Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Neonivek]

This isn't a paintng we're talking about. This is a riddle, and its either you get it right or you get it wron

Yes I know >_> hence why I said it isn't a counter argument.

I've just heard people take something easy as a reason for it being unchallenging but really it means they are too lazy to do anything with it. So I wanted to deal with that one statement.

[Mephisto]

So I take it the "pass or fail" people aren't big proponents of failing forward.

[Jimmy]

I'm firmly in the camp of not giving more than a vague hint even with appropriate mental stat based checks. If the players can't roleplay a solution to the puzzle, give them a chance to roll for an alternative solution instead, such as a trap or combat.

I'd argue that's part of the reason why the sphinx has a stat block in the first place. Answer the riddle, win the encounter. Fail the riddle, you have to fight the monster instead. If your players are smart enough to figure out the riddle, they get to bypass the encounter without needing to spend their resources on combat.

[Digital Hellhound]

I'm not saying you should immediately let the player bypass the riddle with a skill check - I wasn't really talking about skill checks here specifically, even if that was the topic of the conversation.  I just mean that you shouldn't force them to keep trying it if they're not enjoying it. Creative alternatives, making it a group effort, just clearly making it an optional bonus thing - these all work. It's just the kind of 'no you have to do this and exactly this to continue' that really bothers me.

Not doing it shouldn't feel like failure. And I'm not even saying failure is bad, in general - but this failure isn't based on character choices or gameplay efforts, it's based on the player's own intelligence.

[Jimmy]

I'd say it also depends on the style of game you're running.

My players mostly face combat encounters. They like it, I like it, everyone's happy. However, there's also plenty of flexibility between the group about alternatives.

Using riddles and other noncombat encounters should be like using spice in cooking. A little bit adds highlights to the dish, makes it memorable and avoids it becoming bland and boring. Too much, however, and it becomes overpowering and unpalatable. You have to strike a balance, and know your audience to get a feel for how much is needed.

[Biowraith]

Personally I'd be in favour of stat checks for at least hints to riddles and puzzles (and I'm not entirely opposed to outright solutions) because I view my character as very much separate from myself - I want my successes and failures to be at least as much about my character's capabilities as they are about my own as a player.  Give the players a chance for their own personal victory sure, but if they're struggling, especially if they're getting frustrated, let the characters' strengths come into play (and hey, the character might still fail the stat check).

Coming at the question from the other direction, if I were playing a really dumb character I'd deliberately answer the riddle wrongly (or maybe just not answer) even if I as a player had it figured out in seconds - and I'd continue to do so if my fellow players also couldn't figure it out, even though it meant the party failing.*

But as said, it depends on the style of game and the types of players and GM. Personally I'm not heavily looking for a players-pitting-their-wits-against-the-GM type of challenge (and to the extent that I am, I generally get that from combat, and wider scope mental challenges like the mysteries and plot twists in the story), but others most certainly will be.


*out of curiosity, what is the consensus on the dumb character with a smart player in situations like that?  Would you expect them to do as I would and bite their tongue since their character wouldn't figure something like that out?  Should they answer anyway because this was a player challenge rather than a character challenge?  Deploy the idiot-savant trope?  Genuinely curious here, not trying to use it to make a point - I don't have a huge amount of RPG experience these days so I'm not sure what the common view is (or if there even is one).

[Arx]

I'm pretty good at riddles, but I make my characters do dumb stuff all the time. If there's an IC reason my character might be able to figure it out, I'm happy to play off that, but you're not going to find the 8-int Barbarian effortlessly outfoxing a Sphinx.

What I will do is discuss it OOC with other players, as a representation of their character being as smart as all of us combined.

[My Name is Immaterial]

*out of curiosity, what is the consensus on the dumb character with a smart player in situations like that?  Would you expect them to do as I would and bite their tongue since their character wouldn't figure something like that out?  Should they answer anyway because this was a player challenge rather than a character challenge?  Deploy the idiot-savant trope?  Genuinely curious here, not trying to use it to make a point - I don't have a huge amount of RPG experience these days so I'm not sure what the common view is (or if there even is one).

I'd argue that they should be able to talk about it OOC, and suggest it to the player of a smarter character: the player making tactical decisions may not be the professional soldier, the most charismatic player doesn't have to be the dashing bard.

[highmax28]

Personally I'd be in favour of stat checks for at least hints to riddles and puzzles (and I'm not entirely opposed to outright solutions) because I view my character as very much separate from myself - I want my successes and failures to be at least as much about my character's capabilities as they are about my own as a player.  Give the players a chance for their own personal victory sure, but if they're struggling, especially if they're getting frustrated, let the characters' strengths come into play (and hey, the character might still fail the stat check).

Coming at the question from the other direction, if I were playing a really dumb character I'd deliberately answer the riddle wrongly (or maybe just not answer) even if I as a player had it figured out in seconds - and I'd continue to do so if my fellow players also couldn't figure it out, even though it meant the party failing.*

But as said, it depends on the style of game and the types of players and GM. Personally I'm not heavily looking for a players-pitting-their-wits-against-the-GM type of challenge (and to the extent that I am, I generally get that from combat, and wider scope mental challenges like the mysteries and plot twists in the story), but others most certainly will be.


*out of curiosity, what is the consensus on the dumb character with a smart player in situations like that?  Would you expect them to do as I would and bite their tongue since their character wouldn't figure something like that out?  Should they answer anyway because this was a player challenge rather than a character challenge?  Deploy the idiot-savant trope?  Genuinely curious here, not trying to use it to make a point - I don't have a huge amount of RPG experience these days so I'm not sure what the common view is (or if there even is one).

I have a player who plays everything with a negative to int all the time. Their int is so low, they can't even READ

I'm pretty good at riddles, but I make my characters do dumb stuff all the time. If there's an IC reason my character might be able to figure it out, I'm happy to play off that, but you're not going to find the 8-int Barbarian effortlessly outfoxing a Sphinx.

What I will do is discuss it OOC with other players, as a representation of their character being as smart as all of us combined.

As stated, its better when players discuss it. That's what D&D is all about; sitting around a table, playing with other people, and working together to solve challenges of all kinds. Without it, its just dice rolling

[wierd]

I think the proper response for an 8-int (human normal, under most rule sets?) barbarian, would be "I got a riddle for YOU mr. sphinx-- Do you enjoy anal so much that you WANT me to cram this spiked +2 club up your hairy magical ass, or are you just going to skip this question shit, and let me pass? Hmm?"

LOL

Even BETTER if the group manages to actually pull off that outcome, with a combination of high level slot enhanced hold-monsters from the mage, and a 1H hammer used to drive said club in with-- with discussion on how many turns it would take to put it there. (like, "Is that one action point per strike, or what?")

[Arx]

No, that's a Wis 3 Cha 3 barbarian you're thinking of.

[wierd]

Depends-- Is this barbarian just dumb, or is he just cynically jaded, and really--- REALLY--- just does not want to play stupid games with monsters? ;P

[mastahcheese]

If a player wants to roll their way out of a riddle, then do the following:

1: Let the player know that if they roll poorly, you will intentionally give them the wrong answer, perhaps even one that will hurt them if the roll low enough.
2: Roll the die without letting them see it.
3: Ask them if they really trust their character to come up with a better idea than the player.

That way, they can roll out of a puzzle (to some extent) but you aren't diminishing the nerve-wrack portion of the test.

Punish your lazy players, I say!

*Skulks off to his lair of Lawful Evil*

[wierd]

Well, I mean, the whole "Oh yes-- a monster that gets off on forcing mortals to answer stupid riddles, and eats them when they screw up-- YES! Let's TOTALLY just allow this thing to keep doing that! THat sounds like a GREAT idea!" is something that should not be overlooked in the motivational rationale of a character.  Playing along with the stupid game the monster is engaging in would require a specific alignment with lawfulness (Following the rules as provided, VS being a rule breaker and refusing them), and would require either a neutral or evil alignment on the good axis, for the PC to really feel good about getting through the puzzle by answering the question, as opposed to just offing the damn monster and doing the world a favor, or die trying.

A barbarian that has been around the block a few times could very well be jaded as shit about things like that, and really-- just not want to even try playing the game-- Will see the damned sphinx guarding the gate, and be like "Fuck answering his shitty riddles. You know what? Wizard guy-- I want you to buff your luck right now, then precharge hold monsters at the strongest level you have, and you, Mr Rogue, I want you to get that crazy rope you have ready-- We are gonna walk in nonchalantly, and when it asks us about its stupid assed riddle, we are gonna give it the choice of having its shit fucked up, or fucking off and letting us past-- and depending on which it chooses, that is what it is gonna get-- Game?"

It isn't something so innately tied to their wis or cha-- it has to do with their personality, backstory, and personal ethos. They could be totally eloquent when dealing with humanoids, for instance-- but be total assholes to smart-assed monsters who act like they wont get their asses handed to them.

[mastahcheese]

At first I thought, "that sounds like a bit more complicated than what a mental-stat-dump barbarian would think of" but...

...I can actually completely see a barbarian be a total idiot on everything except on how he plans to fuck up monsters.