Narrative Sharing for Gamists

[lumpley]

Mike,

Ah, interesting.  I think I understand, but let me ask a couple more questions.

Given what you have in the rant, essentially the GM using drama resolution to teach players via negative reinforcement to play in a more narrativist fashion is quite suspect.

I'm not sure where I'm trying to teach the players to play in a more Narrativist fashion.  I see a few things you might mean:

a. My immediate goal (getting the players to take charge of challenging their characters) is Gamist, my technique (giving them directorial power) is Narrativist, and between the two I'll probably have trouble.

or b. My big goal (challenging and engaging the players) is Gamist, my immediate goal (getting them to take charge of challenging their characters) is Narrativist, and between the two I'll probably have trouble.

or c. My big goal (challenging and engaging the players) is Gamist, my other big goal (getting them to laugh and enjoy it when their characters have to deal with pain and irritation) is Narrativist, and between the two I'll probably have trouble.

Am I close?

To the drama resolution I plead guilty.  To the negative reinforcement I plead no contest, but point out that it's kind of funny.

-lumpley

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Lumpley,

OK, I get it. Narrative schmarrative, then - let's talk Gamism (yay!) and Stance.

Regarding Gamism in general, competition and victory and loss are all intimately related terms; none exists without the others. So if I say "Gamism is concerned with winning," the other two terms come with that. So I'm not saying Gamism is JUST about winning, for instance. There's nothing "just" about Gamism.
- competition: "play well," meaning that your actions have a big impact on victory/loss conditions [different games use different degrees of Fortune to liven things up]
- victory & loss: assessments for those actions, socially acknowledged among the participants; this relies completely on some form of conflict of interest among those participants, such that not everyone may win

Now, I'll be first to say that Gamist role-playing can utilize all manner of stances. I do not think it's hard to see that Author stance is very common - the player's decisions are overt and the character follows suit (the GDS guys came up with the insightful term "Pawn stance" for the most overt, unapologetic form of this).

So, can a Gamist RPG make full and organized use of Director stance? Absolutely. It's right there in Pantheon, loud and clear.

Best,
Ron

P.S. About Elfs, it utilizes Director stance in the classic, environmental sense. I don't know where you got the idea that the Elfs player is limited to affecting only his character's actions.

[Mike Holmes]

I'd say that B is the closest.

Essentially, a gamist player makes decisions based on what is tactically the most sound thing to do, or the thing most likely to make the character succeed. The gamist player expects that the GM will be one of two things, either an opponent who plays by the rules of the game which serve to balance the game (like Rune, but with few other examples in RPGs), or he expects the GM to be an impartial arbiter who comes up with reasonable conflicts and chalenges which the player then tries to overcome and are handled fairly by the GM.

The problem is that one of two cases is true. In the first, the player sees you as an opponent (less likely case), in which case he will not use the narrative authority given him knowing that you will smack him down mightily as the rule gives you the authority to and as an opponent that is what you should do. In the second case (much more likely as the player will sense that you are not playing "against" him during other play), the player will believe you to be an impartial judge of the game and then be very disapointed when you tell him he can do what he wants and you subsequently punish him for taking advantage of it. Worse, in using negative reinforcement the player begins then to see you as an opponent, and then thinks that the game is dysfunctional, because again you are simply an opponent with unlimited power. What fun is playing a game under those circumstances when a fair contest is what you seek?

Also, to assume that a player will not be disapointed using this tactic is to assume that the player is comfortable with narrative methodology, in which case you'll find that there is no need to punish the player at all, as they will make decisions appropriate to the story. They may not succeed every time, but the "lesson" will be pointless as they already know it.

A player, even a narrativist one, who believes that his character will be punished if they use narrative power in a way that the GM determines in his limited wisdom to be improper will also be loathe to use it. If you feel that a particular response is not apropriate try discussing it with the player, point out the problem you see, and hopefully he'll retract his decision or, at least make a better one next time.

Is it "funny" to torture a player's character? Well, I'm sure you find it entertaining. And for the player? I've quit games because the GM behaved this way. Nothing makes me more frustrated than being told that I can be creative in any way that I want and then being told that I did it wrong. Worse, you would then go further and punish the player. I don't imagine many players would enjoy such humor.

Mike

[lumpley]

Hey All.

Mike,

Also, to assume that a player will not be disapointed using this tactic is to assume that the player is comfortable with narrative methodology

That's precisely what I meant by c., and on reflection I think you're right.  More follows.

Ron,

- victory & loss: assessments for those actions, socially acknowledged among the participants; this relies completely on some form of conflict of interest among those participants, such that not everyone may win

Seriously?  Conflict of interest among the participants?  Dang, I'm a Narrativist after all.  Emily Care warned me this would happen.

No, I'm serious.  For a while I've been having a hard time figuring out the difference between a Gamist sense of conflict and balanced challenge and whatever and a Narrativist sense of conflict and dramatic tension.  If the difference is at the player level -- that is, if Gamism is about conflict and balanced challenge between the players (gm included) then no wonder I wasn't getting it.

In which case my essay isn't about Narrative Sharing for Gamists, it's about Narrative Sharing for Narrativists.

Huh.

Well, I have one more little issue to take, but it's trivial by comparison.

Mike,

he expects the GM to be an impartial arbiter who comes up with reasonable conflicts and chalenges which the player then tries to overcome and are handled fairly by the GM.

Is it even possible for the gm to be impartial?  I want the gm to come up with challenges that are tailored very specifically, very partially if you will, to my weaknesses and my interests.  I tell the gm my interests and my weaknesses, expecting the gm to exploit them in a challenging way.

Is that just because I'm a Narrativist and didn't realize it?

And some other loose ends:

Ron, I got the idea about Elfs from here on page 16, where it says "Not legitimate: Troll's Fart will swing at the rat-thing, but I want the rat-thing to slip on a banana peel."

Mike, I'm blowing off your concerns about negative reinforcement, but not just arbitrarily.  The apparent animosity between the players and gm in my rant is part of an ongoing joke, and if you only read the rant there's no way for you to know it.  The game won't work at all without a pretty solid cooperative relationship between the players and gm, it'll destruct long long before this particular bit even comes up (sometime during character creation, I'd think).  I don't want to ask you to read the whole (likely unappealing) game so we can discuss that part of it.

-lumpley

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Lumples,

You have exactly pinpointed the Gamist issue. ALL of GNS is about player goals and decisions, so yes, the conflict & competition & victory/loss issues in Gamist play are among the real people.

The real trouble in continuing the discussion of Gamism is that many people have an instant, negative reaction to its definition. This can be manifested either as (unfair) contempt for Gamism or as blame at me for saying anything so nasty about anyone.

Neither of these reactions are sensible. Gamism is a hell of a lot of fun with an RPG that works well for it, and if its stakes/strategy content interests everyone involved.

(If you see a corollary here with Narrativism, in that it is a hell of a lot of fun with an RPG that works well for it, and if the Premise at hand interests everybody ... well, you're right.)

So yes, that's the big insight into Gamism. It is NOT a criticism, put-down, or even a tolerant sneer toward Gamism.

One last thing - the terms "balance" and "fairness" are often tossed around casually in discussions of Gamism without much reflection. I strongly suggest that we are VERY far from understanding these issues, and I wish people would not leap to assumptions about what "all Gamists must think" about them.

Best,
Ron

P.S. We can talk about Director stuff in Elfs in the Elfs forum.

[Mike Holmes]

Balance. Well, of course this is a subjective term. Can a GM be balanced, unfair, impartial? Well, probably not perfectly, probably not all the time. So I should rephrase. The Gamist player may want a GM who attempts to be these things and who believes ththis is the way to play an entertaining game. And to the extent that this is possible, the conflict becomes between the player and the game that the GM constructs withing the rules of the paricular RPG.

This is why many a GM will spend a lot of time looking at whether or not a particular encounter they have devised is likely to kill the characters. The level of balance sought in many gamist games has to do with making sure that combat is neither too easy nor too lethal to the PCs. So as to not be thought to be claiming that gamism is all about combat, I will reiteratte that the definition extends to any conflict or challenge devised that would be of interest to the player (and as a rationale to the character continuing to try and defeat them). This example is just for illustration.

To the extent that this is difficult and that GMs do not succeed, yes, this annoys some players. Have you ever heard a player say that they were disapointed because they felt that the GM was trying to kill their characters? Ths is a common complaint, and rightfully stated - if true. This because the player wants a balanced conflict to overcome and in most of these games the GM has unlimited power. Which means that if he is actually competing that the contest is grossly unfair and obviously not winnable.

As far as it being a player issue, consider the classic example. In D&D characters are not concerned with the aquisition of experience points, players are. The over-the-top and contrived quote that I often give to illustrate is "Well, the baby kobolds weren't worth any experience points alive." This is humorous, extreme, and possibly prejudicial, but for a certain type of extremely Gamist player, one who does not care how his character feels, or to feel what the character feels, but only to be successful at achieving more of the game's meter of success (exp, levels, what have you), this is a totally valid way to play.

Think of an RPG for this theoretical player as some sort of really complicated boardgame. When making decisions playing the game "Dungeon", nobody thinks that it's absurd not to consider the emotions of your Hero pawn, or any consideration other than winning the game. This is why this is sometimes referred to as Pawn stance to play this way in an RPG.

One problem in understanding this is, as Ron points out, that many people would denigrate this style of play, because it isn't what they call "role-playing". This sort of Gamist extremism is, of course, very rare, and I only bring it up to make the point. Many more players, in my experience, who are gamist also play a little Sim or Nar as well, because of the immense potential that exist there as well. But many of these players can still be reasonbly classified as Gamists, overall, as the majority of their play is still focused on beating the game (or the GM in some circumstancs). Though this sometimes occurs becuse of lack of exposure to other modes (gamist is still the most prevalent introductory style due to the influence of D&D), for some it may merely be that this is thier prefered mode.

Rune is bandied about (not just by myself) of late as an example of extremely gamist design. Players each take turns GMing and trying to create good adventures as defined by the strict rules of the game. The player who makes the best adventure wins. This is not some interperetation on my part, it is, in fact, a heavily advertised and touted feature of the game that somebody gets to win. A perfect example of competition between the players as a goal of the design. And, from what I gather a fairly effective design as well.

I'm sorry that I was unable to communicate the player nature of GNS to you and it took Ron's intervention to sort it out. In the future a good cue to watch around here is that posters usually do a good job of not confusing the terms player and character. As in the following definition of Gamism: the player wants to compete against the challenges of the game so the decisions that he makes as to what to have his character do will be based on whatever is the most effective use of the rules to be successful against said challenges.

OK, I'm beating a dead horse. Sorry. I'm just hoping that others reading will get it too.

Mike

[contracycle]

Hmm, I too want to reach more a Directorial, or perhaps merely explicitly Authorial, angle for my players to exploit with compromising my, uh, vision, of the setting and circumstance.  

I have had some limited success with what are in retrospect Directorial devices, but mostly at setup to foster inter-character relationships.  What I want is to find ways that exploit the game dynamic to legitimise what is in fact directorial, or at least authorial, play.  I found that in Mage, the fuzziness of the character abilities provoked a lot of tacitly authorial play, IME.

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-01 07:31, contracycle wrote:
Hmm, I too want to reach more a Directorial, or perhaps merely explicitly Authorial, angle for my players to exploit with compromising my, uh, vision, of the setting and circumstance.  

Was that "with" supposed to be "without"?

I think that what you describe is usually accomplished by placing limits on the realm of what player directorial power can be used for, or limiting number of uses. The Pool, for example, leaves the GM in control most of the time, but relinquishes control when a player gets a Monologue of Victory. On top of this the GM has the veto power, though this is the default mechanism that games employ to reign in players. In other games you might only have directorial control of, say, combat. This means that the GM is still empowered to keep the game on the track of his choosing for most applications.

Having lots of directorial ower in the hands of the players and still maintaining a "Vision" is more difficult. I think that this is, to an extent, what Ron talks about when he mentions the GM being the bassist of the band. You can be a first amongst many when sharing. But, essentially, the more power you give up the more the game takes on a shared vision.

I have had some limited success with what are in retrospect Directorial devices, but mostly at setup to foster inter-character relationships.

These devices are almost certainly amongst the most common and useful of player authorial/directorial power devices. The obvious example being the traditional "background" that a player writes for his character. How does yours work?

What I want is to find ways that exploit the game dynamic to legitimise what is in fact directorial, or at least authorial, play.  I found that in Mage, the fuzziness of the character abilities provoked a lot of tacitly authorial play, IME.

Interesting. When you say "dynamic", are you referring to the relationship between mechanics and setting as in the Mage example? Again, this is an example of where a player is given more latiitude in just a limited area.

Somebody wrote a thing recently which is essentially a sub game that is played to describe what happens to characters between adventures. This is an interesting example because is gives players all sorts of directorial power to direct these actions, but then leaves the rest of the game alone and (to the extent it was before) in the hands of the GM for directing it's vision. I thought that was interesting.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth (contracycle),

I suggest checking out the following games, if possible: Everway, Hero Wars, Castle Falkenstein, Extreme Vengeance, Ghost Light, InSpectres, Wyrd, Soap, Wuthering Heights, The Pool, and The Whispering Vault.

These games are not all alike. Some are playful and some are very deep/intense. Some confine their Author-mechanics into very specific areas (e.g. in Castle F it shows up mainly in the magic system), and some have very a strong GM role (e.g. Everway) and others have no GM at all (e.g. Soap). But in some way, for each one, aspects of the game rely on player Author/Director power, and aspects of the game facilitate that power. Some are more explicit than others about it, and some are perhaps "naive" about it (at least as presented in the text).

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Well, the devices I use/used are these:

Each character must have a connection to another character at game start.  Connections cannot be reciprocal, alhough I have heard arguments against this particular caveat.  The group gets together to negotiate "how they know one another", and sets up an intra-group dynamic.  (incidentally, my favourite description of the problem I am trying to tackle hear was in LOT5R - "Two Dragons, a Lion and a Ronin walk into a bar" or words to that effect).

Secondly, I try to get players to engage creatively with their starting environment - Conspiracy X's base-building stuff is good for this, although formalised.  On other occassions I just ask each player to contribute one fact about the start setting, and then synthesize it into a whole.  This gives the players a psychological commitment to the setting, and places their characters in context.

Thirdly, I ask players for "cool images" that they would like to experience in the game.  The best example was "SWAT troopers running through smoke" from one of my Cyber games.  This gives me an idea of what kind of things the players are playing for, and then I go away and try to find a way to hit these markers.  It also helps me keep tabs on player expectations and whether they are getting their jollies out of the whole thing.

Now: the kind of thing I am looking for techniques to achieve is a lot like the base building process in Conspiracy X.  The characters are behaving in an Authorial manner (I think) largely because this is explicitly legitmised by the gamist device, i.e. point spending.  None the less, the players are creating the world (drawing the map) themselves and, consciously or not, investing themselves in this part of the world.

So, I think that if say instead of experience points, players were rewarded in "world definition" points, we might provoke a lot of authorial thinking because we have provided a box in which it occurs.  Maybe Harold the Mighty Thewed's player spends their world definition points saying "Now the King of Norway has a beautiful daughter..." and leading on to some conspiracy of dynastic marriage and personal aggrandizement on Harolds part.  All well and good; there is no need for the player to break from one goal to another, the question merely has to be dressed up in a frame that the present goal can address.  I think.

One might say I am looking for "directorialism in gamist clothing", a false consciousness of gamism :smile:

The mage example is I think a case in point.  The "fuzzy" mechanic I referred to was the issue of coincidental magic, which introduced a profound shift in my approach to gaming in general.  One of the examples given in the rules was of yer ever-popular Fireball spell.  Actually creating a ball of flame is clearly direct, obvious magic against which there are mechanical risks and penalties.  However, if you were to argue that, as it happened (nudge nudge wink wink), the poor victim was standing on a weak gas pipeline which at this very moment happened to blow, that would not be obviously magical and the world would Make It So - retrospectively if necessary.

The implications are staggering but perfectly in tune with the concept of Mage.  If I have created this fireball coincidentally, and what has been defined as True by my magic IS True, then that implies that: records of the fault are "spontaneously" created in the gas companies files; people may "acquire" memories of having reported or worked on the fault; the necessary parts might already be in storage or on order; someone (else) might get prosecuted for negligence or manslaughter.  Not only is it now True that the pipeline was weak, but it Always Was True.

In order to do this, you-the-player have to engage in Authorial, and arguably Directorial, play.  But this is legitimised by the architecture of the game - yes, of COURSE you are imposing your will on the world - "Do As Though Wilt, For This Is The Whole Of The Law" as Mr Crowley would have it.  And its reinforced by the competing philosophies of the character factions and the technocracy et al.  I note that my partially Immersive player was much less prone to this sort of grand-scale tampering with the fabric of life as we know it, but still exploited the legitimisation of authorial control in a variety of ways centered around the characters relationships and experience of the world; I suspect it was a kind of inward looking authorialism, but that gets a bit funny in hurry.

Anyway, thats the kind of thing I'm looking for, but perhaps a bit more limited than mage did it, and without requiring that you buy a whole metaphysical philosophy en bloc for it to make sense.

[Mike Holmes]

I see what you're getting at, and I agree that these are powerful and provocative mechanics. Essentially, that you want the players to have Authorial/Directorial power explained as an expression of their in-game effectiveness, and limited by the setting as is appropriate. Yes, very cool. This is unlike The Pool, for example, in that the resource in The Pool is entirely metagame (though it expresses similarly in that the description of both is that of a successful application of some effectiveness).

Read that last twice if it helps, as it has a lot of jargon, particularly the ERM model stuff (Effectiveness, Resources, Metagame).

Anyhow, as Ron has implied, what you have described here, is possibly a gamist application of Authorial/Directorial power. This is what I believe was essentially your original contention, and I see it more clearly now. What you meant by narrativism, is just the Directorial/Authorial power, but without players having a free reign. Which is part of the definition of Narrativism, if I have it correctly.

The question becomes whether or not this will work. Can you simultaneously give a player authorial/directorial power, and limit it. And after thinking about it, I believe that it's possible. However, I still think that negative reinforcement may not be a good tactic in general (though, thinking about the nature of the game in question and it's apparent sado/masochistic tendencies, I might be worng in this particular context). If I were to try to accomplish this I'd personally try to find a way to positively reinforce "correct" use of the power in question.

The other option is to just allow "abuse" in this area as long as it does not affect balance in other areas. In your game (not having seen it in its entirety, lest anyone think this a review), for example, I don't see why it's particularly important for misey to be balancing. It is certianly more interesting to do it your way, but it just seems to me that people who don't heap misery on themselves for their evil acts are probably missing the point of the game.

If you want to make your game really gamist, why not allow the player to the left of the player aquiring misery decide what happens. This is balanced by the assigning player's sadism, and the desire not to be overly harshed by the player on your own left next time. Make it a karmic thing, the GM can veto anything that he thinks is more harsh than anything that the recieving player has already himself handed out. The first player to "break the seal" on the game can have anything done to him. So, if Bob on my right needs some misery, I can kill him, but then the player on my left can kill me next time I aquire some misery.

What would really drive this is some other gamist meter of success. For example, if the GM were to assign experience points or some sort of metagame resource (maybe you can aquire some Evil this way without attendant misery) or something based on how harsh the misery that they assigned was, players would have an even greater incentive to mess each other up.

This would all get my favorite gamist situation going, which is player competition amongst themselves. Fun, fun.

Mike

(edited because lately I can't type worth a damn)

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-09 15:32 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I have kill puppies for satan. It is not a Gamist game - there is NO element of competition, between players/GM, among players, or anywhere. So let Gamism off the hook, 'cause it's not involved and doesn't deserve judgmental comments in its direction anyway.

Nor, frankly, is there much Author/Director power in the game either. It's quite standard in the sense that you make up "your guy," and you play "your guy," with the GM being Mr. External as in the usual Simulationist tradition. I really cannot see where or how Author or Director stuff has been incorporated. The game has precisely the same approach toward player, character, and events during play as, say, Call of Cthulhu. This is not a bad thing, but Author or Director stance is simply out of the picture.

The main mechanic involves generating "evil" points which power magic/psychopath abilities. That's a lot like the charges in Unknown Armies, which like Call of Cthulhu, is a hard-core Simulationist game.

kill puppies is full of fun attitude. It's written to make the reader laugh and be willing to play these horrid characters in a fairly comedic-splatter context. It's full of little gems (my favorite is the GM advice on how to play Satan, which is excellent, but the Dr. Skippy references in the scenario are a close second). The profanity and "oh, get with it" approach are entertaining.

That is engaging - but it has nothing to do with Narrativism. So, multiple posts into this thread, I am saying that the proposed topic is utterly meaningless. You have a fun Simulationist game. There is no Narrative sharing, nor Narrativist anything, nor Gamist anything.

Now, the rant from Cockroach Souffle is a bit of a different story. You've added some Director Stance stuff in there. But since the game, overall, doesn't have much of a Premise that matches with Narrativism, the Director stuff doesn't DO much in terms of GNS - it makes life easier, more creative, and more fun during play, but it doesn't create Narrativism.

And no, Mike, NO definition of Gamism, Simulationism, or Narrativism relies on Stances. Not one. The association of Stance with Mode (G, N, or S) is NOT definitive.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-09 17:17 ]

[lumpley]

Hey All.

Contracycle,

I play Ars Magica, where the more part of character creation is creating the Wizard's community that all the characters live in.  It works great when the characters are unified and relatively isolated (sounds like Conspiracy X has the same kind of thing); doing it in a more open setting is trickier, and that's one of the things I'm struggling with too.  Having everybody contribute a fact about the world is cool.

Mike,

Contracycle and I aren't the same person.  He's the one with the way way cool idea of letting people spend experience points on world creation.  I'm the one with the blasphemous game about negative reinforcement and punishing your players.  :wink:

Giving the player on your left experience points for giving you appropriate levels of grief is a terrific thought, and it would certainly drive competition between the players.  (There's no call for competition between the players in the game now, even a (perhaps too-) subtle bias against it.  But I agree that it'd make a fine game if it's your thing.)  Do you mind if I write it up as a variant and put it on my site?

Ron,

First, thanks for your kind comments.  Can I quote you on my site?

multiple posts into this thread, I am saying that the proposed topic is utterly meaningless ... Now, the rant from Cockroach Souffle is a bit of a different story.

My fault really, but I always intended to be talking about the rant from Cockroach Souffle.

But since the game, overall, doesn't have much of a Premise that matches with Narrativism, the Director stuff doesn't DO much in terms of GNS - it makes life easier, more creative, and more fun during play, but it doesn't create Narrativism.

Ah, so instead of Narrative Sharing for Gamists, what we actually have is Directorial Power (was Narrative Sharing) for Game Balance / Dramatic Tension oriented Simulationists.  Yes?  No?  (Are there, in fact, Game Balance / Dramatic Tension oriented Simulationists?) Am I totally garbled or is it just me?

(I'm getting the Game Balance / Dramatic Tension oriented bit from a. the stuff about working out an appropriate level of grief, or b. my butt.)

So Everybody,

Here's a reformulation of my original, long lost question:

What part of the gamer is it that wants the in-game obstacles to be challenging but surmountable*, and (more importantly) d'you think we can use director stance to have the players set up those challenges themselves, rather than relying on the gm to do it**?

*I assumed it was the Gamist part, but evidently it's not.

**GMs being notoriously bad at creating the challenges the players want instead of going off on some ridiculous thing about alien abductions and why flash-bang grenades are not a solution to them.  Or at least me being notoriously bad, alas.

-lumpley



[ This Message was edited by: lumpley on 2001-10-09 20:21 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

"What part of the gamer is it that wants the in-game obstacles to be challenging but surmountable*, and (more importantly) d'you think we can use director stance to have the players set up those challenges themselves, rather than relying on the gm to do it**?"

Just about everyone wants in-game obstacles to be challenging but surmountable. Or rather, the outlook is widespread across the GNS modes. What differs is "what's challenging" and "challenging about what?" I am convinced that by "challenging," we are really talking about "engaging."

"**GMs being notoriously bad at creating the challenges the players want instead of going off on some ridiculous thing about alien abductions and why flash-bang grenades are not a solution to them. Or at least me being notoriously bad, alas."

Agreed. Your Director Stance material is a fine corrector. I consider you to have added a functional and interesting Director Stance mechanic to a Simulationist game for Simulationist-oriented players. Bravo!

(I have always said that any mode of play can accomodate any mode of Stance. The more we see MECHANICS that permit this to happen such that the desired mode is not violated, the happier I am.)

Best,
Ron

[lumpley]

Ron,

Just about everyone wants in-game obstacles to be challenging but surmountable. ... What differs is "what's challenging" and "challenging about what?"

Oh.  Nice.  That explains it.

-lumpley