I don't ask for my barbarian player to lift 50 pound everytime he does a str check. In the same way, I don't ask the wizard to actually be the word champion in puzzles and riddles. As long as mental stats are a thing, this just doesn't work.
Haven't read so might have been mentioned. But you could have the group of players be the thoughts of the highest int person, thus he's the one that's going to actually solve or voice the answer, but all the players can help figure it out to simulate a smart person.
I think this is the right direction. Just because the player of the 8 int barbarian figures out the answer and the player of the 20 int wizard doesn't, doesn't mean that within the game, the 8 int barbarian is the one who came up with the it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've used them as hints to what sort of trap/obstacle is coming up next, not as a barrier in and of themselves. If the players know the answer, great! They have an edge in the upcoming trap or battle. If not, they can still move forward with the adventure.
God, now we have two of these.
Creative Director
|
I mean... we don't require every player at the table who plays the mighty barbarian to perform feats of strength each time she wants to smash down a door or swing an axe. Why would we require the player at the table who's playing the Intelligence 20 bard who's got skill focus in all the Knowledges to rely on the player's likely less-impressive knowledge in order to solve a riddle? Makes no sense to me.Then why do you allow the player at the table to choose a wizard's spells? They aren't wizards, can't cast spells, and aren't (necessarily) super intelligent. Why do you allow the player at the table to choose a fighter's tactics? They're not (necessarily) tactical soldiers.
(There's lots of good reasons for groups to not use riddles - but the above examples aren't actual reasons... as they're entirely inconsistent. I'm having a bit of fun here, but the above is inconsistent - and everyone will draw the line somewhere... differently.)
You misunderstand. I allow players to do things with their characters that they can't do. I allow weaklings to play STR 20 barbarians. I allow anyone to play wizards and thus cast spells. And I allow dumb players to play INT 20 characters who would be, as a virtue of their superhuman intellect, able to solve riddles that the player himself would barely be able to comprehend.
|
Creative Director
|
Another thing...
A lot of riddles and puzzles rely on word play... and when you translate the adventure into a different language, suddenly the riddle doesn't and cannot make sense. Another reason I kind of prefer to avoid them.
They can be GREAT elements in novels and stories and movies... they're just really tricky and difficult for adventures.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You misunderstand. I allow players to do things with their characters that they can't do. I allow weaklings to play STR 20 barbarians. I allow anyone to play wizards and thus cast spells. And I allow dumb players to play INT 20 characters who would be, as a virtue of their superhuman intellect, able to solve riddles that the player himself would barely be able to comprehend.
I understand the sentiment here, but do you allow people who are bad with money to have their characters automate their magic item shopping? Do you let people who are terrible at tactics to let their super experienced battle-hardened warrior to move to the best position without their input? Do you let players of super smart wizards make Int or spellcraft checks to choose the best spells for their books instead of relying on their (potentially) dumb players who don't realize the implications of what they were chosen?
The game is full of things the actual players must do that their characters would be better (or worse) at. I don't really get why the line is drawn at puzzles, rather than some of this other stuff.
I don't ask for my barbarian player to lift 50 pound everytime he does a str check. In the same way, I don't ask the wizard to actually be the word champion in puzzles and riddles. As long as mental stats are a thing, this just doesn't work.
Wait you not suppose to make the 20 str barbarian's player lift 50lbs to make a str check? *looks at 50 lb d20* Sigh.
In all seriousness the problem is with puzzles and riddles in RPG adventures is it is put up as a challenge to the players not their characters. Which is why I generally don't like them because it breaks immersion for me.
For instance I have a super hero character who is a Wolf Shaman...the character is also born a wolf and just does not think that way most riddles are presented. So when the character asks for advice from the Wolf Spirit she worships...and he reply in a riddle that is (in my judgement) beyond her ability to get the character just gets frustrated. Now if I solve the riddle...than am I being true to the character?
Personally I don't think so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a big problem with the stubborn "I don't force my player to make a Strength check by lifting weights, so I shouldn't force my player to roleplay/do riddles" line of reasoning. Now, don't get me wrong. The reasoning isn't totally off. But it misses a really big issue.
D&D isn't an athletic game.
Of course you aren't made to actually swing a sword, but you are expected to tackle some portion of the mental "strain". Because it's a mental game. If this were some sort of "physical dungeon crawl" game, maybe it'd be different, but it's not. I expect my players to, say, work out the tactics of their PCs, to decide what they want to buy, to exercise caution as they see fit. That's part of the game.
Now, I don't expect them to remember NPC names, nor do I make them meet the "standards" set by 20 Charismas and the sort. But mental challenges, like puzzles and mysteries, like coming up with battle strategies, are part of the game. I give players hints based on Intelligence/Wisdom checks, sure, but cutting them out entirely leads to a very fine and kind of ridiculous line you have to draw between "no riddles" and "don't attack that ogre chief, your 20 Wisdom would never make such an error". Not to mention mandating the reverse—"I'm sorry, your 7 Wisdom is not allowed to avoid this combat."
Okay. Moving on. With all this said, we really have to learn to be economic with our threads, guys. This is the second time in about as many weeks we've posted/hijacked a new thread to restate the same basic complaint that's being discussed at the same time in another. Oh, and now Pixie Dust has posted another about this, so...it's escalating.
Some players love them, some don't. How do you resolve it if the player that loves riddles is playing a low int/wis PC?
I resolve it by saying that all the players can put their heads together, yet the PC with the highest Int and/or Wis is the mouthpiece for the answer. If no player is good with riddles, then it is dealt with by dice as usual.
|
So, crazily enough, I actually blogged about this about a week ago.
Like a lot of people have said, it comes down to a player preference. Some players want to be directly challenged by the adventure, while others prefer for their characters to handle the challenges presented, and it's one of the stickier points of contention between RPG players. I break it down between role-players and game-players, but that's an imperfect comparison that needs validity wording: Usually role-players will prefer for their characters to be challenged, and for mental riddles and puzzles to be handled with die rolls, and usually game-players will want to try and figure it out themselves.
For my own part, I enjoy riddles...right up until I'm playing an RPG - then I usually hate them.
|
Creative Director
|
You misunderstand. I allow players to do things with their characters that they can't do. I allow weaklings to play STR 20 barbarians. I allow anyone to play wizards and thus cast spells. And I allow dumb players to play INT 20 characters who would be, as a virtue of their superhuman intellect, able to solve riddles that the player himself would barely be able to comprehend.I understand the sentiment here, but do you allow people who are bad with money to have their characters automate their magic item shopping? Do you let people who are terrible at tactics to let their super experienced battle-hardened warrior to move to the best position without their input? Do you let players of super smart wizards make Int or spellcraft checks to choose the best spells for their books instead of relying on their (potentially) dumb players who don't realize the implications of what they were chosen?
The game is full of things the actual players must do that their characters would be better (or worse) at. I don't really get why the line is drawn at puzzles, rather than some of this other stuff.
The whole point of an RPG in my opinion is to play someone you aren't.
If you want to sit around and challenge each other with riddles... that's fine... but that's a different game than one where you take on a persona who ISN'T you to act out a storyline. You can certainly challenge your players with riddles as a GM... I'm not saying don't. I'm just saying don't forget that if the player can't solve it or if waiting for the player to solve it is making the game drag... the character should step in to help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't use riddles much in my games, but all the discussion about riddles being an intelligence game, thus requiring high intelligent PCs is nonsense, since a riddle or puzzle, in reality, is something for players to figure out, not their character avatar, as it doesn't require mechanical rolls to solve a puzzle/riddle - it takes actual player intelligence.
In the same way, many combat encounters in our games are resolved not just by combat rolls, but for players thinking out of the box (even those with low intelligence PCs). If my PC jumps from the table onto the curtain on the wall, climbing up that and releasing the chandelier to drop on the enemy combatants on the floor, I might win this fight. Just because a given PC lacks the intelligence to do a thing, doesn't mean the player has to be stupid as well.
In situations where conflict resolution is by a skill check, then its the PC mechanics (and stats) doing the resolution, not the player.
Not every situation can best or only be resolved with a dice roll.
I've used them as hints to what sort of trap/obstacle is coming up next, not as a barrier in and of themselves. If the players know the answer, great! They have an edge in the upcoming trap or battle. If not, they can still move forward with the adventure.
Don't mind me, I'mma just write this down in the hintbook.
On topic, to me riddles to progress aren't that great in a game like this. If you use checks it doesn't do anything significant, and if you don't either I'm using google to make this last as short as possible or I'm sitting on my butt throwing out random answers that are always wrong.
and if you don't either I'm using google to make this last as short as possible or I'm sitting on my butt throwing out random answers that are always wrong.
But what about a riddle or puzzle invented by the GM, something that you cannot Google as it doesn't otherwise exist anywhere else? I don't use riddles/puzzles much in my games, but when I do, I never borrow classical or existing ones, I make them up on my own.
There is difference between what a character do, and what he knows. The first, is totally in the realm of player choice, and as a DM i'm not going to infringe on it in any way.
The second however, it's totally the DM responsability to decide by adjudicating the numbers on the character sheet and giving them an actual pratical meaning. Knowledge checks and the like are the to facilitate DM work by helping in the process, but are by no means comprehensives.
For example, a wizard by virtue of his high int and training knows of the existance of nearly all spells and their effects. Picking them however, is player choice.
On a personal note, yes, I as a DM advice the players on if a determinate action seems smart or not based on their character knowledge and stats. I still leave to the player the choice of doing it or not.
For example, when a fighter charge in the melee, I culd tell him "look, this 2 other guys could then move to flank you and cut you off from the group, are you sure you want to do it?".
Without saying, 90% of the time they do it anyway.
and if you don't either I'm using google to make this last as short as possible or I'm sitting on my butt throwing out random answers that are always wrong.But what about a riddle or puzzle invented by the GM, something that you cannot Google as it doesn't otherwise exist anywhere else?
Read the bolded part for that instance.
So for those who don't use riddles, do you just draw a big X through the Sphinx monster entry? It is kind of their thing...
hey, do you guys feel that posing riddles to the players hurts the rp, cause I kinda do. it just kind of irks me when a wizard with an intelligence of 20 doesn't know the answer to a riddle but the barbarian with an intelligent score of 5 does. I mean, there have been times where i've played a character whose smarter than I am, but because I don't know the answer to a question. he doesn't know, which I kinda think defeats the purpose of role playing.
anyway, what do you guys think?
As with all responses to questions like these, it all depends on the group and what they enjoy. I've played in groups where riddles were bandied about and answered as a matter of course (and I felt like the dumbest person on the planet); that game was not for me (although I really enjoyed watching them play, they had a lot of fun and I learned quite a bit). I played in another game where most challenges broke down into calculus races (we were all engineers [and geeks]); this was extremely fun for me (and the others in the group) but had my wife just shaking her head (and mumbling "nerds" under her breath).
When I'm playing or running games, we often have riddles and puzzles in the game. Whether we have it be an active part of play depends on how we fell that day and who we have in our group that day. Often the riddles are just mentioned as part of the story and "solved" by the characters via rolls (e.g. Knowledge [<Whatever>]). Every now and then we decide to work on the puzzle and get together as a group (we then have a roll-off to determine who "figured it out" in game - sometimes it IS the Barbarian).
As always, just my two coppers...
-Doomn
I actually think I will. It's a great example of using what the players give you without them knowing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You misunderstand. I allow players to do things with their characters that they can't do. I allow weaklings to play STR 20 barbarians. I allow anyone to play wizards and thus cast spells. And I allow dumb players to play INT 20 characters who would be, as a virtue of their superhuman intellect, able to solve riddles that the player himself would barely be able to comprehend.I understand the sentiment here, but do you allow people who are bad with money to have their characters automate their magic item shopping? Do you let people who are terrible at tactics to let their super experienced battle-hardened warrior to move to the best position without their input? Do you let players of super smart wizards make Int or spellcraft checks to choose the best spells for their books instead of relying on their (potentially) dumb players who don't realize the implications of what they were chosen?
The game is full of things the actual players must do that their characters would be better (or worse) at. I don't really get why the line is drawn at puzzles, rather than some of this other stuff.
The whole point of an RPG in my opinion is to play someone you aren't.
If you want to sit around and challenge each other with riddles... that's fine... but that's a different game than one where you take on a persona who ISN'T you to act out a storyline. You can certainly challenge your players with riddles as a GM... I'm not saying don't. I'm just saying don't forget that if the player can't solve it or if waiting for the player to solve it is making the game drag... the character should step in to help.
That's a much different sentiment than I thought you were expressing, and I agree that if the players can't solve it, you need ways around it. It seemed like you were suggesting riddles should never be solved by players, you should just roll dice based on character stats, and well, I found that strange, because the players have to "solve" combat/tactical/resource conserving/shopping/character building riddles all the time. This makes a lot more sense. :)
|
Creative Director
|
That's a much different sentiment than I thought you were expressing, and I agree that if the players can't solve it, you need ways around it. It seemed like you were suggesting riddles should never be solved by players, you should just roll dice based on character stats, and well, I found that strange, because the players have to "solve" combat/tactical/resource conserving/shopping/character building riddles all the time. This makes a lot more sense. :)
Ah; no, that's absolutely NOT what I was expressing. Riddles in game are a time-honored tradition, but so is, unfortunately, the tradition of a GM letting a game grind to a halt because no one at the table can figure the riddle out. In a case like that, the characters MUST be able to help. And further, in a case when players in a group simply aren't interested in riddles, their characters need to be able to solve them.
And as such, I strive to include methods for characters in-game to either solve riddles or to, at the very least, make checks to provide their ignorant players clues. ;-)
Way to go, James, you killed the thread. :-P
there is a thin line between ignorant players and writers who overestimate their own cleverness
|
I find the use of riddles and puzzles and the like to be pretty damn useful actually. I don't usually make them a requirement of the adventure, but instead stuff like 'if you don't get this, you miss out on the bonus loot' or the like.
Not all puzzles or riddles are solved by direct application of one's intellect, as stated further up thread there are other things at play.
I threw some fibonnachi themed puzzles at a party one time, which also required in-character action (they had to defeat skeletons in a certain order to proceed through a door). The party's barbarian sussed out the 'smash smash' in sequence part based on the feedback that got recieved.
I also find puzzles to be vitally important for providing players with information about the villain/designer's thought processes.
As an example, one mage in a campaign had a thing for cause and effect, and thus his puzzles weren't word-based riddles, but mathematic puzzles based around things like symbol-number substitutions.
Someone else used relational logic puzzles.
Another guy uses Vlad Tepes style morality puzzles, where you have to know his particular moral code to navigate them.
One good aligned group put a party in morality based puzzle situations as well. They had to figure out which virtue's path they were on, and how to navigate the path. The guy who ended up on the Temperance path had a hell of a time having to suss it out.
Part of me also wants to unleash a CE outsider masquerading as a sphinx on a party at some point, who does nothing but make up nonsensical answers to its 'riddles' like that thing from Final Fantasy Unlimited. But that's because I'm a jerk.
For me, I understand the desire to be something you aren't, but I abjectly despise people who try to treat every aspect of the game as something that can be handled by numbers and statistics.
I find that there are few riddles that cannot be solved by the Barbarian's Lockpick - good ol' adamantine weapons.
Unless travel is involved, in which case we hire the nearest teleport-ready wizard.
For instance I know a lot about PF and Golarion...I could probably figure most riddles based on those...but I have no idea about golf...so a riddle based on golf would just annoy me and frustrate me."To find the treasure room and advance the plot, Archie is in the sand."
Where do you look for the next clue? [An open challenge to everyone on this thread.]
I'd look either in Sandpoint or on a beach or in a desert, depending on the context of the adventure.
Use of language-dependent riddles seems to be one of those "Old School vs. Modern" RPG style differences. Way back in the early days of the hobby, there was little distinction made between what the character knew and what the player knew. Early modules tend to blur that distinction with the puzzles and riddles included.
The answer is "9." (The other numbers are prime.)
It was probably in the mid-'80s or so that conventional wisdom changed, and distinctions were made between player knowledge and character knowledge, but it took a while for that to start to apply to puzzles and riddles.
Encountering a puzzle or riddle that requires modern-day knowledge of mathematics or science; or that is entirely dependent on English wordplay really brings me out of the sense of immersion. If I'm running a module that includes such a puzzle or riddle, I'll rewrite it.
I do like puzzles that provide everything you need to solve them, or that rely on the lore of the game-world to solve. I'll also write some clues that I'll give the players based on skill checks that the PCs can make. Alternatively, I'll create an abstract puzzle that can only be solved by making appropriate skill checks.
Mostly, I like the puzzles and riddles I've seen in Paizo modules and APs. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one product that had the kind of riddle or puzzle that pulled me out of the immersion: Shards of Sin. I recall that adventure has two anagram puzzles that only make sense in English, despite them being from Thassilon. If I were to ever run "Shattered Star," I'd have to rewrite these puzzles.
Riddles are an excellent way to stimulate otherwise rare uses of Intelligence checks.
I don't need to solve my wizard's riddle problem any more than I need to solve my barbarian's heavy obstacle check. I might role-play lifting actions a bit, until I grow bored, so expect the same with riddles.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly, I like the puzzles and riddles I've seen in Paizo modules and APs. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one product that had the kind of riddle or puzzle that pulled me out of the immersion: Shards of Sin. I recall that adventure has two anagram puzzles that only make sense in English, despite them being from Thassilon. If I were to ever run "Shattered Star," I'd have to rewrite these puzzles.
And indeed we discussed that very situation in the adventure, and provided rules for folks who felt that those anagram puzzles broke verisimilitude, so that a GM who knew those anagrams would be distracting there were rules for them in there to use instead so they wouldn't HAVE to rewrite any puzzles.
|
|
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand it's a lot more interesting to have the characters figure out how to solve the riddle (or sweet talk the magistrate, or whatever social/mental task you care to name), but on the other I know how frustrating it can be to be forced to achieve tasks that are suited for someone at near-superhuman levels of intelligence or charisma.
I don't think the physical stats are nearly so hard to handle. It's easy to role play a barbarian with 22 strength because, even if we are incapable of bench-pressing a small horse, we understand what it means to be able to lift 520 lbs over your head. We have no numerical reference really, for someone with 22 Int or Wis or Cha. We can give vague examples, but our frame of reference is completely limited.
I don't think there is a catch-all solution for non-physical ability stats. It seems a bit unfair either way.
Use logic puzzles, not riddles. Puzzles are more like problem solving activities. A riddle just requires you to guess and hope you get it right. The difference is that players can usually work their way towards the solution to a puzzle. A riddle is binary -- either you get it or you don't. If you want to run a riddle in a way that doesn't grind the game to a halt, allow each player to guess multiple times (with consequences for each wrong answer) or use a riddle game where each wrong answer can lead them closer to the right one.
** spoiler omitted **That's a terrible riddle because ** spoiler omitted **
And this sort of thing is why, in general, riddles are bad. They're usually wrong. More often underdefined, but sometimes the riddle writer is using an incorrect or disputed fact somewhere.
Whereas I would have said
So yes, very poorly defined riddle. I'm also not a fan of the number of ROYGBIV riddles that tend to pop into scenarios.
That's a much different sentiment than I thought you were expressing, and I agree that if the players can't solve it, you need ways around it. It seemed like you were suggesting riddles should never be solved by players, you should just roll dice based on character stats, and well, I found that strange, because the players have to "solve" combat/tactical/resource conserving/shopping/character building riddles all the time. This makes a lot more sense. :)
Ah; no, that's absolutely NOT what I was expressing. Riddles in game are a time-honored tradition, but so is, unfortunately, the tradition of a GM letting a game grind to a halt because no one at the table can figure the riddle out. In a case like that, the characters MUST be able to help. And further, in a case when players in a group simply aren't interested in riddles, their characters need to be able to solve them.
And as such, I strive to include methods for characters in-game to either solve riddles or to, at the very least, make checks to provide their ignorant players clues. ;-)
Yes, exactly. You give the players a few minutes to puzzle it out. Then you drop clues based upon INT and or skill roles or even class abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **That's a terrible riddle because ** spoiler omitted **
And this sort of thing is why, in general, riddles are bad. They're usually wrong. More often underdefined, but sometimes the riddle writer is using an incorrect or disputed fact somewhere.
Whereas I would have said
** spoiler omitted **
So yes, very poorly defined riddle. I'm also not a fan of the number of ROYGBIV riddles that tend to pop into scenarios.
Why wouldn't you accept either answer? The players don't have to know what the "original" answer was. They can just think they got it right.
As an example because I am finnish. "A bouque held while naked." Is vihta(bundle of birch sticks with leafs on it in sauna.) Now I am sure if I asked that riddle from a group of average north americans they are pretty unlikely to get it right.
That's a very good example, especially since you got the English translation wrong -- the word in English for a bunch of flowers is "bouquet," using the French spelling, because English spelling is not supposed to be understandable. So there's actually two cultural clashes buried in there.
That's the issue with the riddle I posted earlier: "To find the treasure room and advance the plot, Archie is in the sand." That's actually a UK-style crossword puzzle clue, but it hinges on US cultural assumptions to solve (and there's a big clue in the context -- it's a golf puzzle). Archie (Bunker) is a character from a rather famous US television show (All in the Family) and, of course, a "bunker" is also a term for the sand traps on a golf course..... so to solve that riddle, you need to be either an American who is fond of UK crossword puzzles, or a Brit who watches way too many vintage US shows.
Or, of course, we could just stop the game dead until I spoon-feed enough clues that everyone can finally do the right thing, without any sense of accomplishment at all.
Down with riddles!
|
That's the issue with the riddle I posted earlier: "To find the treasure room and advance the plot, Archie is in the sand." That's actually a UK-style crossword puzzle clue, but it hinges on US cultural assumptions to solve (and there's a big clue in the context -- it's a golf puzzle). Archie (Bunker) is a character from a rather famous US television show (All in the Family) and, of course, a "bunker" is also a term for the sand traps on a golf course..... so to solve that riddle, you need to be either an American who is fond of UK crossword puzzles, or a Brit who watches way too many vintage US shows.
Just to add more fuel to the issue. My first thought was Archie from Archie comics and thinking about some beach event, like volleyball or a bonfire.
Riddles are great for the genre. Fey, sphinxes, some guardian demons, even trolls all have riddle traditions appropriate for a D&D encounter. They can be evocative and immerse you more fully in a fantasy encounter.
A good RPG riddle set up will not be a binary plot stopper. Solving them will get you a benefit but should not stop the game if they are unsolved. Fighting the sphinx (like in White Plume Mountain) or the key demons from Mayfair Games' Demons II are good options if the riddle is not solved. Having to go around another route, or the magical trap not being disarmed are also viable options. Even not getting into the treasure room is fine.
Using an Int check to solve riddles is boring IMO. Abstracting it to "There is a riddle, Int check DC 15" is not fun and a party can easily still fail. It is just a single d20 roll influenced by a single stat build. And it takes an evocative scene of first person roleplaying and turns it into pure binary luck mechanics.
I have no problem with Gandalf failing the door riddle or with high int wizards or witches or maguses or investigators not solving most riddles.
Flavorful riddles will not include anachronisms. English word play is fine IMO as you can consider it an abstraction/translation of using approriate word plays in the nonexistant RPG language while allowing riddles to feel right.
Example from 'White Plume Mountain':For example, there's a famous puzzle from White Plume Mountain, written in 1981, where the PCs meet four flesh golems, each with a number printed on their shirts. The puzzle is "Which number doesn't belong?" The numbers are, IIRC, 1, 3, 7, 9. If you answer correctly, they ley you pass; if you don't all four flesh golems attack.That's a terrible riddle because
Spoiler:1 is not universally considered a prime number.And this sort of thing is why, in general, riddles are bad. They're usually wrong. More often underdefined, but sometimes the riddle writer is using an incorrect or disputed fact somewhere.
Turns out I didn't recall correctly...
I just dug out my old copy of White Plume Mountain to see what it actually said. The encounter write-up is:
Just to add more fuel to the issue. My first thought was Archie from Archie comics and thinking about some beach event, like volleyball or a bonfire.
That's the issue with the riddle I posted earlier: "To find the treasure room and advance the plot, Archie is in the sand." That's actually a UK-style crossword puzzle clue, but it hinges on US cultural assumptions to solve (and there's a big clue in the context -- it's a golf puzzle). Archie (Bunker) is a character from a rather famous US television show (All in the Family) and, of course, a "bunker" is also a term for the sand traps on a golf course..... so to solve that riddle, you need to be either an American who is fond of UK crossword puzzles, or a Brit who watches way too many vintage US shows.
Funny, my first thought was Archie from Red Dwarf...
The thing that bothered me about that puzzle is that it required player knowledge of modern mathematical concepts to solve.
Except the concept of prime numbers dates back to at least Ancient Greece. It is far from a modern mathematical concept, and something I would absolutely expect most wizards to know about, given the mystical significance often attached to numbers in ancient occult traditions.
I really like the idea of not coming up with an answer, and just telling the players they got it right... except I'm not sure it would work for every group. Some groups, in frustration, might come up with a half-assed answer just to progress the plot, and if you tell them, "Yes, the contents of the barbarian's codpiece is the correct answer!" they are going to know you are full of crap. Or they might start asking (reasonably) to roll checks to get the answer or at least clues, and you wouldn't have one. So this method would only work if the group was willing to think a bit and come up with a decent answer from the beginning.