Kamikaze Midget said:
It is. Because making a player solve a puzzle is not playing a role. Putting a puzzle in the game is, for many campaigns "too distractive." Having a player solve a puzzle is not nessecarily easily done. It is only easy for the right types of players, and even when it is easy, it is still disruptive of playing a role. It can take up FAR more time than combat -- entire sessions have been lost to puzzles and mindgames, whereas a combat can be over in a handful of minutes if it is a minor one.
If this be the case, then combat is not role playing as well. There is role playing in combat, but the process is not. Doing the puzzle is the mechanic of your character solving the puzzle in the game. It is no different than dice rolling to settle conflict. If (and this is using your example), solving a puzzle is not role playing, surely rolling dice as a player to figure out what your character is doing is not. However, without the mechanic, the game doesn't work. Puzzles have no set mechanic, outside of solving the puzzle and "pretending" the character solved it. INtelligence and knowledge can be used to produce clues (skills to aid you much similiar to base attack aids combat) but having high skill points in these areas does not automatically make you succeed. To further discuss this first quote of yours, combat isn't easy for people as well. My point is it is apart of the game, and this game, as written, is not solely a hack and slash type game, though it is perfectly alright to argue that hack and slash is fun, do admit that a hack and slash campaign is but an alternative playing version to the real thing.
Doing a puzzle isn't role playing. It's removed from role playing. It is cerebral and intellectual and helps your LSATs, but it ain't playing a role. D&D doesn't have to be combat oriented, but I think you'll find the core rulebooks support a decent amount of combat, so making it less so would likely involve some new kinds of rules.
It is no more intellecutual than combat tactics again. You have still yet to disstingiush hte difference. The core books give many mechanics on combat because it is the most complicated aspect of the game.
Most of this is up to interpretation. Maybe Ugh could figure it out with an Int of 6. Maybe he couldn't figure it out with an Int of 600 ("r b and g are obviously codes in the long-forgotten tongue of the ancients to whome color was a foriegn concept, and thus the elimination of all color is the only goal to see here, but because black is the *absorbtion* of all color, obviously all these orbs must be painted white!"). A roll does realistically determine this chance. If, you know, it makes sense for such a thing to exist in the world in the first place (which is quite hard to justify in most campaigns).
An obstacle is presented in the game ot hinder the player, most of the time , a quick roll is not a challenging obstacle for the player. Then again, I'm the kind of guy whom makes my players find the trigger to the trap, the trap itself and explain reasonably what their using to disarm the trap (with clues 5+ or better).
Sure. If a character spent rescources on being a Sherlock Holmes (levels in bard, specializing in divining magic, skill focus in Knowledge (elementary)) it is completely acceptable to have him make some sort of roll to determine exactly that.
Again, where is the obstacle or challenge at. Also, this forces the DM to role playing the player's character, which, IMO, is lazy role playing. Ironically your argument counters itself. The more times you roll dice in a game the less likely the player is to role play. You don't have to be a thespian or a genuis but ifyou choose to play the game you should at least attempt to role play. The reason I use puzzles is to produce more role playing. Again, the problem with combat mechanics is that it is anti-roleplaying. 30 minutes to represent a minute and a half, hit points, instant healing, dice flying across the table.. however, it is neccessary part of the game. HOwever, you can role playing during combat (and is required in my games) it is still the LEAST role playing of the game. You stop playing the role for a minute and shoot complicated craps to defeat a monster. I'm not putting down combat, but compared to an ingame puzzle, its far less realistic. A properly done in -game puzzle puts the character in the game (especially if you have handouts). Their not looking at some small figure or picture on the laptop or out of a book any more. Their seeing the puzzle as their pcs would see the puzzle. They can interact with it (in the case of the orb I"d find some colored marbles). Puzzles should always have handouts of some sorts.
This isn't true if the PLAYER has to solve the puzzles. If a player who isn't very good at mind games wants to play a clever halfling who is good at riddles, why should he be limited by what he can actually do? If a player wants to have an Indy type of character by just isn't good at solving those clues, how can he have such a character when he has to figure out those clues himself?
If the *character* has to solve the puzzles, that's fine. But then there should be a way for the character to solve the puzzle without nessecarily forcing the player to do the same thing.
Have the player invest in knowledge skills or charasimatic skills. Sure it helps if the player has some aptitude at this stuff. (and by the way i've never encountered players you described, i think everyone knows how to tell a lie or pretend to be smart). I bet you have several players at your table whom would benefit from a well done puzzle. As previously stated, you have to have clues (no more than 5 no less than 3) ready that require certain checks, and dno't always limit the checks to knowledge. The better the roll you can add to the clue, the key is not to ruin the flavor of the puzzle. For instance, with ugh, I'd probably have a clue around (maybe a knowledge history) to indicate that the elvens were very into colors and sequence.
Puzzles have their place in the mythos, sure. But like I said, the reader never had to figure out the riddle on the door to Moria. The *characters* did. The book would move forward regardless of what the reader did. Because literature (like cinema) is a passive medium.
A game, however, is active, and a role-playing game is active in the playing of a role (just like a puzzle-solving game is active in the solving of a puzzle). To play that role, it is quite often nessecary for the character to do something that the player cannot -- including solving a puzzle. And when that abstraction becomes destroyed -- when you demand the player find the answer regardless of what the character can do -- it hurts the playing of a role. You're no longer being a fictional being, but being judged by you own capabilities.
In short, the issue isn't the puzzle itself. The issue is making the players solve the puzzle instead of making the characters solve the puzzle.
And as a side note, I wouldn't assume you knew how I played, if I were you. I've had combat-less sessions. I am capable of making mind games, diplomacy, and NPC interaction as valuable and rewarding as combat for my players.
I was not accusing, only basing my assumptions off of your answers. You seem to be very much prominent of combat as the defiant moment in dungeons and dragons.
Again the puzzle is no more being solved by the players as the characters are rolling dice in front of the horde of skeletons. It is the mechanic used to solve the in game situation and is far less distracting than combat. Whereas you can stay in character the entire time a puzzle is going on, you are forced to break character in combat everytime you pick up the dice. (else Ugh is sitting in the middle of the room rolling a d20).
Characters have options when attempting a puzzle, but the options should not solve the puzzle no morethan one attack roll would kill a monster.
