Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7597101">And that's why I said the problem with that particular challenge is that there was only one solution.&nbsp; Which is typically going to be the case when it's a computer (or a rule system!) adjudicating, not a human using judgment.Were that same scenario to happen in a TTRPG, I would instead say it was a great solution, instead of a great problem.The rope-climbing example, in all its forms, is an old argument, but I don't really buy it.&nbsp; I mean, not the lesser form of the argument: sure, you shouldn't require the player to be able to climb a rope in real life to be able to do so in-game.&nbsp; But I don't think it's a relevant analogue to problems where players are required to think of creative solutions, rather than just invoke mechanics.Your rope-climbing example is more commonly presented as a sword-swinging example.&nbsp; And, sure, I don't expect players to be able to swing swords in real life.&nbsp; But I *do* expect them to avoid being surrounded, to not clump up (more than once, anyway) against Wizards, to finish off nearly dead opponents rather than attack fresh ones, etc. etc. etc.&nbsp; None of that requires genuine sword-fighting ability, but neither does it abdicate decision-making to the dice.So (to try this from one more angle) I don't expect players to know how to climb a rope, but I do expect them to have some good ideas about when to climb a rope, even if their character has a low Int.I think we are mostly in agreement here, which leaves me puzzled (ha!) as to what impression I conveyed in earlier posts.&nbsp; I'm all for mixing genuine puzzle solving with using the numbers on the character sheet.&nbsp; It's when the actual problem-solving is left out, and it's must a mechanical process of &quot;Oh, challenge X requires skill Y; who has the highest score?&quot;, that I wonder what the point is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7597101"] And that's why I said the problem with that particular challenge is that there was only one solution. Which is typically going to be the case when it's a computer (or a rule system!) adjudicating, not a human using judgment. Were that same scenario to happen in a TTRPG, I would instead say it was a great [I]solution[/I], instead of a great problem. The rope-climbing example, in all its forms, is an old argument, but I don't really buy it. I mean, not the lesser form of the argument: sure, you shouldn't require the player to be able to climb a rope in real life to be able to do so in-game. But I don't think it's a relevant analogue to problems where players are required to think of creative solutions, rather than just invoke mechanics. Your rope-climbing example is more commonly presented as a sword-swinging example. And, sure, I don't expect players to be able to swing swords in real life. But I *do* expect them to avoid being surrounded, to not clump up (more than once, anyway) against Wizards, to finish off nearly dead opponents rather than attack fresh ones, etc. etc. etc. None of that requires genuine sword-fighting ability, but neither does it abdicate decision-making to the dice. So (to try this from one more angle) I don't expect players to know how to climb a rope, but I do expect them to have some good ideas about when to climb a rope, even if their character has a low Int. I think we are mostly in agreement here, which leaves me puzzled (ha!) as to what impression I conveyed in earlier posts. I'm all for mixing genuine puzzle solving with using the numbers on the character sheet. It's when the actual problem-solving is left out, and it's must a mechanical process of "Oh, challenge X requires skill Y; who has the highest score?", that I wonder what the point is. [/QUOTE]

Verification