Riddle Me Not

[Roy]

Riddles are fucking terrible. They are purely a metagame challenge...

Unlike, say, planning a heist in Shadowrun. Or any one of a number of similar things that are taken for granted in gaming.

Riddling can be stupid. If the players like it, it won't be.

Why the hell is this such a contentious topic?

And how do you know what's involved? Oh right, your CHARACTER's abilities, and not yours.

[tzor]

First and foremost, whenever you have an absolute anything you are set yourself up for trouble, and riddles are often set up in such a self defeating manner. The fourth wall has always existed in role play; the trick is to not make it obvious. Combat tactics, for example is done by the player, even though the “knowledge” of combat is really something attached to the character. The trick is that the combat knowledge isn’t per se a requirement, but rather something applied without thinking. When it becomes obvious as a “player” and not as a “character” thing the fourth wall is broken. It might be conceivable that your character knows modern military tactics (too many years role playing with ROTC students) but sometimes the riddle method breaks the fourth wall.

(N.B. There is a style of 1E play that is mostly on the player’s side of the fourth wall; role playing did evolve from wargaming. Understanding this mode of play is important to understand the Gygaxian style of gaming and DMing.)

Several years ago I purchased a couple of books on riddles and puzzle rooms; they were interesting but I’m not sure how they would be useful in a campaign. As a divertimento from the regular play it can be an interesting change of pace, if used lightly.

[RandomCasualty2]

Unlike, say, planning a heist in Shadowrun. Or any one of a number of similar things that are taken for granted in gaming.

Yeah, honestly, the planning step of a lot of missions kinda bore me. It's not exactly the planning per se, but mostly just that information gathering stage where you're casing the place, doing matrix research and trying to get whatever information you can on it before you can actually even start planning.

That stuff tends to be really dull to me and honestly I'd prefer if the DM just did a "okay, so you do information gathering for 2 days and this is the shit you come up with" and give us a handout of blueprints and crap. But some people may enjoy the research.

[mean_liar]

And how do you know what's involved? Oh right, your CHARACTER's abilities, and not yours.

So you honestly just exclusively roll dice to determine how and when you're going to do the job? Isn't that just a little boring?

Or is it some combination of player discussion and character rolling? Because that's Riddler territory.

Some players just don't like that stuff. Some do. I cannot believe this has to be an absolute like "all riddles suck".

[Roy]

[Ice9]

While I definitely agree you shouldn't use riddles if your players don't like them, the "it should be based on the character's intelligence, not the player", doesn't work.

If you go all the way with removing player intelligence from the equation, you are no longer playing a game. You're just rolling dice to see what your characters decide to do. And at that point, you may as well just give the DM the character sheets and come back a couple weeks later to hear how the campaign went.

Why is intelligence different than strength in this regard? Because we're playing a game which uses it. If D&D were based around arm wrestling, we would abstract planning and use actual arm wrestling to determine combat success, and yes, that means sometimes the elf bard would outwrestle a troll - because we came here to arm wrestle, and any propose which includes "roll dice instead of arm wrestling" is fail. Likewise, in most RPGs, we come here, among other things, to think, and so "roll dice instead of thinking" is fail.

[RandomCasualty2]

While I definitely agree you shouldn't use riddles if your players don't like them, the "it should be based on the character's intelligence, not the player", doesn't work.

If you go all the way with removing player intelligence from the equation, you are no longer playing a game. You're just rolling dice to see what your characters decide to do. And at that point, you may as well just give the DM the character sheets and come back a couple weeks later to hear how the campaign went.

Why is intelligence different than strength in this regard? Because we're playing a game which uses it. If D&D were based around arm wrestling, we would abstract planning and use actual arm wrestling to determine combat success, and yes, that means sometimes the elf bard would outwrestle a troll - because we came here to arm wrestle, and any propose which includes "roll dice instead of arm wrestling" is fail. Likewise, in most RPGs, we come here, among other things, to think, and so "roll dice instead of thinking" is fail.

Yeah, honestly I'd really prefer if they just eliminated the idea of the mental stats entirely, and just renamed them to something like Spirit, or Magic.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Why is intelligence different than strength in this regard?

Because while it's very easy to abstract low intelligence it's very difficult to magic tea party higher levels of intelligence or charisma.

I mean, really, if you want to do research to find out the formula Xykon used for his bullshit plot shield or search for clues on the center of power in Thay, what the hell do you do? Do you just have the DM decide whether or not they find these things? That sounds like even worse railroading.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Yeah, honestly I'd really prefer if they just eliminated the idea of the mental stats entirely, and just renamed them to something like Spirit, or Magic.

RC, I think there is still room for things like 'willpower' and 'perception'. And seriously, does magic teapartying 'can I figure out how the strange device works?' really ruin the game?

[Judging__Eagle]

I am willing to LARP battles.

Awesome. Finally, I can win a combat by throwing the d20 at the DM and locking them in a triangle choke until they agree that I win.

Rofl, that would be hilarious. What's your weight class again? Choke holds are fun to watch people try, since they're vurry easy to get out of. Usually one solid rap is all it takes to make them back the fuck off in pain and misery.

PL, Why is it so hard to accept that some people like riddles

Because we aren't selecting a group of people who like riddles. You are selecting a group of people who like something else.

The odds of any group of people who selected to like ANYTHING other than riddles all actually liking riddles is incredibly slim.

Because people who like riddles are incredibly rare wankers.

I mean check out all these pictures of fans crowding venues at riddle conventions... oh wait apparently the Riddle family is vastly more numerous.

People who "Liek Riddles" are a lot like people who think that they are "Storytellers".

They've both fucking wankers.

Now, I don't mind riddles, and I think that word problem games are interesting.

I'll never use one in any of my games. Mostly because I don't plan my adventures that much; I go with a map, some logical traps, and then plunk down monsters that "fit in" at random.

People that actually plan to use riddles are probaly people that think that they're "telling a story"; you know what? if you're able to tell a fucking story, go to a storytelling circle and tell the first hour to them. If they go up to you and want to learn it, then you did well. If they give you a pat on the back, guess what chump? Your storytelling ability sucks, and they're trying to make you not feel bad.

[RandomCasualty2]

RC, I think there is still room for things like 'willpower' and 'perception'. And seriously, does magic teapartying 'can I figure out how the strange device works?' really ruin the game?

Yeah, will and perception are both fine as far as mental stats go. "Knowledge" is fine too. Generally the ones I rather object to are the D&D mental stats. I don't like stats that make you think that your character makes some kind of decisions on his own that don't require your PC decisionmaking. Having a knowledge stat is okay, that lets him know stuff about the game world. Having some kind of intelligence stat will always lead to bullshit about "Well my character is smarter than me, therefore tell me the right answer, because he would know!"

Fuck that shit.

This is a game, and as part of that, you as the player have to make decisions. Otherwise you're not even playing a game anymore.

Now, the decision as to what kind of thinking you want to do is a matter of group preference, but there's just no point of putting in a puzzle if people aren't even going to try to solve it. Otherwise it just becomes a 4E skill challenge.

DM: "Suddenly a puzzle appears!"
PC: "Intelligence check!"
PC: "Wisdom Check!"
PC: "Knowledge (Riddles) Check!"
DM: "You have defeated the puzzle."

If you're going to go that route and turn it into an exercise in dice rolling, better off not wasting your time and don't bother to include riddles/puzzles in the first place, because as far as encounters go, the one described above is lame and boring and not worth anyone's time. I mean if PCs want to play the game like this, it's pretty obvious that they just don't enjoy those encounters and want to fast forward through them. And at that point, why even have those encounters at all?

D&D puzzles can take many forms:
-Tactical combat puzzle.
-Overall raid/siege strategy.
-Solve the mystery.
-solve the riddle.
-A generic puzzle of some kind.
-Figure out what to say to convince the NPC.
-Figure out the optimal character building choices to make your character the best.

Now, some people like some of those and other people don't. And if your group doesn't like some of them, I'd advise just not having that type of encounter. Under no condition do you ever even want to include a stat or system to fast solve these situations. If those situations annoy your players, then the correct answer is in fact not to include them at all

[angelfromanotherpin]

RC2, you are making a bizarre argument. Seriously.

My character knowing things that I personally do not somehow removes my decision-making agency? How?

Answer this question for me:
I personally do not know the appropriate etiquette for an ancient court. In your game, do I have to 'decide' when my character makes the libation? And then look like an idiot or not, depending on whether I guessed wrong? Or does my character's background as a noble or priest let him just know that kind of thing?

[RandomCasualty2]

RC2, you are making a bizarre argument. Seriously.

My character knowing things that I personally do not somehow removes my decision-making agency? How?

Not necessarily knowing things. You can provide clues or what not via your characters knowledge, but it should never solve a puzzle. For instance, your character's knowledge of demons might tell you that a pit fiend is immune to fire. But while that's a clue to help you in tactical combat, it's a lot different from just asking the DM "My character is smart and I'm dumber than a doorknob, choose the optimal spell for me."

I personally do not know the appropriate etiquette for an ancient court. In your game, do I have to 'decide' when my character makes the libation? And then look like an idiot or not, depending on whether I guessed wrong? Or does my character's background as a noble or priest let him just know that kind of thing?

Basic etiquette stuff generally isn't even a puzzle, it's just something you know or don't know. So basically what would happen is your basic character knowledge would tell you the things you're supposed to say and do. Now if you wanted to turn that into part of a PC challenge puzzle, you'd tell the PCs what they have to do at the start of the scene and it'd be up to them to remember to say/do it when the time comes.

So you'd know something like:
-Whenever you address the king, refer to him as "Your exalted highness"
-It's proper etiquette to wait for the king to start eating before you do, it's also proper etiquette to drink the wine before your take a bite of food.

And you'd have to use those rules while RPing as part of the scene.

[angelfromanotherpin]

So a player who has a bad memory is going to screw the pooch for his character, who may well be his setting's Talleyrand (or have a photographic memory)? That's just lame. Gygax lame.

[RandomCasualty2]

So a player who has a bad memory is going to screw the pooch for his character, who may well be his setting's Talleyrand (or have a photographic memory)? That's just lame. Gygax lame.

Well like I said, you don't have to even use that puzzle. What puzzles and player challenges you include are up to what the group likes. I was simply saying if you wanted to make etiquette into a player roleplaying challenge, that's how you'd do it. And even a person with the greatest memory can forget to do something in the heat of a tense moment, so I don't consider it all that bad.

[Kaelik]

RC is Gygax's Ghost possessing a computer to torture us. And that has been apparent for a long time now.

[Ice9]

RC is making sense. There are two types of challenges that have a place in a game:
1) Activities the players enjoy, which are played out in detail and require actual decision making by the players. Example: Combat in many RPGs.
2) Activities the players don't enjoy, which are resolved very quickly with one or two rolls, to provide background flavor or differentiate characters. Example: Identifying a spell in D&D - you roll a Spellcraft check.

Any type of challenge could fall into either category. If you were making a game for people who didn't like tactical combat, then you could have the combat system be "everyone roll their Combat skill; the side with more successes is the winner." Or conversely, you could have a system where "tracking someone through the woods" was a complex process that took an hour of realtime and had a lot of tactics and variety to it.

But the important thing is that which category something falls in depends entirely on whether the players enjoy it. Whether it makes sense or is "in character" is not even a factor. So if the players enjoy solving puzzles, then the puzzles should be entirely solved by the players. If they don't, then "solving a puzzle" should mean "someone rolls a knowledge check". That is the only factor, not the Int of their characters.

[Kaelik]

There's a difference between solving puzzles using your characters, and solving puzzles without using your characters.

RC sees this difference, and in response decries using your characters as evilz, and prefers it when you can't use character abilities.

[PhoneLobster]

RC is making sense. There are two types of challenges that have a place in a game:
1) Activities the players enjoy, which are played out in detail and require actual decision making by the players. Example: Combat in many RPGs.

That category does not extend to cover riddles Ice 9. Combat rules and riddle solving are utterly alien to each other in nature.

Riddle solving is answering a stupid often outdated metaphor relying on cultural knowledge which in the context of an RPG will either be out of Genre or not known to any real human player. It is also very simple and binary in nature.

Combat is a highly abstracted tactical game. Your own personal ability and knowledge of surreal fantasy battle is utterly irrelevant. It covers complex activities and causes a vast range of complex results.

In what universe is that the same?

[RandomCasualty2]

There's a difference between solving puzzles using your characters, and solving puzzles without using your characters.

RC sees this difference, and in response decries using your characters as evilz, and prefers it when you can't use character abilities.

No, I'm okay with people using character abilities, in fact some of the best puzzles are designed such that you need to use your spells or sword moves or whatever to solve them. But the decision to use those should be up to the player, not the character.

What I am against is a "I don't want to think" roll. Because that's not just making use of your character's abilities, that's totally eliminating the player from the game. And at that point, really, why have puzzles or riddles at all?

I'm all for just not having them in a game if the group hates them. If people don't want to play detective, then the DM shouldn't go and force them to solve mysteries. Just like the DM shouldn't force them to play hack and slash dungeon crawl if they don't want to. Forcing a game style on players is never a good thing. That isn't something unique to puzzles or riddles or social encounters. That's just general gaming GMing advice: Try to include game elements that your players enjoy and not use elements they hate. And what that happens to be will be different for each group.

PL: Every minigame should pretty much play differently. A combat minigame is basically a game of math and probability game theory. A social minigame may well be an analytical game of psychology, or even a test of acting skill. A puzzle minigame is a test of IQ. The fact that solving a puzzle doesn't feel like combat is actually a good thing, since it adds spice to the game (assuming your PCs enjoy it). The bottom line is that we want different types of minigames, so we can play a bigger variety of game types. You don't solve every encounter with the combat system, and that's a good thing.

In fact, I'm all for RPGs having tons of little minigames and for groups to pick and choose which ones they want to use. For instance, you could have an economic minigame, a puzzle minigame, a stealth minigame, a social minigame, a combat minigame, a mass combat minigame, a kingdom building game and so on. All these minigames should be robust and allow for meaningful choices. Note that not all these minigames would even necessarily involve rolling dice.

So if people wanted to run a quest about merchants going from city to city fighting off bandits, then your game would probably be the economic game and the combat game. If your game was about the PCs playing rival kings, you could run the social, kingdom building and mass combat game. You may never actually get into personal combat. Basic dungeon crawls may be all about the puzzle and combat minigames. And so on. But ideally each group would decide what minigames they'd want to use. If people don't want to play the economic or puzzle minigame then you simply don't use those for that game. In that manner, your RPG becomes a lot more versatile and modular.

[PhoneLobster]

A social minigame may well be an analytical game of psychology, or even a test of acting skill.

No it fucking can't. You can't have a formal mini game based on purely subjective judgments by a partisan and often ignorant party like the GM.

You mistake what is actually a game of "read the GMs mind" or "Mister, May I?" for some sort of objective contest of acting skill or psychological profiling. In groups of people where not only are the contestants untrained ameteurs, but so is the fucking judge.

It's a bit of a tangent but the point needs making... or is it a tangent? ...

A puzzle minigame is a test of IQ.

No. It isn't.

An IQ test is a test of IQ. A carefully crafted correct puzzle is just a test of the ability to solve that puzzle. A riddle, in it's most common form, is a test to identify a single specific answer alluded to by a metaphor loaded with assumptions of cultural, often deeply personal context.

D&D puzzle mini games, especially riddles are pretty much merely tests of reading the DMs mind.

Because DMs are quite frankly not up to writing or selecting riddles. Look at the example riddle we got in this thread. It was WELL below par.

But fuck it. Saying "Mini Game!" is not an acceptable answer to the criticisms of the riddle in D&D. Calling it a mini game justifies it no more than if I call a game of hopscotch a mini game and require players to play hopscotch against every major opponent before every fight.

It's a fundamentally stupid and bad thing to include yes, if you DO include it, it is in fact a mini game but Roshambo would equally be a mini game if included and is just as stupid.

What I am against is a "I don't want to think" roll.

Do you think you could build a less elaborate and ridiculous straw man at all? This one is too flamboyant.

[RandomCasualty2]

No it fucking can't. You can't have a formal mini game based on purely subjective judgments by a partisan and often ignorant party like the GM.

Yes, I realize you don't trust your DM to do anything competently and feel like you need a 5000 page rulebook to help defend yourself against unjust DMing. But not everyone is like that. Some people actually trust their DM to make fair subjective judgments.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it impossible. God forbid PL, people may enjoy things that you don't. Do you understand that? Or does any way except your way automatically mean the other person is horribly wrong and a moron?

A carefully crafted correct puzzle is just a test of the ability to solve that puzzle. A riddle, in it's most common form, is a test to identify a single specific answer alluded to by a metaphor loaded with assumptions of cultural, often deeply personal context.

D&D puzzle mini games, especially riddles are pretty much merely tests of reading the DMs mind.

No, they're not. Good puzzles/riddles are logical in nature and it's possible to get the right answer without even knowing who wrote the riddle/puzzle, therefore, reading someone's mind isn't even part of it. Most of the time your DM may just grab the riddle off the internet, meaning that he's not even the mind who created it, and yet they're still very solvable, if they're good riddles that is.

And honestly, any riddle should really accept any answer that fits its criteria. In the classic riddle it's about basically answering with some thing that fits the traits mentioned in the riddle.

Do you think you could build a less elaborate and ridiculous straw man at all? This one is too flamboyant.

It's not a strawman, it's precisely what a "roll to solve the puzzle automatically" is all about. You don't want to think so you just want to throw a d20 at the puzzle until its solved in a 4E skill challenge fashion. I think we already established why 4E skill challenges suck.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's not a strawman, it's precisely what a "roll to solve the puzzle automatically" is all about. You don't want to think so you just want to throw a d20 at the puzzle until its solved in a 4E skill challenge fashion. I think we already established why 4E skill challenges suck.

Skill Challenges, not even the lame-ass Skill Challenge they printed in the book, are supposed to be played in a 'throw a d20 at the puzzle until it's solved' manner.

[PhoneLobster]

Do you understand that? Or does any way except your way automatically mean the other person is horribly wrong and a moron?

I level my criticism of your little fantasy about social rpg mechanics exactly because of differing view points.

There is not an objective correct response from the barmaid to the barbarian player's pick up line. And yes, you are a moron for thinking there is one.

No, they're not. Good puzzles/riddles are logical in nature and it's possible to get the right answer without even knowing who wrote the riddle/puzzle, therefore, reading someone's mind isn't even part of it.

Really?

The iconic adventuring riddle is the sphinxes three legs at sunset dealio.

But really modern people wouldn't get that answer because like fuck do old men these days walk around with a walking stick on any remotely regular basis. Most are healthy enough to go on two legs, those that aren't tool around with god damn mopeds and walking frames.

But "And at sunset it rides an electric mobility scooter" isn't as catchy.

Riddles are THICK with cultural assumptions.

And in D&D that is even worse because for the riddle to make sense in genre the cultural assumptions have to be "whatever the GM is thinking about his campaign world" and for the players to answer them the cultural assumptions have to be "the culture the players are in".

Most of the time your DM may just grab the riddle off the internet, meaning that he's not even the mind who created it, and yet they're still very solvable, if they're good riddles that is.

Really? Care to give us an example?

Because really I've only ever seen maybe two "good" riddles, and they are famous enough that everyone knows the answer. And I've seen morons screw the retelling of those riddles up no end, especially when trying to "flavor" them to a D&D setting.

And the internet is FULL of bad retellings, and just plain bad riddles. GMs who look for riddles there are no better off than those who write their own because they can't recognise a "good" riddle. Worse still they are now fishing through a third cultural/knowledge context of whoever the hell wrote the riddle in addition to the game setting and the players knowledge base.

And honestly, any riddle should really accept any answer that fits its criteria. In the classic riddle it's about basically answering with some thing that fits the traits mentioned in the riddle.

Then you are in the "whats red white and black all over? territory. And that is literally a joke, much as GMs who insist on using riddles are whenever they turn their back on their player group.

It's not a strawman, it's precisely what a "roll to solve the puzzle automatically" is all about.

And that is a strawman. Because your stupid fucking riddle puzzle shouldn't be there AT ALL.

[Judging__Eagle]

I think that the modular part is the best part of this thread.

Groups should decide which mini-games they will include.

Mini-games that are not included are reduced to a collective of each player making a dice roll, and adding their relevant number.

The more challenging the obstacle, the more players in the group need to succeed. This isn't a flat number, but seriously a percentage of the characters available.

So, a rogue/fighter team can work; only when the challenges require more than 50% of the team to succeed a challenge will it really matter about one or the other character's stats. In a larger group, you'll want more successes, because you have more players.

This is auto-scaling though.