[d&d4e] Puzzles in RPGs
DWeird:
OK, so if I get Callan right, what's good about the boxed gnoll puzzle is because you CAN attribute it to a single person - the GM who challenges his players to solve it.
Now, while still in Callan's point of view (not putting words in your mouth here, but trying to develop the chain of thought I glimpsed and see if it makes any sense to you), I'd have the following issue: game text trumps GM any time. My character's ability to knock out gnolls is based on skills, items and spells I have. These are based on challenges I faced and choices I made during chargen. These are based on the rules that are provided in the game text.
So what is the GM doing when he's saying "solve this puzzle without using these other tools you have"? He's either:
A) being an asshole who's removing pre-defined segments of the game that have higher authority than his decree (the series of game text applications that lead to my character's current gnoll-knocking abilities) on an unjustified whim. It's roughly equal to a player declaring that "we won't be using hotels in this game" after I've developed half the board into those.
B) issuing a challenge that I can either take or leave. "Well, I see you've developed half the board into hotels... How about, for a more interesting game, you don't use them, eh?" It's perfectly valid for me to say "screw you, you already lost!", take the boring hour it takes to reduce him to bankcrupcy, and be over with it. I don't become less of a player because I turned down a challenge that did not have any basis in the original rules, that we did not agree on in advance, and did not have any precedent in our prior play.
Of course, this doesn't mean that I'm being a good sport in turning down the challenge, nor does it mean that Monopoly without the hotels wouldn't have made that particular game more interesting. But a good sport =/= a good player. As far as I can gather, gamism is primarily about being a good player - solving challenges to the best result with least effort wasted, and not being a good sport - solving challenges in a pleasing, aesthetical and ethical way.
So if a GM is presenting a challenge that removes options that I had present before, it's equal to him saying "you're too good a player. How about a handicap to our strengths on the same level?".
God knows what any of this has to do with puzzles, though.
Callan S.:
Misha, if the designer decides to use past information or immersion, then those things are a concern. If/where he doesn't, they aren't. It's not a matter of fact that the designer is forced to have those things all through his design, if at all. And I'm saying that as a fact of the situation, like the laws of physics, rather than a right a designer has. Indeed a designer is stuck in that position, physically. We could enshrine that as a right, but whether we do, designers are stuck there either way.
Hi DWeird,
Do you think there can be gaps in a games procedure, where what to do next and who has higher authority have been left blank?
If you don't, well, everything I've said stems from dealing with such gaps in traditional RPG's. If you do think such a gap can exist, what is your policy in dealing with such a situation as it arrises, or even dealing with such gaps in the text before any game session?
Also, if you take it those gaps can exist, is someone who says game text trumps the GM, when there is a gap on that procedure, actually being A themselves? Since no one is in a higher authority position because of that gap, but that person is acting like they are?
Azalin, this seems to be getting out into the larger circle/infrastructure of the game (in terms of the big model, were looking toward the outer enclosing circles). I think it's relevant, but relevant like if you'd brought up a fuel injection system for a car, and were talking about the chasis that holds it together and I'm talking about using one that isn't rusted through.
otspiii:
Callan, I'm trying to figure out where the disconnect in our two lines of thought are. I'm not talking about what you theoretically could do as a designer, and I'm not talking about designing a campaign from scratch (as I've said a few times so far, I do think that it would be possible to build a game that benefits from rather than is hurt by disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world'). What I'm talking about is expected player enjoyment in a game that isn't specifically built to accommodate disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world'. When I say 'you shouldn't do this' I'm operating with the assumption that player enjoyment is at the top of list of goals as a designer and what I really mean is 'more often than not it will detract from player enjoyment if you do this'.
I'm also operating under a few assumptions about the game these puzzles are being inserted into. First, I'm assuming that it isn't explicitly built to work with breaks in the 'rules of the world'; that the system doesn't encourage it; that you haven't discussed it and gotten the thumbs up from your players for doing it. Second, I'm assuming that you aren't already positive that the players will enjoy it; if you know that your players all just absolutely love doing boat puzzles during an RPG then you should throw them in. In the context of this thread, though, if there wasn't uncertainty over what types of puzzles a player would enjoy this thread would not have been posted. My point isn't, as I've said a few times, that you should never do it at all period ever. My point is that unless you have good strong reasons to expect that everyone at the table will love it when you shatter 'the rules of the world', they probably won't. If player enjoyment is not something on the table right now then I totally concede to all of your points, but how could it not be?
Callan S.:
Quote
What I'm talking about is expected player enjoyment in a game that isn't specifically built to accommodate disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world'.
How do you know it isn't specifically built to accommodate disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world'? By that I mean, beyond hearing your assertion on the matter, what could another person look at themselves to indipendently confirm that?
In terms of expected player enjoyment, if they expect something which is merely assertion and not actually supported by the game texts, they are simply bringing baggage to the table. It's possible for anyone to come to any game, even a card game or board game, with some sort of assertion which isn't part of the activity at all. How are you discriminating between assertions, or could I come to a game with you and say this game isn't specifically built to accomidate us not wearing funny hats? Seems absurd? So how is the assertion (it isn't specifically built to accomidate disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world') proven to be any less absurd?
otspiii:
Quote from: Callan S. on September 27, 2009, 03:28:16 PM
How do you know it isn't specifically built to accommodate disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world'? By that I mean, beyond hearing your assertion on the matter, what could another person look at themselves to indipendently confirm that?
How do I know what isn't? Specific to this thread, D&D4th ed absolutely isn't built for it. D&D1st ed has intentional gaps in the rules that actively does facilitate building the rules for each engagement largely from scratch, although I still wouldn't use the boat puzzle for the intuitive/computational reasons I stated before. Not specific to this thread. . .it's a case by case basis, and there's no easy instruction I could give to determine if a game text is appropriate or not. That's a topic way bigger than this thread. Basically, though, the more a system is about having the mechanics to handle any situation, the less suited it is for cutting out those mechanics at times. The more surreal and nebulous the setting is the better suited it'd be for warping the 'rules of the world' at times. The less competitive and serious the encouraged mood is the more open it is to warping the 'rules of the world'. Of course, it's a lot more subtle than that in practice.
Quote from: Callan S. on September 27, 2009, 03:28:16 PM
In terms of expected player enjoyment, if they expect something which is merely assertion and not actually supported by the game texts, they are simply bringing baggage to the table. It's possible for anyone to come to any game, even a card game or board game, with some sort of assertion which isn't part of the activity at all. How are you discriminating between assertions, or could I come to a game with you and say this game isn't specifically built to accomidate us not wearing funny hats? Seems absurd? So how is the assertion (it isn't specifically built to accomidate disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world') proven to be any less absurd?
You don't think players should come with expectations and assertions? I don't think that ridding yourself of expectations is nearly as important as just making sure your expectations line up with those of the other players. The system sets the general type of play that happens, but there's still a lot of wiggle-room for personal GM-styles. These assertions become ugly when haven't been discussed and they start conflict between players. If assumptions haven't been negotiated pre-game it is important not to assume that your assertions are exactly how the game is going to be played and any other method is wrong, but I think the assertion that 'the way in which the game is run should work with, or at least not against, the game-system' is a fair and common one. I see the boat puzzle as working against the D&D4th ed system.
Saying that a system 'isn't built to not accommodate' something that is generally not assumed to be a part of roleplaying is kind of meaningless, since the amount of stuff you do do in a game is limited by time and energy, while the amount of stuff you don't do is infinite. It's not that hard to determine if a system is built in a way to accommodate funny hats, though.
Funny hats. . .are the specific hats appropriate to game being run? I don't think I'd enjoy being forced to wear a 'funny hat' all game session, but if they were somehow appropriate to the characters the other players and I were playing this would be mitigated in some ways. I do think that being forced to wear a propeller beanie in a game of serious political intrigue or supernatural horror would detract from the mood of the game, but I wouldn't mind/would potentially enjoy wearing a plush spiked helmet while playing a barbarian in a goofy-themed game because it'd be reinforcing my self-image as a barbarian. I'd still react against it partially if it was sprung and forced on me without being discussed before hand, though.
How are funny hats different from consistency? Roleplaying games are usually built in a way that consistency makes the game more enjoyable for the vast majority of players. I can't point to a specific rule in a specific system that does this, but actual play experience has taught me that there is an extremely strong correlation, and presumably causation, between consistency and player enjoyment. It's something players expect, and as much as you might ask 'but should they expect it?', breaking that expectation without prior warning is going to both weaken the gameplay experience due to the games being designed with the assumption that they'll be run in a style using consistency and due to the fact that you'll be shattering their expectations.
As I see it, when you run a game for people you need to be at least vaguely aware of what their expectations are. If you don't know what they are you should talk to them to find them out. If their expectations don't match up with the game you want to run it doesn't mean you can't run it, but it does mean you need to work with them to make sure their new expectations line up with the game you're running. That said, it's of course always possible to actually use breaking expectations mid-game to your advantage; this is something that can work really well in getting people into the mood for a horror game, for example, but it has to be done for a specific effect if you want the players to enjoy it. Breaking from what your players are expecting just for the hell of it does a lot more harm that it does good.
This is bleeding into the much much much larger topic of 'what techniques work best to help establish what styles of play'. If you want me to spell out for you exactly how to determine which styles of play (and oh my god they are infinite) a specific technique, such as 'breaking world-rule consistency', or even just 'consistency', is helpful or harmful to you are going to be disappointed. The topic is just far too vast to break down via forum-post, and is much more of an art-form than a science. I do believe that consistency is, by default, a good thing, though, and that it should only be broken when you have a plan, and never just flippantly. Doing so will, far more often than not, lessen the enjoyment of the players, and is therefore undesirable on a practical, rather than theoretical, level. A creative designer with a broad vision could undoubtedly turn it into a positive thing, but I recommend against doing it in a casual 4th edition D&D game with friends who aren't pre-established puzzle addicts.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page