Why I hate puzzles

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

Consistency is highly overrated. There are really good reasons to use in game mechanics for combat and spells while using player abilities for persuasion and puzzle solving. Real combat hurts and will get you thrown in jail. Spells don't work. Role-playing out persuading an NPC is fun. So is solving a puzzle yourself.

If you don't enjoy solving a puzzle, or role-playing intimidating an orc, by all means make an intimidation roll or a puzzle-solving roll. But cutting out parts of the game you like for consistency's sake is silly.

 

[Mallus]

...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.

Why is consistency desirable in this case?

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.

But hopefully it hinges on the player's choice of tactics, otherwise we're playing the world's most complicated game of craps.

 

[IceFractal]

Combat is far from purely character-based. For one thing, only non-spellcasters even come close to character-based - when playing a spellcaster, correct spell choice/usage is primary.

Then even with non-spellcasters, positioning, correct weapon choice, and knowing when to charge in and when to wait are important. And for that matter, the combat stats of the character largely depend on their build choices. And the build choices are determined by - you guessed it - the player's skill.

Take two Barbarians - they are both roleplayed as equally brave, equally combat-savvy warriors. But one of them took Toughness for all their feats, and uses a one-handed club. The other took synergistic feats and uses a greatsword. As a result, they are not even close in actual combat.

Puzzles are just moving the player skill from pre-game to in-game.

 

[shilsen]

Combat is far from purely character-based. For one thing, only non-spellcasters even come close to character-based - when playing a spellcaster, correct spell choice/usage is primary.

But it's quite possible for the spell choice and usage to be based on the character. I can't think of a spellcaster-type I'm playing or have played where the choice of spells and their use in a fight wasn't heavily reliant on the character concept. And that rarely translates to optimal spell choice/usage. I've only ever played one spellcaster who did what I'd call optimal spell choice/usage, and even that's because it fit the character concept.

Then even with non-spellcasters, positioning, correct weapon choice, and knowing when to charge in and when to wait are important.

Yes, but the choices are not necessarily based on what's tactically expedient. They can be, but they can also be based on the character concept. For me, personally, they're based on both simultaneously, and concept beats expedience if they have to conflict. Do characters ever charge in at the wrong time because the player knows better but the character wouldn't? Sure. For me they do and for many other players I've seen in action.

And for that matter, the combat stats of the character largely depend on their build choices. And the build choices are determined by - you guessed it - the player's skill.

Again true, but also (at least for some people) based on what the character concept is. If my lying, womanizing, cheating, stealing shugenja (yes, a current PC) happens to have the Eschew Material Component, Still Spell and Silent Spell feats, it's not because my skill as a player tells me they'll be the most powerful in combat. It's because I figure being able to pour a woman a drink without lifting a finger or evidently casting a spell is really important to him. Does my player skill tell me that'll make the PC less effective in a fight than could be otherwise? Sure. But that doesn't stop me from making the choices. You're assuming that players always use their skill to maximum advantage and do so with little or no consideration for character. I don't think that's universally the case.

Puzzles are just moving the player skill from pre-game to in-game.

Perhaps, but I'd say puzzles are completely reliant on player skill rather than character skill, whereas most other elements of the game (combat effectiveness, for example) are based on a combination of both.

 

[Delta]

Puzzles are just moving the player skill from pre-game to in-game.

Very nicely put. (Although, from a historical perspective I'd phrase it as "Removing puzzles is just moving player skill from in-game to pre-game.")

 

[Crothian]

Perhaps, but I'd say puzzles are completely reliant on player skill rather than character skill, whereas most other elements of the game (combat effectiveness, for example) are based on a combination of both.

Another thing I've done is allow a knowledge or intelligence check from the PC and then give additional hints or information based on that roll. This brings the character's ability back into the puzzle solving process. Of course if they roll bad I remove elements and make it harder.

 

[rogueattorney]

If the players can't solve the puzzle, what's to prevent them from consulting sages or using dvination spells to solve it?

It's probably been 2 years since I looked at the 3.5 PHB's spell list, so this is a question out of ignorance rather than trying to be snarky, but doesn't 3e have spells like Augury, Contact Higher Plane, and Legend Lore?

 

[Crothian]

If the players can't solve the puzzle, what's to prevent them from consulting sages or using dvination spells to solve it?

Depending on what the puzzle is they might not have time to leave and talk to sages (and hopefully it's the characters not the players doing this) or even cast spells. But I have no problems with the PCs doing these things if they have the time and resources for it.

 

[Voadam]

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?

Its a matter of play style choice.

Some people simply prefer their mental and social challenges/interactions to be resolved by dice rolling mechanics influenced by their characters' mechanical stats instead of first person roleplaying.

Some want to be able to say "I am a riddle master" and be a riddle master in the game even though they can't and don't want to do actual riddles themselves.

I prefer first person roleplaying, but I understand others wanting things handled differently. I just don't allow it in my games.

 

[Oryan77]

I personally dislike puzzles of these types because they both rely on the ability of the players, not the characters, to solve the challenge.

Whether people admit it or not, they play D&D based off of their own skill level and talent in very many areas of the game. The only time they complain is when it's an area that they aren't good at or don't enjoy. Then they use the "I'm not my character" argument. I see nothing wrong with challenging a player to solve a puzzle as long as it's not a wall in the story that will bring the campaign to a halt if they can't overcome it. That's no different than making a bad adventure with a BBEG that you have no way of overcoming & continuing with the story.

Combat in D&D is pretty much "challenge the PC not the player".

If that's true, then why does your sig say that you are 100% a tactician? Was it your character that decided to flank rather than grapple? Do our PC's make the decision during combat to take the full attack rather than a move & standard action? Nope, we perform those actions ourselves based on the best decisions we can think of.

After all, if you, the player, could easily solve a puzzle that ought to baffle your Intelligence 8 barbarian, how is solving it instead of dealing with the consequences of not solving it "role-playing"?

I've never felt that comparing our own intelligence, strength, dexterity, ect ect to our characters abilities was ever a valid method to judge what a character should, could, or would do in a game. There are just too many factors in life to determine things like that.

For instance, why couldn't an Int 8 barbarian solve a puzzle before an 18 int wizard? How does knowing brain surgery help a guy solve a puzzle better than a guy that knows how to live off the land? Everyone is intelligent in their own ways and sometimes the dimmest of people can be very clever. How many times have we seen children outsmart an adult? There's plenty of college educated people that still don't know who is buried in Grant's tomb!

I like to be challenged as a player. It's no different to me to spend time trying to figure out how to beat a puzzle than it is trying to figure out how to beat a BBEG. But I do agree, if the puzzle is taking up too much game time, the DM needs to have methods to continue on with the game.