Perhaps I can kick-start the Puzzle/Riddle Thread:

I think some rules might be in order...

1. Puzzles/Riddles shouldn't be too difficult.

2. Puzzles/Riddles should be suitable for the setting. I'd assume its mostly Fantasy but Sci-Fi is also possble. Please mention that at the beginning of the puzzle/riddle.

3. We should wait until the answer is posted before posting another question. Maybe limiting it to 12 days?

4. Puzzles/Riddles might be original/made by the poster which mean AFTER trying to find the answer we can talk about how to improve it.

Anything other rules we could add/change?

In my view, they can be any difficulty, as long as it's not required that they be solved. Besides, what seems easy and obvious to one person is going to be very difficult to someone else, and vice versa.

Personally I hate puzzles in RPG's. I spent a lot of time developing a character, working their mechanics, their personality, their mannerisms maybe. But then you go into a puzzle room and I might as well just throw the whole character away. Like my mechanics typically don't matter. You have to OOC solve the puzzle in order to IC solve the puzzle so I can say "My barbarian bangs his head against the wall over and over again." but it's actively distracting the group by making that comment rather than trying to think about the puzzle and solve it so we can move on.

Like the one time in recent memory that I used a puzzle there were something like 3 ways that I figured the PC's could solve it and it's actual only purpose was to demonstrate the affects the environment had on their abilities. (specifically their spells lasted longer or shorter based on their location and the 'correct' door was the one where affected at the same rate as the entrance.)

I tried to use a labyrinth once then I realized just making a maze would be stupid, time consuming, and pointless. So I just replaced it with a set of "would you rather" encounters where the PC's knew two doors would lead to a challenge themed on one of the character's skill sets.

I think it depends on the type of puzzle. I was in a game once, for example, where there was a partially sealed door - open enough that we knew it was there, not open wide enough to let us through (or even to see through - it was a stone door that lifted into the ceiling). There was a large hole that, when we shone a torch in, revealed a turning mechanism; the problem was, as the mechanism turned, it sealed the arm of the person turning it into the wall - thus, you had the option of leaving your buddy there, or chopping his arm off (we did the latter). Obviously not appropriate for all games, but this shows an example of a puzzle, of sorts, that doesn't strictly require a ton of out-of-character thought (at least, not by default). These days I could probably think of other solutions to the "puzzle," but, well, kids be kids, y'know?

Celestial monkeys for example.

But that really does reinforce my point. A "Bad" puzzle is a completely OOC exercise that must be accomplished to progress.

Even if it's optional it's still "Bad" since you are really just deciding that you didn't want to play D&D or whatever that night and would rather watch your friends solve a Rubik's cube or something.

A puzzle needs to be like any other encounter. It needs to have consequences for the attempt (like losing your arm or burning spell resources) not simply time consequences, since the players being good at puzzles should have no bearing on how fast your 220 IQ wizard or 6 Dalai Lamas in a trench coat wisdom Cleric solves the puzzle.

Puzzles are a staple of RPGs some people really enjoy them some don't best thing is to tailor them to the players. I do agree that progress should not depend on figuring out the puzzle and sometimes you need to allow a roll of some sort if the game is being bogged down.

It sucks when the guy playing the high INT character can't figure it out because their player can't, but the low INT Barbarian player has it figured out but can't find a reason for their idiot character to contribute. That's when allowing the roll or an out of character discussion is the better bet.

Again though don't make it a pass or fail. Instead make it determine how long they have to spend figuring it out before they do. Roll a 20 they figure it out within a few minutes, but roll a 5 they spend several hours. Even if they decide to move on a great idea is to have the high INT suddenly figure out the puzzle in their head hours later. Now the group has to decide do they continue on or go back. RP opportunity.

Regarding the high Int character not being intelligent enough to solve a puzzle, that's part of the reason I decouple the "brainy" ability score from actual character smarts. If there isn't a skill difficulty check for it, anyone can do it, if they feel it fits their character. Using big words, solving a puzzle, forming a battle plan, etc. The player decides how smart their character is in such things and I'm fine if everyone is equally smart or as smart as their player on those things.

Also, low "mental" stats are not an excuse in my game for playing a disruptively stupid character. But a high "mental" stats character can be played "dumb" if desired and it's not disruptive.

For that matter, a low "physical" stats character can describe themselves and their abilities however they want, but some actions will require rolls, and we'd want to be able to make sense of any failures.

Overall, this helps me relax about lots of the historical gyrations around "Intelligence" as both the name of a ability score and a player trait that is on display during play.

Great discussion.
I feel like that's exacttly why we have to talk about it.

Puzzles and riddles should only be used for players that enjoy the occasional brain teaser or used sparingly.

Also, riddles and puzzles should never block the main path of the party. They should add to the adventure, give extra treasure or information.


I'm not sure how other do it but my puzzles tend to look something like this:




Now, the riddle is pretty straight forward. Personally I give those characters with extra INT a little boost. Usually in the form of notes just to make them feel better about their characters. Next I'll let them roll for hints, nothing special there, if they pass the DC they'll get the hint.
If they fail I'll tell the wizard (or whoever rolled the highest) where they might find the information.

I fundamentally disagree with this if for no other reason than that the concept is nonsense. The only optional content is the content that your party doesn't find. If they come to the door with one face that tells lies and one that tells the truth they are going to try and get through it. Even if it's not 100% necessary to the plot. For one they don't know that for sure. For two players don't tend to just bypass non-dangerous challenges if there is a hint of a reward. For three you still waste the night having them bash their head against the puzzle, even if they ultimately fail.

You can punish them for taking the easier way around, potentially. But if they are still attempting it, failing for their OOC shortcomings , then taking a penalty for going around the challenge then it was still a net loss on your game experience.

Over some decades of GM'ing I have never put this type of riddle or puzzle in my games, unless it was in a commercial scenario which included it. Never had to play in a game that included it either, except for the same reason.

Solving it just feels OOC, unless you invent reasons for dice rolls but that becomes a different thing altogether where an investigation following clues can be role-played through. I don't think that is the same thing as the initial proposition.

@Sir Swindle You missed what I was saying. If you have a key piece of info the party needs to get, locked behind a magical spell that needs a riddle solved, or if they need to open the door with the puzzle lock in order to finish the mission. Have at least one or two other ways of getting to what they need. Also don't let it dominate the entire session unless the group is having fun. If they are frustrated give them a roll to determine how long they will take and move on.

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 206):

I guess riddles and puzzles aren’t your style.
I’ve been GMing (and a little playing) for over 5 years now and my group is enjoying them a lot.
We like to be mentally challenged and sometimes the funniest stuff happens.

My party was in a room with the doors locking behind them. A countdown started in a foreign language whenever they pulled the lever and 3-4 riddles were carved into the walls. The riddles were re herrings (just describing the man buried in the giant tomb they were in) and the lever actually kept the door locked.
One of the riddles talked about kindness or something (I’ll have to take a look at my notes) but somehow the party was convinced that it meant milk. Of course they tried at once to milk the rogue’s mice which she’s kept with her since she was little. I didn’t let them go through with that, i asked where they’d put the milk and tried to get them to focus on the lever again.

They got it a short time later and we’re still laughing about the time they wanted to milk a pair of mice.

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 206):



That’s rough, would you care to explain why? I think I fail to see why puzzles can’t/shouldn’t be optional.

In reply to Bobblin the merchant (msg # 212):

Would Alexander's cutting of the Gordian Knot been as profound if said knot had prevented people from easily becoming King by untying it?

Would any of Hercules' labours be worthy of telling if he could have 'easily' cirvumvented them?

Puzzles should be exactly like monsters: know when to fight, know when to run away, something many players have trouble with.

The GM should be flexible, however, and offer multiple ways to solve the problem, and reward players for their resourcefulness.

I gave several reasons why 'optional' isn't a real thing in a meaningful sense. It's mostly psychological, but that doesn't actually matter. I can't even tell a group that this puzzle is optional since there is no actual reason they CAN'T solve it with no effort. Other than OOC they don't know the answer.

P.S. not giving the group the answer because your barbarian is too dumb to know it isn't an excuse and you are being shitty if you do that. You are smarter than your barbarian and your wizard player is dumber than his wizard. Figure it out OOC and then IC narrate appropriately.

I did your work coming up with arguments for your statement. At least those that I found.


This sounds more like frustration than an actual reason. A corridor that leads to the BBEG directly can have a side passage that's locked for the moment and the party has to return at some later point after acquiring the correct key. Which in this example is the puzzle/riddle but could also be a literal key. Only because in your decades of GMing you've never done that, doesn't mean that its impossible/nonesense.


That's true, though my players have learned that my D&D world is a moving living thing and that they can return to previous encounters and try their luck again. But that's something I think you have to tell/teach your players as a GM. My players are more than happy to try and slay the giant troll, at the same time they'll try to learn about it and retreat, preparing accordingly and try again should it proof to be too tough.


That's the GM's fault then. As the GM you've to judge your own players and how much time you want to spend on riddles and puzzles. Trying to figure out a riddle for 3 hours is fun only for hardcore puzzle fans. Give them a time limit in which they either get simply locked out of a treasure room or have to use resources to still get it.



I assume you're talking about my INT thresholds for extra hints? I see it the same as trying to break down a door. Why would you punish a wizard with a DC15 to kick down a reinforced door? It's totally unfair and a "shitty" thing to do. Or a Barbarian use their STR instead of CHA to intimidate!
Personally I'd say it would be bad if I weren't to let the Barbarian roll at all. It's just more difficult as he wanted to roleplay someone with lower INT.

I'm okay with calling it a simple "Agree to disagree". I like the occasional puzzle while you don't. If you wish we could continue this conversation via Private Message?

A corridor that leads to the BBEG directly can have a side passage that's locked for the moment and the party has to return at some later point after acquiring the correct key.

Give them a time limit in which they either get simply locked out of a treasure room or have to use resources to still get it.

I assume you're talking about my INT thresholds for extra hints?

It sucks when the guy playing the high INT character can't figure it out because their player can't, but the low INT Barbarian player has it figured out but can't find a reason for their idiot character to contribute. That's when allowing the roll or an out of character discussion is the better bet.

Again this is the players being punished not for being bad at this game but being bad at an entirely different game that they didn't come over to play.

I assume you're talking about my INT thresholds for extra hints? I see it the same as trying to break down a door. Why would you punish a wizard with a DC15 to kick down a reinforced door? It's totally unfair and a "shitty" thing to do. Or a Barbarian use their STR instead of CHA to intimidate!
Personally I'd say it would be bad if I weren't to let the Barbarian roll at all. It's just more difficult as he wanted to roleplay someone with lower INT.

The reason it's questionable, and not just in the context of puzzles is that no one expects "physical" challenges to have a real-world representation. No one has to swing a sword, bend a bar or pick a lock in order for their character to be able to do those things. Yet, to solve a riddle, catch a bluff or make a convincing argument, players are often expected to do those things, or at least make some effort.

We have an interesting option here, though: we can actually run scenarios to try out our puzzle making/running/playing. I used to do this with skill challenges in something I called a "danger room" after the X-Men training method. I'd have interested people whip up basic characters and then I'd run them through the challenge, without expectation of a full adventure or long-term commitment.

It's an approximation, but it does let people try things out. So, if you want to demonstrate a concept or see how something works, consider moving from the abstract to the semi-concrete.

Not entirely true. The swinging of our swords or casting of our spells is represented in the real world by our character sheet and the dice we roll. And since the game is entirely mental we need to acknowledge that puzzles and riddles are a fundamental cornerstone of the game.

They have been in RPGs since the beginning. If someone doesn't want to put them in their game that's fine you do your table like you want. Just don't imply that they are not fun. If they weren't fun for a lot of players there wouldn't be any in the game.

This is a great idea, though are you talking here or in your game?

"In the game from the beginning" they certainly haven't been in the game I'm playing from the beginning. Not everyone is playing D&D. Even looking at D&D I expect you would be hard pressed to find a place in a recent edition DMG about presenting a challenge that is completely outside the scope of the character's capabilities.

But they still did it/were always going to do it. So not really 'optional' they still felt compelled to go and address it. The world being saved first doesn't matter. It still took up the game time.

It also rolls in point 2. There is no REASON to bypass a puzzle. It's an OOC activity, you CAN solve it. You are just too dumb as a player to find the solution. Moreover there is generally no incremental step to know you are getting closer. For a pure riddle the answer might just come to you at any second so by passing it to try later just feels shitty.


Again this is the players being punished not for being bad at this game but being bad at an entirely different game that they didn't come over to play. If your puzzle isn't interfacing with the game mechanics then you might as well tell them, "go play Call of Duty, the door opens when you get a four kill streak"


No I'm posting in a public forum not talking to an individual.

This...

Was what I was talking about. The very concept should be struck from the gaming community's collective consciousness. It's Bad and if you do it you are bad and you should feel bad.

Also, who TF isn't allowing OOC discussion?