Defeated by puzzle - campaign over

[Funeris]

Wow this thread is still going on. Guess I'll throw in my 2 coppers now.

All I envision is the following scenario:

A group of gamers approach a DM on a cliff. The only way across the cliff is a rickety old bridge. The players/characters have to answer a series of questions (riddles) to cross said bridge.

DM: WHAT is your name?!
PC: Sir Such-and Such
DM: WHAT is your quest?!
PC: To cross said bridge
DM: WHAT is your favorite color?!
PC: <Hesitates and all PCs get launched off the cliff into an endless chasm>



Personally, I think puzzles do have a place in DnD, D20, fantasy...whatever. But the specific types of puzzles we're talking about should only occur on occasion. Unless you're pursuing an NPC that is insane and just likes throwing puzzles around to slow the PCs down. Most NPCs in a world wouldn't waste the time to create puzzle after puzzle after puzzle after....

However, some puzzles (IMHO) can be incorporated into RPing. For instance, a murder mystery. Its a puzzle, believe it or not. Its just a puzzle that's also a plot. And yes, there is only one answer but one the PCs can come across if given enough time and clues. And hey, even if they get close, the creator of the web of intrigue may just decide to slaughter the PCs. There's the solution.

I (again personally) enjoy puzzles and chess. But you won't see it often in my homebrew. Maybe once in a blue moon.

But a mystery? You'll find those everywhere.

 

[Zadam]

It's been really interesting reading everyones take on this... I thought I would throw in a few thoughts on my own...


1) I like puzzles in games, and I like when the players have to solve the puzzle. I don't think a puzzle should just be about making a dice roll to see if the character can solve it. HOWEVER... I don't think it should ever get to the point where a campain is over simply because the PC's couldn't figure out a puzzle. Firstly there should be enough information and clues given to them that they can solve it. Secondly, there should be ways of getting around the puzzle, although by doing so the characters are exposed to a greater level of danger than if they solved the puzzle. Perhaps being able to "go around" a door locked by a puzzle by going via another room, one filled with some kind of challenging monster etc.

2) I started thinking, and a puzzle is basically an intelligence test right? If you are smart enough, you should be able to solve it easier than someone with a lower intelligence. I think this is actually similar to for example lifting a heavy boulder being a Strength test. What happens in a game for example if the character needs to lift a heavy boulder in order to proceed? Does the DM insist that the PLAYER lift a barbell with 100kg on it over their head? Or does the DM just roll a strength check? Likewise, perhaps in the case of a puzzle, if the party has shown they simply CANNOT solve the puzzle, don't end the campain, roll the damn dice and move on... I mean you roll the dice for so many actions in the game, why not this one more? Let me restate though that I like puzzles, and I think the "roll an INT test" should only be a last resort in this case... Let the players TRY and figure it out.

Oh and I totally agree that puzzles should be realistic, ie no puzzles about solving rubics cube, no need for real life knowledge etc. It should be something that the CHARACTERS would be able to figure out / know.

 

[sniffles]

Oh and I totally agree that puzzles should be realistic, ie no puzzles about solving rubics cube, no need for real life knowledge etc. It should be something that the CHARACTERS would be able to figure out / know.

There's the point! IMHO. I've never been stuck up against an actual puzzle, but I have been in a situation where a problem needed a resolution and the players were unable to figure out what it might be. It was really frustrating.

I'd agree that a challenge shouldn't always just be resolved by the roll of a die, but if the players obviously just don't get it and no amount of encouragement from the GM is helping, then a die roll would be an acceptable alternative.

 

[Torm]

And please stop typing in capital letters - there is no need to shout.

Some people on the board use caps on individual words or phrases for emphasis, rather than shouting. Myself included, at times. Too lazy or in too much of a hurry to use the bold or italics. Or, just used to plain-text email, in which there is no bold or italics.

 

[Algolei]

IMO, the actual puzzles faced by the players only represent the puzzles faced by the characters--they do not have to be exactly what the characters are facing.

For instance, a word puzzle in English would not necessarily translate into another language. When players face an English puzzle, does that mean their characters speak English? Or is it just a representation of a puzzle in Dwarven?

The same goes for basically any type of puzzle. OOC knowledge is required to solve just about any riddle/puzzle a DM can come up with. Therefore I see no reason to allow for people to roll any dice at all when attempting to solve it.

It's up to the DM and players to work out how they can best represent their characters' high Intelligence scores. Either the DM can give hints, or he/she can allow the player to seek outside help of some sort (maybe allowing access to an encyclopedia, for example [assuming an encyclopedia would help]).

 

[TheAuldGrump]

There's the point! IMHO. I've never been stuck up against an actual puzzle, but I have been in a situation where a problem needed a resolution and the players were unable to figure out what it might be. It was really frustrating.

I'd agree that a challenge shouldn't always just be resolved by the roll of a die, but if the players obviously just don't get it and no amount of encouragement from the GM is helping, then a die roll would be an acceptable alternative.

Ayuh, especially when it is a subject that the DM is fond of. A DM who likes, oh let us say cryptography (not a random choice I fear), can make a cipher that he thinks is moderately hard, but for folks who have not read books and taken classes on codes and codebreaking they will be impossible. I make it a point to test out ciphers before using them in game for this very reason. I don't want to make an unsolvable puzzle. I know about shifting key ciphers, but there is no reason to expect my players to.

I have seen GMs who ran science fiction games with the belief that all the players would know how to use a computer... and then got upset when the players left his game, even the ones who could program a computer. They wanted to play a game, not write a routine to get through corporate security.

I can read Middle English, but using a phrase in Middle English might be as useless in the game as using Swahili, if the players don't have the information then the inscription is useless. (No, I can not read Swahili...)

DMs can be too clever for the good of the game. (Though I have my doubts in this instance... The DM's resistance to giving the answer to the players after the game just seems off.)

In those cases a die roll may be the only way to get out of the corner that the DM has painted himself into.

The Auld Grump

 

[Lord Judas]

Well, the other thread was closed, but I am still interested in the mechanics of the actual puzzle in question.

I noticed that the question of whether the two sets of symbols that would give a clue to the solution being in the wrong place was never answered. Was there an error in presentation?

Btw, going by the last DM response, I am now inclined to believe there was no actual solution (likely due to the question above), or it was so alien it would have taken a Gygax-ian leap of logic to solve it. Like "fill in the symbols" meant filling up all the walls *except the puzzle area or some other non-sense. The DM's refusal to give the answer, and his claim the he might reuse it, re-inforces this belife. I wager that there is an no answer due to a slightly erred presentation and the "2nd time around" the puzzle will be correctly presented.

 

[Numion]

What the hell? that doesn't even work. If you say "you will kill me with a sword, then that's a lie, and he can kill you with a spell!" the same goes for "you are lying."

How about "This sentence I'm now speaking is false"?

We've had a seminar at work about Gödels work. Interesting stuff.