RPG Evolution: Who Knows Better, a Player or Their Character?

Physical stats in RPGs are usually handled by rolls of the dice, but how to handle mental challenges without biasing against a player or their character?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

The "C" in "PC"​

In Dungeons & Dragons, players take on a role for their character. Because tabletop games aren't live action role-playing games (LARPs), physical abilities are handled with ability scores and die rolls. A player doesn't have to do a flip if they want their character to jump over a chair, for example. So feats of strength, of agility, and overall health are relegated to a game abstraction that lets players control characters who may look nothing like them. This is particularly important in playing characters that are more alien from a standard humanoid.

But things get complicated with the mental attributes: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. How smart, wise, or charismatic a character can be depends on a combination of both die rolls and how the character is role-played. It's may be easier to play down than up in this case: playing a dumber character is feasible while playing a smarter character (smarter than the player, that is) requires some help with die rolls.

If the massive thread in Corone's article about how video games affect role-playing is any indication, there's quite a bit of variance in how groups approach this dichotomy. And some of that has to do with the game's level of abstraction.

Just How Abstract Are You?​

Some players may reference their character in third person ("Talien tries to intimidate the barkeep") while other players may role-play the experience out ("Listen bub, if you don't do what I say you'll be mopping up more than beer"). Most groups probably shift between the two, with a player role-playing their character's efforts and then the dice determining success.

The abstraction challenge happens when these two are wildly out of sync. When a player role-plays exceptionally well, should he be required to still roll to see if their check succeeds? Or maybe just a check with advantage? Conversely, should a player who role-plays poorly be penalized because they're not as charismatic as their character?

Tabletop role-playing games have a tantalizing promise that anyone can be whatever they want, but the reality is that complex characters that are markedly different from their players are harder to play, from both a role-playing and abstraction perspective.

All this comes to a head in a staple of dungeon crawling: riddles and puzzles.

Who Knows What?​

I've previously mentioned how there's a lot game masters can learn from escape rooms. GMs have always drawn on a variety of sources for their in-game challenges. Thanks to the increase popularity of escape rooms, there's been an explosion of riddles and puzzles. But there are limits.

Escape rooms put players in a physical role without a lot of expectations that the player will role-play it. It's expected the player brings all their skills to the game to the succeed, and by working together as a group any flaws one member may have are offset by the talents of other team members. This is why escape rooms are often used for team building purposes.

But since the player isn't playing a role, their physical and mental capabilities are no different from their daily life. No player will play poorly because they're playing a character who isn't good at puzzles, for example. Not so in tabletop RPGs, where playing better or worse than "you" is part of role-play.

This becomes problematic with thinking games, where the push-and-pull between a player's brain and their character's brain might be at odds. Should a player not mention the answer to a riddle because the character wouldn't know it? Should a character be able to tell their player somehow what the answer is?

My Solution​

When it comes to any puzzles, I've learned that there's a fine line between enforcing role-play (thereby staying true to the character's mindset) and having fun (thereby giving the player agency in the game). To that end, I pose riddles and challenges and then use skill checks, with a target number giving hints. The higher the roll over the target number, the more hints the character gives their player.

In my current online D&D game, players are participants in a game show. There are five categories with gold prizes ranging from 10 to 1,000: arcana, history, nature, medicine, and religion. The easiest questions have a base DC of 5, while the hardest have a base DC of 14. The answer determines how many letters the character automatically guesses, increasing the DC by the number of letters, with the player left to puzzle out the answer from there.

For example, a 100 gold piece arcana question of "what powers the mechanical automatons guarding the keygnome front gate?" with an answer of "clockworks" and a DC of 5 (categorized as an easy question that I think the player might guess anyway) would have a "solve" DC of 15. Players roll an arcana check for their character: a 15 or higher solves the puzzle, while a 10 would just give the word "clock" and the player could potentially puzzle it out from there. For characters who are well-versed in a topic (e.g., druids for nature, clerics for religion) I give them advantage on the check. I also try to make the questions relevant to the game, rewarding players who are paying attention to our in-game fiction.

What this does let players still feel their character is confident in their knowledge, while ensuring their players aren't passive participants. There's still a roll to determine the answer, and a bad or good roll can make the puzzle easier or harder. I also still have the ability to tweak how hard the riddle is by changing the DC as needed. Some puzzles may have longer letter counts but be easier to guess.

It doesn't have to be just letters. When figuring out colors, shapes, or any other aspect of a puzzle, rolling high enough could provide hints that solve some but not all of it -- just enough to let the player feel like they're making progress but not so much that the character automatically solves everything and there's nothing for their player to do. Conversely, the goal is to make players who are not nature or arcana experts still feel like their character is competent enough to know things the player doesn't.

I developed this methodology in 5E Quest: Mastherik Manor, but the streamlined version I'm using in 5E Quest: Clockwork Carillon has led to a much faster and engaging game. My players are enjoying it so far!

Your Turn: How do you manage player vs. in character knowledge when using puzzles or riddles?

 

[aco175]

My Solution​

When it comes to any puzzles, I've learned that there's a fine line between enforcing role-play (thereby staying true to the character's mindset) and having fun (thereby giving the player agency in the game). To that end, I pose riddles and challenges and then use skill checks, with a target number giving hints. The higher the roll over the target number, the more hints the character gives their player.

I tend to have a hint or two that I hold for if the players asks for a roll. I find that some players like puzzles and others hate them- sort of like roleplay. I'll give a few minutes and eventually someone will ask if they can roll. There may also be a couple skills that I would allow but may change the DC depending on the skill.

There seems to be a lot of the interaction that is not structured and created with the DM/players going back and forth on the spot. One player may be close to solving the problem and another asks to roll Arcana to help. I may have been thinking History, but ask why Arcana. If I like the answer, I'll say ok, and roll as I'm thinking of a DC 1-5 higher than the History generally.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If I put a puzzle into the game, it is there merely to vary up gameplay for the players-- give them some new type of challenge rather than the same set of typical D&D challenges the game presents-- combat scenes, tracking, finding your way through confusing mazes, speaking to important people etc. I know full well that the puzzle (or any kind of mental deduction exercise) is there for the player's benefits and action and not just the characters themselves. Because anything that isn't just the board game of rolling dice (as you spoke on) is testing the players' intellect and insight because they're the ones who are actually doing the work to figure out the answers. And thus I do not really care if they attempt to "roleplay" a 10 INT character versus a 14 INT character versus an 18 INT character while solving puzzles. To me trying to enforce that sort of meta knowledge of what they characters may or may not be able to actually figure out is a waste of my time. Especially considering that if we were to incorporate the dice rolling of the board game into determining whether a character could or could not solve a puzzle... the full range of 20 points from the d20 die roll more than makes up for the 1-6 points of difference the various INT modifiers would give.

You can't state a puzzle would be okay to be solved by the 18 INT character but that the 8 INT character shouldn't get to participate... when that supposedly much-less-intelligent 8 INT character can still hit a 19 on an INT check with a Nat 20 and thus beat that 18 INT character on any check when the 18 INT character rolls a 1 to 13. So even when the board game's dice rolls are brought into it... mechanically there is no justification for not allowing the player of the 8 INT character to participate in puzzle solving in my opinion.

 

[payn]

I do like puzzles the players have to figure out. However, I am quite well aware of the old school days when it was players figure it out or the game grinds to a halt and/or the characters die. So, I have switched to using the kind of riddle puzzles of skill play to block optional hidden passages that might help the PCs or give them some neat treasure but are not essential to moving on in the game.

I mostly use the advice in the OP about the escape rooms. You need to put together a series of items to operate machinery to open a passage, or complete a map to figure out where to go. Searching and collecting the items is the adventure but you don't have to solve complex puzzles as PC/player to do it.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm a firm believer that a player should play as their character, and not use their own intellect. Here is how I go about it resolving this challenge in my games.

Player better than PC: If the player is more intelligent, wise, or charismatic than their PC, and the player has their PC do something out of line with their attributes, I ask the player to roll an appropriate roll with a DC that I set. If they beat the DC, then we figure out how their PC came up and executed the approach. If, however, they fail, I ask the other players to make similar rolls for their PC and if any of them beat the DC, I say something like, "Now, Grog may not have been smart enough to come up with that solution, but Keyleth was."

PC better than player: If the player is not on the same level as their PC, I'll ask the player to "Roll a d20 ability check". I won't tell them what ability they're using, or why we're rolling, but if the score high enough, I'll drop bread crumbs in their lap to guide them to the answer.

Intelligence is not knowledge: The intelligence of a PC is a measure of their ability, not a measure of their memorization. It measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall and the ability to reason. Accuracy of recall or ability to recall is not knowledge. It is the ability to access the knowledge to which you've been exposed.

I determine what a PC has been exposed to based upon their background, experiences in game, etc... Then, when they make an intelligence based role, it is a role to determine whether they are able to recall that informtation to which they've been exposed. The DC is set based upon how hard it would be to recall the information for that PC, which is going to be a factor of several things, including whether it is subject matter that they care about or whether it was a piece of trivia that would not really appeal to them. This is a DM judgement call, but it tends to lean in favorof the PCs.

The DC to remember anything significant that has taken place within the game is 10. If they're not rushed, it is automatic unless the PC has an intelligence of 7 or lower (as when a PC is not rushed I allow passive intelligence checks to be a floor for the roll). The DC to remember things that seems to be less significant when encountered rises up to 20 depending upon how trivial it would have beenat the time encountered.

In my setting, there is a book that is widely available and it covers lore on all the monsters in the Monster Manual, all the magic items in the DMG, and all the spells in the PHB. It is not an instruction book, but it is descriptive as to how these most well known magics and monsters work. If a PC is a spellcaster or is trained in any intelligence based skill, I assume they have read it closely and thus the DCs related to it are pretty low because they have reason to learn about these things if they plan to adventure (or are adventuring).

Puzzles are in game: A lot of my puzzles are built into the game. What I mean by this is that you need in game knowledge or in game observations to solve them. This prevents a player from solving the puzzle that is laid out for the PCs by themselves.

For example, if I give the PCs a riddle, I usually do not give the players a riddle. Instead, I describe the riddle to the players and tell them that this is not something the players would be able to solve, but the characters could using their in game capabilities. For example, "The Sphinx leans forward with a grin that shows both confidence, and curiosity. You have a moment to cast a spell such as guidance or enhance ability. Then is speaks the riddle. It tells you a story of a young boy that fishes in the same spot every day for 40 years, and each day he catches the exact same number of fish, of the exact same size, and at the exact same time of day. He describes the boy, the fishes, the beah upon which he fishes, and all of the tools the boy uses in very fine detail. At the end, the Sphinx asks you, 'Now - what will the boy do with his life?' You sense the answer is not a fisherman - that there is something about the story that has a hidden meaning for those with the right view. Everyone roll a d20 ability check. Sam and Liam, roll with advantage." After determining that Sam has beat the DC for the riddle, I pass him a card that explains that the beach and repetition are references to the Hourglass of Cyndor, the Oeridian god of Time, and that the 40 years of repetion refer to the rites to become a priest of Cyndor. Thus the boy must be studying to be a priest of Cyndor. Then I let him answer the riddle in character. If someone tolls particularly bad, I'll also have a card prepared with a wrong answer and tell them they feel confident in their answer to give them a chance to role play their perspective.

I can do similar things with physical puzzles. The key is to keep some elements of the puzzle dependent upon 'in game' knowledge.

However, I will say that I sometimes toss in puzzles where the players, using their real world knowledg, can solve it. These generally are not going to be a 'huge story element', and if a PC with a low ability score solves it, I use the technique listed above in the player better than PC area.

 

[sevenbastard]

Never been much off an issue in 5e. With the Stats capped at 20 It's impossible for me to play a more wise, more intelligent, or more charismatic character than my self.

 

[GMMichael]

In my current online D&D game, players are participants in a game show. There are five categories with gold prizes ranging from 10 to 1,000. . .

I'll take famous titles for 500!

Your Turn: How do you manage player vs. in character knowledge when using puzzles or riddles?

"Can I roll for the answer" is not a player option. It's quite possible for a genius to over-think an answer. Players of smart characters are very much entitied to clues, though.

If a player uses player-knowledge to solve a puzzle, it could just be dumb luck on the character's part. More likely, though, is that after using player-knowledge, the PC finds that the outcome is not what the PC had hoped for

 

[overgeeked]

Policing the players and how they play their characters is a losing proposition. Brilliant characters can be completely distracted with how awesome they think they are and barely-sentient jello molds can have flashes of insight.

The solution is to roll your stats and play ’em where they land as best you can.

 

[talien]

I tend to have a hint or two that I hold for if the players asks for a roll. I find that some players like puzzles and others hate them- sort of like roleplay. I'll give a few minutes and eventually someone will ask if they can roll. There may also be a couple skills that I would allow but may change the DC depending on the skill.

There seems to be a lot of the interaction that is not structured and created with the DM/players going back and forth on the spot. One player may be close to solving the problem and another asks to roll Arcana to help. I may have been thinking History, but ask why Arcana. If I like the answer, I'll say ok, and roll as I'm thinking of a DC 1-5 higher than the History generally.

It's fascinating because some of this has to do with how players join a game. A convention could possibly be random, but if it's a friend group or acquaintances there may be a bias for role-play (or against it) depending on the group's preferences.

In my group, three players enjoy role-play and three are there to kill things and take their stuff. The non-role-players will still play in character, but they're not nearly as eager to engage with NPCs.

From an adventure design standpoint, the question is how do you keep both groups engaged at the same time? I think the compromise you came up with makes sense, and in some ways it's tailored to each individual player (and their character).

 

[iserith]

Your Turn: How do you manage player vs. in character knowledge when using puzzles or riddles?

I present the challenge. The players describe what they want to do. I describe the results of the adventurers' actions, sometimes calling for a roll. Same as anything else.

If a player chooses to portray their character according to their personal characteristics - personality traits, ideal, bond, flaw - then that may be worth Inspiration. Someone with an Int 8 may choose to have "Sometimes I'm dumber than a box of hammers" as a trait or flaw. When they then portray struggling with a riddle, they can be rewarded for doing so. What I'd never do is say "Nope, your Int 8 character wouldn't think or do that." That's not for me as DM to decide. Players decide what their characters think and do.