[d&d4e] Puzzles in RPGs
otspiii:
Quote from: Callan S. on October 01, 2009, 02:04:40 PM
Well, making it it harder to plan ahead makes it harder - which is a good quality! And in terms of gamism, you play the game your actually presented with in the moment (or don't), not the game you imagined would happen - this doesn't destroy some types of gamism, it destroys the missplaced idea of what the game would be.
This actually is a good example of my big problem with GNS. Well, not GNS itself, even, but how people use it. Gamism is a category of play, not a Platonic form. There are tons and tons of sub-categories of gamist play, and someone who enjoys one will not necessarily enjoy the others. Telling your players "Shut up, this is gamism, you like it, and if you don't it's just because you have faulty expectations" strikes me as really really really simplistic. When you run a game you should be factoring in what your players tastes are, and 'Gamism' isn't a taste so much as an umbrella hovering over a multitude of similar but distinct tastes. The players should be doing their best to enjoy whatever you provide them to, but you have to meet each other half way. Blaming it entirely on your players being small minded is just a way of running from the responsibility of running an enjoyable game.
Also, hard does not universally equal good in almost any form of Gamism. A certain level of difficulty is needed, but more is only better to a certain point. By that logic telling your players that they have to memorize and recite 1000 line poems to cast spells, that their damage outputs will be determined by how many pushups they can do in 5 minutes, or that to succeed they have to roll all 10s on 5d10 would be uniformly good things. Removing the ability to plan just cuts out entirely a form of challenge, and while it does make other aspects of the game more difficult there are many many many other ways to set an enjoyable difficulty without removing entire blocks of challenge.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 01, 2009, 02:04:40 PM
Have a look at that link and see if 'the package', especially with it's resiliance against potential violation, is what you enjoy first and foremost.
You're making weird assumptions about my priorities. I am discussing this topic with you, so this topic is at the forefront of my discussion. This in no way means that it's at the forefront of my enjoyment. The package is a small positive thing that can be sacrificed if by sacrificing it you gain a larger positive thing. What I'm against is sacrificing it to gain either nothing or a one-time small thrill. I really don't care almost at all about how well the game matches up to 'what an Elf is *really* like' or the Star Trek universe or reality or whatever. Internal consistency with facts already established within the realm of play seems like it should just be a basic tenant of how to run an enjoyable game, though, even if the only consistent element is inconsistency.
Callan S.:
In saying my post I'm thinking of a group of players who are there to try a new game - like it is when you try a new board game or card game. I have a few reasons for this, but regardless that's where I'm coming from. Your 'you should meet them half way' thing seems to be talking about players who are not there to try a new game.
Quote
Removing the ability to plan just cuts out entirely a form of challenge, and while it does make other aspects of the game more difficult there are many many many other ways to set an enjoyable difficulty without removing entire blocks of challenge.
Equally being able to knock out/tie up the gnolls removes the fox and geese challenge. It's a matter of which challenge, as designer, you decide on having. Mind you, if players are all telling you what you should have but then insisting they aren't being uninvited co-designers, that'd be problematic.
Quote
You're making weird assumptions about my priorities. I am discussing this topic with you, so this topic is at the forefront of my discussion. This in no way means that it's at the forefront of my enjoyment. The package is a small positive thing that can be sacrificed if by sacrificing it you gain a larger positive thing. What I'm against is sacrificing it to gain either nothing or a one-time small thrill.
I don't think I am making weird assumptions - for you clearly any esteem given for solving the puzzle inside the box is less than the small postitive you call the package. You call the esteem a one time small thrill, apparently smaller/less valuable than the positive thing you call the package. And previously you called it "Solve this math problem to continue" without even a nod to any esteem given for solving it - as if it were only a matter of continuing.
Regardless, I'm talking in terms of valuing the esteem given for solving the fox and geese puzzle considerably more than valuing a perfectly intact package. If someone values 'planning ahead' more than that esteem on offer - perhaps it is gamism, but it's not a set of priorities I share. My advice revolves around those priorities.
otspiii:
Quote from: Callan S. on October 02, 2009, 08:15:33 PM
In saying my post I'm thinking of a group of players who are there to try a new game - like it is when you try a new board game or card game. I have a few reasons for this, but regardless that's where I'm coming from. Your 'you should meet them half way' thing seems to be talking about players who are not there to try a new game.
Okay, I think this is probably one of the big divides in our perspectives. I've been approaching this from an angle of 'spice up your D&D game', since that seemed like how it was presented in the OP. I've said a bunch of times that if you have some good reason to believe that the players will especially enjoy these types of puzzles then it's not so bad to throw them in; having an open license of 'let's try something new' isn't quite there, but it's close.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 02, 2009, 08:15:33 PM
Equally being able to knock out/tie up the gnolls removes the fox and geese challenge. It's a matter of which challenge, as designer, you decide on having. Mind you, if players are all telling you what you should have but then insisting they aren't being uninvited co-designers, that'd be problematic.
Well, it opens up the choice for the players to ignore a type of challenge, it doesn't remove it. It lets them choose for themselves if they'd rather gain the esteem for beating it without the KOing or if they'd rather just bypass it. Also, shouldn't the players always be factored into the designs? The players should always be co-designers, albiet in a completely passive way.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 02, 2009, 08:15:33 PM
I don't think I am making weird assumptions - for you clearly any esteem given for solving the puzzle inside the box is less than the small postitive you call the package. You call the esteem a one time small thrill, apparently smaller/less valuable than the positive thing you call the package. And previously you called it "Solve this math problem to continue" without even a nod to any esteem given for solving it - as if it were only a matter of continuing.
Regardless, I'm talking in terms of valuing the esteem given for solving the fox and geese puzzle considerably more than valuing a perfectly intact package. If someone values 'planning ahead' more than that esteem on offer - perhaps it is gamism, but it's not a set of priorities I share. My advice revolves around those priorities.
The esteem from solving a math problem? For me, significant esteem comes in way harder from coming up with a brilliant and unexpected solution to a problem than from solving a fixed-answer puzzle by rote, even if you have to put more effort into the rote solving. It's true that the unexpected solutions to the boat puzzle are pretty lackluster, but the boat puzzle is poorly built to take advantage of them, so of course it's not going to encourage good ones. The thing is, there's no way to brilliantly answer the boat puzzle, there's just the expected way, so any esteem you receive is more based on how quickly you were able to come up with the answer than on how glorious your answer was. Single-answer computational puzzles put a hard cap on esteem that I really don't like. You can't really shine with them, you can just not fail.
Callan S.:
Quote from: otspiii on October 03, 2009, 08:16:08 AM
Okay, I think this is probably one of the big divides in our perspectives. I've been approaching this from an angle of 'spice up your D&D game', since that seemed like how it was presented in the OP. I've said a bunch of times that if you have some good reason to believe that the players will especially enjoy these types of puzzles then it's not so bad to throw them in; having an open license of 'let's try something new' isn't quite there, but it's close.
Not so bad? It sounds like your working from some sort of moral code that encapsulates this?
Quote
Well, it opens up the choice for the players to ignore a type of challenge, it doesn't remove it. It lets them choose for themselves if they'd rather gain the esteem for beating it without the KOing or if they'd rather just bypass it.
I think I gave that option earlier in the thread, but they had to admit they couldn't beat the in the box version first.
Quote
Also, shouldn't the players always be factored into the designs? The players should always be co-designers, albiet in a completely passive way.
Again the word 'should', which you've used through several of your posts, like a moral code is being invoked?
You might want to reflect on whether there's a design issue here or whether your personal moral code is the thing that's being broken. If I was designing a new, more lethal kalashnikov and you have a moral issue with killing, that doesn't mean my modifications to the gun are badly designed. You wouldn't be discussing design at all, really.
Quote
It's true that the unexpected solutions to the boat puzzle are pretty lackluster, but the boat puzzle is poorly built to take advantage of them, so of course it's not going to encourage good ones.
I don't think there's a great deal of constructive input from you in saying scrap it and think up something else - basically all your doing is trying to take away from what's already been made, and offering no substitute to replace it. I'd actually call it destructive. Is there any substitute you could think up? I think you should hold off saying to scrap the in the box boat puzzle until you have a substitute you can offer, if you want to offer a constructive alternative.
Quote
The thing is, there's no way to brilliantly answer the boat puzzle, there's just the expected way, so any esteem you receive is more based on how quickly you were able to come up with the answer than on how glorious your answer was. Single-answer computational puzzles put a hard cap on esteem that I really don't like. You can't really shine with them, you can just not fail.
I'm thinking of starting a new thread on this. Basically a bunch of people who hear an idea and go 'wow, that's great'...means jack shit. In real life it's not ideas that sound great that are great, it's ideas that when applied to physical circumstance, actually work, that are great.
Humans have a massive capacity for bullshitting themselves. The only thing that cuts off bullshitting is when push comes to shove and the idea is tested against something that's bullshit proof. In real life, that's physics - think your parachute overcoat will work and you jump off the eiffel tower and die? Clearly you were wrong.
Roleplayers seem to bullshit themselves that the GM is where push comes to shove - when the GM is human and just as vulnerable to bullshitting himself as anyone else.
But they bullshit themselves that hey, if the dice get rolled and this is called a game after all, their brilliant idea must have faced a bullshit proof test and hey, the GM is saying they get so and so, so wow, it must have been a brilliant idea! In groups all over the world today, parachute overcoats (so to speak) WILL work. Because all those groups are bullshitting themselves that there was any real way it could fail.
So no, I don't have alot of esteem for out of the box answers. I think some bullshitting is good for brainstorming, but is basically incapable of failing (except where you don't bullshit the GM with the type of bullshit he needs to bullshit himself) and if it can't fail, it's hardly worthy of massive praise.
This actually brings design idea to mind...if someone has this 'brilliant' idea they firmly believe would work, the system is they then correlate it to a physical task - ie, they believe it will work as much as, say, them hitting a dart board (at all) at 10 feet (with a dart). Or at whatever range. If they fail at this physical task, so too does the 'brilliant' idea.
The thing with that is that is they have to make a call with their own bullshit - if they think it's really such a good idea, while are they comparing it to hitting a dartboard at 1 foot? Surely if they are capable of such a brilliant idea, they are capable of assuredly hitting the dartboard at a longer range? So goes the actual challenge. We could even correlate the RL range to difficulty - an easy task is 2 feet. It's not such a brilliant sounding idea if the player with the idea then classes it as an easy test.
Anyway, I digress and I know that idea will sound to you like the noise you get when you put a microphone near the speakers it outputs too - just a feedback scream.
otspiii:
Quote from: Callan S. on October 03, 2009, 03:11:05 PM
Not so bad? It sounds like your working from some sort of moral code that encapsulates this?
Kind of? It's not moral, it's purpose. The reason that I am running a RPG is for player and personal enjoyment. If I have reason to believe that something will take away from that enjoyment, then I 'should' not use it. Words like 'should' or 'bad' or 'good' only have meaning when attached to a purpose or goal, but don't we have one assumed? I didn't think this needed to be explicitly stated.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 03, 2009, 03:11:05 PM
I don't think there's a great deal of constructive input from you in saying scrap it and think up something else - basically all your doing is trying to take away from what's already been made, and offering no substitute to replace it.
I gave some earlier in the thread; I really liked the blood and sarcophagus puzzles. It's a situation where there is risk involved and information must be gathered to make a good decision. Another example might be a swirling black portal built into a wall that destroys anything placed in it; it's not something that halts the game until it's 'solved', but if people are reckless and don't gather any information on it first (seeing what happens when they shove a stick in it before poking their arm in, etc) it could easily be very dangerous (the portal is actually pretty harsh, and should be kept for a high-mortality game). A treasure chest hidden behind an enemy too powerful to fight evenly works, too. The group has to find a way to lure the enemy away, and if it's well designed some (subtle) clues on the enemy's preferences should be discoverable/have already been revealed.
They don't sound impressive, but the uncertainty gives a tension that a puzzle with only 100% right/wrong answers can't.
I'm thinking of starting a new thread on this. Basically a bunch of people who hear an idea and go 'wow, that's great'...means jack shit. In real life it's not ideas that sound great that are great, it's ideas that when applied to physical circumstance, actually work, that are great.
Humans have a massive capacity for bullshitting themselves. The only thing that cuts off bullshitting is when push comes to shove and the idea is tested against something that's bullshit proof. In real life, that's physics - think your parachute overcoat will work and you jump off the eiffel tower and die? Clearly you were wrong.
Roleplayers seem to bullshit themselves that the GM is where push comes to shove - when the GM is human and just as vulnerable to bullshitting himself as anyone else.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 03, 2009, 03:11:05 PM
So no, I don't have alot of esteem for out of the box answers. I think some bullshitting is good for brainstorming, but is basically incapable of failing (except where you don't bullshit the GM with the type of bullshit he needs to bullshit himself) and if it can't fail, it's hardly worthy of massive praise.
This actually brings design idea to mind...if someone has this 'brilliant' idea they firmly believe would work, the system is they then correlate it to a physical task - ie, they believe it will work as much as, say, them hitting a dart board (at all) at 10 feet (with a dart). Or at whatever range. If they fail at this physical task, so too does the 'brilliant' idea.
Actually, you just answered your own critique pretty well right there. There are a few things you can do to keep it from just being a 'the GM decides arbitrarily if you succeed or fail' exercise, which would just be an inferior boat puzzle. The first way I already mentioned, it's by forcing some basic information gathering. Proper information placement can be tricky, and I can get into it a little if you want, but it opens up into a pretty big topic of its own. The other way is what you just said. . .kind of. If the idea they come up with is almost incapable of failing, just say they succeed. Usually, though, the idea will fall into a more gray area, where it has a chance of succeeding but it's not so certain that the GM should just hand-wave the success into the game. Darts could work for this, but I think the more traditional method is just to make a skill roll, with difficulty based on how practical the idea is.
Setting the difficulty level is still bullshitting to some degree, but it's a lot less bad if you just remember what you were lecturing me about earlier, that RPGs and reality don't need to match perfectly. The parachute pants idea you mentioned before is an okay example, depending on how over the top you want the mood of the game to be it could either be automatic failure, an insanely hard roll, or a moderately hard roll; what's important isn't that you're mirroring reality, but that you're mirroring the mood-based decisions you've already made within the game. Letting the parachute pants succeed in a game all about gritty realism wouldn't work, while not letting it succeed in a game where you already let someone fly by flapping their arms really hard also wouldn't work. Convincing the GM that your idea is appropriate and has good odds of working is still largely based on bullshitting, but the human brain is really good at taking weird bullshitty ideas and weighting them on a scale from "It'll never work" to "It might work" to "Oh, goddamn it, of course that'll work". It's not a science, but it's one of the core things the human brain is built to do quickly and (relatively) accurately.
The thing that separates RPGs from other types of games is that it's the only system that uses the human brain as the processor to determine what does or doesn't happen, and if you just dismiss things like estimation of if an idea is feasible or not as 'just bullshitting', then why are you even into RPGs as opposed to any other kind of game?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page