I was talking to one of my gamers today while socially distantly trading things we had for each other. We talked a bit about the second session of A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade.
At some point he said, essentially, "Sometimes you just have to go through the puzzle."
There isn't another way around.
We had this come up in White Plume Mountain, when the PCs encountered lethal or puzzling encounters on the only way to (and from!) an area containing one of the weapons. They'd reason that this can't possibly be the only way through, because then the monsters/guards/owners/etc. would have to go through this puzzle.
Logical? Yes.
Accurate? No.
The dungeon designer may not have provided for this. Even if the dungeon designer did, that doesn't mean the way in is the way you're headed. Or that you have the resources to go around. Or that you'll be able to find the secret door they use to bypass it. Or that you have the ability to unlock said door if you find it.
You might just have to go through it.
In tournament-style (A1-4 or C2, for example) or funhouse-style adventures (S2 or EX1 and EX2, for example), you might just have to jump through the hoop. You can't assume that there must be another way . . . the obvious channel for intruders is trapped and therefore the smart move is to go another way.
Logical? Yes.
Accurate? No.
It might help to tackle those situations with a little of the video game mentality in you - Skyrim is notorious for the exit from the boss fight right out to the entrance area . . . but you can't reach it/access it/open it from the entrance area. All you can do is jump down and then leave. You can't avoid all the minions on the way.
DF Felltower mostly rewards finding the other way around. It doesn't always exist, but often does. Still, there are puzzles you must go through, or simply turn back and forgo the rewards on the other end.
Showing posts with label puzzles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label puzzles. Show all posts
Saturday, October 3, 2020
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
More hints for Felltower Sunday
Just sharing some of what I told my players as we head into a 3rd session in the "Warden" in Felltower. I think they're smart guys with insufficient information to do what they're trying to do. So without giving too much away, I wanted to pare down the options a bit.
"You do need to find a way out and/or a way to deal with the tree. That's going to take some exploration and some thought.
- there isn't any particular spell you've cast or haven't cast that will find the "solution." It's going to take more than that. Don't waste a lot of session time on reading Spells or GURPS Magic. Specific spells might be useful in some situations, but there isn't a spell-based way to solve things.
- you do need to explore more.
- one big clue - you rushed around so much looking for treasure you passed up some clues and cues back in session 1.
- another - the vegepygmies don't know the way home, or how to beat the tree, or they'd have told you. They might be useful, but they can't tell you the answer."
Most of this I think the group already knows. But I wanted to confirm it. A session spent trying to pull out a specific spell, or talk to the vegepygmies and try different keywords until I say something slightly different, etc. - the usual signs of frustration for lack of a clear path - wouldn't be fun. Exploration for its own sake is enjoyable, but I don't want them to overlook the old when searching for the new.
I'd actually add another - treasure is nice, but finding a way out is getting critical. That should take priority unless a really significant treasure is discovered. Maybe even then . . .
"You do need to find a way out and/or a way to deal with the tree. That's going to take some exploration and some thought.
- there isn't any particular spell you've cast or haven't cast that will find the "solution." It's going to take more than that. Don't waste a lot of session time on reading Spells or GURPS Magic. Specific spells might be useful in some situations, but there isn't a spell-based way to solve things.
- you do need to explore more.
- one big clue - you rushed around so much looking for treasure you passed up some clues and cues back in session 1.
- another - the vegepygmies don't know the way home, or how to beat the tree, or they'd have told you. They might be useful, but they can't tell you the answer."
Most of this I think the group already knows. But I wanted to confirm it. A session spent trying to pull out a specific spell, or talk to the vegepygmies and try different keywords until I say something slightly different, etc. - the usual signs of frustration for lack of a clear path - wouldn't be fun. Exploration for its own sake is enjoyable, but I don't want them to overlook the old when searching for the new.
I'd actually add another - treasure is nice, but finding a way out is getting critical. That should take priority unless a really significant treasure is discovered. Maybe even then . . .
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Some Short Thoughts on the Complexity of Puzzles
I sometimes include puzzles in my games. The evil tree from the last game session is a puzzle monster, for sure. It cannot be defeated by brute force. I made that terribly obvious, to avoid the thousands of points of wasted damage seen with another puzzle monster, the hydra. No, you're not wearing it down. No, you're not bringing it ever closer to -10xHP. You're doing nothing at all.
So, obviously a puzzle.
What's the solution?
How complex is the puzzle?
From the GM's side of the screen, a puzzle can look very simple. But from the player's side, it can see terribly complex. If it seems complex from the GM's side of the screen, odds are it's going to seem (and be) unsolvable by the PCs. They're dealing with a limited set of information at best, different understandings of the words your using, a different perception of the situation, and your puzzle.
In C2 Ghost Tower of Inverness, The simple chessboard puzzle in the dungeon was also a big complexity for them, even though - once they got started - the solution wasn't complicated. But it was easy to see it as more than it presented. It was all too easy to see more issues where fewer actually existed. The rotating statues puzzle was simple at heart, but still required a lot of clues to solve it - and a lot of freedom of movement about the dungeon.
Is it even a puzzle?
Still, it's easy for the players to take bits of one puzzle or riddle and assume it's connected to another. You also get non-puzzles that are seen as puzzles - perhaps our Gamma Terra GM andi will tell the tale of the eight statues and the eight vials of holy water in the comments. One from our games was the beaded curtain in C2 Ghost Tower of Inverness, where the PCs spent an extremely long time dealing with something that was just a simple obstacle - to be either forced or removed via Dispel Magic.
Knowing is Half the Puzzle
With those two things in mind, I know I need to keep solutions simple and relatively obvious - or, at least, hinted at three or more times. The more, the better. I'm likely to keep it a little vague, maybe too vague, but throw a lot of them out. Even armed with all of them, the players won't always figure it out. That's okay, but without them I'm assuring myself that they can't. That's not fun for anyone.
So, obviously a puzzle.
What's the solution?
How complex is the puzzle?
From the GM's side of the screen, a puzzle can look very simple. But from the player's side, it can see terribly complex. If it seems complex from the GM's side of the screen, odds are it's going to seem (and be) unsolvable by the PCs. They're dealing with a limited set of information at best, different understandings of the words your using, a different perception of the situation, and your puzzle.
In C2 Ghost Tower of Inverness, The simple chessboard puzzle in the dungeon was also a big complexity for them, even though - once they got started - the solution wasn't complicated. But it was easy to see it as more than it presented. It was all too easy to see more issues where fewer actually existed. The rotating statues puzzle was simple at heart, but still required a lot of clues to solve it - and a lot of freedom of movement about the dungeon.
Is it even a puzzle?
Still, it's easy for the players to take bits of one puzzle or riddle and assume it's connected to another. You also get non-puzzles that are seen as puzzles - perhaps our Gamma Terra GM andi will tell the tale of the eight statues and the eight vials of holy water in the comments. One from our games was the beaded curtain in C2 Ghost Tower of Inverness, where the PCs spent an extremely long time dealing with something that was just a simple obstacle - to be either forced or removed via Dispel Magic.
Knowing is Half the Puzzle
With those two things in mind, I know I need to keep solutions simple and relatively obvious - or, at least, hinted at three or more times. The more, the better. I'm likely to keep it a little vague, maybe too vague, but throw a lot of them out. Even armed with all of them, the players won't always figure it out. That's okay, but without them I'm assuring myself that they can't. That's not fun for anyone.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Puzzles - Players & Characters
So Beedo wrote a nice post about puzzles in his Mad God megadungeon.
I got to thinking about how puzzles fit into a game. Beedo's posts are generally like that. I figured I need to keep something in mind when I put in puzzles - just like when I put in traps, monsters, etc. It's a continuum between two extremes - purely player-centered and purely character-centered.
On one end of the spectrum, a puzzle is purely player centered. A player-centered puzzle is one that depends on the knowledge of the players. Chess match puzzles that depend on the players knowing chess moves are like this. Factual puzzles (like the golem number puzzle in S2 White Plume Mountain), logic puzzles, riddles, jokes missing punchlines - all of those things generally purely test the player, not the characters. It doesn't matter if your wizard is a genius if you don't know how to recognize the mathematical progression pattern in that door combo, or whatever.
On the far end of the spectrum is the character-centered puzzle. A character-centered puzzle is pretty much like any other skill check, combat "to hit" roll, damage roll, etc. - do you roll well enough to accomplish your goal of getting past it? You roll the dice, you compare your IQ to the Mind Flayers' puzzle box's required IQ score, whatever. No amount of player skill impacts the results any more than player skill impacts how that d6 lands when you roll damage - discounting cheating, of course.
Of course, you can mix these anywhere along the spectrum. You can place a minimum required character aspect, or require a character-based roll, in order to solve a problem that is otherwise player-knowledge required. The players might need to figure out what to do, but their characters must execute in-game tasks successfully to manage it. (Actually, that also describes combat in almost every game I've played.) Or you can have a puzzle that only needs to be identified as such before a character roll solves the whole thing.
Let's try a few examples.
Purely Player Knowledge: A statue-moving puzzle. Put the statues in alphabetical order by name, and a magic door opens. No character ability matters.
Mainly Player Knowledge: A statue that utters a complex math puzzle, which requires the players to do the math to succeed. However, the statue only speaks to those with a minimum level of Magery and/or Thaumatology skill (or minim levels in Magic-User, say). Others are just not worthy of the challenge, and the statue will ignore their words even if they speak the answer.
Minimal Player Knowledge: A chasm blocks your way and has a magical gust of wind that blows when you try to cross it. Player knowledge can identify the problem and the solution, but character skills such as Climbing skill or a Dispel Magic spell are needed to resolve it.
Pure Character Skill: A magic door will only open when a complex magical puzzle lock is opened. All it takes is an IQ-based lockpicking roll to open it.
There are plenty of wayposts on the continuum, from either direction. But I think it's worth remembering that pretty much all game systems abstract some things to player ability, and some to character ability. Puzzles are just another aspect of it. You need to consider when you put it down if it's primarily a character challenge or a player challenge.
Of course, remember that players treat puzzles the way Alexander treated the Gordian Knot - they might find an option you weren't expecting . . .
I got to thinking about how puzzles fit into a game. Beedo's posts are generally like that. I figured I need to keep something in mind when I put in puzzles - just like when I put in traps, monsters, etc. It's a continuum between two extremes - purely player-centered and purely character-centered.
On one end of the spectrum, a puzzle is purely player centered. A player-centered puzzle is one that depends on the knowledge of the players. Chess match puzzles that depend on the players knowing chess moves are like this. Factual puzzles (like the golem number puzzle in S2 White Plume Mountain), logic puzzles, riddles, jokes missing punchlines - all of those things generally purely test the player, not the characters. It doesn't matter if your wizard is a genius if you don't know how to recognize the mathematical progression pattern in that door combo, or whatever.
On the far end of the spectrum is the character-centered puzzle. A character-centered puzzle is pretty much like any other skill check, combat "to hit" roll, damage roll, etc. - do you roll well enough to accomplish your goal of getting past it? You roll the dice, you compare your IQ to the Mind Flayers' puzzle box's required IQ score, whatever. No amount of player skill impacts the results any more than player skill impacts how that d6 lands when you roll damage - discounting cheating, of course.
Of course, you can mix these anywhere along the spectrum. You can place a minimum required character aspect, or require a character-based roll, in order to solve a problem that is otherwise player-knowledge required. The players might need to figure out what to do, but their characters must execute in-game tasks successfully to manage it. (Actually, that also describes combat in almost every game I've played.) Or you can have a puzzle that only needs to be identified as such before a character roll solves the whole thing.
Let's try a few examples.
Purely Player Knowledge: A statue-moving puzzle. Put the statues in alphabetical order by name, and a magic door opens. No character ability matters.
Mainly Player Knowledge: A statue that utters a complex math puzzle, which requires the players to do the math to succeed. However, the statue only speaks to those with a minimum level of Magery and/or Thaumatology skill (or minim levels in Magic-User, say). Others are just not worthy of the challenge, and the statue will ignore their words even if they speak the answer.
Minimal Player Knowledge: A chasm blocks your way and has a magical gust of wind that blows when you try to cross it. Player knowledge can identify the problem and the solution, but character skills such as Climbing skill or a Dispel Magic spell are needed to resolve it.
Pure Character Skill: A magic door will only open when a complex magical puzzle lock is opened. All it takes is an IQ-based lockpicking roll to open it.
There are plenty of wayposts on the continuum, from either direction. But I think it's worth remembering that pretty much all game systems abstract some things to player ability, and some to character ability. Puzzles are just another aspect of it. You need to consider when you put it down if it's primarily a character challenge or a player challenge.
Of course, remember that players treat puzzles the way Alexander treated the Gordian Knot - they might find an option you weren't expecting . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
