Challenging the player rather than the character

[Horatio]

As a DM, I do challenge players from time to time. Mostly in a subtle way that thay do not feel challenged even if they are (they generally dislike puzzles, but only as long as they know it is a puzzle, if I manage to make puzzles look like something different*, they are happy).

But most of the player "challenging" comes when they solve various mysteries (murder mysteries, sometime NPC or unstealable objets disappearances). Now, here's why it is "challenging" instead of challenging.

When making those mysteries, I set the intiatial stage (murder victims and places where they were found and/or murdered, rooms from where some valuable object disappeared, etc), add some NPCs tied to that and let the heroes in. Now they start the investigation and solving. Naturally, players always try to interpret found clues, informations divulged from NPCs (possible vitnesses, contacts, important NPCs, etc). Eventually, they come to a conclusion (not neccesserily the mystery solution, usually just a starting position for the next stage of investigation). Now here comes the best part: whatever they will come up with, I take as the truth of what really happened, and continue upon that (so they think the captain of the guard did it while being mind controled so he has no recollection of that night's events? Ok, with that, I quickly add evidence supporting it, like a vitness that saw him walking strangely, almost as a zombie, etc.), continuing to the grand finale. Sometimes, I complicate it a bit, just enough to not let them think they are always right, so they won't get susspicious. And when they try to come up with really crazy implausible ideas, I let them actually fail the investigation (happened only twice so far).

It has several advantages:
- players are happy, because they will eventually get it right almost all the time, players like being right
- DM has to work less, because all the intriques, conspiracies, motives, figures behind figures, etc. are done by players "for" him
- DM is happy because players are happy

* involves story immersion, the pieces of puzzles are tied to memorable moments (to be sure, I create the puzzle pieces after the memorable moments, essentially creating a puzzle that coresponds to events and various details presented in those memorable moments, is that cheating? ) so most of the players remeber and when the opportunity to use them presents itself, they almost always "take the bait" and "get it correctly".

 

[PoorHobo]

I hate being challenged as a player directly. Seriously, puzzles. I'm not good at them and they aren't fun. When they are in games I tend to just treat it like a point and click adventure game and just start trying every possible combination or just wait until someone else figures it out.

My high int rogue can't figure it out but the barbarian who has problems remembering his name did. Because I'm playing the rogue and Nostradomus across the table is playing the Barbarian. Its a complete loss of immersion.

A while back a GM threw in a puzzle. Not one to disrupt other peoples fun, I kept my mouth shut and had my character do something related, search for a lever or something, I try to stay in character despite my complete lack of care for meta game puzzles. Well after the next 15 or so minutes the other players couldn't figure it out either and they started getting frustrated, after 30 we said it and headed back to town and just hung out in the tavern until plot hook NPC showed up and we went off in that direction.

 

[nnms]

My high int rogue can't figure it out but the barbarian who has problems remembering his name did. Because I'm playing the rogue and Nostradomus across the table is playing the Barbarian. Its a complete loss of immersion.

Not everyone has the goal of immersion for their play. Just like not everyone has the goal of overcoming challenges.

Another approach is that the group as a whole contributes to the intelligence of the smartest character stat-wise. So if you have a 20 Int and the group discusses it, the smartest character came up with their solution. This is sort of leaving actor-stance and going into an author-stance for a moment, but it can be done to not break immersion as much.

Well after the next 15 or so minutes the other players couldn't figure it out either and they started getting frustrated, after 30 we said it and headed back to town and just hung out in the tavern until plot hook NPC showed up and we went off in that direction.

A puzzle that effectively stopped the game and had everyone go back to the tavern to find another hook? Ouch. That's terrible. I think puzzles should be designed where failure produces clues or opens up a less ideal path. And half an hour of fumbling around and then having to totally leave? I think there was a design flaw there. Like having the puzzle path be the only way forward. I always have an alternative so the players can pick the kind of challenge they face.

I can see why negative experiences make people think there's something objective about them when they're that bad.

 

[DragoonLance]

One of the most important things I've learned from giving puzzles and the like to my players over the years and being on the receiving end as well is ALWAYS give multiple clues.

The Alexandrian - Misc Creations

DM's all to often think a puzzle or riddle is very easy (because they know the answer,) while the party may be totally oblivious to the answer, even if there is a clue available. If there is only one right way then the game comes to a screeching halt until they can "pixel-b!tch" the right way out. The hybrid approach has worked well for me, and made for a very memorable battle of wits vs a sphinx for my players.

 

[babinro]

I've touched the riddles/puzzle thing in the past and have implemented the character mechanics only in the event the players get stuck. If the human cannot figure it out..they can apply applicable skill or attribute rolls for 'hints' to the puzzle should they exceed a typical DC for the given level.

 

[bfiggins]

I had a DM who pulled puzzles and riddles on us once a session. Seriously, it was like a checklist: every session was one combat, one puzzle. He was actually a pretty good GM, but when the puzzle hit the table, the game just stopped. Like hitting a brick wall. He refused to allow us to advance the game until we solved the puzzle, nor did he ever offer any assistance (other than "you're overthinking it" or "usually high school kids can solve this one in twenty minutes").

For these games, I was going out of my way to go to the game location, and I had only about three hours to play. Usually 1 1/2 of those hours were spent staring at a scrap of paper or a pile of cards, trying to figure out what the hell the DM was trying to show me so I could get back to the fun part of the game.

Unfortunately, I'm scarred now. I believe that puzzles can be used well, but if I ever met a DM who started the campaign with "I enjoy puzzles, and I plan to throw them at you occasionally" I would respond with "It sounds like this isn't the table for me."

 

[mneme]

Various: these are excellent examples of bad ways to use puzzles in games.

The best puzzles:

1. Don't stop the action--the puzzle shouldn't make the game stop while the players shift from "roleplaying" to "puzzle solving".
2. Aren't all or nothing -- they should have easy chunks that build to a more interesting result so the players know they're on the right track.
3. Aren't crucial -- it's ok if failing to solve the puzzle in time causes the PCs to fail -- failure is fun! But the game shouldn't fail if nobody solves the puzzle; there should be a way to deal with failure, even if that's "ok, here's the sad ending for the campaign. Anyone want to start a new campaign after a hundred years of demonic domination of the entire world?" And failing a catastrophic but satisfying conclusion, there should be paths that involve not solving the puzzle as well as paths that involve solving it. If you figure out the Riddler's clue, you can track him down before he strikes again, but eventually he's going to taunt you in person and provoke a fight.
Don't have to be solved RIGHT NOW (see my first point) but sit in the background while other things happen, and if they get solved before it's important...bonus!

 

[Quickleaf]

I can see why negative experiences make people think there's something objective about them when they're that bad.

Yeah that was a glaringly bad way of DMing a puzzle.

IMC the group was trying to reach a flooded ruin half-submerged in a lake, but the entrance was guarded by a garrison and slave camp. My notes listed 3 ways inside: (1) through the guarded puzzle door entrance, (2) via canoe across lake monster's territory, or (3) kuo-toa shaman on far side of lake.

They settled on #1 quickly, infiltrated the camp as slaves, and got posted as gravediggers for slaves who died trying to open the door. During guard rotation they went to the door and I gave them my drawing of the entrance - it was obviously a puzzle. There was only one "true" solution to the puzzle, but there was also a "cheat" to bypass it. They gained various clues with skill/ability checks. The slayers had 10 minutes of getting anxious before the group tried their answer and got blasted by the puzzle/trap! Now the camp was alerted and the slayers had to fight off guards until the others figured out the puzzle.

Every player was on the edge of their seats and they all agreed it was a great encounter, even the slayer types.

 

[nnms]

IMC the group was trying to reach a flooded ruin half-submerged in a lake, but the entrance was guarded by a garrison and slave camp. My notes listed 3 ways inside: (1) through the guarded puzzle door entrance, (2) via canoe across lake monster's territory, or (3) kuo-toa shaman on far side of lake.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about before. No "one way" that has to be followed to get to the objective.

They settled on #1 quickly, infiltrated the camp as slaves, and got posted as gravediggers for slaves who died trying to open the door. During guard rotation they went to the door and I gave them my drawing of the entrance - it was obviously a puzzle. There was only one "true" solution to the puzzle, but there was also a "cheat" to bypass it. They gained various clues with skill/ability checks. The slayers had 10 minutes of getting anxious before the group tried their answer and got blasted by the puzzle/trap! Now the camp was alerted and the slayers had to fight off guards until the others figured out the puzzle.

Sounds like a fantastic encounter that drove things forward. It resulted in action rather than stopping play. You had a means of bypassing the puzzle and even getting it wrong created an exciting complication.

I am totally stealing your idea for my own game

Every player was on the edge of their seats and they all agreed it was a great encounter, even the slayer types.

My game is tomorrow and after last weak, I'm feeling a bit of pressure to deliver like I did then. I think they're going to find it interesting.

My riddle hazards are also sources of information. Even after facing only two of them, the players are totally going to be seeking them out as successful answers are rewarded with information about the mythic underworld dungeon they are in. I've also flat out told the players that if they don't discover the information they need to discover before their other characters (in the same world but in another region) hit paragon, then the information won't be available when the campaign moves from the local to the global/planar level.

 

[Blue]

No one cries foul that players need to be tactically-minded to do combat in addition to character abilities. Having players need to think is part of the game already.

Even with what you had, there could have been a level of player/character synthesis, if they though to have the toughest defender trying so as to best be able to take the backlash.

Personally as a DM, I'd let players make skill checks for hints/clarifications/relevant details - it is supposed to be through the characters.