View Full Version : Riddle Check
Anyone having deja vu? Don't worry, the situation is better here. Players are going to fight a monster, this riddle is about the monster. If they suceed, they are that much more prepared. If not, they go in blind. I just want to make sure I am not going to inadvetantly screw them over by giving them a false idea of what they are about to face. So please try and solve my riddle (by guessing the monster it talks about), but spoiler your answers. Thanks, and good luck.
A crown of talons, a single eye,
The hungry shadow in darkness lies.
And should you gaze upon its form,
You will see order asunder torn.
Dripping dark that unwinds flesh,
Spawned in the deep, unholy mesh,
Of old tyrants and Mother’s new child,
Where chaos to a brutal tip is filed.
HunterOfJello
2012-09-21, 11:36 AM
Beholder
The tyrant part gave it away for me. How hard did you want this riddle to be?
XmonkTad
2012-09-21, 11:38 AM
Is it a beholder?
Actually, this riddle seems fine to me. If they really can't get it but you want them to, just have them roll a int/knowledge/wisdom check for a hint.
laeZ1
2012-09-21, 11:54 AM
The single eye line makes me think it's a beholder, but I don't know anything else about them, so I'm pretty much just guessing.
I'd also like to say, good job.
Rhyming is tough.
You make that stuff look easy.
Haikus are simple.
Lapak
2012-09-21, 12:25 PM
Doesn't actually read beholder to me, given some of the other lines. The Chaos and Darkness and etc. read as Demon to me.
Something with an acid or other physical dissolving attack rather than a Disintegrate ray.
Zubrowka74
2012-09-21, 01:21 PM
Beholder, got it on the first line though
Tyndmyr
2012-09-21, 01:23 PM
Since when have beholders had only one eye?
TuggyNE
2012-09-21, 04:14 PM
Since when have beholders had only one eye?
Also, IIRC, beholders are usually LE, not CE.
Madara
2012-09-21, 04:37 PM
Chaos beast?
Also, knowing the Level of the party would help, since they can narrow down the CR range.
Crown of talons makes me think manticore. Eye made me think beholder, but the rest doesn't fit very well. It appears to have an insanity effect upon looking at it, or that could be a medusa effect which fits with crown of talons. I think that also roughly fits a Fomorian's description. As a player I'd cast Prot. From Chaos on my party and head in with my eyes averted.
I'd also like to say, good job.
Rhyming is tough.
You make that stuff look easy.
Haikus are simple.
Thanks, it is one of the better rymthes I've come up with.
Also, knowing the Level of the party would help, since they can narrow down the CR range.
Good point, party level is 15.
So far no one has guessed the monster, but Anxe's preparations would help against one of its abilities.
The Redwolf
2012-09-22, 11:18 AM
Is it Pathfinder or 3.5? The first couple lines make me think a great horned cyclops, but I don't know if that's a 3.5 thing, I only know it in Pathfinder. It also doesn't fit the other stuff and is woefully under CR for them, but that's all I've got.
metabolicjosh
2012-09-22, 12:13 PM
Well its a one eyed wizard of course.
Or maybe a Beholder, Dracolich?
herrhauptmann
2012-09-22, 12:28 PM
A crown of talons: Dunno. Evil king?
a single eye: Beholder.
The hungry shadow in darkness lies: Some sort of Nightshade. Or shadow themed layer of hell/abyss. Something with a shadow themed template.
And should you gaze upon its form,
You will see order asunder torn. A madness effect?
Dripping dark that unwinds flesh: Flesh golem.
Spawned in the deep, unholy mesh: Plane of shadow? Or shadow themed layer of hell/abyss. Something with that type of template though.
Of old tyrants: Beholder
and Mother’s new child: Beholder
Where chaos to a brutal tip is filed: Strong demon. Maybe one with a backstory about rising up from a lowly imp/quasit.
navar100
2012-09-22, 01:09 PM
My guess
A Roper
Jeff the Green
2012-09-22, 01:48 PM
Okay, tyrant and mother scream beholder, but as others have pointed out, the rest doesn't fit. So I'll guess
Urophion
Crown of talons must refer to the mouth.
Hungry and new mesh are the keys.
If I'm right, I'd suggest replacing "tyrants" with "masters."
Mithril Leaf
2012-09-22, 02:22 PM
I'm going to guess a Crawling Head
SaintRidley
2012-09-22, 11:20 PM
Hmm... lines 3-4 make me think of an Obyrith of some kind. The end is definitely the abyss. Your crown, and "mother," though, make me think something different.
The single eye keeps throwing me though.
Your creature might be in part homebrew, based on factors above.
So... I keep sticking on the Obyrith part. If that weren't niggling on me and the one eye part weren't a question, I'd think you might be putting a minor demon lord up against them, like Malcanthet or, if an Obyrith, Pale Night.
Otherwise, maybe you have some sort of half-obyrith Hive Mother or some such?
I'm really not sure, except that I'm pretty sure it's a demon.
Cybris75
2012-09-23, 01:41 AM
Astral Dreadnought
I agree with SaintRidley in that I keep getting an obyrith vibe from this.
"And should you gaze upon its form,
You will see order asunder torn."
Obyriths have that "form of madness" ability that does bad things to you if you perceive them.
"Spawned in the deep, unholy mesh,"
This screams "Abyss!"
"Where chaos to a brutal tip is filed. "
Again, demons, specifically obyriths.
Maybe a sibriex? That fits with the whole "dripping dark that unwinds flesh" bit.
NamelessNPC
2012-09-23, 02:58 AM
A pirate king!
Deophaun
2012-09-23, 07:01 AM
The success or failure of this riddle hinges on the players' system mastery, so it might not be the best approach. That said, my guess is
Bloodkiss Beholder
ShriekingDrake
2012-09-23, 08:58 AM
I suspect I'm off, here, given where the general consensus of the vector seems to be mounting, but:
I was thinking more along the lines of Kraken.
Blueiji
2012-09-24, 10:06 PM
A crown of talons, a single eye,
The hungry shadow in darkness lies.
And should you gaze upon its form,
You will see order asunder torn.
Dripping dark that unwinds flesh,
Spawned in the deep, unholy mesh,
Of old tyrants and Mother’s new child,
Where chaos to a brutal tip is filed.
A Cyclops? Probably not it, but just throwing it out there, since it's a one-eyed monster that hasn't been mentioned yet.
Incorrect
2012-09-25, 02:23 AM
I suspect I'm off, here, given where the general consensus of the vector seems to be mounting, but:
I was thinking more along the lines of Kraken.
A fiendish Kraken could fit the bill.
Perhaps with an additional template
BowStreetRunner
2012-09-25, 09:29 AM
Astral Dreadnought
I am thinking the same thing.
Crown of Talons and Single Eye both fit the image and the description.
Lying in Darkness could refer to the Astral plane.
Frightful Presence fits the gazing upon its form bit.
Okay, based on the answers so far, my assumption will be that the PCs will not solve the riddle. So before I reveal the creature, tell me how you would prepare for this monster based on the riddle.
ShriekingDrake
2012-09-25, 09:52 AM
I'd tie my running shoes . . . .
Dusk Eclipse
2012-09-25, 10:53 AM
Probably standard high level preparations (Mindblank, fear immunity, energy resistance, flight, etc), some sort of alternative detection mode (Blindsight/sense) to avoid a possible gaze attack, status effect healing (Heal and break enchantment at the very least) and maybe some AoE spells (the tyrant part implies minions). On the offensive side probably a way to deal with alignment based DR (and maybe a Silnece spell cause Blasphemy sounds like a real possibility.
Contact Other Plane sounds like a good option to cast as soon as the Riddle is heard.
Gavinfoxx
2012-09-25, 11:51 AM
Maybe you should consider that it is a really badly written riddle, with several correct answers?? Many of these monsters DO FIT. After all, do you know all the details of each and every one of these monsters? All you are asking for the players is 'guess what I am thinking!', which is stupid.
As a player, I would be like, "I take 20 and use collector of stories and my various knowledge skills, all of which are at, at least +10, often higher, and my superhuman intelligence, and solve the riddle. Can we move on now?"
Novawurmson
2012-09-25, 12:08 PM
Huh. Almost reminds me of a Mother of Oblivion (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/mother-of-obilivion)/Argorth (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/argorth) or other Lamashtu-related monster.
Maybe you should consider that it is a really badly written riddle, with several correct answers?? Many of these monsters DO FIT. After all, do you know all the details of each and every one of these monsters? All you are asking for the players is 'guess what I am thinking!', which is stupid.
As a player, I would be like, "I take 20 and use collector of stories and my various knowledge skills, all of which are at, at least +10, often higher, and my superhuman intelligence, and solve the riddle. Can we move on now?"
And I would say, "Given that you do not need to solve the riddle to advance the plot, stop complaining. Knowledge of the answer of a riddle won't always help you answer the riddle in question, but I'll give you a hint for every modifier of intelligence you have."
Gavinfoxx
2012-09-25, 12:44 PM
Why do you assume that there is only ONE correct answer, though? Look at the stats of all the monsters mentioned in this thread. Most, if not all of them, fit the given riddle!
Why do you assume that there is only ONE correct answer, though?
Because the riddle is talking about the one monster the PCs are going to face.
Look at the stats of all the monsters mentioned in this thread. Most, if not all of them, fit the given riddle!
*Fit certain lines. How many fit all?
Maybe you should consider that it is a really badly written riddle, with several correct answers?? Many of these monsters DO FIT. After all, do you know all the details of each and every one of these monsters? All you are asking for the players is 'guess what I am thinking!', which is stupid.
As a player, I would be like, "I take 20 and use collector of stories and my various knowledge skills, all of which are at, at least +10, often higher, and my superhuman intelligence, and solve the riddle. Can we move on now?"
Given the level of effort he put into the riddle, I doubt that it's poorly constructed. I mean, if someone said
"Alive without breath,
cold as death.
Never thirsty
Ever drinking
Clad in chain mail
Never clinking"
It's CLEARLY an skeletal warrior. Right? :smallmad: You don't get to discard riddles because you've come up with several wrong answers.
As for your second point...as a DM, I'd be very tempted to start throwing books. It's very irritating when a player attempts to bypass something you put a good amount of effort into, especially when there are people at the table that might actually enjoy the challenge.
Gavinfoxx
2012-09-25, 12:55 PM
Do I have to know how to swing a sword to play a character that is good at swinging swords? No? Than why do I, the player, have to come up with the solution to an inane riddle when I am playing a hyper-intelligent super-genius?
Do I have to know how to swing a sword to play a character that is good at swinging swords? No? Than why do I, the player, have to come up with the solution to an inane riddle when I am playing a hyper-intelligent super-genius?
To add to the game?
As for your second point...as a DM, I'd be very tempted to start throwing books. It's very irritating when a player attempts to bypass something you put a good amount of effort into, especially when there are people at the table that might actually enjoy the challenge.
It's very irritating when a player attempts to bypass something you put a good amount of effort into, especially when there are people at the table that might actually enjoy the challenge.
especially when there are people at the table that might actually enjoy the challenge.
Read, please. Other people might enjoy it; this isn't a single player game.
Fenix_of_Doom
2012-09-25, 01:02 PM
Do I have to know how to swing a sword to play a character that is good at swinging swords? No? Than why do I, the player, have to come up with the solution to an inane riddle when I am playing a hyper-intelligent super-genius?
Because solving riddles is fun.
I enjoy using my own intellect in games, any game really, and since how you should play D&D isn't defined anywhere, so why can't I(or in this case Boci) play that way?
Please stop forcing your own play style on others.
Novawurmson
2012-09-25, 01:04 PM
As a player, I would be like, "I take 20 and use collector of stories and my various knowledge skills, all of which are at, at least +10, often higher, and my superhuman intelligence, and solve the riddle. Can we move on now?"
...and some people like riddles and puzzles and things besides hack and slash/roleplaying. The reason why there aren't too many puzzles in the D&D core rules is because they're very tricky to pull off properly and rely heavily on having a group that enjoys it. Personally, my players like a puzzle/riddle once every few months, so I limit it to that.
Than why do I, the player, have to come up with the solution to an inane riddle when I am playing a hyper-intelligent super-genius?
Have you ever spoken before rolling a Diplomacy check? Have you ever tried to guess something by your DM's tone of voice/body language before rolling Sense Motive? Not everything needs to be resolved by rolling dice, and if you figure it out without rolling dice, it only makes you feel like you're playing a super-genius all the more.
So....do we get to know the answer?
Oh- I'd bring lots of light spells, by the way. Something about the wording makes me think that it's not a big fan of the light.
Its a a golothoma, from Elder Evils.
Novawurmson
2012-09-25, 02:07 PM
...huh. Have your players heard of this creature before, or are they generally familiar with Elder Evils? I think it's a bit to uncommon for a riddle.
It begins to fall into the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal answer to the Sphinx's riddle (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1308#comic)...
Gavinfoxx
2012-09-25, 02:35 PM
And that is EXACTLY the problem I was talking about... that isn't a riddle, that is 'hope the players have thoroughly read this one book that I read, and immediately can read my mind and think of this incredibly obscure creature' .. basically, this isn't really a riddle at all!
Seerow
2012-09-25, 02:38 PM
Because solving riddles is fun.
I enjoy using my own intellect in games, any game really, and since how you should play D&D isn't defined anywhere, so why can't I(or in this case Boci) play that way?
Please stop forcing your own play style on others.
You know what else is fun? You and a couple of friends beating each other up with swords.
Yet, I don't give my DM a concussion every time I kill an orc. Because we're there to play D&D, not swordfighting. Similarly, when you sit down to play D&D, you're not there to play "Riddle of the Day".
I'm not sure why so many people agree its perfectly acceptable to abstract away the physical end of things, but when it comes to mental or social things expect it to fall on the player, not the character. Nothing takes me out of the game more than the 6 int barbarian with no knowledge skills suddenly solving the riddle that's been stumping the int 30 wizard with Knowledge (Everything) at +40. Similarly when the Orc Fighter takes point in social situations because the person playing the half-elf bard in the group isn't a very sociable person.
There's roleplaying, and then there's telling your players "Sorry I don't care what your characters can or can't do, this is about what you can do"
Lapak
2012-09-25, 02:56 PM
And that is EXACTLY the problem I was talking about... that isn't a riddle, that is 'hope the players have thoroughly read this one book that I read, and immediately can read my mind and think of this incredibly obscure creature' .. basically, this isn't really a riddle at all!While I'm not quite this vehement about it, my overall opinion falls in this region, for two reasons.
- I'm not sure I want to encourage the idea that players should read and memorize every source to gain an advantage; if they are going to get a chance at advance preparation that knowledge should come from in-character sources, not out-of-character knowledge if at all possible.
- An ideally-constructed riddle is one that seems obscure until the answer is revealed but looks face-slappingly obvious in retrospect. (That's not going to happen every time, but it's a goal to shoot for.) It should be something that is solvable through common knowledge - or at least knowledge that is common in the intended audience. This monster is obscure enough that it's just not going to happen. As a player, my response would have been something like 'Huh, okay, so this wasn't something I had a realistic chance of solving then,' which will retroactively steal much of the pleasure that I got out of trying to solve the puzzle.
*Face palm* Are people ignoring the fact that I don't expect the players to get this riddle? Well, don't let the details get in the way of your anti-riddle rant.
Even without solving the riddle, some posters came up with tactics that would have improved their chances against the monsters.
Gavinfoxx
2012-09-25, 03:23 PM
It is still not a well constructed riddle, and you should figure out another way to warn the players and characters of what tactics to use and how to prepare themselves, because having it as a riddle is counterproductive.
It is still not a well constructed riddle, and you should figure out another way to warn the players and characters of what tactics to use and how to prepare themselves, because having it as a riddle is counterproductive.
Why? The only way the character can confirm whether their answer to the riddle is right or wrong is to confront the creature, so how is it going to be conter-productive? It won't noticably slow the game. As for another way to go about doing this, I'll hear any suggestions you have.
Deathkeeper
2012-09-25, 03:44 PM
I'm not familiar with this monster. But judging from the riddle, if I was a PC I would have thought to bring lots of light, and Protection from Chaos. Would that have helped? Because to me this riddle was a tactics hint, and not a identify-the-boss hint.
I'm not familiar with this monster. But judging from the riddle, if I was a PC I would have thought to bring lots of light, and Protection from Chaos. Would that have helped? Because to me this riddle was a tactics hint, and not a identify-the-boss hint.
Yes, as its chaotic and one of its abilities is stronger in total darkness.
Deophaun
2012-09-25, 05:17 PM
Yes, as its chaotic and one of its abilities is stronger in total darkness.
Of course, another of its abilities is useless in total darkness against creatures without darkvision. That said, your riddle does point to taking steps to avoid seeing the beast, or at least boosting your Will save.
I would like the con damage to be a little more obvious in the riddle, but it is there. But it's easy to think of "Fort save!" with it, and that's just not going to work.
I have no idea what "Mother's new child" could possibly mean in relationship to the creature.
So, I think the riddle is acceptable. I wouldn't complain if I was a player, this was given to me, and then I fought that thing.
Jeff the Green
2012-09-25, 05:29 PM
One thing I'd suggest, if your players ask to roll Knowledge checks, is to allow them to do so, and give them hints as to what the different parts of the riddle might mean. While the characters might not have heard of a golothoma (that sounds like a kind of cancer to me), chances are you have someone with a character that's smarter than they are.
I have no idea what "Mother's new child" could possibly mean in relationship to the creature.
That...was totaly not mistake on my behalf. I distinctly remeber reading that the abyss in D&D if also referred to as the mother abyss, but I cannot find where, and am starting to think I got it somewhere else. I'll change that word, and also remove the previous comma, to make clear that "of old tyrants" is a direct continuation of "unholy mesh".
One thing I'd suggest, if your players ask to roll Knowledge checks, is to allow them to do so, and give them hints as to what the different parts of the riddle might mean.
I'm a bit skeptical about that. What I would certain allow is a player going "I'm going to interpret this line to mean X, this line to mean Y and this line to be Z. I'll make a knowledge check for a creature that has X, Y and Z,"
demigodus
2012-09-25, 07:13 PM
I'm a bit skeptical about that. What I would certain allow is a player going "I'm going to interpret this line to mean X, this line to mean Y and this line to be Z. I'll make a knowledge check for a creature that has X, Y and Z,"
The thing is, some of the interpretations would require DnD lore knowledge that the players might not have, but their characters would. For example, say the mother abyss reference existed. Anyone with a decent Knowledge: The Planes would know that. Most players might not have a clue about it.
Some players might not know about the elder evils. This makes it kinda impossible for them to figure out the "unholy mesh of old tyrants" part, even if their characters are very knowledgeable about that.
If you want to make a good riddle, it should not require any background information that characters have, but players do not.
For example, say the mother abyss reference existed. Anyone with a decent Knowledge: The Planes would know that. Most players might not have a clue about it.
But the reference doesn't exist. You cannot get away with hypotheticals when the riddle exists.
Some players might not know about the elder evils. This makes it kinda impossible for them to figure out the "unholy mesh of old tyrants" part, even if their characters are very knowledgeable about that.
Fair enough on the "old tyrants" part (although it isn't referring to the elder evils). I'll be sure to inform the PCs with sufficient planar knowledge what that probably means.
Gavinfoxx
2012-09-25, 08:18 PM
DC 15 Wisdom check, or DC 15 Bardic Lore check, or DC 15 Knowledge History check (you can take 10 on that).
"This isn't a riddle meant to be solved. Riddles aren't constructed like that -- there are too many creatures that fit well enough. It's a warning about a guardian to be faced!"
DC 15 Wisdom check, or DC 15 Bardic Lore check, or DC 15 Knowledge History check (you can take 10 on that).
"This isn't a riddle meant to be solved. Riddles aren't constructed like that -- there are too many creatures that fit well enough. It's a warning about a guardian to be faced!"
Could do that, but whats the point? It detracts from the tension, which is a big plus for the riddle in the first place. Also, "fits well enough"?
Eugenides
2012-09-25, 08:45 PM
DC 15 Wisdom check, or DC 15 Bardic Lore check, or DC 15 Knowledge History check (you can take 10 on that).
"This isn't a riddle meant to be solved. Riddles aren't constructed like that -- there are too many creatures that fit well enough. It's a warning about a guardian to be faced!"
You seem REALLY mad about this. Chill, and stop taking it out on him. It's not like you have to be in his campaign. You're taking it too personally. Just because you can't guess something doesn't mean it's not clever.
And honestly, Riddles are like that. They are ambiguous on purpose, because what's the point of guessing an EASY riddle? At that point, with skill checks and **** he might as well just not put the riddle in the story in the first place.
Gavinfoxx
2012-09-25, 09:50 PM
Then make it DC 25. Whatever.
Mithril Leaf
2012-09-25, 10:10 PM
You seem REALLY mad about this. Chill, and stop taking it out on him. It's not like you have to be in his campaign. You're taking it too personally. Just because you can't guess something doesn't mean it's not clever.
And honestly, Riddles are like that. They are ambiguous on purpose, because what's the point of guessing an EASY riddle? At that point, with skill checks and **** he might as well just not put the riddle in the story in the first place.
But the thing is, it's intended to be a D&D riddle, right? Doesn't that imply that the character should be able to solve it? It shouldn't rely on intense meta-game knowledge to sort it out when in all fairness a high level wizard could indeed figure it out. If it's really not meant to be solved, it's reasonable to make that fairly clear from the get go.
Deophaun
2012-09-25, 11:13 PM
But the thing is, it's intended to be a D&D riddle, right? Doesn't that imply that the character should be able to solve it? It shouldn't rely on intense meta-game knowledge to sort it out when in all fairness a high level wizard could indeed figure it out. If it's really not meant to be solved, it's reasonable to make that fairly clear from the get go.
The intent does not seem to be that the characters will know exactly what monster they will be facing, but rather will glean some insight into the monster's strengths/weaknesses/abilities/plan of attack/etc. In this respect, the riddle does have utility.
Also, it's important that you turn the whole "My character is a super genius so he should crack this puzzle no problem" around and realize that, quite frequently, the people who designed these riddles are also super geniuses or super insane. What you, the player, are viewing is only a dumbed down version of what your characters are actually dealing with. Why? Because your DM probably is neither a super genius nor super insane.
Mithril Leaf
2012-09-25, 11:18 PM
The intent does not seem to be that the characters will know exactly what monster they will be facing, but rather will glean some insight into the monster's strengths/weaknesses/abilities/plan of attack/etc. In this respect, the riddle does have utility.
Also, it's important that you turn the whole "My character is a super genius so he should crack this puzzle no problem" around and realize that, quite frequently, the people who designed these riddles are also super geniuses or super insane. What you, the player, are viewing is only a dumbed down version of what your characters are actually dealing with. Why? Because your DM probably is neither a super genius nor super insane.
Then allow partial checks for partial insight. Your character and you should be separated. Think of whether or not you'd allow a (hypothetical) person who memorized all of the monsters in every book and most of the homebrew into your game. Their incredible metaknowledge would give their character an unfair advantage. And super geniuses cracking super genius things is sort of the point of having crazy high knowledge skills.
TuggyNE
2012-09-25, 11:38 PM
Also, it's important that you turn the whole "My character is a super genius so he should crack this puzzle no problem" around and realize that, quite frequently, the people who designed these riddles are also super geniuses or super insane. What you, the player, are viewing is only a dumbed down version of what your characters are actually dealing with. Why? Because your DM probably is neither a super genius nor super insane.
This is a good idea, however it's a rather separate issue. Suppose you have some superbly difficult riddle, but the DM is unable to really do justice to their idea of how amazingly hard it should be. In that case, a better solution is to have the riddle in e.g. a different language and provide a (notional) translation with your best effort, then allow (very difficult) Knowledge checks and so forth for the characters to fully solve it.
Deophaun
2012-09-25, 11:45 PM
Your character and you should be separated.
There are various degrees of separation.
Think of whether or not you'd allow a (hypothetical) person who memorized all of the monsters in every book and most of the homebrew into your game.
I don't have to think about it. As I did it once, and would do it again.
Their incredible metaknowledge would give their character an unfair advantage.
I'm sorry, but as I've never run a competitive D&D game, and the OP's example does not appear to be a competition, unfair to who, exactly?
And super geniuses cracking super genius things is sort of the point of having crazy high knowledge skills.
Yup. Your crazy-high genius skills have managed to simplify an indescribably cryptic riddle into this. Have fun!
Eugenides
2012-09-25, 11:59 PM
Honestly, I think you guys are, for the most part, waaaay too hung up on checks. Yes, you character has skills. Yes there are checks. No, you don't have to frame everything in a skill check.
Try relaxing, having fun, and realize that the skill check system is significantly more broken and exploitable than meta-knowledge.
Mithril Leaf
2012-09-26, 12:09 AM
Honestly, I think you guys are, for the most part, waaaay too hung up on checks. Yes, you character has skills. Yes there are checks. No, you don't have to frame everything in a skill check.
Try relaxing, having fun, and realize that the skill check system is significantly more broken and exploitable than meta-knowledge.
Just look at the title of the thread for a sec. :smallwink:
demigodus
2012-09-26, 12:26 AM
Honestly, I think you guys are, for the most part, waaaay too hung up on checks. Yes, you character has skills. Yes there are checks. No, you don't have to frame everything in a skill check.
Try relaxing, having fun, and realize that the skill check system is significantly more broken and exploitable than meta-knowledge.
You know, if people are playing this game, it is likely because they are having fun. Coming here and implying that they don't know how to relax and have fun at the game that they enjoy playing... well aside from the fact that your attitude could be read as insulting, it is also plain wrong. You aren't going to convince any of the people who are playing differently that you just insulted. You know, the people you are supposedly addressing.
Yeah, maybe this post is a bit off topic. However, people that act like their way is the only way to enjoy the game annoy me. Especially when they think they can approach others with that attitude and have a chance of convincing people of... well, anything.
dascarletm
2012-09-26, 01:18 AM
You know, if people are playing this game, it is likely because they are having fun. Coming here and implying that they don't know how to relax and have fun at the game that they enjoy playing... well aside from the fact that your attitude could be read as insulting, it is also plain wrong. You aren't going to convince any of the people who are playing differently that you just insulted. You know, the people you are supposedly addressing.
Yeah, maybe this post is a bit off topic. However, people that act like their way is the only way to enjoy the game annoy me. Especially when they think they can approach others with that attitude and have a chance of convincing people of... well, anything.
I disagree, I see this as a perfectly valid point, if not a little tongue-in-cheek, but then again I've always loved a smart-ass:smallwink:
Garwain
2012-09-26, 02:13 AM
If a character has invested a lot of effort in the appropriate knowledge skill, then for that character the riddle should be quite easy to solve.
I mean, you're are not taking away swordplay skills from a fighter because the player doesn't know how to wield a sword... Then at least give the booknerd his knowledge. Especially when you use the bard's lore to expose your plot history.
TuggyNE
2012-09-26, 02:33 AM
If a character has invested a lot of effort in the appropriate knowledge skill, then for that character the riddle should be quite easy to solve.
I mean, you're are not taking away swordplay skills from a fighter because the player doesn't know how to wield a sword... Then at least give the booknerd his knowledge. Especially when you use the bard's lore to expose your plot history.
While I generally agree with this, there is one caveat: some people are in fact book-nerdy enough in real life, and of a certain mindset, that they prefer to solve the actual riddle themselves, OOC.
Neither "I want to solve it myself!" nor "my character can totally figure this out" are actually wrong; they're just different preferences. A DM should try to be flexible, but more importantly have some idea which type their players generally are.
If it's really not meant to be solved, it's reasonable to make that fairly clear from the get go.
What makes you think so?
If a character has invested a lot of effort in the appropriate knowledge skill, then for that character the riddle should be quite easy to solve.
So the "alieve without breath" riddle would be easier to solve if you had extensive knowledge of fish? Besides, I already said i would allow knowledge checks for a creature based on the character's interpretation of the riddle.
Zombimode
2012-09-26, 06:32 AM
Yet, I don't give my DM a concussion every time I kill an orc. Because we're there to play D&D, not swordfighting. Similarly, when you sit down to play D&D, you're not there to play "Riddle of the Day".
Except, of course, when you do.
Is it really that hard to understand, that some people just enjoy solving riddles like this?
caden_varn
2012-09-26, 06:53 AM
It is certainly true that many groups would not enjoy a riddle like this, and would want to use skills etc. to get some insight or outright answer the riddle. But some groups are happy to have the riddle as a purely player-level thing.
While it's fair to bring up concerns, I think in the end we have to assume that Boci knows his group, and that he is happy they will be happy with a riddle posed in this way. Unless you are actually in his group, you can't really sensibly say that it is wrong, only that it is not something you and your group would want to do. This is fine, but does not really help Boci sense-test his riddle.
ahenobarbi
2012-09-26, 07:09 AM
So the "alieve without breath" riddle would be easier to solve if you had extensive knowledge of fish?
High int and some knowledge(nature) should help.
Besides, I already said i would allow knowledge checks for a creature based on the characterplayer's interpretation of the riddle.
FTFY
I wouldn't enjoy it if it was presented as a riddle. Because it is not a riddle.
I would appreciate it if it was presented as a hint on how to prepare for a big fight. Because it does that pretty well.
Garwain
2012-09-26, 07:10 AM
Neither "I want to solve it myself!" nor "my character can totally figure this out" are actually wrong; they're just different preferences. A DM should try to be flexible, but more importantly have some idea which type their players generally are.
What a silly discussion.
Put a DC for the knowledge check.
a) character doesn't know the answer -> the character doesn't know regardless of the player knowledge. This is role-playing....
b)character does know, but player doesn't want to know -> character failed his check voluntarely and thus doesn't know.
c) character does know and the player would like to receive the answer -> give it, his character knows after all....
ShriekingDrake
2012-09-26, 07:26 AM
For what it's worth: In our campaigns, we've had some success with riddles--though they don't necessarily follow trajectory.
We have used riddles as "in-game" elements where the game rules applied completely--even to the point of no specific riddle being given to the players--where knowledge checks, class, and character history determined whether a party member would be able to solve the riddle.
We have used riddles as "meta-game" elements where it was the players' wits--and not character aspects--that determined whether the puzzle was solved or not.
We had an entire campaign based on a riddle that was told to us around a campfire the first gaming session. Solving the riddle was the key to the entire campaign and only through the characters' experiences in the world did the players learn enough to solve the riddle. We played this campaign for three years and eventually solved the riddle--we then had a party.
The thing to remember, I would say, is that riddles are there to make the game more fun, interesting, and even challenging. It's up to the DM to meet the players and characters where they are and to make it a fun experience. It is, after all, a game that is supposed to be fun.
I would say to the OP, if you throw the riddle out, with the hope that your players will be able to solve it, and you discover that they can't, you may have to help them along. If you can adapt your plans, such that solving the riddle is less of a big deal (you know, the characters/players get to understand the riddle only after they've completed the quest), that can be a satisfying end as well. If your players are demanding puzzles/riddles make sure that they at least have some they can solve (I'm not saying that they should be easy. just set at a level where the riddles don't become an impediment to fun). In the end, you have to decide what you're trying to get out of the riddle. If it's that you want them to have some clues as to what is coming next (and the players don't appear to be able to solve it) use experiences in the campaign to help enlighten them. If it's that you (and they) really want a game that's all about them solving this riddle--just keep it interesting (which may mean using in-game, meta-game, or some combination of approaches).
Good luck.
Seerow
2012-09-26, 07:30 AM
The intent does not seem to be that the characters will know exactly what monster they will be facing, but rather will glean some insight into the monster's strengths/weaknesses/abilities/plan of attack/etc. In this respect, the riddle does have utility.
Also, it's important that you turn the whole "My character is a super genius so he should crack this puzzle no problem" around and realize that, quite frequently, the people who designed these riddles are also super geniuses or super insane. What you, the player, are viewing is only a dumbed down version of what your characters are actually dealing with. Why? Because your DM probably is neither a super genius nor super insane.
Except you would presumably get the same dumbed down riddle regardless of if you have a super genius loremaster in your group, or a bunch of DMFs. So your whole justification here just falls apart.
Seerow
2012-09-26, 07:32 AM
Except, of course, when you do.
Is it really that hard to understand, that some people just enjoy solving riddles like this?
Then get together one night with the people who do enjoy it, and have riddle night if you actually enjoy riddles on their own merit.
In my experience, it's one, maybe two, people in a group who actually enjoy riddles, while the rest of the group just puts up with it and hopes they get it out of their system relatively quickly. Seriously there's a reason why dungeons and dragons is a relatively popular game, while weekly riddle night is not something people generally do.
LordBlades
2012-09-26, 07:55 AM
While I generally agree with this, there is one caveat: some people are in fact book-nerdy enough in real life, and of a certain mindset, that they prefer to solve the actual riddle themselves, OOC.
Neither "I want to solve it myself!" nor "my character can totally figure this out" are actually wrong; they're just different preferences. A DM should try to be flexible, but more importantly have some idea which type their players generally are.
Absolutely agree :smallsmile:
It bears nothing however that for some reason most groups tend to run with a double standard regarding player vs. character skill.
For most groups rolling a climb check to climb a wall for example is enough. Nobody will ask you in detail what kind of knot you use to tie your rope or where you set your hands and feet. However it's not uncommon for the same groups to expect the player to describe in at least some detail what he does in let's say social situations (or puzzles/riddles), even if his character has +500 diplomacy but the player is an antisocial­ nerd.
Axier
2012-09-26, 08:03 AM
I feel that most of the arguments in this thread are moot, unless you are in OP's group.
If they don't like the riddles, the DM will likely find out, while if they do like riddles, they will continue to do them. The arguments of people that could be half a world away from their game are completely pointless.
In the game I run now, a riddle wouldn't fit the group, but should a riddle fit the group I would use one or two. It really depends on the players of that game. Just because it doesn't work for a group doesn't mean it won't work for another. I think everyone needs to calm down, and either talk about the riddle, or leave the thread, because this is starting to get pointless and away from the original subject.
As for the main subject, I think the riddle, while difficult to answer, if next to impossible, would benefit from some kind of knowledge check to at least get rough ideas of what they could be facing. As we have seen from some of the answers, there are a large amount of evil, light fearing monsters that could fit this profile, and it would be QUITE difficult for even a genius to get an absolute answer. This way, the players don't use meta-knowledge, but would have some idea to combat this foe depending on what all kinds of creatures could fit this bill.
CalamaroJoe
2012-09-26, 08:29 AM
For what pertains to this single "riddle", it is well written and nice but I don't know if the group is going to guess it. It depends from the knowledge of the players about that particular source. Or maybe they are allowed to do some research on line or on books.
In summary it depends on the table rules or customs and on the players liking of riddles.
Here there are two issues:
1 . Is this a riddle or a way of giving hints about the monster? If they cannot guess the monster's name they should have however some suggestion on tactics or preparations.
Boci, if they are not intended to guess the monster, I'd stress more its weaknesses/abilities in the riddle (except that in this case it's not striclty a "riddle")
2. On he use of various skill and ability checks to solve riddles and plot points. While I think is good to find some way to help characters that invested on the relevant skills (for example giving hints for successful checks, or allowing extended OOC research to simulate the 30+ int of the character), I'm strongly against the extensive use of skill checks to overcome difficulties.
Are there really people that in an investigation game tell "Hey, my character has 40 int, he already knows who is the culprit, so please move on"? Or that in a fight are like "Our characters have extensive experience of battles, so please put our minis in the best positions to fight this type of foes"?
Maybe there are... Again, it is just a matter of group habits.
Zombimode
2012-09-26, 09:09 AM
Then get together one night with the people who do enjoy it, and have riddle night if you actually enjoy riddles on their own merit.
In my experience, it's one, maybe two, people in a group who actually enjoy riddles, while the rest of the group just puts up with it and hopes they get it out of their system relatively quickly. Seriously there's a reason why dungeons and dragons is a relatively popular game, while weekly riddle night is not something people generally do.
So, you DO admit that it is based on preference? That would commit you to acknowledge the possibility that the majority of a group would enjoy solving riddles.
And than, you STILL maintain the notion that riddles to be solved by the players are to be avoided no matter what?
You should reevaluate your logic, then.
Seerow
2012-09-26, 09:12 AM
So, you DO admit that it is based on preference? That would commit you to acknowledge the possibility that the majority of a group would enjoy solving riddles.
And than, you STILL maintain the notion that riddles to be solved by the players are to be avoided no matter what?
You should reevaluate your logic, then.
If the entire group enjoys solving riddles, why are you sitting down playing D&D rather than having a riddle night?
If there's even one person in your D&D game that does not like riddles, you are actively making the game worse by including them. And regardless of if you like them or not, including riddles is straight up metagaming. Yet while metagaming is usually frowned upon, for some reason in this situation people think it's acceptable. Makes no sense.
Zombimode
2012-09-26, 09:27 AM
If the entire group enjoys solving riddles, why are you sitting down playing D&D rather than having a riddle night?
Because, you know, you can enjoy both at the same time.
If there's even one person in your D&D game that does not like riddles, you are actively making the game worse by including them.
Not every player likes combat encounters.
Not every player likes drawn out role-playing sequences.
Not every player likes mystery solving.
Not every player likes stealth sections.
And so on. They are all viable parts of the game.
Peoples preferences are diverse. While the DM should make sure to provide an adventure that is in general enjoyable to everyone on the table, each player also has to acknowledge the other peoples preferences. Doing otherwise is just being egoistic. This concept is called "tolerance".
And regardless of if you like them or not, including riddles is straight up metagaming. Yet while metagaming is usually frowned upon, for some reason in this situation people think it's acceptable. Makes no sense.
It does make sense. Peoples preferences are just more complex than you apparently think they are. Riddles are an important part of mythological and contemporary fantasy stories. While it is hard to integrate them for non-metagame reasons (but not impossible), they can be seen as acceptable breaks from the reality of the game world. You know, like Hit Points.
CalamaroJoe
2012-09-26, 09:38 AM
If there's even one person in your D&D game that does not like riddles, you are actively making the game worse by including them.
This is a bit extreme. Everybody likes something over something else. A good game is a game that from time to time offers something for the palates of all the players.
Edit: ninja'd by Zombimode
And regardless of if you like them or not, including riddles is straight up metagaming. Yet while metagaming is usually frowned upon, for some reason in this situation people think it's acceptable. Makes no sense.
Every time people metagame to some extent, it's inevitable. The problem is that you can easily distinguish if the player uses IC some OOC knowledge; otherwise it is strange to have the player make decisions for the character on the basis of knowledge that one assumes the character should have, it's always arbitrary.
Lapak
2012-09-26, 09:42 AM
As someone who didn't care for this riddle, here's my two cents.
To be clear up front, I like riddles. My group likes riddles. And puzzles. And solving them with player skill. We like them so much that many of us participate in the MIT Mystery Hunt (http://www.mit.edu/~puzzle/) and similar events (http://www.baphl.org/) on a regular basis. Verbal riddles, physical objects that need to be manipulated and meddled with, codes and language tricks come up in games on a regular basis. I have zero problem with riddles being a part of gameplay.
But as a riddle, this has problems. My objection is because I like riddles, not because I don't. If the group has players that really enjoy a puzzle and get a kick out of solving it, this one ones the real risk of turning sour because it's not really solvable out-of-character unless you happen to have memorized the traits of one particular monster.
If it's just for flavor and hints, and the group is one that will consider it a success because it keyed them to anti-Chaos / anti-darkness / vision-protecting effects, then it's a good thing, because I think that Boci is right that they will likely pick on on those concepts/dangers. If the group has someone who wants to solve puzzles for their own sake, it's potentially a bad thing. Given his stated intent and what he's told us about the group, it's a fine thing to use in his game. I just don't care for it as a riddle.
Deophaun
2012-09-26, 10:23 AM
Except you would presumably get the same dumbed down riddle regardless of if you have a super genius loremaster in your group, or a bunch of DMFs. So your whole justification here just falls apart.
Because no DM has ever tailored anything for his group, ever.
Seerow
2012-09-26, 10:57 AM
Because no DM has ever tailored anything for his group, ever.
Given that "Your super genius transformed the super genius level riddle into this so you can solve it from here" was a post-hoc justification, rather than a part of the original intention....
Deophaun
2012-09-26, 12:03 PM
Given that "Your super genius transformed the super genius level riddle into this so you can solve it from here" was a post-hoc justification, rather than a part of the original intention....
It is part of the original intention. When you have players solving riddles that have kept a secret for thousands of years, or stumped the greatest scholars, or what-have-you, the fact is that riddle must be far removed from the capabilities of four or five average people sitting around a table. Even if a DM or module writer could come up with something so devilishly clever, it wouldn't be included in the game because it would be a complete waste of time.
Post-hoc my @ss.
And if you don't have a super genius in the party, you do not throw around challenges geared towards having a super genius in the party. Common sense, that is.
ahenobarbi
2012-09-26, 01:39 PM
But as a riddle, this has problems. My objection is because I like riddles, not because I don't. If the group has players that really enjoy a puzzle and get a kick out of solving it, this one ones the real risk of turning sour because it's not really solvable out-of-character unless you happen to have memorized the traits of one particular monster.
If it's just for flavor and hints, and the group is one that will consider it a success because it keyed them to anti-Chaos / anti-darkness / vision-protecting effects, then it's a good thing, because I think that Boci is right that they will likely pick on on those concepts/dangers. If the group has someone who wants to solve puzzles for their own sake, it's potentially a bad thing. Given his stated intent and what he's told us about the group, it's a fine thing to use in his game. I just don't care for it as a riddle.
Thank you for writing what I tried to only better.
I wouldn't enjoy it if it was presented as a riddle. Because it is not a riddle.
But if its not presented as a riddle, players won't try and solve it as they move through the monsters lair, getting steadily closer to the monster they know of so little about.
Given that "Your super genius transformed the super genius level riddle into this so you can solve it from here" was a post-hoc justification, rather than a part of the original intention....
Yeah, how dare someone try and improve the use of riddles in game by adressing some of the points you raised against them. The nerve.
dascarletm
2012-09-26, 05:34 PM
If the entire group enjoys solving riddles, why are you sitting down playing D&D rather than having a riddle night?
If there's even one person in your D&D game that does not like riddles, you are actively making the game worse by including them. And regardless of if you like them or not, including riddles is straight up metagaming. Yet while metagaming is usually frowned upon, for some reason in this situation people think it's acceptable. Makes no sense.
We better not actually role-play out PC/NPC interactions because the people with characters with different charisma as their real selves will metagame.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.