I like the risk/reward equation to vary through the course of the round. If there is total camo or vagueness, eye trickery or complete random luck of the bounce of the ball, it may lead to a fun round if you have the correct mindset and like to be surprised by the circumstances and outcome of one shot and where it has led to a next shot challenge that you really didn't see coming. That can be fun - but not if you are playing competitively.
I think that the obvious RandR challenges that don't result in more than an opportunity to sacrifice 1 to 1.5 strokes on opening holes allowing one to still recover and play safe are what should be presented in moderation early in a competitive round and the hazards should be apparent with clear bailout options. They shouldn't be overly penal, but not render the shots merely a hit it and find it and hit it again, either. Then, in the middle holes of the round, the questions and answers should get more complex, not as obvious, and begin to really reward the clever or perceptive player who can also hit the shots. This starts to separate the good players and the resourceful. The last few holes should be the more severe risks and bigger rewards. The vagueness and random luck of the bounce should overshadow the question being presented by the architect. The risk should be clear, but the heroic should be greater for the daring. There should be features that reward precision via a preferred angle or slot to bound a ball to a more favorable position, and this can include a reward for strength for length with precision, but a big deterrent if the shot is missed. There has to be a clear choice of a conservative and safe strategy to play the closing holes, for a consistent player who may need to protect a lead, and the bigger risk and reward for the player trying to close on a leader or make the bold effort to break a tie.
So, it should be a 3 act play of risk and reward, IMHO.
Don, I assume the vague field of play your present in the photo has a subtle and known directional or shot shape advantage to those that become familiar with the course. But, maybe not. Maybe it is totally random, and no method to the variety of the humps and bumps, bunker placement and green contours merely routed over native ground without a specific question. But, I don't think Mike and you fellows did that.
But a one time play of WP may be quite a vague circumstance to a newbie, without an apparent question being asked of the player as he stands on the tee, unless an experienced course regular caddie had the suggestion for the player, like might be found if hiring a caddie at The Old Course. But, WP doesn't have regular caddies, correct?
In that case, one needs to revert back to the mindset of just going out there, trying to figure out what is being asked, what is the risk and reward or safe play, hit it and hope. Find it, maybe get an unforeseen surprise and new challenge for the next shot, and revel in such randomness. Playing for that goal of fun is certainly valid, IMHO. Yet, even with that randomness, I assume a person regularly playing that course learns a few things to do or try not to do depending on conditions, etc. So eventually, the risks and rewards begin to become apparent and known.
Maybe a local rule should be installed. The player who knows a vague course due to repeated playing and local knowledge on a course with RandR features, should have to hit their shots first off tee and next shots, no matter who has honors or is away.
