Trying to figure out the anatomy of challenges I like
Filip Luszczyk:
Daniel,
Quote
Filip - I hadn't really thought of consequences for failure. It probably would have ended with running away, resting up and starting again. The players also had to get the item awarded at the end of each test. In fact, I pretty rarely think about the consequences of failure beyond the most obvious. As far as the color code goes, I added that in on the fly.
So, I don't think we are really talking about challenges here. It sounds like failure wasn't really an option for you, it was but a very vague prospect that was not meant to actualize. Consequently, the way you designed those situations, it seems like only player patience was actually challenged. The group was guaranteed to succeed eventually.
The puzzle was different in that it relied heavily on actual player skill. This is what broke the facade of a challenge, when the players proved not good enough to solve it. The puzzle felt "both too hard and too easy at the same time," because in itself, it was too difficult for those players to solve - but in practice, the entire process of solving it was but a formality. It could not remain unsolved, that was not an option to seriously consider for you. It's almost like it was solved from the get-go, consequently. By providing the clue, you basically solved the puzzle for the group, correcting your design error for the good of your game.
Now, I believe it might have not been fun specifically because of that broken illusion. I think what you are after might not be challenge, actually, but rather the sense of challenge. Depending on how the rest of your group is inclined in this regard, it might be a tricky issue.
ThoughtBubble:
Filip,
Your insight highlights everything that I'm trying to improve in my play. Going for the sense of challenge instead of an actual challenge sounds like how I settled on running games about 4 years ago. And boy, I can go on tangents about the what and whys and hows. Particularly, my recent 4e game ended over "challenge" vs "illusion of challenge" issues. Two players are not in my current game due to being diehard on believing that the illusion of challenge is the way to go.
I'm happy to say that I am improving, and am committed to improving further. I should have included a time-line in my notes to make this more evident. The tests of Intelligence, Agility and Power are from 4 years ago, and I've been moving slowly towards real challenges since.
Time-line wise, the challenges go in this order:
1) Test of Speed/Agility/Intelligence (3-4 years ago)
2) Rescue the Mob Boss's little brother(2 years ago)
3) Blow up the Cloning Facility (last month)
And let me tell you, the players' plans were all sorts of derailed if they messed up on the cloning facility. At best, the villains would have gotten to continue refining their clones of one of the most powerful wizards alive. The players may have been captured. The worst possibility would have been getting run out after being identified. Grandpa and the Ice Mage's family would have been under a lot of scrutiny, and possibly had attempts made on their lives. How this ended was going to have the most long term impact of anything in the game, and everyone knew it.
So, I know that I can step up to that level of challenge, but I need to learn how to make it consistent.
As to why the test of intelligence was less fun, I can walk through that list. Have I mentioned that I love this list?
1) Require some thinking. It very much required some thinking.
2) Use the tools/resources available to the characters. High int? Nope, doesn't help. This really kicked us out of the game's world. Had we thought about it, the speedster could have just tried all 1000 possibilities for the last tile.
3) Add description as a matter of play. Nope, there wasn't any description or addition to the game's world by working on it. We had the starting diagram on the battlemat, and the players were working on a piece of paper. There was no movement or change involved in putting a number down. The challenge was pretty much a block until completed.
4) Have a game-world consequence for any action. There wasn't much consequence. Aside from the time invested in trying an answer, nothing was lost in a bad guess. Even having it whittle away some health periodically would have been an improvement.
5) Have outcomes be unfamiliar or unpredictable. Nope, it was only unpredictable because that the players didn't know what was in my head. Putting a tile down was entirely predictable.
6) Game world plausible actions as a viable strategy. Plausibility wasn't part of the puzzle. There was no way to 'trick' the puzzle. The tiles couldn't be stacked, or illusioned or punched or shot. The puzzle generally didn't follow any of the rules of the setting except "it's magic and it knows when you're done". I had my answer and they were just going to have to give it to me.
So, of the list of 6 things, I failed on 5. Yikes!
Callan S.:
Just a quick question on #6, which may be off base - why does it have to be plausible?
I'll grant I have an inclination towards it, but I'd describe why I indulge that inclination rather than just pursue it. Basically like lion cubs wrestle each other as practice for real prey latter on, I think there's an instinct in people to 'wrestle' with an imagined situation to better prep for real life. The desire for plausibility is to make it somewhat (it's never fully) applicable to real life.
However, I think in pursuing plausibility - well, I think where simulation sometimes comes from is an obsessive pursuit of plausibility, not as a means to something else, but obsessive pursuit of plausibility for it's own sake and the original purpose of the instinct subverted entirely. It's something to watch out for.
ThoughtBubble:
Callan,
Why Plausibility? This is kind of a tough one to answer.
First, I think I need to clarify what I mean and what I don't mean. First, I don't mean plausible as in "like the real world". Nor do I mean plausible as in "Fully specified."
What I'm looking at is some sense of having enough of an idea about how the game world works to make an informed judgment and create a strategy with a reasonable expectation of success on its own merits. Let me break that sentence down into parts and see if I can give you a better handle on the idea I'm trying to express.
First is having an idea about how the game world works. I think that's fairly straightforward, SIS type stuff.
The players are able to make an informed judgment and create a strategy. The players at the table should be able to come up with a plan that is strongly based on the mental picture of how the game world works. An example of this might be getting around a trap by marking the cobblestones that set it off and avoiding it. Using the rope in the test of agility is another example.
The strategy's success should be based on its merits. Basically, the odds of this plan working should be based on knowledge of how the game world works. The rope idea didn't work because it was cool, it worked because that's about how I'd expect a rope to work.
We could probably merge Plausibility Description and Consequence into something like "an active, changing game world", but for me the separation is very helpful.
Now, to actually get around to answering your question. It needs to be plausible in order to have enough internal consistency for actions that aren't explicitly enumerated to apply. But how about this statement "The world needs to make enough sense so players can come up with novel ideas."
So, plausibility isn't a goal, it's a step to get "fun" challenges (for this specific value of fun). So we only need as much plausibility as the situation requires. This pretty much neatly sidesteps your issue. I don't care how plausible it is, or what the motivation for it is, as long as there's enough internal consistency to make a reasonable guess as to how a plan may turn out. Otherwise it's salting to taste.
Also, if you have a better idea of a word I should use, please let me know.
Callan S.:
Mmmm, once again I'm bewildered by gamers talking about vocally described fiction as if it exists, and not talking in terms of what actually exists at the gaming table. Marshall did this to me the previous time. Because this 'game world' doesn't exist to be plausible. It's like talking about having a giant invisible bunny walking around with you, but instead of talking about how he's an invention of your or someone elses mind and how each element you might describe of him is someones invention, you just talk about what qualities the bunny 'has', quite detached from any human source.
The 'game world' you refer to doesn't exist to 'have' any quality of plausibility. Someone could invent something and describe it and their invention might sound plausible, but even then that's just how it sounds as well as it being something they made up rather than something that exists.
I dunno, what your refering to just bewilders me. So that's where I'm left. Just noting it. Not saying it as if it requires attention or a responce.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page