Should strong players have an advantage?

[I'm A Banana]

When I say riddle, or puzzle, I assume it's represented as a problem for me the player to solve. I am a problem solving guy. I would HATE that all problems are resolved by an INT check that I roll and you tell me what solution my PC implements.

I imagine players educated as metallurgists and experts in medieval combat and 16th-century English Lit are frustrated that they can't apply that knowledge, too.

But they can't, because the essence of playing a role is pretending that you are that character, and that means that if the character can't figure out the puzzle, you don't get to figure out the puzzle.

Well, that's speaking too harshly. Say you're an INT 3 Barbarian who couldn't solve a riddle for beans, but we're playing a table with Jeff, who is playing an INT 20 Wizard. But Jeff can't solve a riddle for beans. If you figure out the riddle, and Jeff rolls a success, you as a player solve the riddle, even if the words you say are temporarily coming out of the mouth of Jeff's Wizard.

So you can figure out the riddle, but your character cannot. Jeff can't figure out the riddle, but Jeff's character can.

Of course, if Jeff's roll was low and Jeff's Character can't solve the riddle, and no one else can either, it doesn't matter if you personally know the answer or not. Your characters do not.

Y'know, in a horror movie, when you're watching from the monster's perspective as it advances on the vulnerable young ditz out wandering in the spooky forest, no matter how loud you yell, "TURN AROUND, DON'T GO IN THAT ABANDONED MILL, CALL THE COPS," it doesn't matter. The character doesn't do those things. It's not in her character to do them. It doesn't matter if you personally would avoid getting chopped to bits in an abandoned mill -- the character does not. That makes a good horror movie -- it builds tension, it creates its own artificial reality, it keeps things dramatic and interesting.

That kind of in-character consistency is more important in my games than how particularly good Bill is at solving riddles. For me, it's a role-playing game, not a riddle-solving game. Riddle-solving games can be fun, but they are a different kind of game -- one that specifically doesn't involve pretending to be a magical elf if you want to play it. You don't have to worry if Bill's Character would know the answer, because Bill doesn't have a character, it's just Bill.

Not that I'd take your style from you, of course. You don't play with such a wall between what you know and what your character knows, that's fine. Whatever makes the game fun for you, y'know? It just would ruin my fun, which comes much more from the imagination and creativity and unexpected chaos that comes from being in-character.

What you wrote seems to say the skill check means two different things, depending on whether the player already knows the answer. If the player doesn't know, then a successful check results in a hint, and regardless of the result, the player can still answer correctly.

But if they player does know the answer, then the check directly determines whether the correct answer is given.

Yeah, sorry about the lack of clarity. To be more specific, the situation would be like this.

The party meets the Sphinx, who threatens to eat them if they can't answer her riddle, so she asks it.

Now, let's say that Tupac and Biggie already know the answer. But Easy E and ODB do not. Players will likely talk out of character for a while, and everyone knowing the answer (or knowing that Tupac and Biggie know) is pretty inevitable.

But their characters still haven't given the correct answer. Their characters try to answer the riddle, but fail their INT checks (or whatever). So regardless Tupac and Biggie (and possibly all the players) already knowing the answer, nobody's characters know the answer. The Sphinx sighs and eats them.

Later, perhaps now with characters that have a robust INT score, Tupac, Biggie, Easy E, and ODB encounter the Sphinx again, and she asks a different riddle. This time, it's a riddle no one has heard before. They all make checks, roll for stink, and ODB's character succeeds.

First, I try to offer a hint, to get ODB himself to get to the answer. After the hint, Easy E laughs and smiles. He's figured it out. ODB hasn't, and, after a few minutes, Easy E just tells ODB the answer. ODB goes "Ooooooh."

In-character, ODB's character figured it out, period. Right away, didn't need a hint.

Out of character, it was Easy E who figured it out (and then only after a hint).

I'd prefer some player to figure out a puzzle or a riddle, because that helps immersion. Of course, even if they do, it doesn't mean that their characters do, since their characters are not themselves. A success is a success -- I'm not going to take it from you even if you can't figure out the riddle -- but I'm going to give the players a chance to figure it out for themselves, since that's better than me just telling you what it is. I will tell you what it is, though, if everyone remains clueless.

The dice tell me what happens in the world. Sometimes you roll low, sometimes you roll high, and your own personal knowledge won't help affect the fictional reality of the world any more than your own personal knowledge that Frodo and Sam make it back to the Shire safely helps the characters as they climb Mount Doom. I don't care if you know how to drive a stick shift. Your pseudo-medieval druid likely does not. I don't care if you know kendo. Your cloistered wizard does not (though perhaps your friend's fighter does!). I don't care if you've written a book about riddles. Your halfling rogue...well, actually, maybe he did.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

This is just silly. A strong player should have just as much advantage in D&D as he has in Monopoly. In any game that requires using your head, smart players will always have an advantage, otherwise, it's not a game.

 

[Dausuul]

I'd prefer some player to figure out a puzzle or a riddle, because that helps immersion. Of course, even if they do, it doesn't mean that their characters do, since their characters are not themselves. A success is a success -- I'm not going to take it from you even if you can't figure out the riddle -- but I'm going to give the players a chance to figure it out for themselves, since that's better than me just telling you what it is. I will tell you what it is, though, if everyone remains clueless.

The dice tell me what happens in the world.

So... suppose I'm playing a wizard with Intelligence 20. I, the player, have solved the riddle. My character is plenty smart enough to figure it out, too. But I get a natural 1 on my Intelligence check, failing the riddle DC by one point, and nobody else at the table rolls high enough to make it. Does this mean nobody solves the riddle?

 

[Voadam]

So, Janx, no, I don't agree with you. A 10 Cha with no applicable skills (depending on system) means that you really aren't all that effective at convincing anyone of anything. If you are regularly gaming your DM and playing beyond the capabilities of your character, gaining success after success in social situations that this character should never succeed in, then this is bad play.

Charisma 10? Normal people do not succeed at social situations. No soup for you!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I must say I am all for strong characterization and minding your attributes but reducing a rich roleplay or problem solving scenario to some dice rolls totally kills the fun for me.

 

[Voadam]

The strong player can't actually use his strength to his advantage in a tabletop RPG, unless he's intimidating the DM! The question only arises with attributes that can actually be used by the player. It might be relevant in a LARP, eg the player could strike faster in melee, possibly giving him an advantage.

Presumably in a LARP a low str mechanically would be something like a penalty to melee damage. So the high str LARPer might physically batter his opponent down and pound on him for 3 points of damage instead of 7 with each blow.

The same LARPer playing a high str character will batter his opponent down and do 11 points with each blow, and plow through opponents faster.

I wouldn't expect the LARPer to try to lose his sword fights just because his character has a mechanical penalty.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So... suppose I'm playing a wizard with Intelligence 20. I, the player, have solved the riddle. My character is plenty smart enough to figure it out, too. But I get a natural 1 on my Intelligence check, failing the riddle DC by one point, and nobody else at the table rolls high enough to make it. Does this mean nobody solves the riddle?

Ayup. Sometimes, even genius does fail. Sphinx gets to dine richly that night.

Of course, in actual play, one failure usually isn't a TPK. It would probably just mean that the sphinx attacks them and they have to do a combat that they might be outclassed for that distracts them from their real goal and provokes the ire of the sphix's babies when momma is killed.

And, as well, not every little riddle told by a toddler in the street will require a roll to solve. The Sphnix's riddle, yes, because it is a tense moment of conflict. Telling riddles in a tavern over ale, not so much.

That bit about staying in character is the role, and that dice roll is the game. Together, they are a game about playing a role: a role-playing game. For me, having the player just solve a riddle and continue on defies my expectations for a role-playing game. It was just a riddle pop-quiz!

I get that it can be fun, so I wouldn't cut it out of someone's game if they play like that and enjoy it, much the same way I wouldn't tell a LARPer they're doing it wrong, even if LARPing has little appeal for me personally (because my suspension of disbelief is not so strong in the face of foam weaponry).

 

[Janx]

I imagine players educated as metallurgists and experts in medieval combat and 16th-century English Lit are frustrated that they can't apply that knowledge, too.

But they can't, because the essence of playing a role is pretending that you are that character, and that means that if the character can't figure out the puzzle, you don't get to figure out the puzzle.

Well, that's speaking too harshly. Say you're an INT 3 Barbarian who couldn't solve a riddle for beans, but we're playing a table with Jeff, who is playing an INT 20 Wizard. But Jeff can't solve a riddle for beans. If you figure out the riddle, and Jeff rolls a success, you as a player solve the riddle, even if the words you say are temporarily coming out of the mouth of Jeff's Wizard.

So you can figure out the riddle, but your character cannot. Jeff can't figure out the riddle, but Jeff's character can.

Of course, if Jeff's roll was low and Jeff's Character can't solve the riddle, and no one else can either, it doesn't matter if you personally know the answer or not. Your characters do not.

I would not enjoy that particular style of play. While a strong case can be made that it enforces your PC's skills/stats, it also cleaves too close to removing the player's actual input. You don't need me, just roll my INT and tell me what the solution is.

Giving my answer as Jeff's wizard's response also seems like I'm playing Jeff's character. I suspect there's often a fuzzy line at tables when they enter problem solving mode as what is said is often not in character.

It's also important to clarify, I'm talking about problems that are NOT player knowledge based. The classic Riddle of the Sphinx does not entail any special knowledge (like metallurgy). Nor does the challenge of a pit trap that the party knows about but must cross. It is a problem to be worked through, but doesn't actually use any character skills to figure out a solution.

 

[Dausuul]

Ayup. Sometimes, even genius does fail. Sphinx gets to dine richly that night.

...Huh. Well, if it works for you and your players, more power to ya, but that would be the point where I pretty much disconnected from the game. I wouldn't actually hand over my character sheet and a d20 and say, "The dice can now play my character, since apparently they are anyway"--but that's what I'd be thinking, and I doubt I'd come back next session.

As I said above, I would prefer to abolish the current mental stats and replace them with more narrowly tailored versions that don't constrain roleplaying. That said, I can live with my character's Int score acting as a ceiling on my problem-solving ability. What the heck, I like playing wizards. But if I'm playing a smart guy, and I think of a smart thing, I'm going to be fairly annoyed if a die roll means I don't get to attempt my smart thing--same as if I were playing an evil guy and thought of an evil thing, or if I were playing a noble honorable guy and thought of a noble honorable thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I would not enjoy that particular style of play. While a strong case can be made that it enforces your PC's skills/stats, it also cleaves too close to removing the player's actual input. You don't need me, just roll my INT and tell me what the solution is.

Sure, that line is different for different people. For me, the player's input comes in creating a character, choosing actions, and applying them in the best situation. If the dolt of a barbarian is answering this riddle, presumably player choice has lead to this event, and so they've stacked the deck against themselves (or been caught off-guard). If the clever wizard is answering the riddle, player choice also lead to that, and they've stacked the deck to win. If they bypass the Sphinx entirely and choose to wander lost in the desert because they are characters with higher WIS and CON scores, but lousy INT scores, that's player choice, too, and might work out better for them.

It's also important to clarify, I'm talking about problems that are NOT player knowledge based. The classic Riddle of the Sphinx does not entail any special knowledge (like metallurgy). Nor does the challenge of a pit trap that the party knows about but must cross. It is a problem to be worked through, but doesn't actually use any character skills to figure out a solution.

Riddles of many sorts do require some specific knowledge: that is, knowledge of language, of the possible multitude of meanings for words. They are puns and allegories, kennings and koans. There's no specific "pun statistic" in D&D, but I think Intelligence does the job pretty nicely, governing specific knowledge and detail, and being associated with linguistic skill in the form of wizards (who write in books) and languages.

The six ability scores are pretty broad, and I think it would be very hard to come up with a challenge that can't be reduced in some way to an application of one of them.

Riddles and puzzles differ from pit traps in that the pit trap has no one solution. It is a situation where multiple approaches are valid and interesting. Riddles and puzzles, when they have a solution, have only one, reducing them to a binary system of success and failure. It's more of a test than a situation. For "tests" like that, I prefer to let the dice decide what the characters can actually accomplish, and to let the players decide the circumstances under which dice are rolled (and the bonuses that may be applied).

...Huh. Well, if it works for you and your players, more power to ya, but that would be the point where I pretty much disconnected from the game. I wouldn't actually hand over my character sheet and a d20 and say, "The dice can now play my character, since apparently they are anyway"--but that's what I'd be thinking, and I doubt I'd come back next session.

Hey, it's really important for some folks. For me, player choice plays a larger role than player knowledge, and failure can be just as exciting and interesting as success. I'd rather have my players empowered to make decisions that make the best use of their character's abilities, and see what happens as they try and overcome the challenges I've set before them using those (falliable) abilities. Success at a test isn't so important to me that I'm willing to violate the shared illusion of this make-believe world so that someone can turn a failure into one.

But if I'm playing a smart guy, and I think of a smart thing, I'm going to be fairly annoyed if a die roll means I don't get to attempt my smart thing--same as if I were playing an evil guy and thought of an evil thing, or if I were playing a noble honorable guy and thought of a noble honorable thing.

For me, it's key to remember that even if you're playing a smart guy, and you're thinking of a smart thing, that you're not actually standing in front of a giant hungry monster who has terrorized the countryside since before time. I get flustered and fail to remember simple things around cute girls all the time, and that's not even a little threat to my very existence.

One can never account for the chaos of the way the world works, and sometimes that chaos will turn what should have been a success into a failure in the moment.

Anyway, I grok that it's mostly a stylistic difference, and I'm not trying to win any converts. I'm just hoping to explain my position coherently.