Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by AzaLiN, August 04, 2009, 05:25:07 AM
Quote from: Callan S. on October 01, 2009, 06:04:40 PMWell, 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.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 01, 2009, 06:04:40 PMHave 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.
QuoteRemoving 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.
QuoteYou'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.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 03, 2009, 12:15:33 AMIn 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 from: Callan S. on October 03, 2009, 12:15:33 AMEqually 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 from: Callan S. on October 03, 2009, 12:15:33 AMI 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.
Quote from: otspiii on October 03, 2009, 12:16:08 PMOkay, 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.
QuoteWell, 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.
QuoteAlso, shouldn't the players always be factored into the designs? The players should always be co-designers, albiet in a completely passive way.
QuoteIt'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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 03, 2009, 07:11:05 PMNot so bad? It sounds like your working from some sort of moral code that encapsulates this?
Quote from: Callan S. on October 03, 2009, 07:11:05 PMI 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.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 03, 2009, 07:11:05 PMSo 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.
QuoteKind 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.
Quoteand if it's well designed some (subtle) clues on the enemy's preferences should be discoverable/have already been revealed.
QuoteThey don't sound impressive, but the uncertainty gives a tension that a puzzle with only 100% right/wrong answers can't.
QuoteDarts 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.
Quotewhat'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.
QuoteThe 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?
Quote from: Callan S. on October 04, 2009, 07:45:18 PMWell, I think it does, since it doesn't seem achievable. There will be something that you enjoy but the players don't (here I'm pretty certain Chronoplasm likes his boat puzzle, otherwise he wouldn't have made it). Water it down and your taking away your own enjoyment (because it's watered down - you would have done that already if you enjoyed it), which you 'should' not do. Don't water it down and your taking away the players enjoyment, which you 'should' not do. Cue an Asimov three laws of robotics type internal conflict!There are plenty of activities and products in the world which have not been tailored to the people who are the players - they cope in that world, presumably. So I think that goal does need to be explicitly stated.
QuoteMaybe it's early in the piece to judge, but so far you haven't provided a substitute and these things you say you should not do have taken away material (if followed). They don't seem productive rules on what one shouldn't do. Again, early in the piece to judge, but I suspect it'll be a trend.
QuoteI think this is drifting over from challenge and into a 'certain feel'.And it doesn't answer my critique - I've just made up another boat puzzle, essentially. I've coupled an imaginative spectrum to a real life life task just as much as the boat puzzle is a real life task. What I've made is rules first - what I critiqued was fiction first. It's not another 'oh, if the fiction seems to call for a dice roll, then we will roll - though if that roll stuffs up the fiction, clearly the fiction is in charge and thus we'll work out some way of ignoring the roll...' fiction first fest.
QuoteAnd you wonder why I think your talking about simulationism first and foremost? Your almost shouting that the package decides if something is hard or not - rather than someone at the table simply deciding they want to present something that's hard.Basically anyone diciding something that goes against the 'mood' is athenema to you, right? That's why I call your ideas sim or religion even, because you can't simply decide as your own man to present a hard game, you can only present whatever it is that the mood tells you you are allowed to present. Your a follower of that mood. Ignoring my comments on sim or religion for now, everything I've said is based on deciding what you do as your own man, not as a follower.
QuoteSomeone on this forum once gave the example of a general from hundreds of years ago who would, outside of battle, present imaginary attacks from various hills or terrain around him, to his collegues. Basically to brainstorm ideas. I don't imagine he thought his solutions would win, because such hubris would probably have killed him off earlier. But instead he worked on solutions in advance of the problem showing up, so he'd have some plans to consider if it ever came up instead of it suddenly happening and coming up a blank. Maybe he'd use none of the stuff he made up, but atleast he'd have more resources to draw on when the real life moment hit. He was preparing for life, he was not sinking (immersing?) into a fantasy. And I'm pretty sure Ron's spione is trying in some way to prepare for real life, as well. But that's nar, of course.But I'm probably stuck in something similar to trying to describe an enjoyment that comes from not thinking it's real, to someone who does think it's real.
QuoteDifferent people can even have different weights attached to how important the GM enjoyment vs. the average player enjoyment vs. a specific player's enjoyment is
QuoteEven if it's something like 'improve yourself' I really don't see darts or solving artificial computational puzzles as more useful in everyday life than practicing creative problem solving
QuoteAre you saying that I've given rules on an alternative, but not given any good reason why you shouldn't use the boat puzzle?
QuoteWhat? Where did I ever say anything about ignoring the roll? It's all about positioning yourself for maximum advantage before the roll, but when the roll happens it happens. Do you just believe challenge is not possible without a pre-imagined answer? Just because the GM has to judge the merit of a solution doesn't mean that it's suddenly all holding hands and telling each other how smart we all are. Judgment calls like that are impossible not to have in an RPG, and if you're not comfortable with that then why are you even roleplaying as opposed to any other sort of game? Just because a rule is being channeled and interpreted through the GM mind doesn't mean it's not a rule.
QuoteBut. . .that's exactly the type of challenge I'm talking about. He took an abstract situation with no set answer and tried to determine how likely it was for a certain answer to the situation to lead to success.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 05, 2009, 07:59:16 PMCan we wrap up why I brought this up? You've been saying what people 'should' do - given other people have different weights, as you say, perhaps you should (oops, there I go as well) be instead outlining your set of weights and the value you see in that set, rather than saying what they 'should' do. That's what I've been getting at.
QuoteYou enquired about my posts and I tried to describe them further. If you don't see it - to try and go any further would involve trying to convince you. And I only set out to describe my posts further.
QuoteNo, I've said you've dismissed the boat puzzle but offered no replacement.
QuoteI think here and further down your mostly telling me 'how it is', rather than asking for further information about my posts. I'm just describing my perspective rather than trying to justify how it clashes with your perspective.
QuoteFor the guy I described, no, he didn't decide how likely a certain answer would lead to success. He looked at actions he could take.
QuoteTo further describe my perspective (without justifying how it might clash with any other perspective), I think judging whether the actions would be successful is rather like Richard Dawkins 'orbiting teapot' criticism. That criticism of imagined assertions being that there's a teapot orbiting the sun, but it's too small to be seen with telescopes. Can you disprove it's there? No. So if you can't prove it doesn't exist, does that prove the teapot does exist? No, of course not. Same with judging whether the parachute jacket would work under a certain 'mood' - can anyone prove it wouldn't work? No...so does that prove it would work? The capacity for groups to be convinced it would work, especially if their prized PC's life is at risk, is amazing - when really it's neither proved nor disproved. It's just in limbo. It's not that the human mind is good at judging abstract situations, it's that the human mind is good at jumping to conclusions where none can be made.