Challenging the player rather than the character

[Quickleaf]

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

Haha, thanks!

The more player types you can engage with an encounter, the longer players will have fun with it, 2+ hours even. On the other hand when an encounter narrowly focuses on appealing to one player type, the rest of the group won't sit through more than 20 minutes or so IME.

That's why I prefer to blur encounter types, like I did with that example.

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.

Holy cow your riddle hazards sound awesome? Does the "hazard" part come in if a PC makes a bad guess?

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.

that's my thinking too, but maybe people object to puzzles so strongly because there are no rules to govern success? Tactics typically involve players working within a rules context to gain advantage, but puzzles are different. Does that ring a bell for anyone?

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.

Actually they choose the Bard. That's right, they sent their healer at the hideous door puzzle of death. I think they justified it because he was a gnome...

 

[Colmarr]

They rolled a knowledge check, in character, for that skill. For every 5 over a DC (which I had rules for varying) they got a hint.

Correctly answering the question with no hints: 2 successes.
Correctly answering the question with any number of hints available: 1 success

Not that I object to the idea but doesn't this penalise smart players who have smart PCs vs smart players who have dumb PCs?

Ie. they both know the answer to the question, but the latter earns more successes because their PC failed the knowledge check?

 

[pemerton]

Iwhen the puzzle hit the table, the game just stopped.

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".

I'm with mneme on this.

The last time I used a puzzle - a couple of session ago - it was a door with a password (from the Eden Odyssey "Wonders Out of Time" d20 scenarios collection). The door guarded the stronghold of a dead wizard. The PCs had a copy of the last letter written by that wizard to his king, asking the king to come to the stronghold to collect the wizard's last treasures that he had made to help defend the kingdom against attack.

The players had their PCs try various strategies, from demanding entrance in the name of the king using Intimidate checks, to requesing entrance as a messenger from the king using Diplomacy checks, plus History checks to recall the old forms of words that might have been used, and the like. They also used Arcana checks to conform that the magic on the door was of the sort that needed a spoken password to open. In the end someone worked out that they hadn't yet tried speaking the name of the dead wizard to the door. When they did that, it opened (as per the encounter description in the module).

There was also another way through - the door was bathed in near-blinding light, and (as per the module) if that light was dispelled then a question could be read on the door - "What is my name?" or something to that effect. The players canvassed having the drow PC use his cloud of darkness to see what he could see behind the light, but the player of the drow didn't want to, because he knew the door was magically warded and was scared of triggering any traps.

So even though this was a puzzle, it never brought an end to the roleplaying. It had the players engaging the gameworld both in terms of the immediate situation, and also the history of the world that lay behind the situation in which the PCs found themselves.

 

[mneme]

Have to say, since you invoked me, that I don't think this falls on my category of "best" which doesn't mean it's not good (not all puzzles need to be "best"). But "door" puzzles aren't really what I meant by "not stopping the action" -- unless you encounter the puzzle quite a bit before you -need- to engage it.

Sure, if the players are good, they don't have to context switch even with a puzzle that prevents further progress--and enough extra elements can help keep things moving. But there's a lot to be said for the clues for a puzzle being planted quite a bit before they need to be engaged (if ever).

 

[Tymophil]

Maybe it is time for a sum-up... From what I read in the most interesting posts of this thread, here's what I gather.

• Metagaming is all over the place in roleplaying games : combats are metagaming, NPC interaction are metagaming, even movement is metagaming.

• Puzzles are a tool for the DM to give a challenge to the players, like any other type of encounter ingredient (combat, terrain, skill tests, etc.).

• Puzzles, like any kind of encounter, can be encapsuled into another encounter to spice it up.

• Puzzles must be planned ahead like any other kind of encounter. They can be structured into a skill challenge, they should be in context, they should be in character, they should be optional, they should not be action stoppers.

If you replace puzzles by combat, you get the same list : combat is a tool, it should be planned ahead, it should be optional, not action stopper, etc.

I think that poorly implemented puzzles are what people dislike, and rightly so. Every badly set encounter is a bad thing.

On the other hand, I have problem with players who want to play dumb characters. They just don't make any sense to me, as a GM. I would not, as a real person or a D&D character, risk my life alongside a stupid guy that is dumb...

One last think, I belong to a generation where puzzles where part of the fantasy paradigm : classical mythology (Sphynx riddle, Odysseus cunning), Tolkien riddles, etc. I think the new generations my see things in another light, and would discard this kind of challenge because they simply don't belong to the fantasy genre as they see it.

Nor do I like players that simply sit back waiting for other players to get the work done on any type of encounter... Puzzle included ! That's why I always make sure that the puzzle is one feature of a skill challenge where everybody can contribute, as a player/PC.

 

[pemerton]

Have to say, since you invoked me, that I don't think this falls on my category of "best" which doesn't mean it's not good (not all puzzles need to be "best"). But "door" puzzles aren't really what I meant by "not stopping the action" -- unless you encounter the puzzle quite a bit before you -need- to engage it.

Sure, if the players are good, they don't have to context switch even with a puzzle that prevents further progress--and enough extra elements can help keep things moving. But there's a lot to be said for the clues for a puzzle being planted quite a bit before they need to be engaged (if ever).

Fair enough.

In the encounter I described (adapted without much deviation from the d20 Eden Odyssey scenario collection "Wonders Out of Time") the PCs had for some time been planning how they would enter this other-planar wizard's stronghold. They had found a document that explained how to open the gate to the other world, and stating that to make their way through they would have to answer certain questions (the idea, as stated in the document, being that only the king to whom it was addressed would know all those answers).

When they first entered the other-planar stronghold an air elemental appeared and asked the first question (something like "Whom do I serve?"). They answered that correctly, and the elemental therefore dissiapted without them having to fight it. They then tackled the door out of that room in the way that I described.

I don't see this as having "stopped the action". This was the players playing their PCs, engaging the fiction, scouring the document looking for clues, using their knowledge of the gameworld's history (supplemented by History checks) to help them, etc. In particular, there was no stepping out of character, or out of the gameworld, in order to crack the puzzle (as there might have been if it was a code or number puzzle, or even a riddle not connected to the gameworld fiction).

 

[mneme]

I think that poorly implemented puzzles are what people dislike, and rightly so. Every badly set encounter is a bad thing.

Right.

On the other hand, I have problem with players who want to play dumb characters. They just don't make any sense to me, as a GM. I would not, as a real person or a D&D character, risk my life alongside a stupid guy that is dumb...

What? Why? Roleplaying a dumb character is a fun roleplaying challenge -- just as roleplaying someone with anything else that's not us (different outlooks on the world, naivete, paranoia, whatever).

Why would you want to always roleplay yourself?

And usually, when players want to roleplay dumb characters (stupid characters. I -have- seen someone roleplay a dumb character (who had taken a vow of silence, anyway) and it was a blast) they are doing so because the low intelligence is right there, on the characters sheet -- and is offset by features like a 20 strength or dexterity that will let them thread the eye of the needle.

It's not, of course, required that you play a low-int character as dumb (maybe they're just shy of book learning!). But if the player is a net bonus to the group, being a little stupid isn't going to make them a bad adventuring companion.

And as players and GMs, it's always fun to have people, you know, roleplay. Interesting (and different from the players) roleplay is -also- a way to challenge the players!

 

[mneme]

the PCs had for some time been planning how they would enter this other-planar wizard's stronghold. They had found a document that explained how to open the gate to the other world, and stating that to make their way through they would have to answer certain questions (the idea, as stated in the document, being that only the king to whom it was addressed would know all those answers).

That actually helps a lot. The puzzle (even in concept) being introduced significantly before it was encountered makes it fit more into the narrative, and be much more continuation of play (and less "and now the game must stop while you try to come up with an answer for my puzzle").

I think I'm really conflating two things here:

1. Puzzles are best when they don't force the players to go out of character to solve them -- if the players are spending half an hour working out a word puzzle, or doing practical cryptography, that means that's a half hour they're probably not roleplaying much; the game's just hit a brick wall in which play didn't happen.

2. Puzzles are best when they don't cause the entire rest of the game to cease motion while they're worked on; consider how this is done in a novel or movie. The characters don't hit a door and sit for the next ten minutes mulling overs solutions (not usually, anyway). They either encounter the puzzle or riddle or whatever and then go off adventuring, getting to mull it over in the spaces between fights, chases, and revellations; or they hit it, and more or less immediately act to push through it -- achieving comparatively instant success or taking the penalty for failure.

 

[Tymophil]

What? Why? Roleplaying a dumb character is a fun roleplaying challenge -- just as roleplaying someone with anything else that's not us (different outlooks on the world, naivete, paranoia, whatever).

My experience with stupid characters have always been the same : the player is having a lot of fun, but the group is bogged down by his attitude and actions and the scenario is also ruined by the stupid acts of the stupid PC. Noone was having fun except the player of the stupid PC. You may have different experiences, but this is mine.

Why would you want to always roleplay yourself?

I don't want to... I told you I would not play a stupid character ! ;-)

And usually, when players want to roleplay dumb characters (stupid characters. I -have- seen someone roleplay a dumb character (who had taken a vow of silence, anyway) and it was a blast) they are doing so because the low intelligence is right there, on the characters sheet -- and is offset by features like a 20 strength or dexterity that will let them thread the eye of the needle.

Did he move his character randomly on the board ? Did he act stupidly when another player was trying to play cleverly or in character ? My experience, once again, is that this kind of stupid character plays as cleverly as possible in combat, but triggers the "stupid" feature when other players are trying to roleplay... Ruining the scene for everyone, except themselves of course.

It's not, of course, required that you play a low-int character as dumb (maybe they're just shy of book learning!). But if the player is a net bonus to the group, being a little stupid isn't going to make them a bad adventuring companion.

My experience is that the most enjoyable characters are those who are survivors at heart, simply because they are the ones that will really roleplay an adventurer in the end. Moreover, they are the ones that get a chance to evolve, simply because they survive long enough for their character to get depth.

And as players and GMs, it's always fun to have people, you know, roleplay. Interesting (and different from the players) roleplay is -also- a way to challenge the players!

It may seem a little strange to many people, but roleplay, for me, means that the character has to make sense. I have yet to see a stupid character that makes sense in an adventuring environment. I have seen my share of outstanding characters, none of them portrayed a stupid guy. On the other hand, each and every stupid character I have had to play along was a pain, ruining the fun of the GameMaster and the other players.

 

[mneme]

Dumb characters or bad players?

It may seem a little strange to many people, but roleplay, for me, means that the character has to make sense. I have yet to see a stupid character that makes sense in an adventuring environment. I have seen my share of outstanding characters, none of them portrayed a stupid guy. On the other hand, each and every stupid character I have had to play along was a pain, ruining the fun of the GameMaster and the other players.

Far be it from me to claim your experiences are false -- your experiences are your experiences.

But in my experience, the greatest indicator for how well a character would jibe with a group is how good the player is--and secondarilly, how compatabible the character is with the player's abilities and preferences. Everything else is secondary to that.

A dumb character can get in the way of others roleplaying--playing the character as a useless bore. Or they can sit back and let the smart people decide what to do. Or they can make a funny comment or two and then let people get on with it...and then make a "dumb" comment that actually turns the entire conversation on its head. Good players (or players having good days) will choose better options here; worse players will choose worse ones.

In combat, a "dumb" character could set his head on fire or move quasi-randomly -- or they could suddenly become a tactical genius -- or they could act out of character motivations and capabilities, using simple and practiced tactics, but avoiding novel tactics unless pointed out by someone else (thus allowing other players playing smarter characters to shine).

In puzzles? Well, see above; the same options more or less apply.

Some memorable stupid characters:

In a theater style larp, Arabian Nights, a player was playing an ogre. The ogre was converted to Islam by a sage, but being an ogre, he got a few things wrong. So he started going around demanding that people "worship floor!". Eventually, someone figured out what was going on and explained he needed to say worship -on- the floor. (of course, this was a storytelling rpg more than an adventuring rpg--but D&D isn't limited to only pure adventuring either!)

In a parody run through the Grimhawk Dungeons of Doom (and with the option to give everyone 9 lives), I decided to play a paladin with a miniscule Int. And lots of courage. I charged everything, failed to learn from experience, and set off many, many traps (usually only endangering myself). It was fun for everyone--if anything the over-careful wizard was the real downer in the that game. Despite my best efforts, I even survived the adventure (with one life left).

And...frankly, all decent roleplay efforts involve playing your character "a little bit stupid." Your character isn't you, and doesn't have your experiences and perception. So at some point, it's good to hit a point where you realize what the "right" thing to do there is...and then decide that, for one reason or another, your character isn't going to do that; they're going to do what they think is the right thing, regardless of the flaws you see in it. Even Sherlock Holmes is going to underestimate (most) women--despite otherwise being brilliant.