Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7596960">One thing that makes discussions like this challenging is that participants often take slight differences in positions and exaggerate the other side to an extreme.&nbsp; (I think that's what you're calling out here.)As an example, I think it's fine for the player to solve a challenge without trying to imagine what it would be like for their 8-Int character.&nbsp; (Mostly because it's simply not possible to &quot;think like&quot; somebody with a mind different from yours, and I don't want to reduce all the interesting bits of the game to dice rolls.)Now, it's really easy to (mis)characterize that position as, &quot;Oh, so you think it's fine to put multivariable calculus problems in the game and let dumb fighters solve them just because the player is a rocket scientist!&quot;No, that's not what I mean.&nbsp; And, for the record, I hate the sort of puzzles that require solving an actual puzzle out-of-game. If I had to write a definition of the difference between &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; puzzles I would say that good puzzles are the ones where the hard part is coming up with the approach, but once you do the solution is easy, and bad puzzles are where the approach is obvious but the solution is hard.Good puzzle: in the original Zork, where you have to roll the giant onion into the room and cut it with the sword, causing the many-eyed creature to cry and go blind while you beat on it.&nbsp; (What's bad about that example is that no other solution is possible, e.g. there's no way to beat the monster in straight-up combat, but it's a computer game not an RPG.)Bad puzzle: the floor is divided into a grid, and some squares are &quot;on&quot; and some are &quot;off&quot;.&nbsp; If you step on an &quot;on&quot; a square it changes state, and the four adjacent squares (but not diagonally adjacent ones) also change state....etc.So in the first case it may take a while to come up with the approach, but once you do you're done.&nbsp; In the second example you know exactly what the approach is, but it may take a while to solve.Both are examples of &quot;challenging the player&quot; because the player has to come up with a solution, but in the latter case you really leave the game completely while you work on the solution.&nbsp; Also, I don't think it is at all unreasonable for a low-Int character to come up with the idea about the giant onion.Now, it's fine if there are also some ability checks along the way.&nbsp; Maybe it requires Strength to move the onion, although if there's no time pressure or consequence for failure I wouldn't require rolls.&nbsp; The Wizard can't move it, but the Fighter can.&nbsp; Or maybe it takes the Fighter AND the Wizard.&nbsp; Whatever, no dice required.&nbsp; But maybe you have to roll it over a narrow bridge or up some stairs.&nbsp; Now a check is appropriate.&nbsp; Maybe that's what some people see as &quot;challenging the character&quot;?&nbsp; If so, yeah that can be fun, too.&nbsp; But ideally it should be a risk-reward option, so that the &quot;challenge&quot; is in deciding whether or not to risk the dice roll, depending on your character sheet.&nbsp; &quot;If you can push the onion over the bridge you'll get there quickly, but if you fail the roll you will lose the onion.&nbsp; Otherwise you can take the long way around, but you risk waking up the dragon.&nbsp; What do you do?&quot;If there's no real decision to be made, other than &quot;who has the highest bonus to make this roll&quot;, it's just not very interesting.&nbsp; Nor is it challenging anybody or anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7596960"] One thing that makes discussions like this challenging is that participants often take slight differences in positions and exaggerate the other side to an extreme. (I think that's what you're calling out here.) As an example, I think it's fine for the player to solve a challenge without trying to imagine what it would be like for their 8-Int character. (Mostly because it's simply not possible to "think like" somebody with a mind different from yours, and I don't want to reduce all the interesting bits of the game to dice rolls.) Now, it's really easy to (mis)characterize that position as, "Oh, so you think it's fine to put multivariable calculus problems in the game and let dumb fighters solve them just because the player is a rocket scientist!" No, that's not what I mean. And, for the record, I hate the sort of puzzles that require solving an actual puzzle out-of-game. If I had to write a definition of the difference between "good" and "bad" puzzles I would say that good puzzles are the ones where the hard part is coming up with the approach, but once you do the solution is easy, and bad puzzles are where the approach is obvious but the solution is hard. Good puzzle: in the original Zork, where you have to roll the giant onion into the room and cut it with the sword, causing the many-eyed creature to cry and go blind while you beat on it. (What's [I]bad[/I] about that example is that no other solution is possible, e.g. there's no way to beat the monster in straight-up combat, but it's a computer game not an RPG.) Bad puzzle: the floor is divided into a grid, and some squares are "on" and some are "off". If you step on an "on" a square it changes state, and the four adjacent squares (but not diagonally adjacent ones) also change state....etc. So in the first case it may take a while to come up with the approach, but once you do you're done. In the second example you know exactly what the approach is, but it may take a while to solve. Both are examples of "challenging the player" because the player has to come up with a solution, but in the latter case you really leave the game completely while you work on the solution. Also, I don't think it is at all unreasonable for a low-Int character to come up with the idea about the giant onion. Now, it's fine if there are also some ability checks along the way. Maybe it requires Strength to move the onion, although if there's no time pressure or consequence for failure I wouldn't require rolls. The Wizard can't move it, but the Fighter can. Or maybe it takes the Fighter AND the Wizard. Whatever, no dice required. But maybe you have to roll it over a narrow bridge or up some stairs. Now a check is appropriate. Maybe that's what some people see as "challenging the character"? If so, yeah that can be fun, too. But ideally it should be a risk-reward option, so that the "challenge" is in deciding whether or not to risk the dice roll, depending on your character sheet. "If you can push the onion over the bridge you'll get there quickly, but if you fail the roll you will lose the onion. Otherwise you can take the long way around, but you risk waking up the dragon. What do you do?" If there's no real decision to be made, other than "who has the highest bonus to make this roll", it's just not very interesting. Nor is it challenging anybody or anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification