Why I hate puzzles

[Grog]

"A dragon, two air elementals, a clay golem and an efreet? I kill 'em. How am I going to do that? But I'm a barbarian, I should know what weapon to use on each of them. My character should know, can't I just roll an attack and kill them all? Tactics? My character should know what tactic to use. If you're gonna make me think up all this myself, I'm not gonna play. Man, why are you holding up the whole game just to make us think up how we're going to fight these guys, let's just skip it. I've got a strength of 22, can't I just say I'm so strong that I beat them all?"

I've played in games where combat was handwaved to just such an extent (though without the whiny tone you used). Worked just fine for us.

 

[Fenes]

I am honestly baffled by the development of the "challenge the PC not the player" attitude. Are we becoming so pampered and indulged that we can't even bear to the possibility of losing an imaginary contest? Why even play a game if nobody is ever challenged by it? How is it role-playing game is nobody is playing a role?

When I play a game, then I want to be entertained. I loathe puzzles, and find them not entertaining at all. And if I play an Int-20 wizard, then I don't expect to be limited by my own intelligence, just the same as my str-20 barbarian is not limited by my own physical strength. Puzzle or door, it does not matter - let me roll and get through it, don't try to make me lift a weight to check if my character can force a door open .

 

[Kahuna Burger]

"A dragon, two air elementals, a clay golem and an efreet? I kill 'em. How am I going to do that? But I'm a barbarian, I should know what weapon to use on each of them. My character should know, can't I just roll an attack and kill them all? Tactics? My character should know what tactic to use. If you're gonna make me think up all this myself, I'm not gonna play. Man, why are you holding up the whole game just to make us think up how we're going to fight these guys, let's just skip it. I've got a strength of 22, can't I just say I'm so strong that I beat them all?"

How is that any different than marginalizing puzzles for the sake of "role-playing"?

Well, aside from the fact that such a player would be shown the door on tone alone....

If your character has appropriate knowledge skills, he might in fact know what tactic to use. I prefer a knowledge check to know that weaknesses each creature has to metagaming. Your example is bad not just for slippery slope silliness, but because there is actually no reason why a barbarian would know the right tactics to take against such a varied group of monsters, AND no reason why a barbarian would be versed by default in tactics other than "scream and leap".* There is, on the other hand, plenty of reason to think that a 20 int wizard would have a leg up on a spacial reasoning puzzle, or a bard with 10 ranks in perform oratory and fluency in 5 languages would do better on a language/pun/mythic reference puzzle.

*while tactical knowledge might be reflected in some stat and skill choices, I've more often seen tactics as a roleplaying choice - the glory hounds might flank, but they don't aid another against the incorporeal creature even if there's only one PC with a ghost touch weapon, the charge monkey WILL charge, even if the monster has reach and improved grab, the hiding invisible sniping rogue will go through the routine and if the enemy is uncrittable just kind sit there hiding and invisible rather than do something less typical but more helpful to the given situation. Sometimes being tactical and cooperative is within a character concept, but it often isn't, and the suboptimal performance that results is part of what makes it a roleplaying game. (though if it gets too extreme, it's roleplaying for the other PCs to Have A Little Chat too. )

 

[billd91]

I like a certain amount of puzzlers in the campaigns I play in, but it is true that there are issues with design that often come up that, I think, can be avoided.

DMs often get pretty self-satisfied with the cleverness of their puzzles, without realizing they'll suck all the fun out of the session when the players find it unsolveable. The simple solution is to test it on other people you know who aren't playing in the current campaign.

Puzzles block advancement of the adventure more often than they need too, without reasonably ready resources to overcome them. If time is pressing, have an alternate route around the puzzle or make it survivable to get through it the "hard" way. If time isn't pressing for the adventure, let them know that they can go get help or head off to consult someone. It may be a break in the action, but life is like that sometimes. Sometimes, you need to resupply and that applies to knowledge as well as consumables.

I also like the solution of providing hints based on PC knowledges and intelligences. Make up a couple of hints that can be given out based on these factors, vague for lower skill levels, more specific for higher. Give the players about 10 minutes, then start allowing them to ask for hints. I always like to give them a bit of time to solve it clean. They end up being really proud of themselves if they solve a hard one that way.

 

[DeadDM]

DMs often get pretty self-satisfied with the cleverness of their puzzles, without realizing they'll suck all the fun out of the session when the players find it unsolveable.

On the other hand, players make fun of DMs who use simple puzzles.

"What!? Did you think that was a challenge?" "That was lame!" etc...

The last puzzle I gave was a simple riddle. "speak the eye result to enter" Answer: stone or petrification (the eye of the beholder). All but one couldn't answer it. Keep in mind that the word 'eye' could be mistaken for 'I'.

Another puzzle was a note. "pull a series of levers by the right light". 10 sets of 3 levers with symbols over each lever. Most symbols were representative of light sources, sun, fire, electricity, plus, earth, water, and more. All they had to do was pull one lever in each set that had a 'sun' symbol over it. They were stumped for a while, but one of the players did figure it out.

I've given alot of riddles and as far as solvability, this is about as hard as I can put without players getting frustrated. Taken: I will consider placing tougher puzzles only in locations that don't block the story line advancement. Maybe a secret treasure vault.

 

[the Jester]

I don't have any problem with puzzles in D&D. What I do have a problem with is a DM going to ridiculous lengths to make sure that solving the puzzle/riddle/whatever is the ONLY way to proceed.

This is exactly right, imho.

One really cool adventure I ran had the pcs going through a lost shrine to the god of enigmas, and there were a whole bunch of riddles involved. The more were left unsolved, the harder the final encounter was. If they solved all of them, they would get bonus xp and avoid a tough fight.

 

[sniffles]

I am honestly baffled by the development of the "challenge the PC not the player" attitude. Are we becoming so pampered and indulged that we can't even bear to the possibility of losing an imaginary contest? Why even play a game if nobody is ever challenged by it? How is it role-playing game is nobody is playing a role?

But this is exactly what I'm referring to when I say I want the challenge to require my character's skills to solve, not mine. If I'm playing a role, I want to play the role, not play me. If I can solve the puzzle but my character can't, how is that playing a role?

 

[Crothian]

But this is exactly what I'm referring to when I say I want the challenge to require my character's skills to solve, not mine. If I'm playing a role, I want to play the role, not play me. If I can solve the puzzle but my character can't, how is that playing a role?

I always tell the players the puzzle they are given is not the puzzle given to the characters. But the puzzle represents the difficulty of the one given the character so the players would have the exact same chance of solving their puzzle as the characters would the one they have.

But I agree puzzles should never be a solve or be done situation. I always make sure that there are other ways then dealing with the puzzle. Though the puzzle might be the easiest.

 

[patv]

Just some general venting here, but hopefully it will give some DMs food for thought when designing challenges.

Currently in two games I'm involved in our parties are facing puzzles of one sort or another. One of them involves following prophetic writings to locate an artifact. The other entails interpreting some writings to find a way to open some secret doors.

Actually ALL 3 of our ongoing D&D games currently have some prophecies currently going, which probably doesn't help (one of which I'm the DM).

While a prophecy is something of a puzzle, typically I think of it more like a vague roadmap
- sometimes they require action (is that self-fulfilling ?), sometimes you just have to wait until the words make sense.

anyway, I understand the frustrations from both sides of the screens and can't really offer
a solution, since RPG's are built to resemble the fiction and myths that have always heavily used prophecy as a story telling tool.

now math puzzles in an adventure always make me cringe...

 

[Grog]

I always tell the players the puzzle they are given is not the puzzle given to the characters. But the puzzle represents the difficulty of the one given the character so the players would have the exact same chance of solving their puzzle as the characters would the one they have.

And what if one of the players is playing an 8 Int barbarian who's incapable of solving any puzzle?