Stop Looking At Your Character Sheet

Player characters are wonderful things. They have an array of abilities, talents, and special powers that can deal with almost any situation. But not every situation needs the application of your favorite ability.
Player characters are wonderful things. They have an array of abilities, talents, and special powers that can deal with almost any situation. But not every situation needs the application of your favorite ability.

d91fgjw-ae4e9c5f-483a-4534-8588.jpg

Sheet courtesy of Lubien Giagulliel

Problem-solving can take many forms, and not everything is about what special abilities you have. With so many abilities, it is easy for players to fail to see the wood for the trees. So the Gamemaster should remind them sometimes that their characters can still walk, talk, and look at stuff without needing to make a dice roll or use a superpower.

The Dungeon Dining Room Dilemma​

What reminded me of this was a moment in my Dragonlance game. The player group were in a mystic dungeon being tested by the gods. They came across a dining room, the only exit for which seemed to be a plate section of floor that needed to drop down to reveal an opening on a lower level. The room itself was well decorated, with a hearth and a dining table full of food.

The way out of the room was actually very simple. Anyone eating the food would become magically heavy, and if enough of the characters ate something they could all stand on the plate and gently drop down to the exit. The effect would fade in about an hour. Did my players try that? Take a guess.

Now, to be fair, just as you learn “never split the party,” it’s a pretty good rule to “never eat or drink anything you find in a dungeon.” But there are plenty of times that isn’t true, and in module X2 Castle Amber the food gives you psychic powers! What became painful for me was that the players didn’t even consider the food to be an option and began staring at their character sheets to see what special power or ability would unlock this mystery.

Sure, the food might have been a trick, but while the player characters were happy to face monsters, dragons, and even an evil goddess, one of them taking a few experimental bites was considered way too dangerous. This was despite me reminding them that no decent dungeon would rely on one character having exactly the right spell or ability to allow them to pass. Yet still, they stared at their character sheets.

So, after what seemed like days, with them trying all manner of spells, abilities, gymnastics, and cheerleader-worthy attempts at piling people up, they finally found an answer. They used a high-level monster summoning spell to call the heaviest monster they could find, in this case a “Celestial Bison.” This poor intelligent beast was glad to be called to the prime material plane. He was ready to lend all his holy strength and power in the service of the good gods and do battle serving the greatest heroes of Ansalon…

Instead they just said, “Can you just stand over there, mate? Cheers.” Bound by the ancient pacts of service in the cause of justice and right, the bison agreed, and together with the combined weight of the PCs (and a GM at pretty much the end of his tether), it was enough to sink the platform. But the bison wasn’t happy about it (although, to be fair, it was funny).

Look Around You!​

So, what I’d like to remind players is that not every problem needs the sometimes rather blunt tool of superpowered abilities and magic. If you take a look around, and maybe experiment, the answer is usually in front of you. No Gamemaster worthy of the name sets up a room that you can’t get out of. In a sense, every dungeon is a series of escape rooms, so the clues are always there

Now, on the flip side, this means the Gamemaster does need to remember that the players are not in the room with their characters. They can’t see anything that the Gamemaster doesn’t describe. But even if you mention the dining table stocked with food, you might not have done it right.

Everything should be described with the same importance it appears to have in the room. You might not want to give things away too much by emphasizing the dining table. But if it is a huge table the length of the room, the characters will automatically notice it as important (or they should…).

As such, it is on the Gamemaster to spend some time emphasizing how large and noteworthy it is. It’s also fine to offer the odd clue for the same reason. While sometimes the players might be thick, they might also have made assumptions due to the description they had from the Gamemaster.

The Importance of Communication​

Remember that it is also incumbent on the players to ask the Gamemaster about their environment, not make assumptions when they have misheard or aren’t sure. So if the Gamemaster says there are windows in the room, ask how big or high up they are before you start talking about jumping out of them.

So, while communication is vital, and any situation needs to be clear for all parties, not everything is solved with a special ability. There is an old adage, “when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” and player characters are carrying a lot of hammers. So if you are having problems, stop looking at your character sheet and wonder what you might do in such a room if you had no abilities whatsoever; that might be the answer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andrew Peregrine

Andrew Peregrine

This is interesting and I am not sure how I feel about it.
Yeah, I definitely don't like it, personally.

I've seen DMs do that - like, one of my players who sometimes DMs has done that more than once in a campaign, as attempt to shut down discussion of something. I.e. say OOC that they can trust the NPC organisation or that this object is not, in fact, evil magic. In fact he's done it a fair number of times - he doesn't have my natural enjoyment of watching the players bicker I guess!

But to me it points to a bigger problem. You're "telling not showing" in the absolutely very worst way possible, and completely breaking any kind of verisimilitude or immersion. Now, not every campaign has that verisimilitude. Not every player group cares about immersion. So it's not always an issue.

I think for minor things, which weren't intended to be major points of contention, but the players are obsessing over because players are like that, it can be fair enough - you're not really doing any damage there, you're just moving things along. I myself had to do it once with a minor and irrelevant NPC shopkeeper the players had become psychotically obsessed with in the middle of a D&D campaign. Like, "Guys, I swear to god, this NPC does not have bodies buried in his basement, he is not, in fact, any kind of serial killer or evil wizard or dark cultist, and I do not understand why you think he is beyond the fact that he has a name that you think is 'creepy' and has a goatee". (This was after they broke in, searched his basement, searched his rooms, trailed him extensively, found nothing, and basically decided he was "too clean" (secret police-ass thinking guys!). Also I didn't give him the goatee, that campaign just said he had one. I have never used a non-evil NPC with a goatee since in a fantasy game, because it's apparently it's deeply triggering to some players. I blame Star Trek!)

But I've seen it done at the near-apex/climax of a campaign, like seems to the case here, and that just absolutely took the wind out of the sails of the campaign. Because it essentially made a pivotal decision pure metagame rather than about what the characters actually believed, and also made that decision very easy. And it didn't have to be that way. The organisation (megacorp in soviet's example) could have been slowly built up as actually trustworthy and reliable, at least in a specific, relevant way. The PCs could have been given some kind of in-setting guarantee of their good intentions.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


I started with AD&D 1e...
A lot of claims about the old school playstyles are wrong about the late 70's on...
starting with Frank Chadwick's 1975 En Garde! (Sold off around 1980, and currently owned by Margam-Evans.) Tho' EG! is often considered to be a non-RPG... it's part of Traveller's lineage. En Guarde!, Traveller, Starships and Spacemen, RuneQuest, the answer often is on the sheet. Even if it's just a roll against an attribute.

Well, that was the point; that was often a houserule (even if not called that) by the late OD&D period because there was nothing else to work with unless you wanted to use arbitrary mechanics completely disconnected from the character (the usual random D6 rolls).
 


I mean, was it?


I'm guessing "No" because, for my money, that's deeply bizarre and counter-intuitive, not "very simple". It also requires PCs to eat unattended magical food in a magical place which is one the the "Top 10 Fantasy No-Nos" (way worse than splitting the party!) - usually that sort of things ends up with PCs being cursed, poisoned, fey-ensorcelled, told they've failed a test or the like. It's like sticking your face towards some sort of pulsing egg-like object or creepy alien flower in a space horror game!

Also they solved the problem in frankly a much more logical and completely reasonable way - "thing moves based on weight, needs more weight, how do we get more weight?". You just didn't like how they did it! Unless the solution is logical and fairly straightforward, we all know PCs aren't going to use it. In my 35 years of experience, most problems/puzzles that aren't hard-key'd get solved in some wild and unexpected way. That's why you need to allow for multiple solutions, which thankfully you did by having the plate that moved be about weight, not food-magic specifically. And let's be very clear, it is not logical or reasonable to just randomly eat weird magic food in a weird magic place and expect anything good at all to happen, so imho, the players were being completely reasonable and sensible, you just had wanted (and for some odd reason expected?) them to do something counter-intuitive and dumb/dangerous (which to be, some PCs absolutely would, I guess none of them were in this party).


Yeah, but you set up a situation where magic absolutely was required (I mean, I guess maybe over the course of days they could have hauled boulders in or something too maybe)! That's on you mate!

Just not PC magic - they could have, if they were really "living on the edge"-type people, eaten the food. I can tell you that, under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever would I have had a PC of mine be the first eat that food though. Just never. I have played plenty of adventures with "unattended magical food" in them, and in almost all cases, eating it was a Very Bad Thing. The same is true, I note, in fantasy fiction and mythology, all the way down to Goldilocks. Do not eat the unattended food. It's a rule. The only food thing dumber than that is eating food the Fey or a witch are giving you!


Whilst this is basically true, I think you picked a really bad example.

I very much doubt the players didn't consider the food at all - I strongly suspect they immediately dismissed it because, as we've both pointed out, in other adventures, in fantasy fiction, in mythology, and in folklore, eating unattended food is almost always a Bad Idea in the real Bad Idea caps way!

They probably just wanted to exhaust all possible options before taking the insane risk of messing with the food.

So yes, communication matters, yes players should think, but this particular puzzle is pretty binary - if you have a Chaotic Barbarian or similar in the party, they'd probably immediately have grabbed a bit of the food and munched, and the puzzle would instantly have been Gordian Knot'd (well as soon as the PCs realized the plate area could move). But it's not something logic could have solved by eating the food, because logic says "DO NOT EAT THAT FOOD FOR GOD'S SAKE"! I guess they could have engaged in animal or henchman testing, but... I dunno that seems a bit off when the gods are testing you!

As for:

There are rare exceptions, sure, but it's like a 10:1 ratio of "Bad Idea: Good idea" when it comes to eating unattended food. Why take that risk until you've tried absolutely everything else?

TLDR: The players did the right thing and the expected thing - because eating unattended food in fantasy fiction is almost always a bad idea, they looked for a solution that didn't involve the food.
I don’t know. I think someone in either of my groups would have at least tried a little nibble of the food (a dwarf, who is resistant to magic and poison, for example). With a small and sudden weight gain, the answer to the puzzle would have become immediately obvious. In this example, the characters didn’t even consider the possible connection between the food and the platform. While they’re right to be cautious, experimentation is still important.
 



While they’re right to be cautious, experimentation is still important.
But that's exactly the point.

They did experiment. The OP literally explained that they did. That's how they solved this.

They experimented and found a valid solution (summon a big heavy thing) before getting to ill-advised and risky ones. Sounds smart to me, doesn't it to you?

Experimentation shouldn't generally start with the most dangerous and risky possible option, though, unless the PCs are just "like that" or the situation is desperate and it's more likely to work*. Your dwarf nibble approach is valid if your only concern is poison and you have someone poison-resistant, but frankly poison is one of the less likely risks. Bad magical effects, curses, angry supernatural beings (or even gods), and so on are much more likely, a "little nibble" is going to trigger most of those fully.

As for "they'd have solved it instantly if they'd just eaten it" - exactly, I discussed this in an earlier post - that's what makes this not even a good puzzle really - a lot of most risk-taking PCs, like your average CN Barbarian, are just going to shove the food in their face and "solve" it without even trying. That's not clever. That's not puzzle-solving. That's not "experimentation". That's not sensible. That's just Leeroy Jenkins.

At the very least, if you want the PCs to eat the food rather than doing what PCs do and finding an off-the-wall solution you didn't even imagine, you should hint at it, like with scenes of people feasting and looking happy, or a statue of a big fat friendly smiling god with a drumstick in their hand presiding over the table or something. Personally I actually prefer it when PCs come up with an insane solution I didn't consider, it's much more memorable!

* = We had to experiment very dangerously in a Mothership adventure recently, because the it was inevitable death if we hung around too long, so we did go with a Leeroy Jenkins-type approach. This ended up with all the PCs surviving but two of the NPCs we were helping getting vapourized (we didn't like those guys anyway!).
 

Certain things might be true in Dragonlance vs Traveller, I haven't played it, is it some sort of D&D from a long time ago? Cool. Though like with Traveller, what are your probabilities? I mean Pilot 3 is probably minimum for being a regular pilot, because nobdy would climb into that starship with a 42% chance of crashing. So yeah, good to not having it be a playbook, nevertheless still informs the game.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Related Articles

Remove ads

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top