| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does you group like puzzles? If players are looking for a way to bypass the puzzle it could be an indication that they're just not into it.
Of course they might not have a problem with puzzles, it's just the nature of tabletop rpgs means that sometimes the 'solution' is circumventing it and that's great. 'Oh an elborate maze? I'll just carve through it with my adamantine pickax' sure they just bypassed your maze but having the freedom to do that is part of the attraction rpgs. Sure the players literally carving their way to the treasure at the centre of the Mad Alchemist's Labyrinth might not make a great story but you're not telling a story (collectively or otherwise) you're all playing a game so embrace it. As a player I hate getting the feeling that GM is contriving reasons for a solution given to an encounter not to work because it doesn't perfectly fit the one solution they have in they head or it doesn't make for a good story or it's 'too easy' etc.
As for the key pad. If they ask, make them roll a skill check (appraise for example) and if they succeed then tell them the numbers that have most frequently been pressed. Just don't tell them the order and imply that something negative could happen if they enter the wrong code.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The general concept in RPGs is that Player Expertise should activate Character Expertise. For instance, the player decides which target to attack, and then the character's statistics are checked for the resolution.
The problem with puzzles is that they generally only test Player Expertise, with often no part of the character being involved. Obviously, that goes abit against the core concept of roleplaying. Normally, you'd expect the high int characters (or high wisdom characters for some puzzles) to be best at puzzles, but what if those are played by players who aren't that smart? If a 98 pound weakling can roelplay a musclebound Barbarian without who can swing a heavy sword and break down massive doors without a problem, shouldn't a stupid player be able to play a smart Wizard? The character should realistically be able to figure out the puzzle even if the player can't, just like my Monk can figue out how to fight in Crane Style when I can't imagine how that's supposed to work.
When your players try to bypass the puzzle, they might simply try to do the above mentioned concept to the situation: Using their Player Expertise ("I look for signs of wear") to trigger Character Expertise. The latter might be a mere perception check or it could be an intelligence check to see if the character figures out the combination from the wear marks.
Not everyone likes puzzles. Some people aren't smart enough to figue out puzzles. SOme people prefer to relax their brains a bit after a mentally challenging day of work and rather not have to thiunk too hard about puzzles in their leisure time.
None of these should be punished. If the player like to circumvent puzzles, make that the challenge. Maybe they need to disable the noice device in the other room (or cast Silence on it) to hear the quite "click" the locking mechanism produces. Maybe the need to figure out a way to get water into the mechanism and freeze it. Maybe let them do an int check and only if they fail do they need to figure out a way to bypass it somehow.
Forcing your players to play something they might not like (ask them!) only leads to less fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's rough for a GM to put a lot of effort into something which ultimately doesn't get appreciated. That can happen with puzzles, storytelling, roleplay, complex NPC casters that simply get stabbed before acting and many more things. Don't take it personal - it's not about you, not about your campaign in general, but about this particular game element. If your group doesn't enjoy solving a puzzle, give them something else to do.
It happened to me too: I spent some work on making their town alive, with several NPCs and their quirks and quests. But at the end I was told they actually prefer to quickly return to the wilderness and kill things. Well, I grudgingly accepted it, changed priorities in the next sessions - and the players were happy again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played in a group where the DM was a computer programmer, and we had a tech writer, two other programmers, and two librarians amongst the group. Since this was second edition, my rogue would find the trap, then the GM would expect me to describe how I would disarm it before rolling the percentile dice. Since I am not anywhere in his league for that kind of problem solving, my PC learned to just announce that he found a trap and walk away, to leave the party to figure out how to disarm it and then explain it to my character.
"If the wizard can't figure it out in five minutes, we'll save this room for later. Maybe. If we come back."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thieves who got caught in a trap and died will have caused just as much, if not more, wear and tear on a puzzle as anyone who made it through. It's good to let players cut the knot sometimes, but they can absolutely end up shooting their own foot in the doing. That said, a problem with puzzles and riddles is that when you make something with a single solution, it's never as simple as you think it is. If the players are trying to bypass the puzzle, it's probably at least partly because they see no obvious clues as to what you want them to do.
As far as your scenarios go:
1. This is a perception and disable device roll for the rogue, which is what it would have probably been anyway. If you want a more involved puzzle, I'd probably suggest something more than just a combination lock.
2. Pretty much the same as above. Ask yourself if you're communicating the initial clues to hook them into solving the lock effectively, and ask yourself if this is something that wouldn't just be a disable device roll for the rogue.
In general, I suggest having an obvious cut-the-knot solution available, and have an idea of what additional challenges it raises when they try to do it, so that they're just putting themselves into another problem that they need to solve.
One similar sort of puzzle I used was something like a keypad that required a disable device check to unlock and a use magic device check to activate. The players had seen a few of these, so they were fairly confident in the basic premise, so with this particular one, because they were careful about examining it, they discovered that both components were trapped, and that furthermore, disabling the trap on either component would irreparably damage the other. This gave them a problem with components and clues that they could see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and i'm trying to figure out how to get my players to stop
If a GM ever finds themselves saying this, they have a more pressing issue than the one they think they have.
It probably means you're players aren't interested in puzzles. Take the hint and either make very easy puzzles or stop including them altogether.
Edit: Just read the thread further, yeah...just stop making puzzles. You're basically trying to force your players to only do it your way and go through your puzzle. To me it seems pretty clear they don't want to do that. Stop spending your time on things your players don't want and instead spend more time on what they do want.
Players are pretty good about telling you what they do want, even if they don't say it directly.
It sounds like they have more fun circumventing the puzzle. So set things up to let them do so. And, they may randomly decide to do the puzzle if it's simple enough and you let them do the other enough.
As far as "players agreed to it" they might not have known exactly how much, or how difficult of puzzle you intended, or they might not have wanted to hurt your feelings, or they might have been more concerned with having a game at all and so would agree to nearly anything just to play. I've seen players endure a lot of things they didn't enjoy, just so they could play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll assume that your players are ok with puzzles in general, but that your particular puzzles are giving them difficulties and you are unhappy with the way they are choosing to solve them.
What you don't explain in your post is what you think the 'correct' way would be. They have to 'find the correct order' and 'find clues/hints' buy you don't go into specifics. I would guess that your puzzles are harder then they expect and less obvious than you think they are.
When GMing you will often find that something that seems obvious to you will never even occur to your players. They will do everything except the thing you were sure they would do. That is one reason for 'the rule of three' always have three ways to reach an objective, discover important information or achieve similar important plot points. I expect that if you were to consider incorporate this into your puzzle design your players wouldn't get stumped and you would be happier with their puzzle solving.
|
So, your party doesn't like puzzles. Okay, set them against SPHINXES and see if they prefer Riddles.
Or the ever classic "overthinking" puzzle- as "Push Button" illuminated by glyphs with the entire wall showing signs of buttons and other points of interest- all of which do nothing but Ghost Sounds or Prestidigitation. The PC's literally only need to press "button" of the illuminated sign to get the reward.
