| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to do a "Sphynx's Riddle" situation. The party finds itself at a door with runic script on it. They translate to script and see it's a riddle. The solution of the riddle will allow them to open the door. My riddle is below. I'm worried it's too easy, maybe too hard? I'm wondering what a few other people think about it. Feel free to solve it and do a spoiler so others can have a go at it too.
Thanks in advance.
Riddle:
In Peak and Gale,
in Dune and Ride.
Two in Them Once,
but only once in Twice.
What am I?
Nice riddle actually.
Riddles are tricky because they tend to either be solved immediately or not at all.
I like simple logic puzzles better because it is easier to predict how long they will take to solve and you can more easily incorporate them into the adventure. For example: a very simple puzzle is to write a message and then tear up the piece of paper. The characters might discover the torn note and the players can assemble if like a jigsaw puzzle.
|
The only time I use puzzles in my games is if there's a resource-consuming way past them (time counts as a resource for this sometimes), *OR* if I have a way to keep dropping more hints until they get the answer (which only works in longer term puzzles). Optimally all puzzles can be ignored and plot can continue, perhaps with rewards missed.
The reason being exactly what Boomerang Nebula@ says: Either people get it quick, or never. If they get it quickly it's no fun for you since you spent time on a puzzle, while if they don't get it then it's no fun for them.
I love riddles, although I'm only so-so at actually solving them. Favorite Batman villain is the Riddler in fact. That said, there's a website that is based around the Riddler, and one of the available resources / modes of the site, is giving riddles for one to solve. Mayhaps you can find one on there that fits the bill, if the above doesn't.
HERE is the website if you so wish to peruse. The riddles are near the bottom.
However, I would at least partially agree with Boomerang Nebula in that if they all get stumped by the riddle... then what? They just give up and go home? Is that an option? Or, they figure it out within seconds and all the effort was for naught. Maybe you could mix the two though. A decent but not overly difficult riddle that either leads to a puzzle or is used during a puzzle, or gives a clue on how to beat a puzzle.
All of you were correct. I do worry they may get stuck, but I have a lot of players, so there's a good chance one of them will knock it out. If not I'll let the rogue do some creative playing and just rogue his way past it.
Thanks for the input.
Took me about 30 seconds, so your riddle isn't too hard. Maybe too easy.
That said, riddles are usually bad ideas.
Here is a whole thread discussing why they're bad.
I linked my own post (which, coincidentally, has a reference to the Riddle of the Sphinx) that I hope is enlightening, but it's also a good idea to scroll up 6 or 7 posts and read James Jacobs (the Creative Director) saying he deletes riddles from adventures he's developing or at last has workaround-solutions for when the players fail to answer them.
If even the Creative Director his own self thinks they're a bad idea, it might we worth rethinking it.
You'll probably have someone blurt it out very quickly, in which case it might not be too much fun at all (case #1 in my linked post) or you'll let them "rogue it out" as you said (which is essentially case #3 in my post).
It could work out; you know your players better than I do. But don't be surprised if it's not the success you hoped for. Then again, you could get option #5 and it was all worth it.
I generally enjoy riddles and they fit in with fantasy RPGing reasonably well because of their presence in some of the source material. You just have to make sure they don't block overall progress in the adventure if the players can't figure them out.
I also think hints should be accessible based on skill or intelligence checks for the PCs. In this case, a good hint would be:
Oh, yeah, I agree that "two in them once" is the weak link in the riddle - them once is horrible grammar and it was hard to figure out what you even were trying to say.
Maybe if you're going to use it, change that line and the next to:
Twice in seven but
Only once in eight
Galahad,
Why not just say "Ahead you see a sphinx. It asks you a riddle. Roll a Linguistics check to solve it, or a Diplomacy check to get a hint."
Why ask them a riddle they don't need to solve?
That's the point by the way: If they NEED to solve it, then it might become an impassible problem. If they don't need to solve it (because of Lingquistics, or because there is another door that lets them get behind the sphinx anyway, or whatever) then it was unnecessary.
Fine, it's OK to have unnecessary stuff in the dungeon, as long as it's fun. But too often, the riddle is so easy that someone blurts out the answer as soon as you're done reading the riddle, or so hard that nobody figures it out until you break it down to a skill check for them.
By the way, after a minute of thinking about your riddle, I don't know the answer but my Linguistics modifier is +5. Here's my roll:
Do I pass?
I want to do a "Sphynx's Riddle" situation. The party finds itself at a door with runic script on it. They translate to script and see it's a riddle. The solution of the riddle will allow them to open the door. My riddle is below. I'm worried it's too easy, maybe too hard? I'm wondering what a few other people think about it. Feel free to solve it and do a spoiler so others can have a go at it too.
Thanks in advance.
Riddle:
In Peak and Gale,
in Dune and Ride.
Two in Them Once,
but only once in Twice.
What am I?
I had a cool riddle for one of my campaigns, it was:
"What can physically fill a man to make him lighter, that a trap can provide?"
If they answer wrong, just have the door spew out a couple of Blunt End arrows that deal Non-lethal damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fernn, your riddle/trap works better if the arrows actually make holes in the man...
I'll echo the sentiments of others that riddles can be overly troublesome. As stated, you'll generally either get it right away, or not at all. Rarely is there a middle ground. If they get it right away, the GM feels "cheated" in that her carefully crafted riddle is insta solved. If they don't get it, then the players just get frustrated.
I do find logic puzzles to be a little better in that they can be more easily worked out (note, certain cyphers can fall under this category as well). The problem you still run into here though is that even with logic puzzles you may still encounter the same problem. Additionally, you may find that not all of your players enjoy them (though obviously you know them better than we do).
For me, when I do put puzzles into a dungeon, I try to make it so that solving the puzzle isn't necessary for overall success. Perhaps the BBEG keeps his treasure behind a door with a peculiar puzzle. Defeating the puzzle isn't necessary in order to defeat the BBEG, but failure to do so will result in less treasure for the party (or they'll just slowly chop the door down :P). Maybe, solving a puzzle will give the party a short-cut through a dungeon, or an advantage when fighting the BBEG, but it should never be required in order (for instance) defeat the BBEG or find the way out, etc.
Fernn, your riddle/trap works better if the arrows actually make holes in the man...
Well, you don't want to outright kill your PC's!
Fernn, your riddle/trap works better if the arrows actually make holes in the man...Well, you don't want to outright kill your PC's!
I didn't say you need to kill the whole party! Don't even kill the one guy. But it seems that putting a few holes in one guy to make him lighter sort of fits the theme of the riddle, and lets the punishment actually provide the hint so they can try again and get it right.
Fred: Ouch! That hurt!
Joe: Dang, Fred, I guess you got the answer wrong.
Bob: Yeah, now you have some new holes for your trouble!
Tom: What was that? Did you say "holes"?
Bob: Yeah, why?
Tom: Holes... Hmmm, Say, Fred, any chance you feel a little lighter? You know, now that you're full of holes? *wink *wink
Fred. Oh. Yeah, I get it. Hey, sphinxie boy. Riddle me your riddle again, I think I got the "point"...
(the whole thing doesn't work so well with blunt arrows and non-lethal bruises)
The Sphinx says "It has been Ages since I have had a proper cup of tea. Nobody serves it the way I like. Pour for me, and I shall let you pass."
The service consists of a teapot and 2 cups, one marked "5" and the other marked "2". On the serving tray is engraved:
Only the Strong survive / Unless he who is Wise can see / No riddle may bar his way / Certain even unto Death / Every entry is meant for him
First impressions speak volumes, but second thoughts can amount to revelations.If it takes more than a minute or two, Linguistics check (or Int, or Wis) to figure the answer. Alternatively, a Diplomacy check to as the Sphinx "How do you take it?" could give them a hint.
I'm a huge fan of puzzles and I like injecting them into my games (my players also generally like them too, so it works out), however I've only used riddles very sparingly and made them long-term things that can be assisted by checks or just asking other people should the players not get it. I'm a firm believer that the answer or solution to any riddle or puzzle should rely exclusively on in-game knowledge, ideally knowledge that the characters were previously exposed to rather than something they're able to research; for puzzles I may introduce a concept via a very easy solution (like one obvious step), and then later on build upon that concept for a more challenging solution. However, the players already encountered the easier one, and should they not recognize that the new thing is similar to the old thing, I can very easily tell them that with a simple Intelligence check (like, DC 10). In all though, getting the players on board with it is step 1, if they don't enjoy riddles or puzzles, don't make use of them.
In my experience, riddles only work well with gaming groups that you are intimately familiar with and know how they think and are able to psychoanalyze them. If I was running with fresh players or a one shot, I would avoid riddles. With my home group that I've been playing with for 6+ years, I do give them an occasional riddle, because I have a very deep understanding of the way they think and I'm confident in my ability to craft a riddle that is appropriately challenging for them.
Fernn, your riddle/trap works better if the arrows actually make holes in the man...Well, you don't want to outright kill your PC's!I didn't say you need to kill the whole party! Don't even kill the one guy. But it seems that putting a few holes in one guy to make him lighter sort of fits the theme of the riddle, and lets the punishment actually provide the hint so they can try again and get it right.
Fred: Ouch! That hurt!
Joe: Dang, Fred, I guess you got the answer wrong.
Bob: Yeah, now you have some new holes for your trouble!
Tom: What was that? Did you say "holes"?
Bob: Yeah, why?
Tom: Holes... Hmmm, Say, Fred, any chance you feel a little lighter? You know, now that you're full of holes? *wink *wink
Fred. Oh. Yeah, I get it. Hey, sphinxie boy. Riddle me your riddle again, I think I got the "point"...(the whole thing doesn't work so well with blunt arrows and non-lethal bruises)
That is actually an eloquent way of putting it!
INstead of a barrage of arrows, maybe 1d3 arrows to really... prove a point.
+2 to your puns.
When I add riddles and puzzles I allow for Intelligence/Linguistics/Perception/etc checks, not to find the answer, but to find hints and clues.
ie: In your riddles case, you may roll a Perception check for people to notice the odd capitalization or a Linguistics check to see that the line doesn't make much sense. Just roll them in advance and when they get to that point you can say stuff like "Balwin notices the line is odd and Regna feels the capitalization is very deliberate."
I do echo people that group depending you could get stuck for a bit, so I've generally only saved these types of things for side areas and rewards.
I avoid any riddles based on spelling. They have a predictable formula (X in foo, Y in bar) and they don't work in whatever language the characters are actually speaking.
In my experience, riddles only work well with gaming groups that you are intimately familiar with and know how they think and are able to psychoanalyze them. If I was running with fresh players or a one shot, I would avoid riddles. With my home group that I've been playing with for 6+ years, I do give them an occasional riddle, because I have a very deep understanding of the way they think and I'm confident in my ability to craft a riddle that is appropriately challenging for them.
This!
If you are incorporating riddles into a long-running campaign, hopefully you know the players well enough to know that they'll figure it out, or won't be upset if they don't. Before I EVER put a riddle in a campaign, which, to date, I have not, I'd actually have an out of game conversation with the group to discuss: their previous experience with riddles, if they like them, and, most importantly if they feel a riddle or two would enhance the game we're currently playing. Me putting in riddles because I think they are cool could completely destroy the game for a lengthy period of moments.Lot of great suggestions upthread as well.
I also make sure riddles are not "Figure it out or you don't progress". It's usually "Figure it out and you get something nice or your job gets somewhat easier".
The Sphinx says "It has been Ages since I have had a proper cup of tea. Nobody serves it the way I like. Pour for me, and I shall let you pass."
The service consists of a teapot and 2 cups, one marked "5" and the other marked "2". On the serving tray is engraved:
Only the Strong survive / Unless he who is Wise can see / No riddle may bar his way / Certain even unto Death / Every entry is meant for him
First impressions speak volumes, but second thoughts can amount to revelations.If it takes more than a minute or two, Linguistics check (or Int, or Wis) to figure the answer. Alternatively, a Diplomacy check to as the Sphinx "How do you take it?" could give them a hint.
I'm thinking...
Based on the advice this is what I'm going to do.
There are doors in the dungeon that have riddles on them. The doors are locked and impassible unless you solve the riddle. There are side halls that go past the doors, but are circuitous and will take the party through more dangers (traps, summoned baddies, skill checks, etc.).
Solving the riddle lets them take the straight route, and grants EXP as though they bested the challenges (and also disables said challenges so there's no double dipping.)
This way I can do my riddles, which I think some of the players may love, and if they get "stuck" they can just move forward and deal with the more traditional dungeon fare.
Just regarding the structure of the riddle though, is this one better?
In Peak and Gale,
in Dune and Tide.
Two in Each Once,
but only once in Twice.
What am I?
Based on the advice this is what I'm going to do.
There are doors in the dungeon that have riddles on them. The doors are locked and impassible unless you solve the riddle. There are side halls that go past the doors, but are circuitous and will take the party through more dangers (traps, summoned baddies, skill checks, etc.).
Solving the riddle lets them take the straight route, and grants EXP as though they bested the challenges (and also disables said challenges so there's no double dipping.)
This way I can do my riddles, which I think some of the players may love, and if they get "stuck" they can just move forward and deal with the more traditional dungeon fare.
I have used riddles in my games, generally speaking it was for a side option, they could easily abandon it and continue with the story.
As well, I provided a number of different riddles of differing difficulty, each of which allowed access to a different "start area" of the mini dungeon. Each door led to an area further in, closer to treasure, but locked from the previous sections. I had increasing linguistics DC's for in character options if the players failed at them (12 +2/riddle step). My group worked in game and out to find the answers and had a fun time with most of them (aid another is a wonderful thing), and ended up opening ALL the doors for each mini reward inside.
I feel that it worked well as a change from the usual kick in door, check for traps kill all the things, loot, cycle. And as it was literally a distraction, failure was in no way harmful, and they knew they had only so much time to work through it.
I do think that riddles should be rare, non vital, and non punishing for failure. They work well when combined with access to local knowledge (sphinx is near a village, some have sparse clues about the answer), or as hints for logic puzzles ("By night I burn, by day I freeze, silent watchman, no undeserving shall pass my watch" written on a pillar in an empty room, it has burn marks and signs of ice expansion... it is midday).
The use of riddles for shortcuts is a great compromise, it rewards cleverness and skill use (especially for an undervalued skill like linguistics), without punishing failure necessarily (they can just skip the riddles if they really don't want to do them). Giving players choice is important in pathfinder, no one likes being railroaded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I guess that I'm bad at creating riddles then. :/
Although it seems like QuidEst got the gist of it.I was going for the first letter of the first word in each of the phrases spelling "ounce" (first impressions speak volumes)
and the first letter of each second word makes three (amount to revelations)
Oh well. Maybe if I had provided a better mechanism for the "ounce" portion.
@ DM_Blake
I'd give it to you, if indeed Linguistics had the best modifier available.
I would have never solved that. Ever. I couldn't even tell from your description that the two cups were different sizes or that their numbers equated to ounces or any other measurements. Nor would I have looked at X letters of Y words to spell out an answer.
Afterward (like now) I would have thought "Lame riddle with no way to solve it." (sorry, not trying to be rude, just sharing my honest impression). Here I had nothing at stake and I feel a little ripped off. If I were in a RPG and needed to answer that riddle to proceed, I would have been frustrated by it. Even if "proceed" only meant that it opens a door to some valuable or interesting OPTIONAL room, I would still be frustrated by it.
And putting an end to my frustration by letting a mediocre linguistic check solve the riddle would be anticlimactic at the best. Frustration with an unsatisfying anticlimactic resolution.
That's not a great gaming experience.
I'm not trying to pick on you specifically. I'm sorry that it comes across that way. What I'm really trying to do is illustrate the dangers of using riddles in RPGs (and why James Jacobs usually deletes them from stuff Paizo is about to publish).
|
Have to see if your game group likes puzzles, the problem is too often you're gaming after a long day of work and your brain cells don't function.
One of the crazier moments was trying to solve the Thornkeep riddle at 3 am in the morning. I managed it on the first try, but I'm not sure if I got the answer out of irritation from having to use my brain at 3 am or what :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I guess that I'm bad at creating riddles then. :/
Although it seems like QuidEst got the gist of it.I was going for the first letter of the first word in each of the phrases spelling "ounce" (first impressions speak volumes)
and the first letter of each second word makes three (amount to revelations)
Even with that explanation, I still have no idea what the actual solution is, so.... yeah, I'm going to go with "no."
Which illustrates one of the major issues I have with riddles in RPGs. I would never have solved this, and even now that you've told me the answer, I still can't solve it.
One of the fundamental principles I use in adventure design is the so-called "rule of three," meaning there needs to be at least three ways to bypass any obstacle. With this rule, I can safely ignore any riddle that I can't solve. But it also means that I'm going to be spending a lot of time bashing my way through the doors of Moria with my adamantine pickaxes, because "Eff that 'speaking and entering' crap; let's try 'breaking and entering' instead."
Riddles can also be entertaining beyond just being a riddle.
A few years back one of the groups I was GMing for ran into a black dragon chilling in its lovely lair.
The dragon gave a nasty grin and informed them it was quite bored, and that they could have a reward if they could solve its riddle.
Riddle was blatant Tolkien rip-off.
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down.
The players answered "Time" of course.
The dragon simply smiled and replied "No. Me." and then attacked.
They loved it.
The Rule of Three is a great rule to remember.
I also agree with Orfamay and Blake regarding Galahad's riddle. Even with your explanation, I'm not entirely certain of the answer, but I believe you are suggesting that one cup is 2 ounces and the other is 5 (which is not at all evident from the actual riddle). Ultimately, the sphinx wants exactly 3 ounces? In which case, if you get that point (which I would not have) then its a relatively simple procedure. Ultimately, there are a lot of assumptions that the party is being asked to make and know without enough detail. Again, other parties might figure this out right off the bat, but a lot are going to go "Huh?"
Just a Mort: You also really hit the nail on the head. Not everyone will be in the mood for a riddle during a given session and not everyone will be equally understanding of the "elements" of the riddle. I remember playing in a game at GenCon one year using a different system from Pathfinder. I had the awesome experience of playing in a published adventure with the author (fairly well known) running it. Near the end there was a puzzle which I got right away but the rest of the party didn't believe my answer was right. The problem was that the puzzle referenced weeks in a year. I happened to have recalled that the setting in which the adventure was run had a 50 week year. The rest of the party though was thinking 52 weeks to a year. The real problem with this puzzle was that had it not been for me, the rest of the party would have been completely stumped because of something their characters would have absolutely known, but which they themselves did not. (Just as an aside, the adventure itself was great and it was probably the best game I've ever been in at GenCon, just highlighting a particular issue with puzzles/riddles in general).
But getting back to the Rule of Three, providing two other means to get to what the riddle will get you is always a great way to go. Sure, getting the riddle/puzzle right might make it easier, but having a couple of alternative solutions (preferably something better than "breaking rocks in the hot sun") is always a good idea when riddles are concerned.
Well, I would recommend not going for a riddle in this format, actually.
The traditional purpose of things like riddles and puzzles wasn't that they would be something that could be figured out easily by anyone that walks by, but that they would be something that the people who should be able to pass could easily answer, but the lay person would have little chance of getting past.
I'm reminded of a bit from Stargate SG1 where Daniel Jackson finds a puzzle door where fragments from a sacred text are on the wall and the key to getting past is to find the section of text that is in the wrong place. Only someone familiar with the text would be able to tell which space was out of order, while anybody else wouldn't be able to figure it out.
So keep that in mind when using riddles as door locks.
The idea is to keep the unworthy out, and let the worthy in. If its something the unworthy can easily figure out, then its not a very good lock, so why would anyone spend all that time and effort to create it?
For door locks, a riddle should be more along the lines of simply hiding the keyhole, where the riddle simply tells the person which keyword or phrase they need to use to pass.
Sort of like a security question on your online account somewhere. "What street did you grow up on?" or "What was the name of your first dog?" that is simply dressed up more to be less obvious that it is asking a direct question.
And if you don't already know the answer going in, you shouldn't be able to guess it based simply on the question, or its worthless as a door locking mechanism.
Save the "the answer is in the question" type riddles for bored NPCs who are just looking for some entertainment, or are preforming a test of enlightenment, or something along those lines. For locking doors, it should be pretty straightforwards.
Remember in Lord of the Rings, the "riddle door" wasn't really a riddle, it flat out said "Speak friend and enter", it was literally telling you what to do in a way that only someone who spoke the language would be able to get. Gandalf was the one that over-thought it into some big riddle when it really wasn't.
Or in the Hobbit, the map into the mountain had moon writing on it to hide it. It was expected that anyone who SHOULD have the map would know that it was there and to look for it, while those that didn't know it was there wouldn't be able to find it. There was nothing on the map to hint at it, you either knew to look or you didn't.
Wow, I guess that I'm bad at creating riddles then. :/
Although it seems like QuidEst got the gist of it.I was going for the first letter of the first word in each of the phrases spelling "ounce" (first impressions speak volumes)
and the first letter of each second word makes three (amount to revelations)
Oh well. Maybe if I had provided a better mechanism for the "ounce" portion.
@ DM_Blake
I'd give it to you, if indeed Linguistics had the best modifier available.
I'd have never gotten the correct answer either. In my opinion, if you wanted to actually use that riddle, you'd need to give your players a couple of guiding tips: first, explicitly mention that the 5 cup is about two-and-a-half times larger than the 2 cup. Second, modify the sphinx's lamentations to mention or at least strongly imply that the correct solution is based on the amount of tea served. Then, with players having knowledge of differing cup sizes and that the solution is amount/number-based, give the riddle leading to "three" as the answer. This will greatly reduce the number of wrong paths they'll delve down while still affording you flexibility in the riddle. This is still a dangerous game, however, as it requires two distinct logical steps (solving the riddle to get 3, and then figuring out that 5-2=3), which could make players second-guess themselves when they (correctly) arrive at 3 as the riddle answer knowing there is no 3 cup. Alternatively, cut the middle-man (the math problem) and make the riddle itself instruct you to subtract the 2 cup from the 5 cup. Maybe something like Every whole has obvious weakness and hidden strength. By removing the weakness, the strength presents itself. (possibly dressed up a bit more, but I'm not feeling particularly creative at the moment)
You could always give them another clue.
RuneScarabs
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/GothGuru/FRPG/RuneScarabs.jpg
The rune scarabs have numbers and letters on their backs.
Use the spider swarm, just change the poison and description.
Their bite has chaos poison. DC18 1D6 points of a random ability.
1-Str, 2-Dex, 3-Con, 4-Int, 5-Wis, or 6-Cha.
They can eat through rock eventually but they prefer meat and plant matter.
To upgrade increase the size of the swarm.
A rune scarab starts to follow around the Cleric or Oracle as if to say,"Hi, I'm an omen!" Guess which letter is on it's back. :)
There are 8 ounces in a cup.
How does that help?