Do you think it's bad GMing to let the players solve a puzzle they haven't "really" solved?
Like for example, you have a circle of stones surrounding a big bowl of gold and silver coins, and when a PC enters the circle of stones they lift an inch off the ground and start violently rattling against the floor, alerting the denizens of the dungeon around them. They only stop once one of the designated keepers of the shrine enter the circle.
They immediately decide to throw a handful of their own coins into the bowl.
Would it be a bad idea to let that idea work, even though it "doesn't"?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>when a PC enters the circle of stones they lift an inch off the ground and start violently rattling against the floor
Damn, sounds like they'd feel dizzy afterwards
You know what I meant.
Alexander the Great solved Gordian Knot without really solving it so there is some precedent...
This was not a puzzle they could solve without the GM telling the players how were they supposed to interact with it. Honestly puzzles drain precious time that could be used to do something meanful so whenever my players give an answer that satisfy me I simply let it be the right solution. As said there are many ways to solve something.
Bro you have schizophrenia. I have literally not posted on Ganker since last Wednesday.
I don't think it's bad.
I allow it provided the puzzle is a one-off and isn't itself a clue for something that comes up later.
Yeah, frick it. I'd allow it. Puzzles only work in rpgs if they have open solutions. Otherwise it turns into a game of guessing what the GM (or worse, writer) is thinking.
while i agree in principle, open solutions does not mean anything you do could or should work. in this exact example, how or why does throwing more coins into the bowl cause the desired effect? open solutions require a logical explanation. and even if the logic is good, it does not mean it should overwrite what was originally written or intended. OPs example is a alarm trap, that requires the guy with the code to the alarm to come to the keypad and turn the alarm off. now destroying the alarm speaker is a good enough plan and could work, but does throwing coins into the bowl count as "destroying the speaker"? tbf, there are lots of ways to quiet a bowl of rattling coins, but throwing more coins in the bowl isn't one of them.
The rocks are clearly the ones rattling, please use your reading comprehension to understand the post.
okay, so how does throwing coins into the bowl stop the stones rattling on the ground? the logic is not sound. the cause and effect are not linked. mistaking rattling stones on floor for rattling coins in bowl is a fairly minor detail in the context of random action should cause a specific action to occur for no discernible reason. the fact that you are to stupid to follow, is perhaps a failure of your reading comprehension.
then why have this thread at all?
NTA but reading comprehension when the writer suffered a stroke while writing. I'd advise to visit the closest hospital.
>NTA but reading comprehension *doesn't get you far when the writer suffered a stroke while writing
Agreed.
Yeah. This.
The only time I'd ask players to solve a puzzle in a completely specific way would be if I already dropped information about it before the puzzle itself was introduced, because this makes them have to apply knowledge that they already have.
The purpose of a puzzle in a game is to get the players thinking creatively and to come up with something interesting and entertaining, not to actually find the solution. Any opinions contrary to this either come from people who think they're smarter than they are, or autists who don't understand why no-one else gives a shit about their centuries old math puzzle that was invented by mentally ill people without access to proper entertainment.
bumping thread off page 10 to make
mad
no contribution
My players are terrible with puzzles. If they can't solve something they can do a wisdom check (or whatever game stat that reflects it) in an attempt to have their character succeed where the player cannot. If the players themselves can solve it without rolling they get bonus XP.
So you make the players themselves use their own intelligence, instead of allowing them to use their characters intelligence stat?
Do you do the same for strength based puzzles, making the players bend a real prison bar themselves instead of allowing the muscle bound barbarian character to roll against their strength stat?
This is the worst meme ever invented.
>So you make the players themselves use their own intelligence, instead of allowing them to use their characters intelligence stat?
Yeah, exactly. Because that's feasible and natural for people to use their brain to figure things out while playing a game. Doing completely unrelated physical activity like pushups is not. There is no sensible logical leap from requiring players to think to requiring them to do pushups.
People who spout this fricking nonsense on the internet suffer from sever stupidity.
>t. no-games that never faced most basic game-running issues
But I bet you will instantly start talking about how awesome OSR is and how B/X is all that's ever needed, even if you don't even know what either of those acronyms stands for.
I've played and run more games than you probably ever will during my 15 years in the hobby. Also I don't give a frick about "OSR".
>I've played and run more games
>Insist on using player knowledge and skills
So which one is it, homosexual? Or you plan to claim with a straight face that in 1995+27 you are still struggling with "b-but mental things should be role-played and not stat-based"?
I'm in this hobby since '98. There is a solid chance you weren't even born back then. So go ahead, try to flex to me how you're "playing and running" for 15 years, despite struggling with such basic shit like division between player and character and actually using character sheet. Come on, do it, you c**t. Indulge me.
Then tell me you don't give a shit about OSR, while aping their stance on the issue, even more mindlessly than they do on their own in their (yet another) ill-conceived attempt to play games "like in the old days". Because obviously, you aren't influenced in the slightest, right?
You post a lot like I'd imagine a living piece of dog turd would post. Is that genetic or did you practice?
Maybe instead of looking silly and attacking my person you could post something worthwhile with actual arguments.
This homie plays 5E and sees nothing wrong with it.
Didn't ask + you mad + cope and seethe + nogames
>my 15 years in the hobby
>I'm in this hobby since '98
>mfw forever DM since before you were born
oh you sweet summer children
Did you just give the same reply to two opposing opinions?
Ok got it. For mental tests in your games, the players have to work it themselves. So why do characters even have mental stats (Injt, Wis, etc) at all? Try to give a proper answer this time instead of sperging out.
So you can control their characters while they make their Dungeons & Dragons© Critical Hit™ Nat 20™ rolls against their stat and then they either do stupid or smart things according to what they roll.
The players are, after all, observers of the game you are playing and are not intended to have agency.
If the answer you're looking for is "no", you're going to be gravely disappointed.
Yes, always without exception.
I don't allow rollplaying at my table.
You don't get to just roll perception, you have to tell me HOW you're searching for traps.
Look you moron, you get them to roll against the stat AND THEN ROLEPLAY THE RESULT, WIN OR FAIL. Otherwise, wha's the fricking point of having high stats in mental abilities?
LOOK YOU moron YOU GET THEM TO ROLL AGAINST THE STAT AND THEN ROLEPLAY THE RESULT WIN OR FAIL OTHERWISE WHA'S THE FRICKING POINT OF HAVING HIGH STATS IN MENTAL ABILITIES
>OTHERWISE WHA'S THE FRICKING POINT OF HAVING HIGH STATS IN MENTAL ABILITIES
The mechanical effects they give you, obviously.
E.g. if learning rate is capped by int, the point of a high int is that you learn faster.
I'd give the high Int character an extra clue or two, but never solve the puzzle directly.
For example, if it was the Lost Cave from Pokemon FR/LG
>+2 int: You notice the rocks are always in multiples of 3
>+4 int: You also notice they are never more than 12
>+6 int: You realize that every so often you return to the exact same first room
>So you make the players themselves use their own intelligence, instead of allowing them to use their characters intelligence stat?
Yes. Because it's often more engaging to solve a riddle rather than roll "solve riddle check."
The only caveat is that your players are often moronic, so they should never be totally blocked from progress by a riddle or puzzle.
Why don't you just have both player and character knowledge overlap?
"My character is much smarter than me."
> Great you will get some hints to make it easier.
Higher INT just means they get told more information about it, imo. Solving riddles is generally easier to do at a table than replicating whatever strength feat you may have in mind.
As always: Depends what kind of game you're running.
It would not work in mine - but I'm running an open table hex crawl, if you don't know how to go through a room, you find a different dungeon, or take another path to the next level down.
The party showing up in three weeks who DO find the actual solution are going to be all the more appreciative because they solved something the other guys couldn't.
I just have 60 d12s of rockets fly out of the walls and hit the PCs, triggered by a secret weight plate
I have two tiers for puzzles
1. Is the meta; the players want to solve the puzzle as players. This produces the most reward.
2. If the puzzle is feasibly resolvable by their characters and they want to solve it in character, they can receive big hints to help them reach the answer, which produces a lesser reward.
Everybody wins. Players will almost always take on a challenge you put in front of them, whether it's combat, a puzzle, environmental situation i.e. locked in a cell, because they believe you've put that challenge there to be resolved. And, if you're putting an encounter in to the game that cannot be feasibly resolved, why?
It's not a puzzle, it's a trap.
It unironically depends on how brainy your players are. If your players are good at puzzles, they will feel insulted if you "cheat" them out of a satisfactory solution. If your players are shit at puzzles (read: the vast majority of tabletop players) they won't know the difference.
It depends on what their solution is. Remember that you have the solution and the entire thought process in your head, so what may seem obvious and intuitive to you may be completely obtuse to someone else. If there are clues and they do logically lead to the right answer than you can stick to that, but if it's more vague and the players come up with a reasonable solution (personally I wouldn't allow the coin throwing to work) then there's no harm in allowing it. Maybe find a way to give a clue from an incorrect solution.
No, it wouldn't be a bad idea, because solving puzzles at the table is mind numbing, takes too much time in an already slow game, introduces no tension, furthers no plot, and doesn't make your dungeon or you seem as smart and original as you think it does.
Solve or die. Tension is achieved.
All of my puzzles involve a time limit and threat of death, like saw puzzles. Better figure it out before your PC volunteer gets crushed by the ceiling.
Unless you're players are into it, that's an easy way to create fearfull players that don't engage with the setting because "what if the trigger another death puzzle?" and you get the Overthinking it party, so every door, every room is 40 minutes of people talking about what to do instead of playing.
Bad players are paranoid without that. The solution to that is easy, tell them to hurry it along and ask if their level of suspicion is plausible in character. I have characters ive played and played alongside that walk into obvious traps from a meta perspective but in character all they see is some guy inviting them to join a feast that seems overly friendly. Same time I see other PCs spend an hour interrogating random 1 liner npcs for 30 minutes for no reason other than theyre walking away (this is very suspicious the players must learn everything about this person at gunpoint)
Again, depends on your players being okay with it, otherwise it feels like you're punishing them for not preparing enough and punishing them for over preparing.
so the coins in the bowl are rattling around, yes?
how does throwing their coins into the bowl affect the coins that were already there? how does it affect the magic on the bowl? do they become part of the coins in the bowl? can they just remove the coins in the bowl? can they throw a blanket or cloak over them and weigh them down? what is the purpose of the coins in the bowl? is it just an alarm? is it a puzzle really? or just a trap alarm? what do they get for "solving" the puzzle?
is it a bad idea to let a thing work that does not work? this is a question with an obvious answer, you just don't like the answer for some reason. ergo, as per rule zero, adjudicate the players actions and choices to create the story event outcome you desire. what makes for a better game/story?
It's magic and I don't care enough about a minor encounter to extrapolate beyond that.
if it's a thematically appropriate and relevant solution that follows from the provided context, yeah
it has to actually work to some extent rather than just being something random
That's not a puzzle, it's a trap. If the characters enter the circle, the alarm goes off. Simple as.
If the game is stuck and there is nowhere else to go, sure I guess. The game needs to keep going otherwise it's no fun. Still, maybe make them feel like they missed out on something. You at least want them to give the puzzle a genuine shot.
But yeah, like others mentioned, if it's something that pretty much requires them to somehow read your mind, forget it and let them do it their own way.
Everyone's really tired and trying to stay sane lately.
IMO even in high-brow games, puzzles should be optional, like an Easter Egg in a vidya. In general I like there to be at least two ways past a given encounter. And this also goes for something like a clue or a secret door, there has to be a backup plan instead just letting action grind to a halt and having parts of the adventure closed off by a single failed check.
Maybe stop being obsessed with politics?
I'm not tired and frantically grasping at my sanity.
>Pandemic locked down the entire planet for six months.
>Had to rewrite our entire logistics system around it.
>Still recovering years later.
>Everyone working overtime trying to catch up.
>Thinks anon is talking about cartoon frogs or some shit.
Everybody is really tired and trying to stay sane lately. If you somehow missed it, good on you, but a lot of people didn't.
Unless it's a LITERAL logic puzzle, sure. With logic puzzles, I usually also make another room/situation that reframes the puzzle to get their stupid brains working in new directions after they get stuck.
When the GM puts a puzzle we try out best to solve it, but if we can't we, well, just don't, frick it, I have an entire world to explore, whatever is inside its probably not worth it.
On the other hand, I once include a riddle for a table I was running only to be receive with audible groaning, so ain't gonna try that again.
>prepare puzzle
>players fail to solve it
>they give up and move on to another thing
What do you do? Do you give them consequences because they didn't solve it? Do you just throw whatever concept you had for it away?
No because it seems like that makes zero sense and theres no logic behind it other than
>see coins
>hmm put more coins
If you arent willing to tell your players that an answer is wrong, you had no reason to put a puzzle in the first place because they didnt solve it. I see alot of people parrot similar ideas about fudging dice to make sure player characters live. Without a failure state, success means nothing.
If they solve a puzzle in a different way than you expected but it makes sense you should always allow it, though. Otherwise dont rewrite the solution to match theirs
If the bowl had been empty or filled with something else I would've given it to you, but the coins are obviously part of the puzzle and if you can't see the logic of doing something with coins then you're legitimately autistic.
No? I think as a GM you shouldn't have premade solutions. Something strange or magical happens, party makes an attempt at solving it. If it makes sense and they roll well give it to them. If they do something pants on head moronic (the likely course) make them roll and then make something bad happen to them if they fail. If its a terrible idea executes well maybe make the outcome reveal a hint of a better idea, rather than solving the issue. There have been so many times as a GM that I had the idea of the "right" way to solve something and the players just came up with a really good plan and I let them have it because they either outsmarted me or were just being creative, both things that should be rewarded.
Well maybe they just suck and don’t deserve an award.
Your puzzle sucks. There is no logical solution to it. Are your players supposed to read your mind?
From what one can read out of your rambling there was no alternative solution applied by your player and neither was there a puzzle.
That said: most puzzles (not all) should have several solutions, most of which the gm isn't even aware of.
I would put puzzles into four categories.
1. Open ended puzzles. Players are faced with a problem and are given some tools that offer one or more fixed solutions but leave room for the players to get creative.
>players stumble upon a river. It is surrounded by woodland and a little downstream is a village.
>Problem: river
>Tools: Woodland and Village
>fixed solutions might be crafting a raft from trees or finding a ferry in the village and paying the fee
>creative solutions: Buying a rope in the village and shooting it to the other side using some missile weapon, stealing the boat of the ferryman and many more.
2. Find key sort of solutions. Something where you have to find a fixed thing to trigger something.
>Finding the key to some door
>aquirering a runestone to activate a magic portal
>finding the missing part of some artifacts
Finding an alternative solution here might be difficult depending on the situation. Lockpicking a door might be easy, activating a magical artifact without the missing componenr not so much.
I highlight such puzzles rather extensively e.g. making them their own small adventures within an adventure or make them parts of an alternative solution to some other problem. Otherwise I implement a failstate that triggers when the PCs can't find the solution anymore and we need to move on.
3. Fixed puzzles with one solution.
>statues that need to be arranged in certain order
>a fake book I a shelf that opens a secret door
I use those mostly to hide additional goals and secrets the players might stumble upon. Nothing necessary to progress.
4. Word Riddles like in the Hobbit. I use those seldom.
Puzzels should only be used a "optional content" or as "easier way to do X". Example: solving the puzzle allows you to enter the castle without fighting the ogre at the main entrance.
If the puzzle is needed for progress, then you end either halting the game or rewarding small brain thinking when the players don't come up with a clever solution.