How far do you go in planning solutions to problems?

[Bad Stormborn! Go away and don't read this!]

How much detail do you go into about the solution when you're designing a problem for players to face?

I'm working on a setup where 1st level PCs will explore a fairly small temple that's been hit by an earthquake. They have to rescue some people (including a woman in labor) from the lower level of the building that's bisected by a chasm. One of the stairs down to that level is beneath the rubble of the roof and pretty much inaccessible. The other is blocked by a heavy column. I figure (although I know how unpredictable players are) they'll attempt to move the column somehow.

In a situation like this, would you as DM just leave the situation as is and leave it up to the players to come up with solutions, or do you list for yourself possible ways they could get around it?

In the case above, if I could anticipate the likely course of action that my players would take (which I would only be able to do based on how well I know them), then I might come up with a basic solution. If moving the column seems to be the only convenient and likely way to go, then I'll make sure I have some rules/guidelines (eg. DCs) to cover that situation. But, that's only because in your example, there's only 2 options to get downstairs, and one of them is closed off.

Essentially, though, I don't go too far in planning solutions. In fact, there are often situations that I have no solution "planned" (or even thought of) at all, and have no idea what will happen and how the players will have their characters react. That's what I find fun about this game.

arnwyn said:

Essentially, though, I don't go too far in planning solutions. In fact, there are often situations that I have no solution "planned" (or even thought of) at all, and have no idea what will happen and how the players will have their characters react. That's what I find fun about this game.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the way I feel about it. I'd rather be ready with rules for what I *think* they'll do, but then see how they handle it. Knowing my players, they'll come up with something I'd never dream of.

Yeah, I don't sweat it too much. I'll usually plan for the "most likely" solution but if they don't do that, no biggie. I've even been know to pose problems that even I don't have the solution to just to see what they will do. That's part of the fun!

Normally I have at least some kind of idea, how the problems should be solved. Quite often though I end up using none of that material, as my players come up with something totally different.

Of course it depends on the problem. In your case I would suggest drawing some guidelines on the ruling for attempts to move the column.

I generally plan for one solution, just so I know there is a reasonable solution for PCs, given their level, equipment, etc. Then, I let the PCs find thier own way, which is very rarely anything like the solution I thought of.

I tend to give this kind of thing more thought at low levels just so that I'm sure the party won't be completely hosed because of my setup. At higher levels they have such a broad array of capabilities (mostly thanks to spells) that it is difficult to come up with a challenge that they can't solve somehow.

I also try to make sure that in a few minutes I can think of at least two or three things that might work (i.e. don't have to be a sure thing but are at least within the party's ability to attempt). This is the result of a sort of maxim and corolary that I came up with years ago:

There are more problems with NO solution than problems with only ONE solution.

If a problem only has ONE solution then a given group of players will NOT be able to come up with the answer in less time than is remaining in the session.

I pretty much use the same strategy that Macbeth does. Though, I also toss in a little Rel-style thoughts.

If I can't think of any solution, then need to ask myself why any given solution won't work. Is it because I am thinking too rigidly and not willing to accept creative solutions, or is it truly no solution? If I come up with "the only solution" then it is likely I am the bottleneck and I should get out of that mindset before game night.

For the listed scenario, if moving the column is the best course you can think of, make sure you will allow the players that opportunity. Don't rule it something like 'a DC 30 Str check, 3 people max can try with two assisting and taking 20 is not allowed.' Keep an open mind to creativity, make consistent and reasonable rules calls and you will be golden.

BardStephenFox said:

I pretty much use the same strategy that Macbeth does. Though, I also toss in a little Rel-style thoughts.

Click to expand...

That pretty much matches my approach too. I just make sure that there isn't only one solution, since that can become a serious pain in the ass for players.

Rel said:

This is the result of a sort of maxim and corolary that I came up with years ago:

There are more problems with NO solution than problems with only ONE solution.

If a problem only has ONE solution then a given group of players will NOT be able to come up with the answer in less time than is remaining in the session.

Click to expand...

Very good points, Rel! I appreciate the reminder about solutions available to first level PCs. They're all experienced players, but their characters won't be, and I was about to overlook that.