This is vital for my game because I have technology that can only be initialized by certain asset devices. I note to my players that they must play that asset on the challenge, but it would make life a lot easier to simply have the challenge linked to the asset and locked down inside the game mechanics.

I have thought about something similar, Lillith, but I couldn't think of an easy way to make those associations obvious.

I have considered how I would handle that sort of situation in my own game, and that is to watch cards as my players play them and override the challenge result if someone plays the appropriate solution card. For example, the player uses the Iron Key against the challenge Locked Door. I tell them (in the comments) that the group can consider the challenge completed with a Strong outcome because they used the key.

This doesn't work that well when the challenge is multiple points long, but it's a workaround.

I would like to be able to set up a puzzle that requires the right asset cards to be played on a challenge - the asset cards are held by various players. So restricting which cards can be played on a challenge would be very helpful, particularly because once a move is closed by a prior move, they can't change what cards they played on a challenge. A great addition, would be to allow asset cards played on a challenge to be changed on move revisions even after another move is played so they can make multiple tries at solving the puzzle.

I think it might be more useful (read: far more challenging to code but far more satisfying for the end product) if assets were given customizeable points, and maybe a specific challenge that they are designed for.

For example, "Key to the Prison" could be created as being worth five strong points to the challenge "Enter the Prison", and one neutral point otherwise, due to its specific use.

There are, of course, story ways to get around this (you found the key so the Narrator doesn't have to put up the challenge), but more options available to a storywriter, means more options available to the Narrators, means more options available to the players.

Just to play devil's advocate - in this kind of story game, the players are as much in control of the narrative as the Narrator in many cases. It's not like D&D where people say, "I try to..." They just say what they do, and succeed or fail as they describe.

If a player wants to narrate opening the door in a way that doesn't use the key, or narrates using the key but decides to use other cards to do it, why not allow them to create the story they want to create?

I feel like in this game it's not the Narrator's job to dictate how things turn out. The Strong and Weak Outcomes that are written by Narrators are described in the Help section as "a guide." It's more their job to put obstacles in front of the Cast.

Agreed - want to be able to require a specific card for a challenge.

Oh - maybe the narrator could decide if an asset card played was positive, negative or neutral.

Some way at least to restrict what can and can't be played on a challenge would be nice, as I have seen some pretty nonsensical cards played-- as a GM I do my best to figure out how to resolve that, but when you hand someone a puzzle and they decide to solve it with a shotgun it does sort of muddle things.

This is an excellent idea! I was thinking that having "Key Assets" that have strength points attached to them, (Thus using a key to get through the door will help give you the strong outcome without wasting Strength points, but I think that would cause the conflict of being able to use the 'key' anywhere.) I love the idea of having a "Key Asset" that can only be used towards a specific Conflict.