D&D 5E Riddle Me This

[Li Shenron]

Riddles can be solved with an Intelligence check.

It's a role-playing game. I'm testing the characters, not the players.

That's not true, you are testing the players also, because it's the players who decide what the PC do, even when they decide by "what I think my PC would do". Unless you also call for checks to determine all PC's decisions related to the plot...

I use riddles to test the players, but I can definitely allow an Int check if the players get stuck. Maybe not let the check completely solve the riddle, but give good clues.

How much do you like riddles in game? As a DM, do you (or would you, in 5e) use anything other than the players' own brainz to give them a hint or clue? If so, what?

I use them very sparingly, but when I do, I love them! Also as a player, of course.

I don't like too easy riddles, and that's why I use them sparingly... I have a couple of killer riddles that I keep re-using for new playing groups

My habit of choice is to make riddles serve as "homeworks" i.e. present the riddle at the end of a gaming session, so that the players who like solving riddles will have plenty of time to think about a solution. Players who aren't interested can just ignore it, and still the riddle doesn't block the gaming action. This way, the riddle can be hard enough to give satisfaction to the interested players.

Timing the riddle so that it appears at the end of a session is not always easy, but keep in mind that the riddle itself doesn't have to be blocking the adventure, i.e. it doesn't have to be "solve it, or you're stuck".

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It has been a long time since I ran a puzzle/riddle. However last night when talking to my DM/Player (he is a DM of one of my games and a player in one I DM) friend he gave me a good reason why he doesn't.

Right now the game he runs is oWoD Mage the Ascension set in 1891 London. With a small amount of googlefu we have maps of 5 or 6 cities on another player's IPAD, on my nook we have a wiki about Mage Victorian age, and on the DMs computer we have PDFs of all the books we allow. Everyone at the table has a smart phone. When something comes up like "When did X person die" we can just web search it. Infact I enjoy saying "OK google...." to get us answers.

any riddle he puts down would have to be unsearchable... or else we could all have the answer in a minute at most...

I hadn't thought about that, so I googled the example earlier in the thread. "If you have it you want to give it away, if you give it away you no longer have it?"

1st response on google (took less then 30 seconds to get)

[sblock]A SECRET[/sblock]

now to all the DMs that wont let you make an Int check to solve a riddle, how would you respond to using obviously out of game advantages (the internet) to get it?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Unless you also call for checks to determine all PC's decisions related to the plot...

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

[billd91]

I like riddles and puzzles and think they're quite genre-appropriate for fantasy role playing games. There's quite a history of them fitting in with the sorts of cultures portrayed in most RPGs.

I don't agree with the idea that an RPG is only supposed to challenge the PC and not the player. I don't think that's even possible unless combat is entirely abstracted without a player's tactics and decisions mattering. RPGs, in my experience, have always been subject to a player's abilities, not just their PC's. But that doesn't mean that I'll leave a stuck group of players hanging. I'll give out hints for good intelligence or knowledge skill checks. I just won't provide a whole solution.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Can't speak for him but for example would you give a player the optimal tactics to defeat a foe if they made a check since you are only testing the PC and not the player?

 

[JamesonCourage]

now to all the DMs that wont let you make an Int check to solve a riddle, how would you respond to using obviously out of game advantages (the internet) to get it?

You're cheating. You fail the riddle, and if you cheat again, you don't get the internet at the table. If you cheat again, you don't keep playing. And I play with friends. But I won't tolerate cheating.

If they didn't know that was a rule (which they should, since, again, I play with friends), then they get a warning and a lot of disappointment. Now I'll allow Int checks (even if I didn't before) to see if the players solve the riddle. If this happens again later, see my first paragraph.

 

[KarinsDad]

I couldn't hold it in any longer and proceeded to tell him that I was a candidate chess master ( the lowest level master in chess ) and that I compete regularly.

I used to dream of being a candidate chess master. If only someone could teach me how.

 

[billd91]

It probably exists somewhere out there, but it would be awesome to have a roleplaying Riddle Compendium that has a wide number of riddles, tricks or scenarios where the players have to figure things out, the setting in which the riddle occurs, and alternative methods to bypass them. Completely system neutral too. Repercussions for failure, results of success, how to delineate hints and prompts based on the nature of the riddle itself. That would be a massive time saver for the harried DM. It might also result in more campaign riddles than the players want to experience!

There are definitely some resources out there. Even a netbook of riddles (which has a link here: http://www.adnddownloads.com/riddles_traps.php).

And here: http://savagelegend.com/misc-resources/classic-riddles-1-100/

And here are some books of riddles for sale: https://www.nobleknight.com/ViewPro...cturerID_E_183_A_CategoryID_E_0_A_GenreID_E_9

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I think it's pretty straightforward, but I'm not that poster, so they can correct me if I'm wrong.

What I think he was saying was that you are testing the players in many/most situations, not the characters. They are the ones who make the decisions for their characters in combat (I use a Cure on my friend instead of pursuing the man that killed my brother), for example. Or in social situations (I decide to hold my tongue in front of my lying enemy, rather than call him out on it). Or during exploration (I decide to leave the dungeon where my grandfather's magic sword is stashed, rather than continuing on and getting hit by more traps).

Yes, checks can tell you how well your character does (you roll for the Cure spell or attack rolls, you roll for talking in social situations, you roll for avoiding traps). Which I think is your point (you roll for how well your character solves the riddle), but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not injecting how I do things yet, but I think the other poster was saying if you let them decide -as a player, not PC- on most other plot points (Cure my friend rather than pursue my brother's killer; hold my tongue against my lying enemy rather than call him out on it; leave the dungeon and an heirloom behind rather than risk the safety of myself and my friends), you should probably let them deal with this "plot point" (the riddle) as a player (not PC), as well. If you don't allow that, you should force them to make checks to decide all of the above, too.

Does that make their point more clear?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Can't speak for him but for example would you give a player the optimal tactics to defeat a foe if they made a check since you are only testing the PC and not the player?

well not addressed to me I WANT to answer that...

if you are playing a smart tacticle character and declair a bone head move, I will warn you... no check needed!
If you are playing a smart character and say something stupid or miss remember something I will warn you... no check needed.

example: I had a high Int tactical warlord who was being made as a concept of "Captain America, but as a Knight" when the player suggested mid combat to run into the next room to escape the hydra that was kicking there butts, I said "Wait, bad idea..." and explained that he could by mistake make things worse and why...

example 2: After a very intracit set of mysteries where solved the PCs had to ask for help from a new ally. 1 PC (the wizard) went to the kings advisor (a wizard as well) and started explaining things wrong... I mean really wrong. He had gobilns and kobolds mixed up, he had the place of the ritual that needed to be stoped wrong, and he even named the wrong demon lord. I stoped him and asked "Um are you trying to give him miss information?" and explained the plot again... the PC had an off week and totally brain farted, his character with a 22 INT would not be making the same mistakes...

example 3: A half elf rogue wanted to sneak into the palace. To cause a distraction he yelled "ORC INVASION..." I reminded him that would most likely lock down the palace, and he went with plan B

 

[KarinsDad]

In general I don't mind puzzles and riddles in games. That said, I did have one bad experience with a riddle in a game as a player.

I entered the room of a dungeon and a magic mouth told me that I needed to give the next letter in the series: O T T...

I said O, which was incorrect. As a result I lost all items in my character's possession, including all my magic items and even my clothes. This was in a 2E AD&D game and I was about 10th level (starting at 1st level), so I was pretty pissed to lose all my worldly possessions in one go like that.

To make matters worse, the next player entered the room and gave the right answer (F, as it was the first letter of each number, starting at one. So one, two, three, four). All his possessions doubled, so he now had 2 of everything.

Not a problem with the riddle, a problem with the result of getting the incorrect (or even correct) answer.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Can't speak for him but for example would you give a player the optimal tactics to defeat a foe if they made a check since you are only testing the PC and not the player?

I would allow an Int check to recall useful information about the enemy (if any). If the player was going to do something unreasonably dumb, I would allow an easy Wisdom check to let them know why it would be unlikely to work.

Combat is a complex thing, with a lot of moving parts, and it doesn't work out as easily as chess would. Solving a riddle is the mental equivalent of lifting a boulder or jumping some hurdles; there is no interesting choice involved, and thus it is not a meaningful aspect of gameplay.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I would allow an Int check to recall useful information about the enemy (if any). If the player was going to do something unreasonably dumb, I would allow an easy Wisdom check to let them know why it would be unlikely to work.

Combat is a complex thing, with a lot of moving parts, and it doesn't work out as easily as chess would. Solving a riddle is the mental equivalent of lifting a boulder or jumping some hurdles; there is no interesting choice involved, and thus it is not a meaningful aspect of gameplay.

To some, to others its a lot of fun. No right answer really, personally I let the players sink or swim on their own. But I'm more on the gamist side.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You're cheating. You fail the riddle, and if you cheat again, you don't get the internet at the table. If you cheat again, you don't keep playing. And I play with friends. But I won't tolerate cheating.

If they didn't know that was a rule (which they should, since, again, I play with friends), then they get a warning and a lot of disappointment. Now I'll allow Int checks (even if I didn't before) to see if the players solve the riddle. If this happens again later, see my first paragraph.

that is VERY extreme... but ok, is it also cheating if I heard the riddle before?

 

[KarinsDad]

well not addressed to me I WANT to answer that...

if you are playing a smart tacticle character and declair a bone head move, I will warn you... no check needed!
If you are playing a smart character and say something stupid or miss remember something I will warn you... no check needed.

example: I had a high Int tactical warlord who was being made as a concept of "Captain America, but as a Knight" when the player suggested mid combat to run into the next room to escape the hydra that was kicking there butts, I said "Wait, bad idea..." and explained that he could by mistake make things worse and why...

example 2: After a very intracit set of mysteries where solved the PCs had to ask for help from a new ally. 1 PC (the wizard) went to the kings advisor (a wizard as well) and started explaining things wrong... I mean really wrong. He had gobilns and kobolds mixed up, he had the place of the ritual that needed to be stoped wrong, and he even named the wrong demon lord. I stoped him and asked "Um are you trying to give him miss information?" and explained the plot again... the PC had an off week and totally brain farted, his character with a 22 INT would not be making the same mistakes...

example 3: A half elf rogue wanted to sneak into the palace. To cause a distraction he yelled "ORC INVASION..." I reminded him that would most likely lock down the palace, and he went with plan B

I'd either not even mention it, or give ability check rolls for some of these (#1 and #3, #2 is probably legit).

Why?

Because some of the most memorable events that happen in the game occur due to a mistake on the part of a player. Giving the player a hint that he is about to make a boneheaded move totally or partially negates these types of error driven moments.


Player 1: "Remember when you yelled "ORC INVASION" at the palace and we had to sneak in through the sewers? That was a classic. Good times."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm not injecting how I do things yet, but I think the other poster was saying if you let them decide -as a player, not PC- on most other plot points (Cure my friend rather than pursue my brother's killer; hold my tongue against my lying enemy rather than call him out on it; leave the dungeon and an heirloom behind rather than risk the safety of myself and my friends), you should probably let them deal with this "plot point" (the riddle) as a player (not PC), as well. If you don't allow that, you should force them to make checks to decide all of the above, too.

Those decisions are all choices. A riddle is not a choice. A riddle is the mental equivalent of a rock, and only brute-force logic (or recollection) will allow you to bypass it. The character has a stat which measure brute-force logic (and recollection).

The player makes the choice of whether to attempt the riddle, or to punch the riddler in the face. That's a meaningful decision. The success or failure of either action is determined by dice.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd either not even mention it, or give ability check rolls for some of these (#1 and #3, #2 is probably legit).

Why?

Because some of the most memorable events that happen in the game occur due to a mistake on the part of a player. Giving the player a hint that he is about to make a boneheaded move totally or partially negates these types of error driven moments.


Player 1: "Remember when you yelled "ORC INVASION" at the palace and we had to sneak in through the sewers? That was a classic. Good times."

here is my thing, I let some things slide, I also miss things (can't warn you about a bone head move if I am being a bone head). IN general my thought process is If as the DM I think game is about to stall, or in general slow down and be less fun because of a mistake I will give the PC a chance to correct it.

IN my Mage game I play the GM often asks "Are you sure?" and that is his code for "Wait rethink that, I see a problem with it" I dislike that sometimes because even when we pause and I discusse it with the other players, we don't see what he sees.

 

[JamesonCourage]

that is VERY extreme...

You break my rules, you get a warning. You keep doing it, you don't get to keep playing at my table. That's not extreme, in my view. To me, it's the same as me playing in a friend's game and cheating (fake die rolls, declaring "I can fly" when no ability allows me to, fudging my money, etc.). That's messed up, and I won't let it happen at my table.

but ok, is it also cheating if I heard the riddle before?

Not then, no. I'd be disappointed, but I'd know that I would've chosen the riddle poorly. That's why I use riddles sparingly, and look for obscure riddles. Of course, they also have to be Goldilocks (not too hard, not too easy). Which makes it even harder to find riddles. And they need to be plausibly placed. Thus making them even more rare in my games. Etc.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Those decisions are all choices. A riddle is not a choice. A riddle is the mental equivalent of a rock, and only brute-force logic (or recollection) will allow you to bypass it. The character has a stat which measure brute-force logic (and recollection).

The player makes the choice of whether to attempt the riddle, or to punch the riddler in the face. That's a meaningful decision. The success or failure of either action is determined by dice.

It seems like you're trying to refute my clarification of another's poster's response to you, even though I explicitly said I'm not saying my view and I'm just (hopefully) clarifying for them. Is that what you're doing? Or are you quoting me for convenience and replying to them? Because if it's the latter, you might want to tag them in it.

 

[Nefzyflin]

I used to dream of being a candidate chess master. If only someone could teach me how.

Hello KarinsDad.

I attribute the fact that I love to play D&D with a battlemat / tiles and minis, to my love of chess. I haven't competed in chess for years, but D&D combat played with a grid really scratches that itch for me. Infact, D&D combat is far more tactical and strategic than chess could ever be. I'll always love chess though.

I'd always be happy to give pointers as well as answer questions, to anyone who enjoys chess.