Player knowledge vs Character knowledge, riddles

[firruna]

So, I'm looking at doing a dungeon with my group soon. where instead of monsters and traps the encounters are based around riddles/mind games/puzzles.

My group rotates DMs, and in the past another player, then DM, ran something similar, and the group really liked it. Until they got even a little stumped. Then everyone just got really annoyed.

So, my question to you all is, how would you handle this? I was thinking of giving knowledge/int checks to get hints, or maybe hiding clues in each room. However, if I do this, they will stop trying to figure it out on their own, opting to search first. I feel that would take a lot of the fun out of finding/creating puzzles for themif they can just skip past it with a few rolls.

Any advice?

I'm out right now so I don't have the party list in front of me. They are level 10, and 5 of them. I'll post classes/races when I'm home later tonight if requested.

[Divide by Zero]

This is why you need to be careful with riddles. It's hard to do something in-character that has to be solved with out-of-character knowledge, without reducing it to a glorified skill check. And when someone's playing an Int 8 Fighter, their only options are either not contributing or basically metagaming.

Giving hints is always an option (but starts to tread toward "glorified skill check" territory), of course. Another option would be to provide alternate options to get past the obstacle. Maybe they can solve the riddle, or do some sort of skill challenge, or fight a regular combat. Or maybe even find some way to integrate the options together, so all the characters can be useful in their own way.

[OldTrees1]

If the group enjoys puzzling but gets annoyed if even a little bit stumped, then you would want to focus on puzzles that have multiple/many valid answers. Riddles are a poor choice for this (At most 1 valid answer and sometimes no valid answers).

1)Three Clue Rule (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule)
For every conclusion you want the PCs to draw, include 3 clues.

2)Skill checks could reveal further clues
Whether there are clues hidden in the details of the room(tracks for example) or if it is knowledge/insight revealing additional clues, one can allow successes to grant progress without granting solutions.

3)Multiple valid answers
One sure way of minimizing the PCs getting stuck is to be open to their solutions. "A box without hinges key or lid, yet golden treasure inside is hid" could mean a Squash. Manipulation puzzles are easier to setup with the idea of multiple solutions in mind. Traversal puzzles(PCs get from here to there) are usually even more open ended.

[firruna]

If the group enjoys puzzling but gets annoyed if even a little bit stumped, then you would want to focus on puzzles that have multiple/many valid answers. Riddles are a poor choice for this (At most 1 valid answer and sometimes no valid answers).

1)Three Clue Rule (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule)
For every conclusion you want the PCs to draw, include 3 clues.

3)Multiple valid answers
One sure way of minimizing the PCs getting stuck is to be open to their solutions. "A box without hinges key or lid, yet golden treasure inside is hid" could mean a Squash. Manipulation puzzles are easier to setup with the idea of multiple solutions in mind. Traversal puzzles(PCs get from here to there) are usually even more open ended.

Very cool link! Thank you. I will use the multiple valid answers as well.

[Bakkan]

I find it very difficult as a player to deal with riddles in game properly. On the one had, as was mentioned before, if I (the player) know the answer because of my education but my character has moronic intelligence and is illiterate, then providing the answer to the riddle seems disingenuous. On the other hand, if I try to roleplay well by not speaking up, I can end up becoming frustrated because the other players don't happen to know the answer.

The inverse problem can also occur: Sometimes I'm playing a Grey Elf Wizard with 24 Intelligence, the Collegiate Wizard feat, and have hundreds of skill points in various knowledges, and a riddle appears, which might be an in-universe literary reference or simply an exercise in lateral thinking. If I (the player) can't figure out the answer, then there's a break in verisimilitude, as my character should be much more well educated and intelligent than I am in real life, so he should have an easier time of solving it.

TL;DR: I find riddles that must be solved by the players rather than the characters to be obstructions to good roleplay and suspension of disbelief and a source of frustration while playing. I prefer for these narrative elements to be handled by the skill system that is intended to represent a character's ability.

[Shpadoinkle]

So, my question to you all is, how would you handle this?

I'd scrap the idea altogether because I think in-game riddles are stupid. They completely and deliberately divest players from their characters, because the guy playing the INT 6 WIS 8 barbarian has exactly as much chance of solving the riddle as the guy playing the INT 19 WIS 14 wizard.

[Honest Tiefling]

Be mean. Give them the knowledge checks to get hints, not the solution. And then, they can search for clues. Sadly, there's a bit of a time limit in character. Out of character they have as long as the group wants, but in character, they can only do so much studying, conversing, and searching before something comes to rain on their parade.

[BowStreetRunner]

As has already been mentioned above, there is a point of view in which 'players answering riddles' takes away from 'players role-playing characters answering riddles'. I recently participated in a LARP in which my science-based character concept was denied and I ended up with more of a combat character simply because the Storyteller intended to fill the event with puzzles and riddles that the science character could have just solved with a skill use, eliminating the need for me to solve the puzzle myself. That may have seemed like a good idea to the Storyteller when he created the event, but on that particular day I really didn't feel like solving complex puzzles, I felt more like role-playing. So in the end I was mostly just a spectator.

My advice in this case would be to take a page from the Sherlock Holmes stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. If you've ever read any of these or similar mysteries you will find that in most instances the audience is not in fact provided enough information to work out the solution themselves. For most of the cases, the author doesn't give the audience all of the clues until the final reveal - which ensures that Mr Holmes always remains the only one able to solve the case and there are no readers arguing they figured it out long beforehand.

Go ahead and give the PCs clues as well as skill checks to understand the meaning of the clues - if the players figure the answer out along the way, fine. But don't make it dependent on them.

Also, remember that even Sherlock Holmes got help along the way - in several cases from the Bow Street Runners!

[Troacctid]

I've come to dislike minigames that ignore the stats on players' character sheets, because it kind of defeats the purpose if you're divorcing the game from the characters we're supposed to be role-playing.

However, I think the occasional "Speak friend and enter" type of puzzle can be fine when there's an alternative solution. For example, if answering the riddle opens the door, you could also have the option of breaking down the door, teleporting past the door, summoning a coure eladrin to phase through the door and unlock it from the other side, and so on. Or if it's a riddle game against a Sphinx, you could win by discreetly casting Detect Thoughts, or you could just fight the Sphinx.

[Quertus]

So, I'm looking at doing a dungeon with my group soon. where instead of monsters and traps the encounters are based around riddles/mind games/puzzles.

My group rotates DMs, and in the past another player, then DM, ran something similar, and the group really liked it. Until they got even a little stumped. Then everyone just got really annoyed.

So, my question to you all is, how would you handle this? I was thinking of giving knowledge/int checks to get hints, or maybe hiding clues in each room. However, if I do this, they will stop trying to figure it out on their own, opting to search first. I feel that would take a lot of the fun out of finding/creating puzzles for themif they can just skip past it with a few rolls.

Any advice?

I'm out right now so I don't have the party list in front of me. They are level 10, and 5 of them. I'll post classes/races when I'm home later tonight if requested.

I love riddles & puzzles in D&D. Here's my 2¢.

Never make a riddle be the only way to move the plot forward. Therein lies the path to frustration. The only way to open a chest, or the only way to get a sage's help, sure. But not the only way to open the invulnerable, teleport-proof door between the party and adventure.

Make solving the riddle not required. If the party gets the riddle right, they pass; if they fail, they fight the guardian. If they get the riddle right, the fey show them the short cut; if not, they have to go the long way around. Etc.

I'm of two minds about IC vs OOC. Although I'm generally all about not using OOC knowledge, riddles are something only fun to solve by the player. Sure, the right character can merit additional information or hints, and applying proper forensics to many trap-based puzzles greatly changes the game.

Now, I've never had the misfortune of playing the int 3 character when the party needs to solve a puzzle. I did play a tactically clueless character one time when the party spent half the session planning for an upcoming military outing. Being silent them was just the price of proper role-playing. I think it would be harder not getting to contribute to puzzles. But, if you are in a rotating DM game, and you already know the party, you know whether this is a consideration.

[Jay R]

If they come up with an answer that's just as good as your answer, then it's a correct answer.