This came up in another thread and I thought it deserved it's own topic (even if it's been discussed before, I didn't get to take part in the previous one, if any). I want to know how many people use riddles and puzzles in their dungeons and other scenarios in game...
Personally I can't stand the very idea of it. One time a DM decided to put puzzles into her game so it would be less about "hack and slash" and more about "thinking" and honestly, it ended in disaster. When -none- of us could figure out her first puzzle (which sbhe wouldn't allow us to roll to solve, mind you... it had to be solved by the -players-), she was so perplexed that she started going on about how she "couldn't believe we weren't getting this" because it's "so easy" and her other friends "got it right away"... all of which did nothing but alienate the players. We felt dumb. We felt embarrassed. We felt anger toward our DM. We quit the game shortly after. All because of a stupid puzzle. Nevermind that one of the PCs had an 18 Intelligence... nope, we couldn't roll. I don't know a thing about Engineering or Fletching in real life but my DMs have never had me actually come up with such knowledge by myself... no, they let me roll for it because my -character- does know it.
If anyone has had experience with puzzles and riddles working well in their games, awesome... but in my experience they're a bad idea. What do you all think?
Puzzles work when they have a lot of different answers, and one of the main answers is "If my players make up something awesome, I'm totally rolling with it"
Puzzles tend to bring out the dark side of DMs - the ones who want to teach something or prove a point, or want to show how clever they are by making this challenging riddle with one answer and wait with baited breath to see if they get it (they won't. They never will.)
Puzzles coincidentally can also sometimes bring out the best side of DMs - the ones that watch as their players jury rig something bizarre and horrifying with an immobile rod, rope, two ten foot poles, and a live chicken, and then just nod and go "Wow, that works. It works awesomely."
My first rule of thumb for DMing: if the player makes a good idea or theory that you didn't think of, run with it. It makes you look awesome because, hey, it's a really cool idea! It makes the player feel cool because, oh man, you totally got it! And it makes the game as a whole more fun, because the players are more willing to think outside the box.
The downside is, most puzzles aren't presented in an organic, "multiple answers" sort of way. We've all been in that dungeon. We walk into the room and the wizards' booming voice echoes "You have entered my LABYRINTH OF CONUNDROMS! Only the wisest may pass!" They're then subjected to a series of "puzzles" that have only one answer, make no sense, and either nobody gets it, or one player gets it every time (this will usually be a player with low intelligence - watch as the DM punishes them for getting the right answer).
I think a puzzle should rarely be THE roadblock.
I prefer puzzles that can make life easier if you get them but theat you can just as easily ignore.
e.g. puzzle to open a secret door that lets you bypass a room with a very dangerous encounter for your level, leaving you with more resources to handle the "boss" in the final room.
However there are some occations where you might want to have a hard puzzle to be the key to a sidequest worth alot in money/items for the group, say its the puzzle to open the crypts magically sealed entrance.
the group might find it can't figure it out but the riddle will stay with them while they adventure elsewhere occationally comming back to the crypt to try out thier latest answer and amybe they evnutlly get it right and get a big reward for it.
another really good way of doing puzzle is during encounters where there might be an "obvious" puzzle in the room, i.e. light the torches which will ignite the oil on the ground and roast all your enemies.
but when youbeing chased into this room by undead you mind is only trying to beat them back and a simple puzzle which could save you time and resources all of a sudden becomes an intersting challenge to recognise.
But like I said i the begining simply having a puzzle room with one answer that needs to be solved to keep moving is never a good idea, there should always be a dumb and smart answer if not more.
e.g. smart answer the riddle to open the locked door
dumb answer bash down the door altering nearby monsters resulting in a fight
both answer get you to the next room but the dumb answer costs you time spent fighting and party rescoures.
|
For me the answer is - it depends. If done right, a good puzzle or riddle can contribute to a game rather than subtract from it. A classic answer the riddle to get safely past the monster, or maybe a mural in the dungeon with hints on the safe route. But, yeah, players should be allowed to roll for knowledge checks to at least give them some good hints, if not to figure out the answer itself. Otherwise it can just get annoying. And I think they can be overdone as well. One or two in a dungeon is OK, 10 or 12 would not be.
I thought the Gamemastery Guides piece on riddles and puzzles was pretty cool.
Creative Director
|
I HATE riddles/puzzles in adventures... unless they take into account the fact that it's the characters and NOT the players that are being stumped by them.
AKA: If a puzzle or riddle has in-game methods to help solve it or learn clues, such as via skill checks or whatever, then fine.
But encounters where you can leave your character sheet at home and don't need to roleplay through are lame.
I enjoy puzzles in games, they do help break up a pattern, but they do have their place. I remember a game back in high school where we had a riddle to open the door: "I am at the beginning of every end and the end of every life." I kid you not it took us 2 hours to figure the thing out. On player finally guessed it and another player hit himself with his PHB so hard it actually bent both covers and the spine (he's was/is a little...odd).
I personally enjoy physical puzzles, move statue A to square B then point statue C at Statue A. There was one in a Dungeon Crawl classic that was like that where we had to turn the statues heads in a specific way to open something (I don't remember the details).
I know on most puzzles the DM at least allowed us to use the applicable Knowledge skills to get clues, but not the direct answer.
I would say to many puzzles in a game, especially with the wrong group, can certainly ruin things.
I always liked the idea of giving players with a high intelligence score a hint to solve the riddle. The higher your intelligence score, the bigger the hint.
I HATE riddles/puzzles in adventures... unless they take into account the fact that it's the characters and NOT the players that are being stumped by them.
AKA: If a puzzle or riddle has in-game methods to help solve it or learn clues, such as via skill checks or whatever, then fine.
But encounters where you can leave your character sheet at home and don't need to roleplay through are lame.
Totally Agree.
It's tough to pull off well and somewhat difficult to implement with a dice-based game IMO. If a player is terrible at riddles but his/her character has a high INT score, do you let them roll to figure out the answer? Seems to be defeat the point, and yet...seems only fair.
I think if you're going to implement a puzzle it shouldn't necessarily be one with a right or wrong answer but rather one that will decide what path the PCs end up on. I think players like games where their decisions impact a game's direction more than a game where they have to solve things the way the GM designed them to be solved or end up stuck.
Whenever you reach a point where your (good) players are stuck or frustrated, you've probably done something wrong as a GM.
|
I use riddles and puzzles in my game. I allow the "players" to attempt to solve any riddle or puzzle. If they can't or just don't want to, I allow them INT checks or appropriate Knowledge checks. The DC is never so high that at least one of the players is able to succeed. If by some chance they all fail their rolls (this has never happened), I'll usually have a backup option or two.
I HATE riddles/puzzles in adventures... unless they take into account the fact that it's the characters and NOT the players that are being stumped by them.
AKA: If a puzzle or riddle has in-game methods to help solve it or learn clues, such as via skill checks or whatever, then fine.
But encounters where you can leave your character sheet at home and don't need to roleplay through are lame.
I have to agree 100%. The point of a role playing game is to play the role, which means that puzzles that only challenge the players don't really fit. Now putting in the occasional puzzle that is made to challenge the characters is fine.
Riddles have the problem of basically being player challenges, and are subject to interpretation about difficulty. My players have a variety of intelligence levels, and making riddles that are just going to confuse the less intelligent ones annoy everyone.
In my games, all gyno sphinx are able to answer any question, but only in the form of a riddle. The poor creature doesn't even know the answer to the riddle.
Part of the DMs job is to keep the puzzles from derailing the campaign.
That's the problem with Ebberon online.
You have to have someone who is good at the game available to talk you through it.
Puzzles can have their place but they should fit the adventure. Simply putting in a puzzle to test the players instead of the characters isn't what the game is about. I created a character so that I don't have to be me for a little while.
That being said, I don't mind if there are ways to solve the puzzles in game. I don't have a problem with the DM giving hints with proper skill checks or ability checks. The higher you roll, the better the hint. The DM should plan for this. There should also be more than one way to deal with the puzzle. Sure, maybe there is only one solution but the characters should have more than one way to find that solution.
The puzzle should also not prevent the adventure from continuing unless it's only for a short while. A sphinx posing some riddles is fine. A complex mathematical puzzle that takes hours of work and some knowledge of calculus is not welcome at my table even if it's something I can solve.
I will use puzzles... but I won't have a solution for them as a GM. I will have a means for getting past them -- I just won't get it in my mind that this is the "only way" through it. IF the PC's come up with an answer and it sounds plausible I'll go with it, if the players are having a hard time I'll let them use knowledge and other skill checks to get past it.
The idea is to give them a challenge then let them get past it however works for the group -- not to gloat over my "clever" trap/puzzle/situation, not to prove the players can't do it but to provide an enjoyable experience however it manifests itself.
I HATE riddles/puzzles in adventures... unless they take into account the fact that it's the characters and NOT the players that are being stumped by them.
AKA: If a puzzle or riddle has in-game methods to help solve it or learn clues, such as via skill checks or whatever, then fine.
But encounters where you can leave your character sheet at home and don't need to roleplay through are lame.
I completely disagree with everything you said in this post. But that is just a matter of taste.
Surprised by all the puzzle/riddle hate.. As a GM you really have to know your players whether they'll enjoy something like that and yes making the solving of a riddle/puzzle the only way to continue is a poor choice. Hints are good and if no one gets it as a player a skill check seems fair. Still I like puzzles, riddles and would like to see more use of them in published stuff. That's just me though.
Done correctly, a puzzle in a D&D game really does grab players attention and make a break between combat encounters.
I recall one mission I wrote and DMed had a fairly simple puzzle consisting of three coloured levers and a coded note which provided directions. For example, one line on the note might say 'Pelor drifts north to open the way', (Greygawk game, Pelor is god of the sun) and the players realised they needed to push the yellow lever forward/north and it will open a secret door.
Really simple, took only about 5 minutes to sort out. No complaints.
On the other hand, I tried my hand at a maths puzzle using a 20 value base system of numbers (like the Mayan number system). BIG mistake on my part, I had 2 of the players scratching their heads in confusion and 3 proceeding to solve it in seconds. Turns out the 3 either worked with maths or had a degree in mathematics. No hard feelings from anyone but it quite clearly did not work. My bad.
Last Sunday I ran my FR PCs through a series of five doors with numerical puzzles involving simple English gematria, the Fibonacci sequence, prime numbers and logic as well as wordplay. No complaints from the players. I allowed skill rolls to garner clues. Fun for me to design and apparently fun for my players to ponder.
Zo
I like puzzles and hate riddles. In my experience, riddles are either gimmees (because your players get told something, then asked it later) or they break the suspension of disbelief (because it relies on player knowledge rather than character knowledge).
I dont find the same problem with puzzles (though skills should count for something or it should be an easy-to-picture mechanical thing - I remember some Eberron adventure where you placed colored rods in a mechanism and it spun rooms around to allow you into other parts of the dungeon which in turn allowed you to discover new colored rods to access yet more bits. I think things like that are fine - from memory it was easy to work out what to do and didnt result in sitting there for two hours waiting for someone clever to work it out or for the DM to relent and provide some out-of-the-blue insight/clue).
I think using puzzles and riddles in an adventure require the DM to pay attention to the player's reaction and be ready to allow a skill check if that is the direction the players are leaning.
In our group our DM runs a few things that have a puzzle or riddle. One module he ran (not a Paizo module) had a lot of riddles in it. We enjoyed it and we worked to solve the puzzles/riddles without aid of skill checks. I guess they struck us when we were in the mood for a puzzle.
Other times we are more quick to say, can we make an Intelligence check to solve. If players are asking this, the DM should pick up on the fact the players seems less interested in solving the puzzle themselves and just moving on. In these cases I think the DM should let the skill check happen, explain how a character figured it out and move the game on.
So I don't think puzzles should necessarily be avoided, but the DM needs to be willing to let the players choose the skill check option to solve if that is what they are leaning towards. If the players are having fun solving it, then more power to them. Puzzles and riddles just need a flexible DM that can read their players.
Puzzles can be fun, but they rarely make any sense.
If you want to guard something against intruders and only want it to be accessible by specific people, don't guard it with a lock that can be opened by anyone within 20 to 30 minutes.
What works a bit better are disguised puzzles. Machines that are supposed to be used frequently, but there's no manual that explains how it works. So the PCs have to figure it out by themselves.
But most puzzles I use are actually non-puzzles: "The bridge over the chasm is destroyed. Find a solution to cross the gorge."
Riddles are even worse. It worked in LotR, but only because the secret to open the door was to know that there's a riddle in the first place. When you allready know there's one, anyone can overcome that obstacle in question.
What do you all think?
Puzzles/riddles are flat-out awesome. We certainly use them once or twice a campaign, and we'd all be disappointed if they didn't appear at least once.
BUT:
1) Only use them if the majority of people like them.
2) Don't use them too often.
3) Don't make them block the only means to continue on.
But encounters where you can leave your character sheet at home and don't need to roleplay through are lame.
W3rd. To a degree, sure. But if we take the nonsense above to its logical conclusion, why are players even making any decisions for their characters at all?
They're not genius wizards... so why are they making decisons as to what spells they cast? The DM should make those decisions, since he/she knows the situation best. The players are not necessarily tactical genius warriors - so why are players making decisions where to move and who to fight? The DM should also make those decisions for them, since - again - he/she knows the situation best. Hey - the "character would know" even if the player doesn't - so why is the player making any decision?
Pffft. Everyone draws the line in the sand at a different place.
There are many reasons to not include puzzles/riddles in the game - but "it's not roleplaying!" isn't one of them. It's real flesh-and-blood players who play the game, not completely fictitious "characters"... challenge those who are actually playing the game, not figments of your imagination.
(With all that ranting done, I do agree that it's really just about taste and personal preference...) :D
Ok, so I have had both experiences with puzzles. Once a dm had a series of riddles we had to answer, and if you got it right you were rewarded, and if you got it wrong, you had to fight 'the gaurdian' and really were still rewarded (XP is a reward afterall). So maybe your character had extra dents in his armor, but there was no road block if you couldnt just sort out the puzzle. When we answered correctly, fun the person who got it felt good, and the party moved on. When we couldnt answer, we had an encounter that everyone enjoyed anyway. Win-win.
I have also had a dm put a puzzle in front of us. It was with symbols and we had to match them in paterns. You could either actually work out the puzzle or roll a series of disable device checks (the puzzles were a combinations) so again, if someone wanted to do the puzzle they could and it helped with immersion. But if you couldnt get it, your character still could.
I have also had the dm that required us to sort out a puzzle of a weird maze that kept teleporting us to different spots, and apparently there was some kind of pattern and we were supposed to figure out the patern (without a top down view of the maze since trying to fly above it got you teleported into paintown). We spent the whole session wandering around this maze trying to figure out what the hell was going on, and he didnt allow skill checks or intelligence checks to try to figure it out. We had to. That brought the game to a screetching halt after a while. It almost broke up the whole campaign.
So i guess i agree that it is all about how you use them, and that you should make sure no matter how much YOU like puzzles as a dm, you should leave an ingame way for them to be solved, and account for the possibility that they might not be solved.
The occasional riddle or puzzle does help break up a game that might otherwise be an endless series of combat encounters, and such things are a staple of fantasy fiction when it comes to trailing a hidden treasure or bypassing a trap.
I rarely include them, and when I do I try to make it fit the setting. For example, there is a shop in the City of Ravens Bluff called "Potions, Lotions and Notions"; the PCs (who were all natives of that city) were given a clue to go to "the place where the three oceans meet." It didn't take them too long to work it out and they had a sense of accomplishment when they did.
DM: Ahead of you there is a pile of bones rising out of the ankle-deep watery muck. Sitting on this dry island of bones is an old and tattered looking creature with the body of a lion, the torso and head of a woman, and the wings of an eagle. She looks at you and says, "To pass me, you must answer my riddle:
"Round she is, yet flat as a board. Altar of the Lupine Lords. Jewel on black velvet, pearl in the sea. Unchanged but e'erchanging, eternally. What am I?"
Player: My wizard with a 24 INT rolls an Intelligence check. I got a 21.
DM: That's high enough to know the answer.
Player: Good. I tell the creature the answer.
DM: The sphinx bows her head and says "You've solved the riddle of the sphinx. You may pass".
Yeah, that's a whole lot of fun. Sign me up for that.
For those who don't recognize it, that is a riddle from S2: White Plume Mountain. I think it was the second module TSR ever published for AD&D, though I may be wrong on that score.
It seems that guessing riddles goes way back to the very earliest days of AD&D. And it goes back to Bilbo's "Riddles in the Dark" before that, and it even goes back to ancient mythology with the original riddle of the sphynx. And it might even be older than that.
Me, I don't mind a good riddle, or a good puzzle. In fact, I love them. And I absolutely hate boiling the solution down to the roll of a d20.
This is a game. So play it. When we roll a d20 to solve a puzzle, we're not playing the game - our character sheet is playing the game, our dice are playing the game, but we're not. We're just sitting back watching our stuff play the game in front of us.
All that being said, it's important for the DM to remember that the players may not get it right. Maybe an intelligence check to figure out that "Lupine Lords" is a reference to wolves, or jewel, black velvet, and pearl are all a reference to a round white thing on a dark background. That sort of thing. But let the players solve the riddle (with or without hints).
Just rolling a die for the answer is lame.
It's a tool... but it shouldn't be smashed over the head of the players. It should be used sparingly and within the story - not some sort of tacked on, out of place roadblock. Also, puzzles or riddles might be useful to solve crimes or something in the context of the story, but applying it directly to the characters (such as in a life or death situation) is often a bit too heavy.
I also would consider crafting several "clues" that the players may be able to come up with via rolls, considering their character's skills or talents - which would constitute the rolling aspect of play.
I´ve recently ran a dungeon that was basically a set of home-tailored puzzles.
So, how did it go?
I told my players that it would be a different kind of game, just for a little change in pace. Thematically, it fit well: the dungeon was long lost citadel and the temple of an evil forgotten god of trickery. The puzzles were there to protect the place and were put in place by that deity after it was stripped of its divinity.
Being a player who personally does not like puzzles and a person who sucks at them, I was a little uncertain of the outcome, so I wrote the puzzles in a way that would capture me as a player. Each puzzle told a little about the history of the place, and by the end they could get the whole picture. The story of the citadel was tied to the main plot, so the players kept getting curious with each new finding. I found this made it easier for them to keep wanting to go forward.
Also, each puzzle had another way through, either by fighting some monster or by means of secret passages. Some of the puzzles were easy but had high stakes and little time to complete. This added a nice sense of drama to the game. I allowed Int checks for clues. The only puzzle that had no alternative was the last one.
Overall, it was a very nice adventure, with a slight epic feel about it. Some of the puzzles didn´t work (my fault, in the first one I completely dropped the ball), and in the begining it looked like it would be a disaster. However, a lot of them did work, and in the end they actually solved almost all of them, rarely taking the alternative road. Upon completing the last puzzle, they freed another forgotten god who returned the faith to the humans and gave them all gifts, plus a cheesy but very informative speech. It was the end of the story arc they were in, and it caused a lot of changes in the campaign afterwards.
I believe they liked it, some more than others, of course. Above all, I think they felt rewarded, not only because of the loot, but storywise. I don´t think I´ll be DMing another one of these anytime soon, but it was a nice experience.
Hate them with a burning passion. Every single time I've run into a riddle or puzzle, which I'm not that great with to begin with, the GM has made it such an incomprehensible nightmare that only one player, if even that, has any clue what it's about. Sure, if that's the type of game a group of players want, great, more power to them and their GM. But I won't be playing, because I play to relax and have fun, and all the puzzles and riddles I've run into simply frustrate me, and I'd rather spend my time elsewhere.
Puzzles can be good. But I agree with a previous poster. They shouldn't be the only way the resolve a scenario. Because you are faced with the possibility no one can solve it. That effectively ends a module. Not much fun. If that is how a puzzle is used then it is a classic case of the GM being too clever for them-self. Especially if it is layers of puzzles. Then you are almost making certain to kill your own game.
As a player I dislike puzzles. The last one our party had to do I missed the session and afterwards was happy I did. From the sounds of it, it took most of a 8 hour gaming session to complete and to me that just doesn't sound like very much fun.
This is a game. So play it. When we roll a d20 to solve a puzzle, we're not playing the game - our character sheet is playing the game, our dice are playing the game, but we're not. We're just sitting back watching our stuff play the game in front of us.
Does this mean as a dm you also set up targets and hand your players a bow and say, ok make your attack? This is indeed a game, and part of the game is your character can do things i cant do. The 26 int wizard can conjur fires from the abyss but his ability with riddles is limited to that of normal old me? That makes as much sense as the barbarian being limited to my ability to swing an ax, or the rogue to my ability with a lockpick.
|
|
Despite being pretty smart overall (good grades throughout school, etc.), I'm awful at puzzles and riddles, and always have been. I don't mind one in an adventure from time to time, as long as there is a way for the character to get by it without depending on player knowledge/abilities.
After all, my brute characters aren't penalized on their attempts to bash down a door due to me being a bit out-of-shape, why should my smart characters be penalized by me being clueless about puzzles?
|
DM: Ahead of you there is a pile of bones rising out of the ankle-deep watery muck. Sitting on this dry island of bones is an old and tattered looking creature with the body of a lion, the torso and head of a woman, and the wings of an eagle. She looks at you and says, "To pass me, you must answer my riddle:
"Round she is, yet flat as a board. Altar of the Lupine Lords. Jewel on black velvet, pearl in the sea. Unchanged but e'erchanging, eternally. What am I?"
Player: My wizard with a 24 INT rolls an Intelligence check. I got a 21.
DM: That's high enough to know the answer.
Player: Good. I tell the creature the answer.
DM: The sphinx bows her head and says "You've solved the riddle of the sphinx. You may pass".
Yeah, that's a whole lot of fun. Sign me up for that.
For those who don't recognize it, that is a riddle from S2: White Plume Mountain. I think it was the second module TSR ever published for AD&D, though I may be wrong on that score.
It seems that guessing riddles goes way back to the very earliest days of AD&D. And it goes back to Bilbo's "Riddles in the Dark" before that, and it even goes back to ancient mythology with the original riddle of the sphynx. And it might even be older than that.
Me, I don't mind a good riddle, or a good puzzle. In fact, I love them. And I absolutely hate boiling the solution down to the roll of a d20.
This is a game. So play it. When we roll a d20 to solve a puzzle, we're not playing the game - our character sheet is playing the game, our dice are playing the game, but we're not. We're just sitting back watching our stuff play the game in front of us.
All that being said, it's important for the DM to remember that the players may not get it right. Maybe an intelligence check to figure out that "Lupine Lords" is a reference to wolves, or jewel, black velvet, and pearl are all a reference to a round white thing on a dark background. That sort of thing. But let the players solve the riddle (with or without hints).
Just rolling a die for the...
I gotta agree with you here, I feel the same way, and thankfully, so do my players.
I do use puzzles and riddles sparingly though, so they don't get too annoying, but sometimes it just works so well, and everyone has a ball.For example, I did a Minesweeper-esque puzzle once where the tiles on the floor would change when you stood on them, and if you triggered a mine, rather than failing, a hole in the ceiling would open up and a random enemy would fall out of it and attack. Everyone was having fun, and then one player came up with the idea of taking a dead stirge (one of those enemies) tying a rope to it, and then using it as bait of a kind by tossing it out and dragging it along the ground. Everyone at the table thought it was hilarious (particularly since this was the stuck-up paladin that was doing it), so naturally it worked and everyone had a blast. So I think that puzzles can work quite well, especially when combined with other events (skill checks, combat, etc)
I like riddles and puzzles. I think they add a lot of character to the game... if they're done right. If they are an obstacle, there should be more than one way to deal with them. In the case of a riddling creature, you could always try to fight it. For non-creature puzzles and riddles, there should be an alternate way around, not that it should necessarily be easy to find. They should also fit the setting as best they can. No calculus, please, for mathematical puzzles, no Sudoku, no reference to Buicks or Seinfeld.
I would hate to have them boiled down to just a die roll to solve. That tendency, I think, drains the flavor from the game as much as just rolling interpersonal skills without any role play. Skill or intelligence (or whatever) checks should make the puzzle or riddle easier. In the White Plume Mountain example, I'd probably start substituting words with decent checks. Replace lupine with wolf with a DC 15 Int or linguistics check, replace it with werewolf for a DC 20. Something like that to simplify the wording.
After all, my brute characters aren't penalized on their attempts to bash down a door due to me being a bit out-of-shape, why should my smart characters be penalized by me being clueless about puzzles?
But would it be appropriate for a fighting character to be hampered by a player with bad tactical skills? The answer lies in the mix of player ability and character ability. That's why I like skill checks to ease the puzzle rather than outright solve it just like a fighter's combat ability eases the combat encounter but doesn't outright solve it.
But would it be appropriate for a fighting character to be hampered by a player with bad tactical skills? The answer lies in the mix of player ability and character ability. That's why I like skill checks to ease the puzzle rather than outright solve it just like a fighter's combat ability eases the combat encounter but doesn't outright solve it.
After all, my brute characters aren't penalized on their attempts to bash down a door due to me being a bit out-of-shape, why should my smart characters be penalized by me being clueless about puzzles?
Actually in your example they are reversed. The fighters combat does indeed solve the combat. The fighting is decided via die roll. It is the tactics that either ease or make the encounter harder. Your tactics could be amazing but its not untill the dice are rolled that the combat is 'solved'.
My first rule of thumb for DMing: if the player makes a good idea or theory that you didn't think of, run with it.
I share this philosophy. There are other benefits to it. It keeps the game moving. It is a great tool for GMs who mostly improvise. They do not have to come up with a possible solution for every obstacle they drop in front of the players.
I generally do not use Puzzles/Riddles in my game unless there are other ways around them. As a player, I hate them. I have just seen too many games grind to a halt and end in frustration.
I love campaigns designed arround a single puzzle. I have played in a couple of them now, and they have all been amasing. The point of each campaign was to identify where the puzzle was and gather resources that would help you solve it. In almost all cases we were strong enough at the start of the campaign to do everything that needed to be done, we just didn't know enough about the world to know what we should do. These types of campaigns are not for everyone, but I absolutely love them. I only know a couple of people that can craft them right though.
|
|
But would it be appropriate for a fighting character to be hampered by a player with bad tactical skills? The answer lies in the mix of player ability and character ability. That's why I like skill checks to ease the puzzle rather than outright solve it just like a fighter's combat ability eases the combat encounter but doesn't outright solve it.
After all, my brute characters aren't penalized on their attempts to bash down a door due to me being a bit out-of-shape, why should my smart characters be penalized by me being clueless about puzzles?
Yeah, there are some cases where it can't be avoided. And I do agree that you shouldn't be able to just roll a die and be done with it. I just think the other extreme should be avoided as well, of having it entirely based on player ability.
Skill checks to give hints and clues would be how I'd tend to handle it as well. It seems like the right balance. That's how I tend to run combat; part attack rolls and part tactics; as well as social encounters; part Diplomacy checks and part roleplaying. (For example.)
Actually in your example they are reversed. The fighters combat does indeed solve the combat. The fighting is decided via die roll. It is the tactics that either ease or make the encounter harder. Your tactics could be amazing but its not untill the dice are rolled that the combat is 'solved'.
I disagree, but then I'm actually looking more broadly than just "move here, gain flank", "spring attack there". I'm also thinking about the other decisions made by the fighting character - including fighting or not.