| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There aren't any tips for it in the book, its just something that you would do-- I'd just google 'logic puzzles' or 'riddles' because if they don't involve game mechanics you don't really need the game itself to tell you how to do them. Be aware that you're going to potentially have to answer players that try to forcibly reduce it to a skill check by arguing their players can just solve it. My usual answer for that is that intelligence the skill is more about knowledge and memorization than problem solving, maybe they can use it to get a hint.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Real Life' puzzles have two general issues:
- Like requiring roleplay for social skill use, there likely is a 'gap' between what a 'players' are good at and what the 'characters' are (the 'dumb as a rock' character solving the puzzle because the player is good at puzzles).
- Any puzzle with wordplay involved probably wouldn't work in the actual language of your campaign (Like a lot of humor, wordplay doesn't generally work outside of its native language). This is more of a 'suspension of disbelief requirement' than an actual issue.
but in general we don't put the details of an adventure on the site. Just monsters and hazardsAnd I think puzzle book is missing for this purpose.
While seeing the stats for a monster or hazard can grant helpful clues, seeing a published puzzle outright destroys its value.
Also puzzles are a gamble. Some tables breeze through the hardest, some argue over the easiest (especially if the stakes are high and the answer seems so easy that it must be a trick). Some players love to deeply engage in solving puzzles, while others switch off and wait, and others might just get frustrated at the brainwork or their inability to solve. And as mentioned, some people want to live the dream that their PCs can overcome obstacles they themselves cannot, whether that's fighting, charming, or solving some esoteric riddle on a tomb's door. I disagree that Int is only about knowledge; while there are many forms of real-world intelligence which fall under Wis or Cha, riddles & puzzles kinda default to Int itself. Plus some PCs will have all three mental stats high, and we're talking about superhuman at times, so it's kinda silly when the slow and deliberate player has to solve on behalf of their quick and cunning PC. (Enter Investigator.)
That said, I find puzzles a staple of high fantasy, so perhaps fine in competitive RPG tournaments; not that I know of anybody doing those nowadays! It's just difficult for Paizo and other publishers to read the players for thousands of tables worldwide, a chunk of which are operating in other languages where a puzzle might not translate over. Which is why we get lots of puzzles that are about collecting macguffins/clues, after which the puzzles are solved or simple.
Oh, and sometimes they (much like mystery plots) can absorb an inordinate amount of time! Give a table a choice and sometimes they can deliberate over minutiae even when the results are irrelevant. How are they to know what is or isn't an important clue? (Enter Investigator...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Puzzles are generally bad within the context of TTRPGs (in my opinion) because:
Players often play characters with skill sets different from their real life ones. Characters that should be able to solve the problem may not be able to because the player controlling them can't. And vice versa, some players may be very skilled at puzzle but playing a low int/wis character that should have no skill at puzzle and thus shouldn't be allowed to solve it.
To that end, it's only fair if you use character stats, but if you use stats it really removes puzzle (unless it's as a wrapper for a skill check) so then what was the point.
Ultimately using puzzles (unless very obvious) is something that should get the players buy in before you do it.
If you like puzzles and some (but not all) of your players like the puzzles, its often best to try to structure them as non-time sensitive things to research and puzzle about IRL outside the game. It might span multiple sessions with getting a new "clue" each session. Maybe with a bit of a role play "update" from the character on their progress and guesses. This might then pull in other characters (or players) with interest in hypothesizing, but in ways that stay RP/narrative focus rather than the head's down solving a puzzle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players often play characters with skill sets different from their real life ones. Characters that should be able to solve the problem may not be able to because the player controlling them can't. And vice versa, some players may be very skilled at puzzle but playing a low int/wis character that should have no skill at puzzle and thus shouldn't be allowed to solve it.
I think that'd make some sense if the owner of the character with 18 int had 200 iq.
Or else you might end up find a party with 2 players good at riddles/puzzles but unable to play, and 2 other characters with unlimited intelligence ( a standard human has 10/11 int score, isn't it? ) but with no clue with the puzzle ( whether because they don't care or can't simply get to its solution ).
Plus, it doesn't seem right in terms of fun for the whole party ( especially if the riddle/puzzle would require a lot of time to be solved ). Somehow similar to being eliminated on a card game, and have to watch the rest of the players play it for 30/60 min.
Sorry, I think I didn't make myself clear or you misunderstood. I'm not proposing to effectively remove players from the game because they have a mismatch to their character's abilities. But I am saying that is what puzzles do! And the reason why I don't like them (again unless it's super obvious) is because of that mismatch that then narratively makes no sense.
Why does the 6 int/wis orc who spends his free time picking his nose and sharpening his axe (and speaks only orcish) suddenly understand the the answer to the riddle "Speak friend and enter" is the Elvish word for friend when his has no history or understanding of the relationship between Elves and Dwarves and doesn't speak Elvish? He shouldn't and doesn't. It breaks the line between in game and meta-knowledge.
And for that reason, I don't think puzzles should be introduced into TTRPGs. They rely on meta knowledge or are reduced to a series of rolls (which is fine, but that's not really a puzzle).
I guess one could think of it as the group of players collectively playing the group of PCs, yet this assumes at least one PC has Int, though I suppose it's likely several have Wis which could apply to many puzzles. Heck, old school DnD had lots of puzzles and the expectation of challenging the players more than the PCs, and some prefer that playstyle, even non-grognards.
Yet I agree that player composition and consent matter most.
Puzzles might also be useful to infuriate the PCs against whatever villain is posing them! :-)
I personally enjoy puzzles but all the arguments against them are valid. Also... They are kind of hard to justify in fiction. I don't think people question them because they are so ingrained in the genre... But why would you make an obstacle and then give people clues on how to bypass it? What are you trying to accomplish?
The Beginner's Box adventure includes a puzzle but also has an illogical dungeon ecology... They aren't expecting people to ask many questions about plausibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally enjoy puzzles but all the arguments against them are valid. Also... They are kind of hard to justify in fiction. I don't think people question them because they are so ingrained in the genre... But why would you make an obstacle and then give people clues on how to bypass it? What are you trying to accomplish?
The Beginner's Box adventure includes a puzzle but also has an illogical dungeon ecology... They aren't expecting people to ask many questions about plausibility.
In genre, riddles can be tied to wanting allies to be able to bypass, particularly if knowing context matters, i.e. Dwarf history.
In RPGs, an excuse for puzzles is a big reason "insane wizard's megacomplex" is a recurring theme in prominent dungeons. :-P
If you haven't watched the Relics and Rarities series of 5E live play, that can be a useful one to see some puzzles in action -- I think every two-parter has at least one puzzle. Even with some rather amazing props, you can see how some players get really invested and others don't. You could probably do a pretty good case study on how well different types of puzzles work, how players tend to engage, what types of hints work/don't work, etc
and thus shouldn't be allowed to solve it.as not a really good idea.
If a character doesn't have high enough proficiency in Thievery, then they can't pick the lock. No matter how good the player is at it.
I also find it fascinating how much better this conversation goes when phrased this way instead of "Should a character get a bonus to their Intimidation check if the player can say something intimidating." Even though it is inherently the same thing - should the character get mechanical benefit (or penalties) because of the player's abilities (or lack thereof).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you really making a comparison between a mere skill check and a reasoning a player should do in place of their character?
Your incredulity is literally the point of the comparison.
Squiggit, breithauptclan, and myself are all making the same point.
You shouldn't let characters do something just because their players can, and shouldn't prevent characters from doing something just because their players can't. We're saying, use the darn stats of the character to facilitate play. Puzzles expressly do the opposite (unless you allow it to be solved via lore/knowledge checks, in which case it's not really a puzzle).
You wouldn't let a character pick a lock just because their player is TheLockPickingLawyer.
And you wouldn't prevent a fighter from wielding martial weapons and wearing heavy armor even though their player is (probably) untrained in such things.
You should apply the same restrictions equally to all things. Puzzles should not get a pass!
You even acknowledge (and we agree) that you shouldn't ask your friend that plays a barbarian to help move heavy stuff for you because their character is strong.
But we're saying you need to apply that the other way too, just because the player can do something doesn't mean that their character should be allowed to.
However, you seem to have a stumbling block specifically when it comes to solving puzzles (or maybe more generally mental capabilities of players being extended to characters) where your view doesn't mesh.
I agree that not allowing players to participate, especially for something that could be an extended time frame like a puzzle is bad, which is why the correct answer is to not use puzzles (or to solve them via skill checks). It's the only way to be fair to all of your players.
My position is that your option 2 is not acceptable. It uses metaknowledge and removes the character from the equation. It is inherently unfair.
And option 1 isn't really a puzzle.
So my end statement is, "Don't use puzzles".
I do want to address the last quote you have in your previous post which says "Do you expect me to solve that math puzzle...". I didn't make that statement. And based on what I can currently see in this thread (using find) you're the first one to use that specific wording ("math puzzle").
But to address your question, no. I don't want people trying to apply their IRL skills in game, and also don't demand a player solve puzzles because their character has high int.
My demand is "Don't use puzzles". Or let "puzzles" be solvable by skill checks (which isn't puzzle). My ultimate point is player skills/ability shouldn't factor into what characters can or can't do, it should be driven by the stats on their character sheet.
Certainly if you talk with the players and everyone is onboard and doesn't care, then do it.
Getting that collective agreement, and agreeing they don't care about the disconnect between players and characters and metaknowledge, is very important IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it makes no sense to compare a roll to cognitive skills.
So... What do you use the INT, WIS, and CHA stats on your character sheet for?
Are you really making a comparison between a mere skill check and a reasoning a player should do in place of their character?
Because yes, I absolutely am.
If a pathway to the plot progression is blocked due to there being a locked door in the hallway, then a player needs to use their character's thievery skill to open the door and progress the plot of the game.
If a pathway to the plot progression is blocked due to a logic puzzle, or a particular NPC that they need to interact with, or a math problem that needs to be solved, then a player needs to use their character's relevant skills and stats to solve the problem and progress the plot of the game.
The disconnect between player and character skills and knowledge that exists with puzzle, also exists in many other parts of the game. When the group has to choose between two doors, and possibly received some kind of hint about it, we are still back to what the players remember about the hint, whether they correctly understood its meaning, and many other possible clues they could get about the best path to take. That's both unavoidable, and an important part of playing and having fun - or not, says the poor me who wandered pointlessly for three full sessions because I really couldn't understand what else I could do to find the way to a certain legendary city in a well known adventure path. With a 26 INT character.
With puzzles, that disconnect is just more apparent. What I usually do is letting players try to find the solution (if they happen to like that kind of stuff), and if they can't do it after a while, I'll let them roll some skill to have a hint or just plainly solve the riddle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often give a free/secret recall knowledge check for the "stuff a character is likely to remember, but the player forgot about" before things like that. Normally with a success giving something like "You're remembering that you've heard something about this before" usually giving the player a chance to consult their notes (which results in an in-character memory, without me just telling them), or the party (which ends up feeling like "everyone, I have a bad feeling about this, lets put our heads together"). With the option to do another player-initiated RK if they can't remember it themselves.