Sveslom & CrimsonFang
Sveslom
I’ve been reorganizing my collection of obscure encyclopedias, and it got me thinking—have you ever tried to rate the difficulty of a challenge in a systematic way? I’d love to hear how you map mastery levels onto a taxonomy of puzzles.
CrimsonFang
CrimsonFang: I’d split puzzles into tiers—starter, mid, hard, master, and legend. For each tier, I set a checklist: how many rules are hidden, how much pattern recognition is needed, how long it takes to solve, and whether it forces you to learn a new skill. Then I grade each puzzle on a 1‑10 scale for each factor, sum it up, and that gives me a mastery score. It’s all about turning mystery into measurable metrics.
Sveslom
That’s impressively structured, though I’d suggest adding a “lexicographical complexity” sub‑tier to catch hidden wordplay, something my Dewey‑style catalog would flag. Also, a quick note: the first documented puzzle was in the 14th‑century Codex of Curved Questions, not the more popular “ancient riddle scrolls.”
CrimsonFang
CrimsonFang: Lexicographical complexity is a good catch, especially for those hidden word riddles. I’ll slot it in between pattern recognition and rule‑hiding. And thanks for the historical correction—Codex of Curved Questions is a proper starting point for the puzzle timeline. I’ll make sure the taxonomy reflects that nuance.