Why I hate puzzles

[Hypersmurf]

One thing to avoid at all costs is language puzzles. Languages in D&D are NOT English, they do not have the same number of letters in the alphabet, and they do NOT have the same homonyms or rhymes as English. They are completely alien languages, so a puzzle must not rely on any special features of English or other Earthly languages.

If all the speech is conducted in English - standing in for speech in the alien language - and all the handouts with maps, journal entries, etc are written in English - standing in for maps, journal entries, etc written in the alien language - then what's the issue with homonyms and rhymes in English standing in for homonyms and rhymes in the alien language?

If a puzzle involves, say, picking the red triangle, blue square, green pentagon and purple hexagon because the number of sides matches the number of letters, why can't this be a representation of picking the blue triangle, black square, red pentagon, and yellow hexagon in another language (blu, nero, rosso, giallo in Italian, for instance)?

Why is it okay to print a handout with English words, but not have a puzzle that uses English words? Or are printed journals something else to be avoided at all costs?

-Hyp.

 

[Clavis]

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?

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can potentially allow any answer to be correct. If a player comes up with something out of right field, but still fits all the clues you could allow that to be the answer. Game continues, player/s feels good about solving the puzzle.

I did something like this with a puzzle in a game I ran last year - a doorway would only let people who matched a particular psychological profile through, and the culture in question had a fixation on the number three. My intention was that the 'bard' (Elvis) would get everyone waltzing, so that their minds were focused on a pattern of threes; but before that happened, Einstein immediately started performing calculations in his head in base three. I hadn't anticipated it, but it was plenty appropriate for the requirement, so he got through. (Not everyone could manage it the same way - Arnold, for example, was completely lost by the concept of base three mathematics, so the waltzing ended up happening anyway )

I've seen it suggested that one can run mystery games the same way - you come up with a bunch of suspects and motives and opportunities, but you don't decide Whodunnit before the game actually starts. Then you eavesdrop on the player discussions, and pick one of their theories as the truth... and they get to feel clever for figuring out your mystery

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

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?

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.

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.

After all, it's not as if success is guaranteed even if the PC is challenged instead of the player, any more than success is guaranteed for the PC in combat.

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. 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"?

 

[pogre]

I'm pressed for time right now, but right off the top of my head: do not make them roll. Just give the character with the highest Int score (or related Knowlege sklill) a clue to solving the puzzle; i.e. if every 4th letter of a phrase holds the key, tell the character that he believes he can almost see a phrase hidden in the writing. If they cannot solve it, but you need to continue, quickly add a secret passage that somehow bypasses the puzzle (but reduce the rewards according of course). Bardic lore can help. If they are not pressed for time seek a sage for advice. There are more ways of course, but I am running late.
Good luck!

First, does the rest of the group enjoy puzzles? If so allow them to struggle and bite your tongue for a bit.

If its the average group and does not mind a puzzle or two - I use a similar method to bladesong. A clue or two can save the day.

 

[FireLance]

Now, to address the OP.

When it comes to puzzles, I do a lot of what has already been mentioned:

1. Multiple paths. Solving a puzzle gives the PCs an advantage to the PCs, but failing to solve the puzzle will not cause a dead end. It may simply mean that the PCs have to take a more dangerous path, or fight a dangerous opponent.

2. Character abilities help. Knowledge checks and Intelligence checks could provide clues that make it easier for the player to solve the puzzle.

Another way to make puzzles more palatable, especially if you are running a game for a mixed group in which some players enjoy puzzles and others don't, is to make the puzzle solving non-time critical. That way, the game can still continue for the players who don't enjoy puzzles, while those who do can try to solve them between taking their turns in combat, for example.

 

[Yalius]

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.

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.

After all, it's not as if success is guaranteed even if the PC is challenged instead of the player, any more than success is guaranteed for the PC in combat.

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. 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"?

"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"?

 

[FireLance]

"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"?

You are right that marginalizing combat for the sake of "role-playing" is no different from marginalizing puzzles for the sake of "role-playing". However, there is a happy medium for combat in the D&D rules. It is possible for the PCs to win on the basis of their abilities alone and minimal or basic tactics on the part of the player ("I just attack the closest monster"), but the likelihood of success can be increased if the player makes use of good tactics. Allowing character abilities to provide hints or clues is a step towards that happy medium for puzzles, which would otherwise have to be overcome (or not) on the basis of player ability alone.

 

[Thurbane]

It entirely depends on the style of play the group enjoys.

Most of the games I have ever played in for around 20 years, the players love the opportunity to solve puzzles OOC.

YMMV.

 

[cougent]

I love puzzles, and freely admit to being a puzzling DM. I actively discourage "hack and slash" players from even joining my games because they will be frustrated and bored. Now having prefaced with that, I also agree that a dead end puzzle is absolutely horrid. As someone mentioned above, I use a sliding or staggered type of reward. I have had hidden treasures hidden behind hidden treasures that were never found because the party never found or solved the final puzzle, but they found and solved the less difficult puzzle and got some reward. Similarly, I have had groups that just could not kill the BBEG, and so he got away or they had to retreat or whatever and he kept his ultimate treasure, but they usually kill several lieutenant EG's and take their stuff so it is a reward equal to accomplishment.

I firmly believe in options and choices, but I also firmly believe that easy options and choices should not grant awesome reward.