Why I hate puzzles

[Brother MacLaren]

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

8 Int isn't that dumb.

 

[Crothian]

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

Even an 8 int barbarian can solve a puzzle. It might not be easy for him, but this is a group activity so he won't be solving it alone.

 

[Felon]

Combat in D&D is pretty much "challenge the PC not the player". It doesn't matter if you, the player, are a black belt in karate - if you're playing a 1st-level halfling wizard with a Strength of 6 and no Improved Unarmed Strike feat, your punches are going to be pathetic.

You have taken one example--a character using an unarmed strike--and are trying to extrapolate it so that it represents some kind of axiom--"challenge the PC not the player". In actuality, the PC's attitudes and decisions stem from the player. They don't come out of the ether without any cognitive activity on the player's part. The player is the one there playing the game. The PC is just a sheet of paper.

Given that gamers in general have no problem with the idea of playing a character stronger, tougher, and more capable in combat than the player, it seems strange that they would have a problem with the idea of playing a character that is smarter and better at solving puzzles than the player.

That's not strange. That's perfectly sensible. What's strange is drawing analogies between two disparate things and then saying it's strange to not regard them in an identical manner. The challenge of lifting a heavy object is not the same as the challenge of solving a puzzle.

 

[apoptosis]

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 think the question is how far does this extend.

Many players want to come up with a cool plan or strategy to solve some obstacle. What if the player since his character is smart just wants to roll for success of the strategy and not come up with one (and some stakes setting RPGs could probably do this fine).

What about any decisions that come up in play. The player could just say, my character is an experienced adventurer, he would have thought of that or his idea would be better than mine as a player.

I think for most groups this line is at very different places.

To some extent the game could get rid of all tactical maneuvers (just make them flavorful descriptions void of mechanical effect) and just roll for success in combat, as tactical maneuvers are really based on the players knowledge of the rules and not the characters abilities (and some indie games are also good at this and this can work).

It is the same argument with social conflict etc. It really depends on the group and what part of the game they want their characters numbers to control vs players control.

 

[Grog]

Even an 8 int barbarian can solve a puzzle. It might not be easy for him, but this is a group activity so he won't be solving it alone.

How is an 8 Int barbarian going to solve (for example) a math-based puzzle when he probably doesn't know anything about mathematics beyond (maybe) basic addition and subtraction?

Replace the math-based puzzle with ones based on concepts he's not likely to be familiar with or understand very well and you begin to see the problem. Lots of puzzles completely baffle people with average or above-average intelligence. A dumb barbarian isn't going to be solving them anytime soon.

 

[Crothian]

How is an 8 Int barbarian going to solve (for example) a math-based puzzle when he probably doesn't know anything about mathematics beyond (maybe) basic addition and subtraction?

Replace the math-based puzzle with ones based on concepts he's not likely to be familiar with or understand very well and you begin to see the problem. Lots of puzzles completely baffle people with average or above-average intelligence. A dumb barbarian isn't going to be solving them anytime soon.

What the puzzle is the barbarian is solving doesn't matter since that's not the ones I'm giving the players. But if the guy playing the barbarian felt his character would be useless he does not have to take part in the puzzle solving.

In reality though I've never had a player that had issues with solving puzzles. I use them a lot and played with lots of people in my almost three decades of gaming. But if I had a player that didn't like puzzles then I would use them less and include more things that player liked. No need with all this nit picking of my answers either.

 

[Delta]

Personally, to me, having the PC's successes and failures depend on his attributes instead of the player's intelligence or persuasiveness makes it more of a role-playing game, not less.

Well, I'd say that it's more "role-playing" but less "game", which IMO is not preferable.

I introduced a new player to D&D a few years ago (age 40+), played our main 3E game for a while -- he was always unfomfortable with the role-playing aspect, and felt he never really "got it". Then later I trotted out an old, classic solo D&D module (O1: Staff & Gem) which is almost entirely puzzle-traps -- he loved it, and at the end said something to the effect of "Wow, so that's what D&D is supposed to be like!".

My guess is that having more directly player-based in-game challenges, and less attribute-number/build challenges, would be overall better for attracting new players to the game. But I can admit that that ship has sailed.

 

[FireLance]

You have taken one example--a character using an unarmed strike--and are trying to extrapolate it so that it represents some kind of axiom--"challenge the PC not the player". In actuality, the PC's attitudes and decisions stem from the player. They don't come out of the ether without any cognitive activity on the player's part. The player is the one there playing the game. The PC is just a sheet of paper.

The axiom that I'm trying to extrapolate is simply that the player's abilities are not the same as the character's abilities, and that it seems inconsistent that some in-game challenges are resolved primarily using the character's abilities (as determined by the player) while others need to be overcome with player ability alone. While it is true that combat challenges a player's ability to create a character that is viable in combat, the success or failure of an in-game combat does not hinge on the player's actual combat ability. Similarly, a rogue character's ability to overcome a trap does not depend on the rogue player's actual ability to do so, even though it challenges the player's ability to create a rogue that can detect and disable traps. However, when it comes to challenges such as puzzles or persuasion, it seems inconsistent for the character's in-game abilties (again, as determined by the player) such as a high Intelligence, Charisma, or ranks in Diplomacy, to be ignored in favor of the player's actual ability to overcome these challenges.

That's not strange. That's perfectly sensible. What's strange is drawing analogies between two disparate things and then saying it's strange to not regard them in an identical manner. The challenge of lifting a heavy object is not the same as the challenge of solving a puzzle.

If the challenge of lifting a heavy object can be expressed as a DC 20 Strength check, why can't the challenge of solving a puzzle be expressed as a DC 20 Intelligence check?

 

[Thurbane]

I can't believe people are still deabting this...surely everyone realises that this is purely and simply a matter of game style preference? It's like trying to argue that hack'n'slash adventures are "better" than intrigue based adventures. Apples and oranges.

Any DM worth his salt should be able to tell (or ask, if he has to) whether or not his group enjoys solving puzzles OOC. Also, add in the above caveat - that a puzzle should not end an adventure path if it can't be solved - and I really can't see a problem.

Seriously, I know players (myself included) who love the chance to apply their own brains and knowledge to solving a puzzle. True, it may be hard to imagine Grog the INT 6 1/2 Orc solving the Riddle of Celestain, but stanger things have happened, like a STR 6 halfling wizard managing to KO a bad guy with a lucky punch.

It's similar to how the CHA based skills are used by some groups to basically replace roleplaying out interacting with NPCs...it works for some groups, and not for others. Viva la difference.

 

[FireLance]

Well, I'd say that it's more "role-playing" but less "game", which IMO is not preferable.

I introduced a new player to D&D a few years ago (age 40+), played our main 3E game for a while -- he was always unfomfortable with the role-playing aspect, and felt he never really "got it". Then later I trotted out an old, classic solo D&D module (O1: Staff & Gem) which is almost entirely puzzle-traps -- he loved it, and at the end said something to the effect of "Wow, so that's what D&D is supposed to be like!".

My guess is that having more directly player-based in-game challenges, and less attribute-number/build challenges, would be overall better for attracting new players to the game. But I can admit that that ship has sailed.

I think it works better for attracting certain types of players to the game. I can sympathize, because I'm one of those players who enjoys the puzzle-solving aspect of D&D myself , so much so that one of the DMs in my group who has gamed with me for a long time will occasionally put a puzzle into the game for me to solve in between the more combat-oriented challenges that the rest of my gaming group generally enjoys.

However, what this means for me is that I will tend to play characters with high Intelligence scores. It reduces the level of cognitive dissonance for me (and thus, increases my enjoyment of the game) to solve a puzzle as a wizard with Intelligence 16, compared to doing it as a barbarian with Intelligence 8. For me, at least, that's where the "role-playing" part comes in. Since it's hard for me to act dumb, I deliberately play characters that are supposed to be smart.

Mind you, I see nothing wrong with allowing the player of an Intelligence 8 barbarian to solve puzzles with his own abilities. I do note that it makes the mental ability scores less valuable if you allow a player to overwrite his character's abilities in these areas with his own, but if that's the style of gaming you enjoy, more power to you. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with allowing a character's abilities to boost or supplement the player's abilities either, especially if the character's abilities happen to be superior to the players'.