Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7590211" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Read the usage notes, then players have zero reason to try Hans strength and a roll, the GM will keep giving them more and more hints until the players "get it" the player-side solution. Why take a guess (roll mechanics) - there *is* a player side solution?More to the point, why did I take all those chargrn chouces to get to Investigate 30 as a reasonable option if *me* the player can just solve these with hints that keep coming until we "get it" built into, cooked into the challenge design? I know (or strongly suspect)  the fight scenes are gonna be much more stat driven, not as "find a solution that avoids uncertainty." So I dont need my character to have stats to solve scenes and types where, literally, the GM builds it and plans it to not even need be worth mentioning a single character trait?Had a riddle last night, three in fact, but the one that stood out to me hinged on the English (modern English spelling) of a word. Thst riddle would not even have made sense in most of the languages in our modern world. So, that style of "test the players and ignore the characters" is great for, as I said board games, escape rooms and a whole lot of other entertaining venues. But, for those who might want a tad bit more "role" in their RPG scenarios, this explanation of and description of the strengths of **actual play** "approach and goal" to highlight its differences is very very telling, very informative and much appreciated, even with the kind of tag-on derision at the end.Your classic logic puzzle guards at the end provides are another good example of a "player challenge" an escape room, brain teaser board game or perhaps "approach and goal" crowd might find desirable to use for challenges that matter. In my old ABCD type breakdown, it would likely show up in a D (both character and player challenges required" or maybe a C (either is sufficient) but see, where you portray it mono-focused (DC resolve and player resolve are the same solution) in mine thry would be different. So, for example, there might be a character challenge to get the statues to respond (let's say simplest obvious case a fight challenge that unlocks the info you present, one will lie, one will not, tell us...blahblah.) Obviously, there are a gazillion other character-side challenges that could be used, but z fight is obvious. But as long as it's all solvable by player side stuff that doesnt bring PC traits even to the level of **worth mentioning in the recap or the usage/design notes** it can certainly be loads of fun, but a challenge with a lot less "role" than some may find to their liking."If you’ve figured out a surefire way past an obstacle, there isn’t a need to roll a check"Unless I misread it, wasnt there a girl in the wings and other clues to keep throwing in there by **deliberate intent of the GM** to keep piling on hints until "they get it"? Even the escape room at the con had a two clue limit and an hour timer.But, I seem to recall one of the big loud talking points about "approach and goal was the "we dont have DC in mind before approach and even "we dont worry about solutions that auto-succeed before the play" etc. Here, this example which iirc you lauded, shows in absolute clarity as an example of what "approach and goal " looks like in actual  play,  chosen to show the differences - there is a right way, planned for in advance, a right approach, that will get to auto-success and where blues and more NPCs will keep popping up until they "get it" and not once did  a single character trait deserve even mentioning. I agree with you, that was a great example - made even greater by its use notes.</blockquote>

Verification