|
I don't get the hate, either. Personally, I love puzzles and riddles in my games; they're a great and IMHO vastly underused staple of the genre. I've 'inflicted' them on my players, and generally, they enjoy them.
If the players get too stumped with a puzzle, I allow rolls to help the characters along, maybe figure pieces of it out, but I try my best not to give the answer just based on a roll. There's much more of a feeling of accomplishment to beating that particular obstacle when they figure it out without rolling a DC 25.
Too many games that I've run across boil down to (insert roll here) for everything. Games feel really trite and lazy when the whole thing boils down to constant dice vs. dice IMHO. As it stands, my players have already gotten used to not having to come up with their own stories to get past the guards (and instead just roll for a Bluff check) or figure out on their own if someone's pulling the wool over their eyes (Sense Motive); they don't have to be convincing at threatening someone (Intimidate) or playing peacemaker (Diplomacy). Maybe I expect too much to actually have them think and role-play, but I've always figured that's the primary difference between 3.5/PF and just playing the Miniatures games.
I ABSOLUTELY HATE puzzles in adventures.
When I encounter a puzzle in an adventure I grow so bug eyed and filled with consternation that I'll happily watch my character die rather than have to spend a moment trying to figure out puzzle.
The only thing that ever saves my character is that someone else at the table loves to do puzzles and so while I go off to get another drink they sort out the soduku pattern in the floor or whatever it happens to be.
+1; my game sessions don't need speed bumps! I actually had a DM give us a sudoku floor pattern to solve; maybe we had the same DM. :-)
I'll make an exception for something like a bit of cryptic verse that gives a hint of what is to come, for instance.
If I run into a sudoku puzzle to open a door or something, I'm going to start investing in Adamantine Heavy Picks.
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.
Well, your 26 Int wizard is limited to only tactical combinations of spells that you can come up with on the fly...shouldn't a wizard with a 26 Int be able to figure out the optimal combo of spells to memorize every day and thus do a much better job of it than "normal old you"? Like it or not, your 26 Int wizard already is limited by what you can imagine and remember, and figure out...not just in the area of puzzles.
Well, your 26 Int wizard is limited to only tactical combinations of spells that you can come up with on the fly...shouldn't a wizard with a 26 Int be able to figure out the optimal combo of spells to memorize every day and thus do a much better job of it than "normal old you"? Like it or not, your 26 Int wizard already is limited by what you can imagine and remember, and figure out...not just in the area of puzzles.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.
I always find it funny when the puzzle is confounding the 25 Int Wizard, but the 7 Int barbarian figures it out. Go roleplaying!
If I run into a sudoku puzzle to open a door or something, I'm going to start investing in Adamantine Heavy Picks.
Unfortunately, I've found that puzzles tend to travel hand-in-hand with unobtainium doors and walls. :-(
Well, your 26 Int wizard is limited to only tactical combinations of spells that you can come up with on the fly...shouldn't a wizard with a 26 Int be able to figure out the optimal combo of spells to memorize every day and thus do a much better job of it than "normal old you"? Like it or not, your 26 Int wizard already is limited by what you can imagine and remember, and figure out...not just in the area of puzzles.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.
Using that logic, I automatically have 20 in all knowledge skills regardless of my class because I have done an impressive job of memorizing a bunch of pointless crap about game rules and game-world rules and details.
I always find it funny when the puzzle is confounding the 25 Int Wizard, but the 7 Int barbarian figures it out. Go roleplaying!Well, your 26 Int wizard is limited to only tactical combinations of spells that you can come up with on the fly...shouldn't a wizard with a 26 Int be able to figure out the optimal combo of spells to memorize every day and thus do a much better job of it than "normal old you"? Like it or not, your 26 Int wizard already is limited by what you can imagine and remember, and figure out...not just in the area of puzzles.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.
Which is exactly why removing the built in dice rolling system hurts role-playing in as much as not removing it does. If not more so.
Let's role-play! Jump a 15' chasm. Do it or your character can't!|
|
Which is exactly why removing the built in dice rolling system hurts role-playing in as much as not removing it does. If not more so.
Let's role-play! Jump a 15' chasm. Do it or your character can't!
True, but leaving it in for anything and everything causes the game to have as much intellectual stimulation as watching reality TV. "Sorry, you rolled a 3 on your knowledge check. You can't help them come up with the answer, because your character is too busy eating rocks."
There should be a balance to everything.
Which is exactly why removing the built in dice rolling system hurts role-playing in as much as not removing it does. If not more so.
Let's role-play! Jump a 15' chasm. Do it or your character can't!True, but leaving it in for anything and everything causes the game to have as much intellectual stimulation as watching reality TV. "Sorry, you rolled a 3 on your knowledge check. You can't help them come up with the answer, because your character is too busy eating rocks."
There should be a balance to everything.
If you roll a 3 on a Knowledge check, your character doesn't know.
What side of the roll v role argument are we on today, I'm confused.
Didn't have time to read the entire thread so at the risk of parroting:
Puzzles and riddles have a place in my games but not at the expense of the flow. I don't make them overly difficult and if players can't figure it out then it can be bypassed by simply smashing down the door or going another way.
Knowledge checks should provide clues but not the answer. I never like having ranks invested in skills be useless. However, I never like just telling them the answer as it alsmost defeats the purpose if I could put any other skill check in between them, why bother going through the trouble to make it a puzzle? There shouldn't be a punishment for not solving one but instead a reward for managing to.
For example, I used a simple Knights and Knaves logic puzzle at a junction with talking heads. Not figuring it out wouldn't -stop- you from continuing but figuring it out would let you know which path was the least dangerous or which of the statues was the real one or anything else you can still figure out 'the hard way'.
I believe puzzles are a part of the fantasy theme and they have their place within it... if done correctly. Gandalf solved the ridle of the door to enter the mines of Moria but we know that the scene wasn't about the door, it was about giving the hobbits enough time to get the party in deep with another 'encounter'. It also breaks th action just long enough for folks to rest while giving the 'smart guy' of the party something to do and feel good about.
Puzzles and riddles can serve other purposes than just being a puzzle and stumping the PCs. They can show just how clever players can be if you let them. If one makes it related to the story it can teach more about fluff and background and provide important clues about what lies ahead. They add variety, not every character is 'super combat man, all combat all the time' and a well wrought puzzle can provide a roleplaying opportunity. I can think of several examples from past games but I wouldn't want to bore anyone :P
|
|
Which is exactly why removing the built in dice rolling system hurts role-playing in as much as not removing it does. If not more so.
Let's role-play! Jump a 15' chasm. Do it or your character can't!True, but leaving it in for anything and everything causes the game to have as much intellectual stimulation as watching reality TV. "Sorry, you rolled a 3 on your knowledge check. You can't help them come up with the answer, because your character is too busy eating rocks."
There should be a balance to everything.
If you roll a 3 on a Knowledge check, your character doesn't know.
What side of the roll v role argument are we on today, I'm confused.
Always on the role side. Rolling has its place, but IMHO it's one of the biggest drawbacks to the game that so many areas for interactivity and cognitive thought have been relegated to DC checks, and players have grown to get upset about it if you suggest otherwise. Like if you make them actually come up with the story they're telling the guard to try to slip past him.
Player 1: "Look, I rolled a 32 on my Bluff."
GM: "I realize. I'm asking, how are you trying to bluff him?"
Player 1: "By rolling, duh. I rolled a 32. Do I get past?"
GM: "I mean, are you telling him some sort of story, posing as someone else, or just pointing off to the side and saying 'Look!' while you rush in?"
Player 1: "Yeah. That works. I rolled a 32."
Player 2: "Can I attack yet?"
Player 3: "Geez, man. What's next, are you gonna throw puzzles or some crap at us?"
And minus that last line, I've actually witnessed that in a game. That's why I like puzzles, riddles, and things that actually have to be roleplayed and thought out, rather than just putting a dice in someone's hand and saying "Pass or Fail. Roll."
Always on the role side. Rolling has its place, but IMHO it's one of the biggest drawbacks to the game that so many areas for interactivity and cognitive thought have been relegated to DC checks, and players have grown to get upset about it if you suggest otherwise.
If you roll a 3 on a Knowledge check, your character doesn't know.
What side of the roll v role argument are we on today, I'm confused.
Then how exactly are you going to run the game? Only smart people get to play Int based chars because they would obviously be the ones with the knowledge skills required to KNOW stuff? Only people naturally gifted in gab playing faces?
Like if you make them actually come up with the story they're telling the guard to try to slip past him.
Player 1: "Look, I rolled a 32 on my Bluff."
GM: "I realize. I'm asking, how are you trying to bluff him?"
Player 1: "By rolling, duh. I rolled a 32. Do I get past?"
By bloody lieing to him - otherwise you wouldn't be using bluff. What if the player isn't good at making up stories on the spot? A game isn't an actual situation so the set up isn't really there that might encourage some one to make up a convincing lie. Assuming the person playing the face could even do it anyway.
And minus that last line, I've actually witnessed that in a game. That's why I like puzzles, riddles, and things that actually have to be roleplayed and thought out, rather than just putting a dice in someone's hand and saying "Pass or Fail. Roll."
Puzzles are inherently unfair to the game, not only because most DMs aren't going to adhere to the rule of 3 because maybe if players wanted to play mindbending games, they would? What if the Wizard's player is terrible at word puzzles while the Barbarian's player is the Bobby Fisher of word games? Why would the Barbarian solve the puzzle he couldn't even read while the Wizard couldn't?
But the GM should be skewing the riddle contest so that the PCs win, because it's a GMs job to lose.
There are many DMs who think exactly the opposite... that their job is to "win" against the players in an adversarial role.
Both of these statements are true, but it's a sad state of affairs that many players and posters on these boards seem to think that a DM that provides a significant challenge for his PCs is a Ref-vs-Player kind of DM. It's the DM's job to lose, but they shouldn't roll over and play dead. I would imagine that adversarial campaigns don't last very long, for one reason or another.
What if the Wizard's player is terrible at word puzzles while the Barbarian's player is the Bobby Fisher of word games? Why would the Barbarian solve the puzzle he couldn't even read while the Wizard couldn't?
Been there. Last week as a matter of fact. If the guy playing the Wis 7/Int 10 fighter insists on helping the party solve puzzles well out of his character's depth, give in-game credit to someone else. Maybe his erstwhile groin-scratching and nose-mining jarred the rogue's memory or spurred the cleric into self-introspection (but for the grace of my god...) thus triggering an epiphany. I'm just spit-balling, of course. Then again, depending on the puzzle perhaps the blundering fighter stumbled on the answer in an out of character, savant-like flash of insight. I don't know if any of this makes sense, but it's early and I haven't had any coffee yet. :)
Zo
Then how exactly are you going to run the game? Only smart people get to play Int based chars because they would obviously be the ones with the knowledge skills required to KNOW stuff? Only people naturally gifted in gab playing faces?
He's not saying that and he didn't say that. I'd suggest looking at the post you quoted and the post he made before that and stop lifing elements out of context to exaggerate them.
Then how exactly are you going to run the game? Only smart people get to play Int based chars because they would obviously be the ones with the knowledge skills required to KNOW stuff? Only people naturally gifted in gab playing faces?
Devil's advocate: If you can't throw the f%@%ing ball, don't play quarterback.
If you're a tactical moron, don't expect success as a tactical warrior.
Some exaggeration, of course, but everyone draws the line somewhere. We're not going to hand-hold a stupid person playing a wizard with his spell selection just because he has an "18" on his character sheet under Intelligence. (Just our group, of course - we're not a charity. Somebody with that expectation would probably be better off with a more kumbaya 'we're all special' kind of group.)
Then how exactly are you going to run the game? Only smart people get to play Int based chars because they would obviously be the ones with the knowledge skills required to KNOW stuff? Only people naturally gifted in gab playing faces?Devil's advocate: If you can't throw the f&##ing ball, don't play quarterback.
If you're a tactical moron, don't expect success as a tactical warrior.
Some exaggeration, of course, but everyone draws the line somewhere. We're not going to hand-hold a stupid person playing a wizard with his spell selection just because he has an "18" on his character sheet under Intelligence. (Just our group, of course - we're not a charity. Somebody with that expectation would probably be better off with a more kumbaya 'we're all special' kind of group.)
Take the strawman back down, we aren't discussing personal tactics. We are discussing applications of skills - the literal Skills, the ones designed around rolls and opposed rolls to know or do something.
And, I'm not playing quarterback. If I wanted to play White Wolf's World of Darkness, I would. Why are you trying to spike a football on a checker board?
Take the strawman back down, we aren't discussing personal tactics. We are discussing applications of skills - the literal Skills, the ones designed around rolls and opposed rolls to know or do something.
Well, not really. There is no skill for solving puzzles. Are you maybe talking about ability checks instead? That's something different - and those can apply to many things. Other people have brought up 'attack rolls' as well, for whatever reason. "We" seem to be talking about slightly more general things than you think "we" are.
You might want to consider taking the most important line from my post: "Everyone draws the line somewhere".
If I wanted to play White Wolf's World of Darkness, I would. Why are you trying to spike a football on a checker board?
...what?
|
|
Then how exactly are you going to run the game? Only smart people get to play Int based chars because they would obviously be the ones with the knowledge skills required to KNOW stuff? Only people naturally gifted in gab playing faces?
Always on the role side. Rolling has its place, but IMHO it's one of the biggest drawbacks to the game that so many areas for interactivity and cognitive thought have been relegated to DC checks, and players have grown to get upset about it if you suggest otherwise.
Rlly? Srsly? It's not that hard. I don't require my players to playact everything, or know everything. But I require them to actually interact once in a while like anybody would in any social setting, and once in a while to crack a book beyond the ones for gaming. And I definitely require them to do something besides roll the dice and expect me to come up with the scenario for them. That's beyond just roll-playing. That's straight-up lazy.
By bloody lieing to him - otherwise you wouldn't be using bluff. What if the player isn't good at making up stories on the spot? A game isn't an actual situation so the set up isn't really there that might encourage some one to make up a convincing lie. Assuming the person playing the face could even do it anyway.Like if you make them actually come up with the story they're telling the guard to try to slip past him.
Player 1: "Look, I rolled a 32 on my Bluff."
GM: "I realize. I'm asking, how are you trying to bluff him?"
Player 1: "By rolling, duh. I rolled a 32. Do I get past?"
Again-- that's just laziness. It's letting the dice do everything for you. In some peoples' games, that's acceptable and maybe even expected. For me, that's a step slightly above Monopoly. I don't play RPG's to let the dice handle every situation for me, and when I'm a GM, I expect the same. You don't have to be a thespian or a fireside talespinner, nor do you have to know everything... But if you can't even make an honest effort to try, then I don't care if you roll a 65 on a check like that, and if you are just gonna look at a puzzle, throw your pencil down and say "this is no fun, why does some long-forgotten ancient tomb have some stupid waste of time puzzle keeping us from the good stuff?" I'm going to have limited pity for you. If your creative abilities are completely constrained to character builds and number crunching, you probably aren't going to have fun in my games, anyway, because my games are more about story, not MMO aspects.
Puzzles are inherently unfair to the game, not only because most DMs aren't going to adhere to the rule of 3 because maybe if players wanted to play mindbending games, they would? What if the Wizard's player is terrible at word puzzles while the Barbarian's player is the Bobby Fisher of word games? Why would the Barbarian solve the puzzle he couldn't even read while the Wizard couldn't?
Challenge ratings for combat aside, I don't much care about the whole 'ultimate fairness' aspect to the game. No one magically flitted into the character's nurseries and touched them upside their heads with fairy wands and said "You are hereby going to be able to pass every challenge the world throws at you." If you're interested in winning every time out whether you deserve to or not, go out for Little League. Everyone gets a trophy for that these days.
As far as your barbarian/wizard comparison, check out the LOTR movie (I do not know if the book follows the same, so I won't speak on it). Who comes up with the answer for how to enter the Mines of Moria? Not Gandalf. Gandalf knows the word, yes. But Frodo figures out it's a riddle. Frodo, the little git who spends the rest of the trilogy demonstrating how to make faces like he's sat on a rusty spear and essentially being the male equivalent of a damsel in distress. Could he read the message? No, Gandalf read it off to them. Haven't you ever worked on a problem until your brain was ready to crack, only to have someone else point out something so mind-numbingly obvious that you missed it completely? The whole "Low INT character came up with a solution when a High INT couldn't" argument's a cop-out, not a valid gripe. It's a team game.
Yet imo riddles and puzzles should be less of a "what can the player accomplish" and more "what can the -character- accomplish"? ...
Most DMs that I've seen who've incorporated puzzles/riddles into their games have expected the players to come up with the answers, not the characters per say.
Again-- that's just laziness. It's letting the dice do everything for you. In some peoples' games, that's acceptable and maybe even expected. For me, that's a step slightly above Monopoly. I don't play RPG's to let the dice handle every situation for me, and when I'm a GM, I expect the same. You don't have to be a thespian or a fireside talespinner, nor do you have to know everything... But if you can't even make an honest effort to try, then I don't care if you roll a 65 on a check like that, and if you are just gonna look at a puzzle, throw your pencil down and say "this is no fun, why does some long-forgotten ancient tomb have some stupid waste of time puzzle keeping us from the good stuff?" I'm going to have limited pity for you.
Let's all certainly hope that no one plays these games to escape from the mundane crap of everyday life because apparently this is Nintendohard Sims.
The game is designed around dice rolls being used to get past the hurdles of players being normal bloody people working in a world of fracking superheros for all points and purposes. I am more than certain there are multiple game systems where dice are NOT the mechanic and rather just a bonus, as opposed to D&D where dice are the mechanic, regardless of what old-school DMs think who refuse to adapt their playstyle to the evolving game despite actually playing the evolved game instead of the one their playstyle was meant for.As far as your barbarian/wizard comparison, check out the LOTR movie (I do not know if the book follows the same, so I won't speak on it). Who comes up with the answer for how to enter the Mines of Moria? Not Gandalf. Gandalf knows the word, yes. But Frodo figures out it's a riddle. Frodo, the little git who spends the rest of the trilogy demonstrating how to make faces like he's sat on a rusty spear and essentially being the male equivalent of a damsel in distress.
Frodo rolled a damn 20 on his "Decipher Script" check.
Actually, you know who came up with the answer? The same person who made the question. JRR Tolkien. It's a fantasy book. Those are not real people solving real problems. Those are CHARACTERS solving MANUFACTURED PROBLEMS for the CHARACTERS to solve.EDIT: Actually, let me retract that. Frodo being the [strike]putz[/strike] rogue, had Knowledge (local) [Shire] and was a Hobbit who, we learned in The Hobbit, have a racial predisposition for riddles. Now, if BOROMIR had solved it, you would have a point.
Take the strawman back down, we aren't discussing personal tactics. We are discussing applications of skills - the literal Skills, the ones designed around rolls and opposed rolls to know or do something.
If you want to do riddles as purely skill-based things, just have the sphinx be Trebeck from Jeopardy with DCs ranging from 5 to 25:
Knowledge Arcana: "The ruby is the birthstone of which sign of the zodiac?"
Knowledge Geography: "What is the capital of Cheliax?"
Knowledge History: "In what year did the Red Revolution of Galt occur?"
Knowledge Nature: "There are two egg-laying mammals. The platypus is one. What is the other?"
Knowledge Nobility: "A stag argent rampant dexter on a field of gules is the shield of which noble house?"
Knowledge the Planes: "Succubi chiefly hail from which layer of the Abyss?"
Knowledge Religion: "Hedonists are known to rise as ghouls after death. Suicides are more likely to rise as vampires. If someone died of auto-erotic asphyxiation, what sort of undead would be most likely?"
Bonus round, Bardic Knowledge (or Knowledge Literature which adventurers never take): "In the song 'The Keeper' which begins 'The keeper did a-hunting go,' the keeper carries a certain weapon under his coat and uses it to hunt a certain type of animal. What is the weapon and what is the animal?"
If players didn't bother to take the appropriate knowledge, then they can fail regardless of how intelligent or wise they happen to be.
|
|
Let's all certainly hope that no one plays these games to escape from the mundane crap of everyday life because apparently this is Nintendohard Sims.
The game is designed around dice rolls being used to get past the hurdles of players being normal bloody people working in a world of fracking superheros for all points and purposes. I am more than certain there are multiple game systems where dice are NOT the mechanic and rather just a bonus, as opposed to D&D where dice are the mechanic, regardless of what old-school DMs think who refuse to adapt their playstyle to the evolving game despite actually playing the evolved game instead of the one their playstyle was meant for.
Well, since you are apparently part of the evolutionary ladder a step well ahead of me with my "old-school" mannerisms </snerk>, maybe you could enlighten me, o wise one. You can roll for that, by the way, because I wouldn't want to pull you from the humdrumness of real life to do anything like actually devote brain cells to thinking.
I'm done here, thanks.
I sometimes have a character figure out the theory of a puzzle, but still not know the order of the puzzle. That's when the barbarian in the party figures out that part. Has it occurred to anybody else that Lothar of the hill people may have nothing else to do but play riddle games and logic puzzles with the other tribal heads?
The moral of this thread (just as that of many, many others) is that some folks like the puzzles, some don't. Can we agree on that without stubbornly spouting OneTrueWayisms? (or not, 'tis teh interwebs after all....)
My personal philosophy has always been, "solve the riddle or face the consequences." With the consequences being a big fight, the room gets flooded, the trap gets triggered, spend a year (or a lot of resources) digging a tunnel to avoid the riddle, etc. Only in the most extreme and well foreshadowed circumstances should solving a riddle/puzzle be the only way to progress.
The moral of this thread (just as that of many, many others) is that some folks like the puzzles, some don't. Can we agree on that without stubbornly spouting OneTrueWayisms? (or not, 'tis teh interwebs after all....)
Personally, I am fine with that.
There are a handful who will go down to the last man, clinging with bloody fingernails to the pinion proclaiming that they are always right, and never wrong, and will scream from the rooftops that if you don't agree with them you are a Commie Pinko Philistine Demon Warg from the 9th Circle of Hades who's only job is to destroy the game.
I certainly hope that I didn't come across as one of those who think puzzles should never be used. I just personally dislike puzzles and riddles, as I am horrible with them and don't have the mindset for them. *shrugs*
I certainly hope that I didn't come across as one of those who think puzzles should never be used. I just personally dislike puzzles and riddles, as I am horrible with them and don't have the mindset for them. *shrugs*
And I agree with you. That's what these threads should be about, stating opinions. But not for getting up on the soapbox and stating the way the game is meant to be played. Just sayin'....
The moral of this thread (just as that of many, many others) is that some folks like the puzzles, some don't. Can we agree on that without stubbornly spouting OneTrueWayisms? (or not, 'tis teh interwebs after all....)
I think there's general agreement that "O.K., you're stuck in an adamantine room where magic doesn't work, and the only way out is to solve this 60x60 sudoku" isn't the sign of a good GM. That's my OneTrueWayism of the day.
:-)
I like riddles. Puzzles can be good or bad, depending on how they're applied. When I use them in my games, I tend to add bonus XP for players that actually solve them. If they opt for the skill/ability check instead, they still get the base XP for the challenge.
I also like them as either/or situations. You solve the puzzle/riddle on the door and you get through. If you don't, then you fight the golem/activate the trap/suffer the consequences. If you survive, you get through.
I invented practicalism. Any extreme and I nod my head and ignore them.
But on topic, watch National Treasure, or even Cyber chase. Good puzzles teach, encourage thinking, make sense, and are solvable.
In the ancient pyramids, workers would write clues on the wall because they knew the pharos would have them killed to prevent them ever telling grave robbers. It was a self-defeating practice.
I invented practicalism. Any extreme and I nod my head and ignore them.
But on topic, watch National Treasure, or even Cyber chase. Good puzzles teach, encourage thinking, make sense, and are solvable.
In the ancient pyramids, workers would write clues on the wall because they knew the pharos would have them killed to prevent them ever telling grave robbers. It was a self-defeating practice.
They also sometimes built secret entrances/exits to allow them to escape being entombed alive.
Gordian's Knot was the perfect puzzle. The only way to "win" was not to play.
I always find it funny when the puzzle is confounding the 25 Int Wizard, but the 7 Int barbarian figures it out. Go roleplaying!Well, your 26 Int wizard is limited to only tactical combinations of spells that you can come up with on the fly...shouldn't a wizard with a 26 Int be able to figure out the optimal combo of spells to memorize every day and thus do a much better job of it than "normal old you"? Like it or not, your 26 Int wizard already is limited by what you can imagine and remember, and figure out...not just in the area of puzzles.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.
Actually. When its a simple answer, and the wizard spends about ten minutes working on the answer, while the barbarian figures it out right off. But doesn't say anything until the wizard gives up.
Wizard has 8 wisdom.
Barbarian has 15.
|
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.
James must absolutely hate the PFS scenario Rebel's Ransom. Dear lord that was hard at 8:00 on the last Sunday of GenCon.
Love 'em. I've even had players praise me for their inclusion.
The trick is to include them syncretically. The problem with most RPG puzzles is that they're too random.
|
It happens that pretty much everyone in the group I play with likes puzzles quite a bit, and no one dislikes them, so they work out very well for us. I find them to be an interesting change of pace.
In our group, once everyone establishes what their character is doing, players can make OOC comments as much as they want to help with the puzzle. So if the player of the 7 int barbarian who thinks "smash" is the solution to every problem wants to help the player of the 20 int wizard who is trying to figure out the puzzle, that's fine, as long as no one uses knowledge beyond what their characters would collectively have.
There is always some combination of suggesting appropriate knowledge checks, int checks for hints, libraries with additional information, and helpful NPCs to guide the players if we get stuck, and sometimes there is also a solution that relies on strength, dexterity, or patience alone.