduko) towards a more complex "challenge the build" problem making engine that strings multiple skill checks together. The challenge the player part being 'organic' seems to indicate more along the lines of 'figure out which skill checks are applicable for bypassing the challenge' than 'answer this riddle' type puzzles. I don't think that is all bad, but I don't know that you are seeing the real sea change in design you seem to be hoping for.

 

[Lorthanoth]

Technically, sudoko is nothing to do with mathematics; the numbers are really just symbols - you could replace them with images of fruit and the rules would still be the same.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Technically, sudoko is nothing to do with mathematics; the numbers are really just symbols - you could replace them with images of fruit and the rules would still be the same.

If you think symbolic manipulation has less to do with math than you need to go do more math.

I use loads of mathematical thinking when solving harder sudoku problems, they are just logic issues, rather than arithmetic.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Well, I say it with a smile on my face and always seem to draw laughs from it. It's meant mostly in jest.

You don't think cynics are funny? Go watch good stand-up comedy. It's usually cynical.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Technically, sudoko is nothing to do with mathematics; the numbers are really just symbols - you could replace them with images of fruit and the rules would still be the same.

This doesn't make it non-mathematic. The numbers on the Sodoku Board/Paper/Puzzle-Thingie can be exchanged, but you still can have no more than one number/fruit type/other number replacement per line. That's where you are forced to use numbers (even if you usually use only the number "1").

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Yes, yes, mathematics is a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity, shape, arrangement, and change. However, that's pretty clearly not what was meant. It seems pretty damn obvious he meant the functions that everybody gets taught in....say it with me....math class. We're not having a measuring contest for anybody's academic anything here, to my knowledge.

 

[Lorthanoth]

Yes, I meant maths (I'm a Brit, sue me) as in the stuff at school (1 stopped all that at 16), so over 10 years ago now. I'm surprised I was met with such a sarky comment about having to do more of it. I'm done with it now, thanks.

Thanks for sticking up for me, Simia. This theatre/english graduate will take his dunce's cap off now.

Anyway, those demons and devils, eh?

 

[Imaro]

I gotta say, I'm hoping he is saying what the OP hopes he is saying. Now I understand peoples reservations about the players as opposed to the characters being challenged, but I feel you can find a medium between skill rolls and actual player participation.

As far as the "sudoku" comment...why does this have to be limited to logic puzzles? Riddles are a staple of fantasy (and yes even modern fantasy, games like Final Fantasy, and anime) make use of them. Why can't a skill roll interact with the puzzle so as to make it easier in the same way Gather information gives a player varying levels of knowledge on a subject, but it's the actual players who must apply that knowledge in the game.


Also, the whole "you can't open the door unless" scenario doesn't have to exist. You can always break the door down, of course you won't be surprising anyone on the other side that way and may be surprised yourself, or better yet the puzzle/riddle can actually be connected to a locking mechanism, giving the players the choice of trying the puzzle or disabling it. This also creates alternatives for parties without rogues or for when the rogue fails his check.

I enjoy these type of challenges and for those who don't it's easy enough for a DM to set a DC to bash the door down or pick the lock. What I'm curious about is does this problem ever arise when a PC fails his pick lock check. Is the party stuck then? How is basing getting through a door on a riddle/puzzle/etc. any different han basing it on the roll of a single player?