PDA

View Full Version : They just don't get it.



Ahab
2009-07-22, 03:50 PM
A few of the players in my group have a habit of being rather slow with the problems they face in my game. I find that alot of the time when I hand them a challenge that requires thinking outside the box, I end up having to basically hold their hands or else they will get nowhere.

For example, I'm using a published adventure by Goodman Games, in which they found a large circlet that had a riddle engraved into it.

"Prince and pauper, King and knave, equals in his wake."

COME ON! It's death!
It took them five minutes to even realize it was a riddle they had to answer, let alone solve it which took alot longer.

What should I do? Is dumbing down the challenges the answer?

Darcand
2009-07-22, 03:52 PM
Yes it is.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-22, 03:52 PM
Stab them from Hell's heart?

I guess if your players aren't good at riddles, you shouldn't really throw them out too often.

kamikasei
2009-07-22, 03:54 PM
Or warn them that "hey, the game will contain riddles and puzzles and suchlike - don't take everything at face value". While as a riddle the one you mention is pretty obvious, I could easily see myself completely overlooking the possibility that it's a riddle at all if I thought it was just a random flavourful description on a magic item (that said, I imagine there were other hints in the module that it had deeper significance).

Seatbelt
2009-07-22, 03:59 PM
I once played a session where the DM was messing with us. He described the room in good detail, as well as a device in the center with some elemental attributes, and a door. When we performed an action, we got zapped for a D4 of damage. It took us 45 minutes before we realized nobody had tried the door, which was unlocked.


Sometimes players are dumb. If they are dumb a lot, don't make them think. My job involves thinking, my classes involve thinking. I D&D in my free time and sometimes the only puzzle I want to solve is to how best kill everything in the room as fast as possible. If your pllayers aren't good with puzzles, don't use them.

Ahab
2009-07-22, 04:01 PM
It really isn't just riddles either. They snuck into a fortress, skipped all of the Lieutenants' rooms and attacked the Big Bad head on. Then, they were SHOCKED that the other enemies heard the fighting and came after them, creating a battle that was nearly impossible to win.

The players believed they had to cross a rope bridge (think Indiana Jones) to get to a fortress. They learned earlier on that there were Lizardfolk waiting on the other side to ambush anyone who tried to cross the bridge. Guess what they did? Ran onto it (even after the rogue spotted the lizardfolk waiting on the other side) and fell into a bog because the monsters cut it out from under them.

I hate constantly having to remind them to pay attention and THINK about what they are doing. They seem to have a problem realizing that it isn't a video game with cheap AIs, they are playing in a living world where enemies don't wait for you to hit them.

archon_huskie
2009-07-22, 04:35 PM
I had a player who was convinced that there was treasure on the second floor of an abandoned ruin. Seriously if it was both abandoned and ruined, why would there be treasure up there? but he made a successful climb check and managed to climb up and have a look around. I decscribed the area as empty and the ceiling ready to collapse. He read this as hurry up to the third floor before the treasure is destoryed by falling damage. He was treating this as a video game, so I decided treat it as one too.

"Congratulations! You have managed to go off of the map! You have unlocked a secret ending to this game. The credits will now be read to you in an Irish accent!" We were using a published adventure, so I read the credits from that!

In his defense, he was not used to a DM giving flavor text, so he assumed that if I described something, it must be important. He didn't know that I had read this article http://www.giantitp.com/articles/YUMiX2JPVjHIJ6h5VlD.html

Choco
2009-07-22, 04:57 PM
It really isn't just riddles either. They snuck into a fortress, skipped all of the Lieutenants' rooms and attacked the Big Bad head on. Then, they were SHOCKED that the other enemies heard the fighting and came after them, creating a battle that was nearly impossible to win.

The players believed they had to cross a rope bridge (think Indiana Jones) to get to a fortress. They learned earlier on that there were Lizardfolk waiting on the other side to ambush anyone who tried to cross the bridge. Guess what they did? Ran onto it (even after the rogue spotted the lizardfolk waiting on the other side) and fell into a bog because the monsters cut it out from under them.

I hate constantly having to remind them to pay attention and THINK about what they are doing. They seem to have a problem realizing that it isn't a video game with cheap AIs, they are playing in a living world where enemies don't wait for you to hit them.

I feel your pain dude. If I EVER threw a "puzzle monster" like a hydra at my players, they would be toasted real quick. They only think during combat, and even then the extent of their thinking caps out at "melee guys move in and block the enemy(ies) while the ranged fighters nuke/pelt them!"

On the topic of riddles and non combat puzzles, I don't do them AT ALL anymore. I have 2 players that are of the "lets clear everything out before moving on" variety, and once in a previous game (I was a player this time) the DM gave us an optional puzzle. Those 2 spent an entire session trying to solve the puzzle when it was OBVIOUS we didn't have all the info we needed. So yeah, while they wasted a session the rest of us were bored out of our skulls and wanted to move on, which resulted in party split. The DM got so fed up he never again gave another puzzle of any kind, and I am sure as hell not gonna break that tradition :smalltongue:

Instead, I give "challenges". For example, the players are fighting at the edge of a cliff against overwhelming odds. They can fight conventionally (like they usually do..) and barely squeeze out a victory. OR they can overpower their much weaker (STR wise) enemies and throw/bull rush them off of the cliff one at a time. Much easier. Then all they gotta do is climb/fly down to loot the bodies, nothing is lost. Most of the players don't like thinking, so they just fight the only way they know how, but sometimes 1-2 of them will get an idea and actually conquer my challenge.

kjones
2009-07-22, 04:57 PM
It really isn't just riddles either. They snuck into a fortress, skipped all of the Lieutenants' rooms and attacked the Big Bad head on. Then, they were SHOCKED that the other enemies heard the fighting and came after them, creating a battle that was nearly impossible to win.

The players believed they had to cross a rope bridge (think Indiana Jones) to get to a fortress. They learned earlier on that there were Lizardfolk waiting on the other side to ambush anyone who tried to cross the bridge. Guess what they did? Ran onto it (even after the rogue spotted the lizardfolk waiting on the other side) and fell into a bog because the monsters cut it out from under them.

I hate constantly having to remind them to pay attention and THINK about what they are doing. They seem to have a problem realizing that it isn't a video game with cheap AIs, they are playing in a living world where enemies don't wait for you to hit them.

The lizardman bridge crossing is a good example to work from here. Keep teaching them that not thinking their actions through will have consequences, potentially lethal ones.

Other than that, I don't see what the problem is. I'd be cackling with glee if my players kept giving me that much rope with which to hang them.

DragoonWraith
2009-07-22, 05:03 PM
I've heard a riddle very similar to the one in the OP, but the answer was "Love", not "Death". There was a bit more in that one to rule out death as a valid answer, but I think Love could have easily been the correct answer to that riddle.

Of course, it does mostly just sound like flavor text without making it clear that it is a riddle to be answered. Making it a question might have helped.

On the subject of describing things: make sure that you get into this early, otherwise when you describe things that you have to describe, it will tip your hand.

Hehe, also, don't forget the classic of making them roll for no real reason. Keeps them on their toes. They open a door "Roll for Spot checks. OK, you see nothing special" will have them seriously freaking out.

PLUN
2009-07-22, 05:08 PM
"Prince and pauper, King and knave, equals in his wake."

COME ON! It's de

Oh no you don't, I got this one. It's a communist, right?

Mr.Moron
2009-07-22, 05:12 PM
It could also be a chair. After all, sitting is the great leveler. From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?

Skorj
2009-07-22, 05:15 PM
I have a little experience with writing convention tournament games, where you find out real fast what challenges are game breakers for a wide variety of player. For whatever that experience may be worth:

Never riddles: many players don't enjoy riddles at all, and they're usually "you get it or you don't" puzzles, so there's no way to hint without giving it away. For that matter, avoid any sort of "mini-game" puzzle that moves the challenge from the character to the player (shouldn't a riddle be an INT roll?).
Practical problem traps are fine (cross the river of lava), as long as it's obvious what the challenge is, and all the objects needed to solve the puzzle can be found nearby. Hinting works for those. (These are surprisingly hard to come up with, BTW.)
Tactical challenges are fine (rope brige example above). But if your party just sucks at it, you need to add an NPC who will give tactical advice.
Diplomacy challenges are fine, but if every single PC used CHA as a dump stat (or the Sorc "doesn't RP"), you need to add an NPC who will mediate the diplomacy stuff.


In short: the very experienced DMs I've gamed with have always had a set of party-level NPCs/DMPCs that accompanied the party, just to help the party past places where the game would become boring for the players who were there that day. Don't think the adventuring party needs to be PCs only, add DMPCs as needed (just rememeber, no one likes to hear stories about how the DMPC solved the problem, so fast-forward through that stuff).

Yakk
2009-07-22, 05:29 PM
First, don't expect your players to read your mind. That riddle, for example, has a myriad of possible solutions -- most riddles do.

Second, writing riddles is far far far far easier than solving them. Expect failure. Plan your adventure around failure.

Most importantly, don't block the adventure around solving a particular riddle. Watching, in fast-forward, Gandalf stand in front of a door puzzled by the riddle is mediocre -- having to wait while you work out the riddle is boring.

Throw riddles at the party. Expect them not to get the riddle. Have an enjoyable adventure even if they never get it. If they do get it, have a reward: ideally a plot-based reward, rather than XP or in-game treasure.

It really isn't just riddles either. They snuck into a fortress, skipped all of the Lieutenants' rooms and attacked the Big Bad head on. Then, they were SHOCKED that the other enemies heard the fighting and came after them, creating a battle that was nearly impossible to win.If attacking a fortress from the inside (the location least defended from) resulted in an impossible fight, then a conventional attack definitely wouldn't be.

...

Instead of punishing for lack of creativity, reward creativity. Leave flaws in the plans of opponents. Have attempts to exploit flaws in PCs plans sometimes go awry. If players do something you didn't anticipate, do not say "well, the bad guys would have thought of that, and would have come up with counter X" -- if the players do anything you don't expect, have the bad guys be unprepared for that action.

I mean, cutting a rope bridge? Those are hell to replace. You need to send a party over to the other side the 'long' way, shoot a thin strong rope/wire to the other side (which can be quite hard, if the chasm is long), then slowly work your way up to more substantial ropes, basically. And then you need to add more ropes, and more ...

It is a serious project.

Cutting such a bridge should be an act of last resort, or done by someone who doesn't need the bridge anymore. If cutting the bridge is a serious option, having guards waiting to cut it is less effective than just not having the bridge there.

Given those assumptions, why would the Lizards burn the bridge? Why not just kill the small band of attackers from an ambush -- or even as they are crossing it?

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-22, 05:51 PM
It really isn't just riddles either. They snuck into a fortress, skipped all of the Lieutenants' rooms and attacked the Big Bad head on. Then, they were SHOCKED that the other enemies heard the fighting and came after them, creating a battle that was nearly impossible to win.

The players believed they had to cross a rope bridge (think Indiana Jones) to get to a fortress. They learned earlier on that there were Lizardfolk waiting on the other side to ambush anyone who tried to cross the bridge. Guess what they did? Ran onto it (even after the rogue spotted the lizardfolk waiting on the other side) and fell into a bog because the monsters cut it out from under them.

I hate constantly having to remind them to pay attention and THINK about what they are doing. They seem to have a problem realizing that it isn't a video game with cheap AIs, they are playing in a living world where enemies don't wait for you to hit them.

Fortress full of evil guys, eh? And they "snuck" in, and then their first idea was blowing their cover??

Hm. Let's see...fortress I can sneak in, no mention of a nearby river, probably using a well for water...presumably evil opponents.

Sounds like it's a-poisonin'-time, to me.

Of course, I typically play Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Good, and Lawful Evil characters who are either Rogues or Druids, so I'm generally used to having access to poison and an alignment where it wouldn't be appaling to use it. Not to mention the concept of a "fair fight" only enters my head on the rare occasions I play a Paladin, or a character pretending to be one. Especially if the group's outnumbered - the less fights I'm in where the enemy ever actually sees my face, the better.

Choco
2009-07-22, 06:20 PM
I have a little experience with writing convention tournament games, where you find out real fast what challenges are game breakers for a wide variety of player. For whatever that experience may be worth:

Never riddles: many players don't enjoy riddles at all, and they're usually "you get it or you don't" puzzles, so there's no way to hint without giving it away. For that matter, avoid any sort of "mini-game" puzzle that moves the challenge from the character to the player (shouldn't a riddle be an INT roll?).
Practical problem traps are fine (cross the river of lava), as long as it's obvious what the challenge is, and all the objects needed to solve the puzzle can be found nearby. Hinting works for those. (These are surprisingly hard to come up with, BTW.)
Tactical challenges are fine (rope brige example above). But if your party just sucks at it, you need to add an NPC who will give tactical advice.
Diplomacy challenges are fine, but if every single PC used CHA as a dump stat (or the Sorc "doesn't RP"), you need to add an NPC who will mediate the diplomacy stuff.


In short: the very experienced DMs I've gamed with have always had a set of party-level NPCs/DMPCs that accompanied the party, just to help the party past places where the game would become boring for the players who were there that day. Don't think the adventuring party needs to be PCs only, add DMPCs as needed (just rememeber, no one likes to hear stories about how the DMPC solved the problem, so fast-forward through that stuff).

I second this.

Contrary to what a lot of people on this forum say, DMPC's are a great tool. Just as long as you remember they are just a tool, as much the PC's tool as yours, and tools should never steal their wielder's glory. In the game I am currently DM'ing, no one wanted to be the healbot, so they got a healbot DMPC. Healing is all he does, except for his occasional Yoda-esque advice. The closest he ever gets to stealing glory is when he risks himself to run up to and heal a downed PC.

Skorj
2009-07-22, 06:26 PM
I second this.

Contrary to what a lot of people on this forum say, DMPC's are a great tool. Just as long as you remember they are just a tool, as much the PC's tool as yours, and tools should never steal their wielder's glory.

Also, DMPCs can be actual tools. Speaking/telepathic magic weapons are a great approach to giving tactical advice for a limited number of levels. :smallamused: A speaking magical weapon that the enemy can also hear dispensing tactical advice is just no end of entertainment.

Devils_Advocate
2009-07-22, 06:34 PM
A sardonic talking sword may well be the next best sidekick after an angry pixie with a Napoleon complex. Or maybe it's just me.

Riddles are often used to ensure that Only Smart People May Pass (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.OnlySmartPeopleMayPass), which is generally as implausible as it is cliched. The vast majority of the time, the person designing a security system will want to keep everyone except for a select group of people out. If you want to do that, you ask a question that only members of that group know the answer to. (Maybe you even create such a question for precisely this purpose; i.e. you establish a password.)

Admittedly, in some cases, someone really might want to keep out everyone but good riddle solvers. For example, maybe a great sage got sick of dolts pestering him, so he stuck in a bozo filter (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bozo%20filter) to block them. But that sort of scenario is the exception to the rule. In such cases, you might consider allowing the characters Wisdom checks to come up with the right answer. (Most people would say that solving riddles is Int-based, but I'm smart and I suck at riddles, so that can't be right. Unless I'm just untrained in the relevant skill. Or under a big circumstance penalty for thinking differently from most people.)

More generally, if your group sucks at puzzle-solving, it might be best not to deliberately set up puzzles that they need to solve.

But there's a difference between not setting up puzzles and making every problem solvable by confronting it head-on. For example, it's perfectly reasonable for the enemy to set up an ambush, and there's nothing unfair about it if the players find out about it ahead of time. So feel free to explain to the players why doing something (e.g. walking right into an ambush) might be considered a bad idea if their characters have the common sense that they lack.

It might be best to only use challenges that are much easier if approached sensibly, but still survivable if engaged poorly. But it sounds like that's what you've been doing so far, so you probably don't need to make any changes in that regard.


It took them five minutes to even realize it was a riddle they had to answer, let alone solve it which took alot longer.
Well, it doesn't look like a riddle -- it's not a question -- and the answer is only obvious in retrospect.

Requiring outside-the-box thinking is one thing. But if there's exactly one specific place outside the box that the players need to go, that means that the action pauses while the players sit there thinking and then do a lot of trial and error because they can't read the adventure designer's mind.

It's worst when the One True Solution is arbitrarily the only one that's allowed to work. ("No, the door is made of impervium. Um, so are the walls.") That's a hallmark of railroading. (Not that this is applicable to you. I'm guessing that you'd be thrilled if your players went anywhere outside the box.)

Avor
2009-07-22, 06:59 PM
A few of the players in my group have a habit of being rather slow with the problems they face in my game. I find that alot of the time when I hand them a challenge that requires thinking outside the box, I end up having to basically hold their hands or else they will get nowhere.

For example, I'm using a published adventure by Goodman Games, in which they found a large circlet that had a riddle engraved into it.

"Prince and pauper, King and knave, equals in his wake."

COME ON! It's death!
It took them five minutes to even realize it was a riddle they had to answer, let alone solve it which took alot longer.

What should I do? Is dumbing down the challenges the answer?

Some people just pick on the wrong things depending on exprtince. I for example have played in to games with a giant sea monsterm. So my focus would be on the word wake, and get the hell away from the sea.

Korivan
2009-07-22, 07:02 PM
I've had a lot of experience with this kind of problem. Really, it all boils down to the type of players you have. I too can't send too many riddles, and when I do use them, I have to scale back thier difficulty. The last time I used one, it went along something like this. I gave them a chime of opening because they had no rogue. When I wanted them to use it, I gave an inscription on the locked door about chimes and clocks, time and a bunch of other stuff...still took them 10-minutes or so. So basically some solutions...

1. DMPC like others suggested, but becareful not to let them outshine the characters. NPC Experts have plenty of skills and points so that they make excellent non-combat advisors.
2. Like the story above, give them the keys to solve the puzzles soon before the riddle.
3. Simply bite your tounge, and live with the fact that you can't send everything youd like to at them. Some groups don't go for the Myst style play.

Hawriel
2009-07-22, 08:31 PM
For example, I'm using a published adventure by Goodman Games, in which they found a large circlet that had a riddle engraved into it.

"Prince and pauper, King and knave, equals in his wake."


This is a good adventure. I ran it as apart of the dragon cult campaign box set by Goodmen. They make great adventures. I loved burning the party with boiling fish oil. :smallamused: What I liked best was how the party tried to carry that big golded hoola hoop around a swamp with them.

IF this is what your doing I have a worning. The third instalment Sunless Garden fell very flat for my game. It was a nice idea on its own. I and my group felt that it didnt fit with the over all theme of the campaign.

Most puzzles in Goodmen Games can be bypassed. However they are not sphinx riddles eather. If they can not work it out on their own or even with a small hint from you then tuff luck. Dont bail them out of it. Besides all the riddles in this adventure are not plot dependant. So there is no harm in failer here.

Lamech
2009-07-22, 09:28 PM
I feel riddles are just a little contrived in a lot of cases. If I'm a BBEG why would I give hints to my password? In fact the "answer" to the "riddle" would probably trip what ever trap I set.

PC: Death
DM: Yes. Death. You get hit by a wail of the banshee trap. Every one roll fort.
PC: What thats not right?
DM: Yeah, it is it trips the trap, the word for the door is asa4kj1s5ldfl5re
PC: asak...

I can see an intelligence test by some wise sage or on an exam of some sort, but unless the PC's are being tested riddles should have big red riddle flags.

holywhippet
2009-07-22, 09:46 PM
In one adventure our DM had a Sudoku type puzzle as a door lock. He pulled out a sheet with the filled in squares then began trying to find the tiled bits of paper that could be placed on it. One of the other players saw the paper said "Ooh, sudoku like puzzle" and had drawn in the correct tiles before the DM managed to find his paper squares. I think it was only 4X4 or 5X5 but it was still a pretty fast effort.

bosssmiley
2009-07-23, 04:53 AM
In one adventure our DM had a Sudoku type puzzle as a door lock. He pulled out a sheet with the filled in squares then began trying to find the tiled bits of paper that could be placed on it. One of the other players saw the paper said "Ooh, sudoku like puzzle" and had drawn in the correct tiles before the DM managed to find his paper squares. I think it was only 4X4 or 5X5 but it was still a pretty fast effort.

Physical puzzles instead of riddles are always good fun for the DM. Nothing like throwing out an actual nail-and-wire puzzle or a puzzle box when the Rogue picks up their dice to pick lock or disable device. It gets especially funny if there's a time restriction on it. :smallbiggrin:

Riddles? Nah, I hate puns and verbal obscurantism. Anything that needs a big glowing clue icon over it can get tae fek.

Kzickas
2009-07-23, 05:16 AM
If I saw the riddle in the OP in a game I would probably assume it was the legend of some CG adventurer

pasko77
2009-07-23, 05:30 AM
I once put a Chess trap. None of my players could play chess at the time, they barely knew how pieces move (but i didn't know it!).

So i let them cheat, moving the pieces while one of them chatted with me... metagaming at its best, they were *distracting* the trap... it was so funny that i let them pass the test.

You should always have a backup solution if the players are unable to solve the problem in the standard way.

MickJay
2009-07-23, 05:34 AM
Other things that make people equal include nakedness, lavatories, and possibly bath-houses (where people are naked, too). "In its wake" part does limit the viability of these answers, though.

Random832
2009-07-23, 05:38 AM
Physical puzzles instead of riddles are always good fun for the DM. Nothing like throwing out an actual nail-and-wire puzzle or a puzzle box when the Rogue picks up their dice to pick lock or disable device. It gets especially funny if there's a time restriction on it. :smallbiggrin:

If I wanted to do that, I'd LARP. Same for the requirement some DMs supposedly have to actually talk out diplomacy scenes no matter how high your character's Charisma/Diplomacy/Bluff/etc are and how high yours aren't.

BobVosh
2009-07-23, 05:43 AM
Other things that make people equal include nakedness, lavatories, and possibly bath-houses (where people are naked, too). "In its wake" part does limit the viability of these answers, though.

Actually it is "in his wake" so it only something that is generally ascribed to being male. So most chairs, lavatories, love, and other inanimated objects won't work.

Swordguy
2009-07-23, 05:56 AM
RPG are an active form of entertainment. They require active input on the part of the players to function. Thusly, forcing the players to actually think is part of what an RPG is all about. If you don't want to think, enjoy a passive form of entertainment; go watch TV, or read a book, or play a computer game, or do anything else but an RPG.

Now, don't get me wrong, the DM should be very clear that their game WILL involve things that test the players, as well as the characters - that gives both dumb players and lazy players a chance to get out while the getting's good. Likewise, a riddle should never be a single point of failure in an adventure - that's bad game design. But to bite your tongue and not include them at all?

What astounds me is that many RPGs challenge players to be smarter - and players oppose this kicking and screaming. Why wouldn't you want to improve yourself? If you're not smart enough to figure out the riddle, why wouldn't you want to improve yourself until you can? I seriously cannot understand this mindset. Why stop trying to improve yourself just because you're playing a game? As kids, that's what games are for. My god - has American anti-intellectualism ("school/learning/being smart is bad, m'kay?") gone so far that it's actually invaded RPGs - long held to be the province of smart people specifically?

:smalleek:

huttj509
2009-07-23, 05:56 AM
Sort of reiterating/emphasizing what some said before:

A riddle/puzzle/etc. should never be the ONLY way to continue the plot/dungeon/gameplay.

If it's obviously a puzzle, this can lead to 1 or 2 players working on it while the others feel left out. If it's too easy, it can leave the players possibly feeling a bit cheated, if it's too hard, it stops gameplay dead.

If it's not obviously a puzzle, it may be missed/ignored. If it's supposed to be critical to progress, well it may have even been sold/discarded. What do they do now?

Now, you can have a puzzle in a dungeon for a side area, perhaps non-critical, but it has more treasure. You can also have the "puzzle" of figuring out ahead of time that the ambassador you're working for is really the big bad, giving you a chance to avoid giving him the macguffin. In both those situations, if the puzzle is missed/not solved, the party can still continue exploring, or now deal with a superpowered big bad who they need to try to foil from within the prison, rather than the only option being "we turn around and leave the dungeon, where should we go now?"

Note that pre-published adventures can be horrible at this sort of thing. I played in one once that first of all had a magical barrier right near the beginning of the crypt, completely blocking the path, that needed to be removed by dispel magic. What's that? We started at level 4? Too bad. In addition, the barrier contained a clue for a future room puzzle, which we spent way too long trying to use as a clue to get past the freaking wall in our way (and the clue could only be seen by good characters, too). The future puzzle wasn't too bad, matching pictures to the lines of the poem, but it ended up being 2 of us working out while the other 2 just sat there.

Heck, look at how much of a block "Speak, friend, and enter" was in a certain well known piece of literature. In a book the author can have the characters sit around until someone stumbles across the answer, in a DnD game, it gets old really quick.

Edit: Dang, thought I read 90% of the thread earlier today, read the last chunk, and thought my post covered/collected some decently new ground. Turns out I missed a large # of posts in the middle of the thread saying almost exactly what I said. I failed my "read the entire thread" skillcheck...

Saph
2009-07-23, 06:00 AM
I feel riddles are just a little contrived in a lot of cases. If I'm a BBEG why would I give hints to my password? In fact the "answer" to the "riddle" would probably trip what ever trap I set.

I've played a dungeon like this.

After a great deal of effort, you find the hidden keyhole within the sealed room, and you spot a key that might fit. You fight your way past the obstacles keeping you away from the key, put the key in the lock, find that it fits, turn it, and . . . the room blows up.

(What, you think the BBEG's running some sort of charity organisation here? He didn't put that stuff there to help you.)

- Saph

kamikasei
2009-07-23, 06:15 AM
What astounds me is that many RPGs challenge players to be smarter - and players oppose this kicking and screaming. Why wouldn't you want to improve yourself? If you're not smart enough to figure out the riddle, why wouldn't you want to improve yourself until you can?

Playing Devil's Advocate, I would suggest that a lot of the bad reaction riddles might receive in a game is that many riddles and "lateral thinking"-type puzzles are not exercises in intelligence, but in trying to replicate the thought process of some random riddle-writer with insufficient information. It's less "gasp, an intellectual challenge! I don't want to exercise my mind, let's flee!" and more "ugh, it's no fun trying to guess which of fifty possible reasonable answers the module author had in mind, while the smug git with the answer in front of him looks at us with pity".

A rant (http://qntm.org/?lateral) on a related topic.

Haarkla
2009-07-23, 06:19 AM
avoid any sort of "mini-game" puzzle that moves the challenge from the character to the player (shouldn't a riddle be an INT roll?).



Random832: If I wanted to do that, I'd LARP. Same for the requirement some DMs supposedly have to actually talk out diplomacy scenes no matter how high your character's Charisma/Diplomacy/Bluff/etc are and how high yours aren't.
I disagree.
I much prefer intellectual challenges and roleplaying to continuous combat.
I have a high INT and like to play high INT characters.

MickJay
2009-07-23, 07:05 AM
Actually it is "in his wake" so it only something that is generally ascribed to being male. So most chairs, lavatories, love, and other inanimated objects won't work.

Well, Death is usually referred to as "it", or, more traditionally, "she". "He", when referring to Death, was pretty much popularised by Terry Pratchett. Typically, riddles of this kind end with "what am I?", to make it clear that the sentence is a riddle. Also, did the circlet have the power to actually kill people?

The Rose Dragon
2009-07-23, 07:07 AM
Well, Death is usually referred to as "it", or, more traditionally, "she".

Except when you're talking about the Angels of Death or the Grim Reaper. They're all referred to as he.

pasko77
2009-07-23, 07:18 AM
Except when you're talking about the Angels of Death or the Grim Reaper. They're all referred to as he.

Depends on the culture.
The grim reaper, in Italian, is a she.

Random832
2009-07-23, 07:21 AM
I disagree.
I much prefer intellectual challenges and roleplaying to continuous combat.
I have a high INT and like to play high INT characters.

Counterargument: I have high Knowledge stats for identifying monsters and knowing their weaknesses [from reading rulebooks], should I be able to just use whatever I know as long as I put ranks in the appropriate skill for the creature type, without actually having to make checks?

Doesn't sound so good when it gives the player an advantage.

valadil
2009-07-23, 09:13 AM
Try giving them some easy riddles or puzzles. Get them used to that kind of game player. Make them feel confident that they can handle it and slowly warm up to the more challenging puzzles.

Personally I'm not a fan of riddles. Too often it's a matter of just getting the answer. There's nothing to work through. They also break immersion for me. I'd rather have a physical barrier to overcome with a variety of possible solutions.

Fitz10019
2009-07-23, 10:01 AM
Well, Death is usually referred to as "it", or, more traditionally, "she". "He", when referring to Death, was pretty much popularised by Terry Pratchett.

Wow, Terry Pratchett's publicist works the playground?

Seriously, I've never heard of 'death' gendered as 'she.' I wonder what examples you have?

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 10:09 AM
Playing Devil's Advocate, I would suggest that a lot of the bad reaction riddles might receive in a game is that many riddles and "lateral thinking"-type puzzles are not exercises in intelligence, but in trying to replicate the thought process of some random riddle-writer with insufficient information. It's less "gasp, an intellectual challenge! I don't want to exercise my mind, let's flee!" and more "ugh, it's no fun trying to guess which of fifty possible reasonable answers the module author had in mind, while the smug git with the answer in front of him looks at us with pity".

A rant (http://qntm.org/?lateral) on a related topic.

This this this. Most riddles in gaming are just an exercise in frustration and not actually solvable well.

Frankly, I think Dr. McNinja handled this one well:
The wrong, boring way to do a riddle - one with many potential right answers.
http://drmcninja.com/issue14/14p26.jpg

The right way.
http://drmcninja.com/issue14/14p27.jpg

I prefer to make my PCs think with investigations (which can be approached from a number of angles) rather than riddles (which are very hard to make in such a way that you can guarantee the party will have good reason to approach the question in the same angle that the riddle maker did.) Investigations are much more complex, but I keep cheat sheets for them to read with all information that could be important. (In an experienced group, I let them write the cheat sheet for themselves.)

Yakk
2009-07-23, 10:15 AM
In short:

You need to talk about what kind of game you will be running with your players before hand.

A game where you have to keep track of ammo?

A game where players being brash and heroic will get them killed?

A game where you would appreciate if they followed your plot hooks?

A game where the world is a sandbox, and they should pick and choose what hooks to follow?

A game where bad guys build riddles to find secret doors into their castle and don't guard them?

A game where if you attack the castle from the front, and fight room to room, you have a better chance of winning than if you sneak in and ambush the boss, because the castle will (in the first case) arrange itself to fight you in waves, and (in the second case) all jump you at once?

Steward
2009-07-23, 10:44 AM
It's less "gasp, an intellectual challenge! I don't want to exercise my mind, let's flee!" and more "ugh, it's no fun trying to guess which of fifty possible reasonable answers the module author had in mind, while the smug git with the answer in front of him looks at us with pity".

Exactly. And if you're not a telepath, just sitting there and guessing for fifteen or twenty minutes is kind of boring for many people. Especially when the DM doesn't know how to administer a Lateral Thinking Puzzle (hint: the riddler has to answer yes/no questions from the players. A good riddle is something that you can work out by asking questions and thinking, not just sitting there and making stuff up until the DM gets bored and lets you open the damn door).


A riddle/puzzle/etc. should never be the ONLY way to continue the plot/dungeon/gameplay.

In fact, I think that there should be at least two ways to continue the gameplay. There's nothing more incompetent than having a dungeon fail just because the players made a left instead of a right twenty sessions ago.

FoE
2009-07-23, 11:13 AM
I think you're being a bit too harsh on your players, OP. Take your enemy fortress, for example. If it makes sense that the Big Bad's lieutenants to rush in while the party is engaging said Big Bad, wouldn't it also work the other way? Why wouldn't the Big Bad rush in to help his lieutenants while the party is engaging them? Or are these special one-way doors where sound only comes through in one direction?

You shouldn't reward stupidity, but you also shouldn't punish innovation.

And why did it make sense for the lizard men to cut down the rope bridge? If they were willing to destroy the bridge, why did they leave it standing and then wait around for some idiots to cross it?

As for the riddle ... I only use them when the answer popped up earlier in the adventure, so the PCs have a chance of answering it. Also, they know it's a riddle.

MickJay
2009-07-23, 11:20 AM
Wow, Terry Pratchett's publicist works the playground?

Seriously, I've never heard of 'death' gendered as 'she.' I wonder what examples you have?

It's feminine noun in Latin, and from there it's feminine in majority of European languages derived from Latin; death is also feminine in Slavic languages. It's masculine in German, but it's more of an exception. In medieval period, when death was quite prominent in literary works and art, it was universally represented as, or referred to, as female. Even when death was shown as a fleshless skeleton, the proportions of the bones tended to be that of women rather than men.

mcv
2009-07-23, 11:44 AM
I think the most important lesson to remember here is that as a GM, you should never assume you know best what's logical, obvious or sensible. Quite a lot of GMs aren't really any smarter than their players. What seems obvious if you've read (or created, or improvised) the adventure, may not be all that obvious when you run into it as a player. But a lot of GMs are arrogant bastards on a power trip and unwilling to admit that they might be wrong.

As a GM, I love intricate plots, mysteries and puzzles, but as a player, I'm just as bad at solving them as the players who play in my games.

Sometimes you need to make important stuff really amazingly obvious.

Also, in the case of the rope bridge: how long was the bridge, and were the players aware of that? The fact that they ran onto the bridge (admittedly not too smart if it's a rope bridge), they may have thought they could cross it before any of the lizardmen could react. Make sure they understand such details.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-07-23, 12:01 PM
It really isn't just riddles either. They snuck into a fortress, skipped all of the Lieutenants' rooms and attacked the Big Bad head on. Then, they were SHOCKED that the other enemies heard the fighting and came after them, creating a battle that was nearly impossible to win.
To be fair, most D&D adventures involve enemies separated into small killable groups, who for one reason or another don't call for help when the PCs attack. So it isn't unreasonable for players to assume that the Big Bad is also containable, for one reason or another.

mcv
2009-07-23, 12:11 PM
To be fair, most D&D adventures involve enemies separated into small killable groups, who for one reason or another don't call for help when the PCs attack. So it isn't unreasonable for players to assume that the Big Bad is also containable, for one reason or another.
To be even more fair, the D&D system as well as most adventures are terribly unrealistic and implausible anyway. It's designed for fun and balance, not realism. So yes, keep the groups small and killable.

And if you do go for realism anyway, keep in mind that attacking a lieutenant is just as likely to attract attention. Going straight for the boss is not unreasonable if he's the only one you really need dead.

Random832
2009-07-23, 12:23 PM
Right - that story really smells more like "punishing sequence breaking" than "realism" - why wouldn't _anyone_ they attack call for help and result in an unwinnable fight.

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 12:26 PM
It's feminine noun in Latin, and from there it's feminine in majority of European languages derived from Latin; death is also feminine in Slavic languages. It's masculine in German, but it's more of an exception. In medieval period, when death was quite prominent in literary works and art, it was universally represented as, or referred to, as female. Even when death was shown as a fleshless skeleton, the proportions of the bones tended to be that of women rather than men.

I think it's a bit of a reach to extrapolate that as 'death is usually female' - I could name a lot of stuff with male death as well (mostly post-pagan religion in Europe and non-European religion outside of it), but that would start veering into Ooh! My Tralalala zone on this board. Suffice to say it has strong representation as both genders.


Right - that story really smells more like "punishing sequence breaking" than "realism" - why wouldn't _anyone_ they attack call for help and result in an unwinnable fight.

There's nothing wrong with realism in this regard anyway - not all games are predicated on giving the PCs a fair chance always - the wrong part is that he's holding it against his players, though to be fair we may not have the whole story here.

Random832
2009-07-23, 12:31 PM
There's nothing wrong with realism in this regard anyway

There is if he was going to let them fight the lieutenants one-by-one if they'd followed the rails.

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 12:35 PM
There is if he was going to let them fight the lieutenants one-by-one if they'd followed the rails.

Perhaps, but his plans might not have involved them jumping the BBEG at all in the fortress. It's hard to say since we don't have all the info.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-23, 12:37 PM
To the OP, as other's have said, you're maybe chasing the wrong whale. So here's my take on your specific examples.


For example, I'm using a published adventure by Goodman Games, in which they found a large circlet that had a riddle engraved into it.

"Prince and pauper, King and knave, equals in his wake."

Now some people like your players are just not good at puzzles. For those, you could change the incription so as to make it explicitly a riddle. For ex, "What makes the Prince and pauper, King and knave, equal in his wake?" If they still don't solve it, then I'm sure the adventure just made it more difficult for them to get from A to B. That's the choice they had as players.


They snuck into a fortress, skipped all of the Lieutenants' rooms and attacked the Big Bad head on. Then, they were SHOCKED that the other enemies heard the fighting and came after them, creating a battle that was nearly impossible to win.

Nearly? Did you fudge? That was a bad fudge since it didn't "teach" the right a lesson. If the numbers were in the favor as the DM in that situation, I would have gone for a Total Party Kapture.



The players believed they had to cross a rope bridge (think Indiana Jones) to get to a fortress. They learned earlier on that there were Lizardfolk waiting on the other side to ambush anyone who tried to cross the bridge. Guess what they did? Ran onto it (even after the rogue spotted the lizardfolk waiting on the other side) and fell into a bog because the monsters cut it out from under them.

Well in that one failure was covered in mud. In that case my suggestion is to...laugh at them.

If you want to play games that require more thinking then try talking to your players or find new players or adapt to your players playing style. But if you want "out of the box" thinking, you have to start with yourself.

Steward
2009-07-23, 12:38 PM
Basically, along with the books and the dice, every player should be accompanied by his or her attorney, a linguist, and a cultural historian. And if your DM starts messing with you about Wealth-by-Level, then you can introduce him to your Harvard-trained economist...


Right - that story really smells more like "punishing sequence breaking" than "realism" - why wouldn't _anyone_ they attack call for help and result in an unwinnable fight.

It depends on the situation. A small goblin encampment in a forest might not be able to call anyone else, but the guy in the dungeon whose minions they just narrowly eluded should be able to. Just because you avoid someone doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't think that was an unfair situation for the DM to spring on them since it's a perfectly natural reaction that any intelligent Big Bad would have come up with.

Random832
2009-07-23, 12:42 PM
Perhaps, but his plans might not have involved them jumping the BBEG at all in the fortress. It's hard to say since we don't have all the info.

So what? If it was reasonable for them to be able to attack the lieutenants (which we do know was his plan) without them calling overwhelming reinforcements, it's reasonable for them to be able to attack the BBEG the same way. "His plans" don't matter worth a **** unless he's (and he apparently is) the kind of DM who drops large rocks on anyone who goes off his railroad plot, which is a style some consider legitimate, i guess, but hardly relevant to this discussion, since the players certainly did nothing wrong, and if he didn't want them to fight the BBEG at all he should have just had him not actually be present.


It depends on the situation. A small goblin encampment in a forest might not be able to call anyone else, but the guy in the dungeon whose minions they just narrowly eluded should be able to.

Right, but he seems to have wanted them to fight those very same minions (well, lieutenants), and there's no legitimate reason their colleagues wouldn't come running at the sound of that fight just like they did for the one that actually happened, except for the fact that that's what the DM wanted the players to do and this isn't.

mcv
2009-07-23, 12:48 PM
It depends on the situation. A small goblin encampment in a forest might not be able to call anyone else, but the guy in the dungeon whose minions they just narrowly eluded should be able to. Just because you avoid someone doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't think that was an unfair situation for the DM to spring on them since it's a perfectly natural reaction that any intelligent Big Bad would have come up with.
Are you saying the lieutenants are not intelligent enough to call for help, and only the BBEG can do that?

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 12:50 PM
So what? If it was reasonable for them to be able to attack the lieutenants (which we do know was his plan) without them calling overwhelming reinforcements, it's reasonable for them to be able to attack the BBEG the same way. "His plans" don't matter worth a **** unless he's (and he apparently is) the kind of DM who drops large rocks on anyone who goes off his railroad plot, which is a style some consider legitimate, i guess, but hardly relevant to this discussion, since the players certainly did nothing wrong, and if he didn't want them to fight the BBEG at all he should have just had him not actually be present.

All very good points, but much as the best laid DM plans occasionally get thrown off by something unexpected from the PC, I've often found that criticizing a DM off of too little information often results in finding out the situation was more complex than initially presented. I'm reserved about being vitriolic in such a case.

Swordguy
2009-07-23, 01:07 PM
I hesitate to point out that having everybody jump on the people attacking the BBEG is correct, insofar as it deosn't work the other direction.

If the PCs attack a Lieutenant, and the LT calls for help, the BBEG doesn't round up everyone in the fortress and go charging to the rescue. He's the BBEG - he's got people for that. He summons another Lieutenant or a favored henchman or something, and says "go take care of that - report back to me in 20 minutes", and goes back to what he was doing. Being a leader means you don't have to do everything yourself. Delegate. The BBEG might not even care that one of his henchmen is under attack - if he's not strong enough to defend himself, he's not worth keeping around anyway.

It doesn't work the other way, though. If somebody jumps the BBEG, it's perfectly reasonable that everybody who hears the BBEG's cries/orders for assistance comes running. He's their leader. What happens if the BBEG wins and notices that they weren't there helping? He probably won't stop short of killing them for it. And this is assuming the BBEG's minions aren't mind-controlled or otherwise 100% subservient and literally have no choice in the matter. He's a leader, that's why he's the BBEG. People do stuff for their leaders even when the leader won't do stuff back for them.


In short, there a reason why genre conventions work in practice, even if they are "cliche". You kill the BBEG last for this exact reason - you've removed enough of his power base that, even if he does call for help, you can still get him. Going after him first exposes you to the full power of his Evil Organization, in which case you'll get what's coming to you for not adhering to the genre conventions.

Steward
2009-07-23, 01:11 PM
Are you saying the lieutenants are not intelligent enough to call for help, and only the BBEG can do that?

No, I'm saying that in the situation that the DM described, it was perfectly rational for any bad guy with henchmen to be able to call for help when they're in the same building. It's not the DM cheating; it's the NPC behaving like a living creature instead of a goon from a crappy video game. If you want to keep the bad guy from being near reinforcements, just make sure that the reinforcements are too far away to join combat.


Right, but he seems to have wanted them to fight those very same minions (well, lieutenants), and there's no legitimate reason their colleagues wouldn't come running at the sound of that fight just like they did for the one that actually happened, except for the fact that that's what the DM wanted the players to do and this isn't.

That's why you should design your dungeons so that what you need to happen is actually plausible. Make it so that the big bad guy is sitting in his throne room and there's a small annex to one side where his henchmen are chilling and playing cards. Then stick the lieutenants around in some far off place where there are only a few guards, so that combat can start before reinforcements arrive.

Grommen
2009-07-23, 01:14 PM
I was a player in the adventure with Hawriel. The material your commenting on it taken out of context. That riddle is not important to the plot, it's important to the loot. As in we needed to make our selves smaller to fit in the crack in the ground to find the layer of the Dragon who have formerly possessed the big gold choker. If I recall correctly (and I might be off) it was the command word to activate the thingie and turn one of us into fog or shrink us or something like that.

Actually took us about two gaming weeks to work it all out. I think someone in the party figured it out. I rolled a "1" for my toon and did not gleam a clue myself, and personally I did not quite get the riddle. Not sure if we came up with death, but what ever we did come up with was deemed ok and we got the loot.

Were also not good with sneaking (party is lead by a 7 foot tall half orc with Fabio like golden hair and blue eyes. It's better if you don't ask). So were kind of a "Kick in the Door and bust heads" type of party. Lost a few characters along the way to no ones surprise. Puzzles are not our bag. Well thinking is also a major weakness. We kind of go with the "Well because it's funny." rule.

When we found the strong hold loaded up with BBEG's we did the following:
Tossed a bag of flaming rat poo at the front door to announce the beginning of hostilities. (Been hanging on to this sense the very 1st adventure)
Summoned a Rino with our tan bag of tricks and charged the front gate with our Half Orc Barbarian riding on top.
It got better from their. We nearly died, and ended up running the ramparts with bearly any hit points left, no spells, and a rickety door being used as a tower shield. The BBEG would have killed us for sure but the DM felt sorry for our non thinking butts and most likely fugged a few dice rolls. Still ended up burring at least one character, and I think two others turned to the dark side shortly after.

Most of Goodmen games are developed as very smart interactive modules, where monsters will move around, listen for signs of trouble, and react to attacks. I can see where the minions would come running to save the boss if he is under attack. It's not a loyalty thing, its more of a "Save our butts." thing. #1 if the BBEG wins, and no one comes running, they will all suffer his wrath. #2 if the BBEG looses, the players are not gonna stop at just one dude, they are gonna wipe the mat with everyone. Thankfully the baddies we fought were slightly more dumb that us or we would have been killed. They never massed up in other words.

That and thankfully the DM pandered to our crying and we lived, plot intact.

In short good DM's learn their players and learn what works and does not. Were just having fun, so even if we know better we might do something stupid anyway. Other games I've played in we have sat for hours thinking up plans. So maybe it's not that they don't get it. Perhaps it more that they don't want to.

Ninetail
2009-07-23, 04:01 PM
Why wouldn't you want to improve yourself? If you're not smart enough to figure out the riddle, why wouldn't you want to improve yourself until you can? I seriously cannot understand this mindset.

Well, because that's not necessarily roleplaying.

I mean, imagine the characters are in a dungeon, and you come to a locked door. The party rogue decides to pick the lock. Does the GM:

1) Call for a skill check, or
2) Hand the player a lock and a lockpick, and say "Have at it"?

The vast majority of GMs will do 1). But why wouldn't you want to improve yourself? If you're not skilled enough to figure out how to pick a lock, why wouldn't you want to improve yourself until you can?

Well, because you're playing a character who's more skilled than you yourself are, of course.

Now, take the wizard with 18 Int. Even if you, the player, are a pretty bright guy, it's unlikely that you're in the top 0.5% of human intelligence (which is where the 18 Int wizard is). And that's at low level; the 28 Int wizard at high level is in the realm of Einstein and Hawking. You're not that smart.

So, you can't solve the riddle. But does that mean your high-Int wizard can't?

If so, why? Nobody has a problem with allowing a high-Dex rogue to pick a lock, even if the player can't. Is it okay to play a character more agile than you, but not to play a character smarter than you? How come?

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-23, 04:14 PM
Actually, if the 2E rough equivilant of 1 Int = 10 I.Q. still holds, then Einstein and Hawking would fall under 19 Int (Actually, Einstein would be arguably 18. I believe their respective I.Q.s are 182 and 195). Granted, I doubt this metric holds true anymore, since a 28 Int on that scale would be the realms of Gods, whereas it's basically expected by fifteenth level or so these days. Heh.

mcv
2009-07-24, 01:51 AM
That's why you should design your dungeons so that what you need to happen is actually plausible. Make it so that the big bad guy is sitting in his throne room and there's a small annex to one side where his henchmen are chilling and playing cards. Then stick the lieutenants around in some far off place where there are only a few guards, so that combat can start before reinforcements arrive.

But you realise that if the lieutenants can hear the BBEG's cries for help, then somebody near the BBEG can also hear the lieutenant's cries for help. Of course if the distance is bigger and the BBEG has henchmen nearby and the lieutenants don't, then the BBEG can send someone to fetch reinforcements while the lieutenants can't. But that's not how this scenario sounded to me. Anyway, reinforcements that need to be fetched usually take some time to fetch.

However:

When we found the strong hold loaded up with BBEG's we did the following:
Tossed a bag of flaming rat poo at the front door to announce the beginning of hostilities. (Been hanging on to this sense the very 1st adventure)
Summoned a Rino with our tan bag of tricks and charged the front gate with our Half Orc Barbarian riding on top.

See, I was under the impression that you snuck in. If you charged the front gate on a rhino, then it makes sense that everybody is alerted and you end up fighting everybody at once.


That riddle is not important to the plot, it's important to the loot.
Then a hard to solve riddle is perfectly okay. You reward players for being exceptionally smart, but it won't break the game if they don't solve it.

mcv
2009-07-24, 03:54 AM
Actually, if the 2E rough equivilant of 1 Int = 10 I.Q. still holds, then Einstein and Hawking would fall under 19 Int (Actually, Einstein would be arguably 18. I believe their respective I.Q.s are 182 and 195).
I think such a direct link between IQ and Int is a bad idea. IQ tests mainly measure your skill in making IQ tests, and while it may have a strong corelation with other intelligence-related skills, it by no means guarantees you'll be a good physicist.

I personally like to take people who wield their high IQ score as if it actually means something, as proof that some people with high IQ aren't terribly bright. (Yes, I'm aware of what I did there.)

The New Bruceski
2009-07-24, 04:47 AM
I think such a direct link between IQ and Int is a bad idea. IQ tests mainly measure your skill in making IQ tests, and while it may have a strong corelation with other intelligence-related skills, it by no means guarantees you'll be a good physicist.

I personally like to take people who wield their high IQ score as if it actually means something, as proof that some people with high IQ aren't terribly bright. (Yes, I'm aware of what I did there.)

My brother and I took IQ tests as kids, but mom refuses to tall us our scores for pretty much that reason. I'm not sure how accurate they are at that age anyway. Making pictures out of page after page of lines, I eventually grew bored of houses and trees and made a very long millipede. Apparently that impressed the hell out of the tester, I haven't a clue why. It was an easy way to fill the pages, an escape from the task rather than sticking with the creativity it was supposed to measure. I'd say it says things about my personality, but not my IQ.

Yora
2009-07-24, 05:03 AM
I think such a direct link between IQ and Int is a bad idea. IQ tests mainly measure your skill in making IQ tests, and while it may have a strong corelation with other intelligence-related skills, it by no means guarantees you'll be a good physicist.
That's why there's also a Wisdom score in the game.

Steward
2009-07-24, 09:01 AM
Besides, IQ tests that aren't administered by a skilled psychologist or other examiner are worthless. If you did it on the Internet, or by filling something out in your first-grade class, it probably means as much as a pap smear conducted by a greasy old man living in a bus terminal.


But you realise that if the lieutenants can hear the BBEG's cries for help, then somebody near the BBEG can also hear the lieutenant's cries for help. Of course if the distance is bigger and the BBEG has henchmen nearby and the lieutenants don't, then the BBEG can send someone to fetch reinforcements while the lieutenants can't. But that's not how this scenario sounded to me. Anyway, reinforcements that need to be fetched usually take some time to fetch.

Maybe so. I was never in this campaign and I have no idea how it's laid out. My point simply is that in some cases, it makes sense for the bad guy to be able to call reinforcements that are nearby. But no reinforcements are accessible, then the bad guy shouldn't be able to call them up and if he does anyway then it seems as if the DM is cheating.

valadil
2009-07-24, 09:28 AM
If so, why? Nobody has a problem with allowing a high-Dex rogue to pick a lock, even if the player can't. Is it okay to play a character more agile than you, but not to play a character smarter than you? How come?

I give out hints based on character intelligence and claim that in the context of the story, that character came up with the hint. That's how you deal with characters smarter than their PC. It doesn't work so well for riddles, but can be a great way to deal with other puzzles. It's pretty easy to give out a clue on ciphers and cryptograms without trivializing the whole puzzle.

Random832
2009-07-24, 09:43 AM
Of course the real thing is that puzzles and traps the player has to figure out are a historical part of game, roleplaying social encounters are less so (you're still expected to drive the conversation, but allowed to make bluff/diplomacy checks unless your DM is a jerk), LARPing lockpicking and battle scenes is not. there's no real rhyme or reason to it.

Umael
2009-07-24, 11:28 AM
You might play D&D because it gives you the chance to enhance your creativity and problem-solving. You might play it to blow off steam. You might play it because there is nothing on TV.

But no matter why you might play it, the ultimate goal, the reason why everyone is there, playing with you, is to have fun!

Keshay
2009-07-24, 11:40 AM
For example, I'm using a published adventure by Goodman Games, in which they found a large circlet that had a riddle engraved into it.

"Prince and pauper, King and knave, equals in his wake."

COME ON! It's death!
It took them five minutes to even realize it was a riddle they had to answer, let alone solve it which took alot longer.

Another slight problem with that riddle... In D&D death does discriminate between the wealthy and poor. The wealthy (espically the specifically mentioned royalty) have far greater access to Resurrection spells than a pauper or commoner.

"Death" is not a valid answer to that riddle in the D&D world.

Alejandro
2009-07-24, 11:44 AM
To the OP, as other's have said, you're maybe chasing the wrong whale.

bonus points for the sly reference to the OP's handle

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-24, 03:35 PM
It was done better by someone else on the first page
Stab them from Hell's heart?

Devils_Advocate
2009-07-24, 04:39 PM
But why wouldn't you want to improve yourself? If you're not skilled enough to figure out how to pick a lock, why wouldn't you want to improve yourself until you can?

Well, because you're playing a character who's more skilled than you yourself are, of course.
No, playing a character who's more skilled than me doesn't prevent me from wanting to learn how to pick a lock in the middle of a game of D&D. I wouldn't want to learn how to pick a lock in the middle of a game because I'd find it tedious and pointless. Since I'm there to play a game, I probably want to play a game rather than learn about lockpicking. And were I in a mood to be educated, I'd pick a different subject from lockpicking, since I really don't see myself using that skill much in the future. Even if it's technically self-improvement, it's (probably) irrelevant improvement.

Similarly, I don't really want to learn how to answer riddles better. There are far more entertaining and far more educational uses of my time.

It's funny how some people respond to anti-intellectualism with intellectual elitism, though. Hack-and-slash kick-in-the-door gaming is a major playstyle with plenty of fans, yet when someone wants to avoid other gaming paradigms in favor of that one, suddenly it's all "My mental masturbation is FAR superior to your mindless fun! If you want forms of recreation that don't require you to think, dammit, fine, but at least keep that mindset out of the tabletop games where geeks pretend to be elves and dwarves. Those are SACRED!"


Actually, if the 2E rough equivilant of 1 Int = 10 I.Q. still holds, then Einstein and Hawking would fall under 19 Int (Actually, Einstein would be arguably 18. I believe their respective I.Q.s are 182 and 195). Granted, I doubt this metric holds true anymore, since a 28 Int on that scale would be the realms of Gods, whereas it's basically expected by fifteenth level or so these days. Heh.
As I recall, if a random human has 3d6 Int, then 1 point of Int equals 5 points of IQ. So, Boccob, with his 50 Intelligence, has an IQ of about 300 in D&D. Which is higher than any human, but doesn't strike me as all that impressive, really. It fits, though, since he specializes in arcane knowledge and prophesy; he's not as much of a polymath as one might expect. I guess that a Supreme God of All Knowledge would probably have to be an overdeity. Which is fitting, since anything even close to approximating omniscience for most purposes is absurdly powerful.

Of course, converting Int to IQ only tells you the IQs of characters in the setting. IQ measures intelligence relative to average human intelligence, which is not a constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect). So that still leaves open the question of how smart the average human in D&D is compared to the average human in, say, the modern United States. So direct comparisons in intelligence between people in the real world and people in D&D still aren't possible until you establish how smart 10.5 Int is. Yeah, we know that it's an IQ of 100, but that's not a fixed level of intelligence.

Tough_Tonka
2009-07-24, 04:49 PM
I
They seem to have a problem realizing that it isn't a video game with cheap AIs, they are playing in a living world where enemies don't wait for you to hit them.

Well are you playing in 4e because I hear from a lot of the a lot of nay sayers its basically WoW. :smallsmile:

But seriously I can't believe they were that stupid, did they at least try to see if they could get across it within a round or something?

ZeroNumerous
2009-07-24, 05:12 PM
"Prince and pauper, King and knave, equals in his wake."

Honestly, this riddle sucks. A solvable riddle only has one obvious answer. As pointed out before there are quite a few things that answer this question(one of which that was never touched upon is the Grim Reaper).

A better phrasing would have been: "Laid on high or laid low, Saint or Devil, it claims all with equal fervor. What carves through man like wheat?"

Devils_Advocate
2009-07-24, 05:14 PM
That's even worse phrasing! You can die without getting sliced up.

chiasaur11
2009-07-24, 05:16 PM
Honestly, this riddle sucks. A solvable riddle only has one obvious answer. As pointed out before there are quite a few things that answer this question(one of which that was never touched upon is the Grim Reaper).


Including, assuming one is Canadian, Tim Horton's Donuts.

ZeroNumerous
2009-07-24, 05:17 PM
That's even worse phrasing! You can die without getting sliced up.

But does being sliced up chase devils/saints, whom can regenerate? No, it does not.

Civil War Man
2009-07-24, 05:20 PM
Including, assuming one is Canadian, Tim Horton's Donuts.

And even if not Canadian, there's Dunkin Donuts or Krispy Kreme, depending on what region of the US you are in.

Ninetail
2009-07-25, 07:17 PM
No, playing a character who's more skilled than me doesn't prevent me from wanting to learn how to pick a lock in the middle of a game of D&D. I wouldn't want to learn how to pick a lock in the middle of a game because I'd find it tedious and pointless.

That too, I suppose.

I just find it interesting that all of the people I meet who disdain attribute checks for solutions or hints and trumpet "Challenge the player, not the character" only follow through when it comes to things like riddles and diplomacy.

It's an absurd statement for a roleplaying game, really. It made sense back in the day because Gygaxian D&D, in its origins, was not a roleplaying game. (It was a strategy/adventure game, derived from a tactical/strategic wargame.) That outlook existed more or less in parallel to Arnesonian D&D (the more roleplaying-oriented version) for a while, but arguably by later 1e and certainly by 3e it'd mostly fallen by the wayside.

Nothing wrong with wanting to play that way, mind you. It's a lot of fun on occasion. But it's not a roleplaying-oriented outlook as modern RPGs understand the term.