Rolling to solve a puzzle [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

DarkKnightJin

2018-10-26, 06:35 AM

As a DM I have no intrinsic problem with a player rolling his smart character's INT to solve INT-based challenges. That seems right, but it's a sign that my players aren't really playing D&D to solve puzzles.

Compare it to combat. If my players just said "I roll to hit the orc" over and over without trying to think up interesting tactics and working together as a team, that's perfectly fine but it's an indication that combat isn't really what they're at the table to play. This isn't the case with my players -- they enjoy working out combats and maneuvering to find positions and syncing up abilities. So I know that they appreciate and look forward to a good fight.

Actually, they also like puzzles but I've learned that a little of that goes a long way. I keep puzzles very simple and allow them to make rolls for solution hints (they're more satisfied if I give them hints from rolls and they solve it from those hints rather than a roll just giving them the solution outright). I also try to provide multiple solutions, and even complete bypasses.

That's how it should be handled, I feel.

The DM feels out how interester the players are in puzzles/riddles, and tosses one in every now and then if they enjoy them.

That isn't to say that things like sneaking past a guard, or disabling a trap in a fun and creative way isn't a puzzle of sorts for the players to solve in-character.

While I am not a fan of the "Here's a puzzle I made, have fun figuring it out" and the DM sits back and watches their players bang their collective heads against the rock for a while type puzzles..
Adding in some things like: "Okay, you guys aren't on friendly terms with the local law enforcement. How do you get through town to pick up supplies/turn in that (side-)quest, without the guards getting all up in your business?"-type 'puzzle' is fine, because I can tackle that by looking at my sheet, and trying to put together how my character might go about doing that with the skills and supplies they have available to them.

Sigreid

2018-10-26, 06:53 AM

Depends entirely on whether the other players are onto puzzles. If they are, you don't have to participate in solving it or even pay attention while they do.

Leith

2018-10-26, 07:22 AM

If someone says they'd like to roll to solve the puzzle I think "how" is a perfectly legitamate question. I ask that when a player wants to break down a door, when they want to seduce a guard, I even have to occasionally ask what they are attacking with in combat because I don't know.

Puzzles test the player not the character. Otherwise your puzzle is essentially just a lock; make a roll. Puzzles should also not be all that intellectually difficult. Roleplaying is about choices, and if the DM sets up situations where you can't make smart choices because you're not that smart or you don't think like them that kinda sucks.

To the OP I would also point out that if the DM were to throw an insanely difficult combat encounter your way it would still be incumbent on you, not your character, to come up with a winning strategy. You cant just roll an intelligence check and have the DM play for you.

Mikal

2018-10-26, 07:45 AM

I’d allow the player to use the dice. I’d also force the player of a pc with low intelligence/wisdom to use the dice as well especially if the player is quite smart, and especially in an age where most puzzles are ether riddles people can google easily or are lifted from somewhere that can be googled or are completely dm based and thus heavily nonsensical.

I don’t force the high strength character to carry 300 lbs of equipment in real life, I don’t expect the bard to bring along a ukulele in real life, I don’t expect the rogue to open a trap filled door or die in real life.

Why should I make the wizard solve a puzzle? All it is is a lock that dms create whole cloth to slow the game down, prove their own clevenerness, and/or make the players feel smart.

Pelle

2018-10-26, 08:12 AM

Puzzles à la Rubik's cube rarely makes sense to include in the fiction, so if the DM uses one, it is probably because a player at the table enjoys solving them. Please don't spoil their fun by insisting to roll a check to get the solution directly.

Keravath

2018-10-26, 08:31 AM

A fundamental aspect of role playing games is that the character's attributes and the players attributes are not the same. This makes it more difficult to figure out how best to handle the various challenges that a CHARACTER will encounter.

Combat is typically very well spelled out in the rules. It doesn't matter if the players strength/dex/constitution are remotely similar to the character's. Combat is resolved using the character stats. However, the player has to decide what the character will do, where and who they will attack and any other actions they will take. Focus fire is typically the best way to survive an encounter since opponents remain equally strong until they reach zero hit points. Attacking two or four targets is far less effective that dealing with one. However, a lot of PLAYERS just attack whoever is closest/most threatening to them without necessarily considering strategy.

Players make all the decisions for their characters and they decide what their characters will say and how they will interact with the game and other players. These decisions and interactions rely on the PLAYERS intelligence, wisdom and charisma. Players often would not come up with the solution that their character would. A player will typically run their 8 int barbarian or paladin quite a bit smarter. On the other hand, most players probably can't think of the things that a 20 int wizard is likely to come up with.

However, in the end, it is still the PLAYER making the decisions and coming up with the ideas and actions for the character through out the game. The characters can't play themselves. So the player's capabilities are always a factor which the DM needs to consider when setting up a campaign since it is unfair to throw in mental puzzles and challenges which a character could probably solve relatively easily but which the player will find challenging and not very much fun without allowing the player to utilize aspects of the character to either completely or partially solve the puzzle or other challenge.

If a DM has a group of folks who love to solve puzzles then go ahead and let the players solve it. If a group contains characters that might find the puzzle fairly easy then allow hints or partial solutions on successful ability checks from these characters (the player should be able to use character abilities to help solve in game problems).

The same goes for in game social interactions. The player should not always have to be convincing with their arguments and statements in the game if they have a high persuasion skill. However, very frequently, in order to have a chance to make a persuasion roll the player has to come up with something persuasive in the first place to make the roll and the more convincing or believable the comments from the player, the more likely the DM seems to be to look favorably on making the persuasion/deception roll. It is part of the catch 22 of a "role" playing game. The player plays a role and the actual execution of the character mental stats in the game come down to the players choices and not what the character would have done.

e.g.
Int 20 ... puzzles and problem solving ... player may not be good at these
Wis 20 ... general decision making ... is it really a good idea to take a particular action ... shouldn't we focus fire our attacks? ... some of these things a wis 20 character should consider blatantly obvious
Cha 20 ... convincing, personable, strong force of will ... it can be difficult for a shy person or one who is somewhat uncomfortable in real social situations to do a good job role playing a cha 20 character.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-26, 08:41 AM

Right, make sure you're not having the wrong kind of fun!

Right, your opinion on how to handle puzzles is spot on without reproach.
The other guy who gave his opinion on how to handle puzzles should be chastised.

I’d allow the player to use the dice. I’d also force the player of a pc with low intelligence/wisdom to use the dice as well especially if the player is quite smart, and especially in an age where most puzzles are ether riddles people can google easily or are lifted from somewhere that can be googled or are completely dm based and thus heavily nonsensical.

Do you also force the fighter/barbarian to roll int or wis to avoid making bad tactical decisions during combat?
Do you let the wizard roll to force the bad guys into a tight group for fireball?

(I am not saying you are wrong.
I have problems at my table with the 8Int fighter being the master tactician, but I don't know how to handle it)

Mikal

2018-10-26, 09:20 AM

Right, your opinion on how to handle puzzles is spot on without reproach.
The other guy who gave his opinion on how to handle puzzles should be chastised.

Do you also force the fighter/barbarian to roll int or wis to avoid making bad tactical decisions during combat?
Do you let the wizard roll to force the bad guys into a tight group for fireball?

(I am not saying you are wrong.
I have problems at my table with the 8Int fighter being the master tactician, but I don't know how to handle it)

Eh, not usually, because I see tactics as a outgrowth of their martial abilities- they have extra attack, and in the fighters case even moreso, which to me translates into martial cunning, especially if using a subclass which fits such as battlemaster or ancestral guardians or totem (where the spirits of the ancestors or totem may unconsciously guide him).

Now strategic thinking on the other hand, can be forced to roll.

Regardless to me it’s a false equivalence to a degree- puzzles can be beaten depending on their design - either as traps or locks, while tactics and strategy are not part of any skill checks and are more esoteric to define.

What’s the wisdom of your tactician. Strategy is more, imo intelligence based, while tactics are more wisdom.

EggKookoo

2018-10-26, 09:48 AM

Right, your opinion on how to handle puzzles is spot on without reproach.
The other guy who gave his opinion on how to handle puzzles should be chastised.

I have no problem with how anyone handles puzzles at their table. Dogmatic declarations of what D&D is and isn't will sometimes get you friendly responses.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-26, 09:53 AM

Eh, not usually, because I see tactics as a outgrowth of their martial abilities- they have extra attack, and in the fighters case even moreso, which to me translates into martial cunning, especially if using a subclass which fits such as battlemaster or ancestral guardians or totem (where the spirits of the ancestors or totem may unconsciously guide him).

Now strategic thinking on the other hand, can be forced to roll.

Regardless to me it’s a false equivalence to a degree- puzzles can be beaten depending on their design - either as traps or locks, while tactics and strategy are not part of any skill checks and are more esoteric to define.

What’s the wisdom of your tactician. Strategy is more, imo intelligence based, while tactics are more wisdom.

I am confused by this response. It appears that you contradict yourself, so I don't know what you mean.
tactics and strategy are not part of any checks <> Strategy is int-based, tactics are wisdom <> result of class ability

To be fair, puzzles aren't parts of any ability checks, either. You can decide that they are like traps/locks (mundane or magical)

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-26, 09:57 AM

I have no problem with how anyone handles puzzles at their table. Dogmatic declarations of what D&D is and isn't will sometimes get you friendly responses.

I didn't realize "D&D is more than just die rolls" was a dogmatic statement. My bad.

EggKookoo

2018-10-26, 10:00 AM

I didn't realize "D&D is more than just die rolls" was a dogmatic statement. My bad.

Apology accepted.

Speely

2018-10-26, 10:18 AM

I let players have a go at figuring it out, and if they have trouble I let them make Int checks, but only for hints, not to solve the puzzle. The better the roll, the better the hint.

That way, the investigative/knowledge skills of the character are reflected, but we are still having fun RPing the damn thing.

Amemnon91

2018-10-26, 10:59 AM

To me, puzzles in game are similarly treated to knowledge checks on a creature encounter. Your character either knows what it is or doesn't and has varying degrees of knowledge based on how successful the roll was. Whether any knowledge was gained, the player ultimately chooses how their character deals with the encounter i.e. how to move, attack, what spells to cast, etc.

For the puzzles, several have mentioned dropping hints based on their intelligence and possibly even rolling for that. You can set a dc depending on how challenging the puzzle is, have everyone roll INT checks and different characters would get different hints based on success or just be completely stumped. A wizard can have all the INT in the world but coming across a puzzle or riddle they've never heard or seen before would be kind of immersion breaking to just roll for it.

That being said, know your group. If they don't like puzzles and everyone's fine with rolling, do your best to be as descriptive as possible :D

ImproperJustice

2018-10-26, 11:37 AM

Would a good compromise be that a good intelligence check equals a number of hints to help solve the puzzle?

Laserlight

2018-10-26, 11:41 AM

As a DM, I rarely use puzzles, because who would rely on "can be solved by INT alone" to secure something important? I've used them in a gnomish Escape Room, but that's about it.

However, it just occurred to me that a low INT puzzle might be hilarious.
"Okay, Bob, this is a kobold lair so we know the door is probably trapped. What does that carving say?"
"To enter, stack the stones from largest to smallest."
"And what else?"
"That's it."
"....Seriously?"
Shrug.
Stacks stones.
<click><door unlocks>
"Ooookay."

EggKookoo

2018-10-26, 11:46 AM

willdaBEAST

2018-10-26, 12:11 PM

I don't think an INT check should necessarily solve a puzzle, but I do think it should give you much greater context or clues.

As others have pointed out though, there's a huge inconsistency between how tables approach stats. How often have you asked the Bard to sing or what they said for their cutting words?

Puzzles can also suffer from limited descriptions. What the characters would see and what the DM describes is not always aligned.

I had kind of the opposite problem with ToA, I was playing an idiot, but often my party would get stumped by puzzles. I then tried to think of backwards ways that my character could stumble upon the answer, entirely by accident.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-26, 02:57 PM

As others have pointed out though, there's a huge inconsistency between how tables approach stats. How often have you asked the Bard to sing or what they said for their cutting words? .

At every table i played or ran DMs and players always the Bard for their cutting words.

That said, there is a specific mechanic for bardic abilities that rely on die rolls.

A closer parallel is:
i try to intimidate the guard.
what do you say?
i rolled a 24....

EggKookoo

2018-10-26, 03:30 PM

A closer parallel is:
i try to intimidate the guard.
what do you say?
i rolled a 24....

That's what sliding DC is for. For "I rolled a 24" you set it high. For players that explain what they said, it's lower. You'd set the DC before the roll, of course.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-26, 03:35 PM

That's what sliding DC is for. For "I rolled a 24" you set it high. For players that explain what they said, it's lower. You'd set the DC before the roll, of course.

Hadn't seen that one before.

Erloas

2018-10-26, 03:39 PM

I think it also worth pointing out that while your Int 20 wizard might be able to easily solve the problem, we also know that the DM that created the puzzle is not Int 24 either and isn't going to have figured out a puzzle as clever as the Int 24 BBEG is that built said puzzle. So it is all being scaled back. I think we can also assume that a DM will have a pretty good idea of what their players are capable of and will make something that is within their ability.

As others have said, we don't put many other aspects of the games straight into the characters' hands either. I don't think a player playing a fighter is going to say "I'm going to roll my Profession (soldier) skill to figure out the best tactics for this fight" and then expect the DM to move their character in the best place every turn and use the most appropriate skills. While many aspects of a combat are coded into numbers, a very big variability in the outcome comes down to how the encounter is handled and we still leave that up to the players. Even though I know from having played many TT mass combat games that many players are really bad at tactics. The hit and damage numbers are the only parts codified, the actual *fight* is still primarily left up to the players, not the characters.

Laserlight

2018-10-26, 03:55 PM

we also know that the DM that created the puzzle is not Int 24 either and isn't going to have figured out a puzzle as clever as the Int 24 BBEG is that built said puzzle.

That's why we ask the Internet. "Here's a puzzle, and here's the answer, and....I read the explanation twice and I still have no idea how they got from A to B on that one. Definitely using that one."

Except the last time I did that, with a "knights on a chessboard" type problem, I was going to have the players take a little damage every 30 seconds real time until they solved it, with the understanding that most people took at least three minutes to solve it. They got the right answer in 24 seconds.

Man_Over_Game

2018-10-26, 04:08 PM

One thing that 4E does is "Challenges", which are a complex number of actions and DCs to accomplish a targeted, specific goal. When enough of the skill challenges are completed, the players succeed on their goal, but there's a turn limit usually associated with it. It's a cool system, but not always implemented in all 4E tables, and it relies on the idea that the goal, and the steps to reach it, are already known.

An example challenge would be something like "Get the Ambassador to agree to meet the Cleric (whom he hates)". Relevant checks might be Charisma (Persuasion), Intelligence (Persuasion), Wisdom (Insight), Constitution (Intimidate).

Each time you use a skill, the DC increases by 5 the next time you use it on this challenge, but other players (or NPCs) can attempt the same skill at no penalty. After 5 successes, or 3 fails, the challenge is over.

Then just have your players roll and then RP their roll, rather than RP then follow through with a nonsense reason why a 1 word sentence or a compelling speech had no influence on the check. It follows the Fate example of describing HOW your player failed, rather than assuming he succeeded just to be "corrected" by the d20.

This has some obvious issues with things with inherent mystery (as the end goal is known from the beginning), but you can modify the system so that it's a series of smaller goals to an overall goal.

-----------------------

In the case of something like a puzzle door, make it sort of like a reverse pyramid flow chart, with multiple clues all leading towards the same goal. You don't need much.

Perhaps there are 3 obvious clues at the start:

Writing on the walls in the main room (heavily faded and aged dialect of Elvish, requires Intelligence (Investigation and Elvish))
Stains on the floor that seem oddly colored and shaped (mostly rotted, but signs of acidity. Requires Wisdom (Medicine) check)
A hidden nook above the main entrance that is very hidden and hard to reach (requires Wisdom (Perception) to see)

From there:

After uncovering prior clues 1 or 2: You find out that the doors open with a locked handle in the floor that's in a small hand-sized pit. The lock releases when filled with a pint of dragon's blood. Requires a very difficult Strength (Athletics) check to break the lock, or a Constitution (Athletics) to open it while it's filled with dragon's blood (which is slightly acidic). Dragon Sorcerers, Dragonborn, or Kobolds are valid options for the blood needed.
After uncovering prior clue 3: After uncovering the nook, it appears it may be able to be reached, as long as you have some incredible agility (Requires a moderate Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Flight or some other form of vertical movement can work as well).

And then:

After uncovering prior clue 1: The door draws open, but it's requiring some decent amount of power to maintain, as it only remains open as long as the handle is held. Requires a Constitution (Athletics) check to maintain each round. After 30 seconds of holding it open, the lock audibly clicks, becoming broken, and no longer needing someone to hold the lever to keep to open.
After uncovering prior clue 2: This seems to be a maintenance shaft for the trap in this room. Anyone with proficiency in Thieves' Tools or Investigation would recognize that the lock can be tampered with by making some quick modifications to the mechanisms (Requires a moderate Thieves' Tools check to tamper with, or a difficult Strength check to break)

After that, the door is opened for the team to go through.

----------------------------

Naturally, it'd work in your favor to have several means of failure. To prevent these being game-breaking and not allowing players means of proper completion, it's better to make these failures things that are only temporary setbacks, such as falling after failing an Athletics check or some kind of minor trap to punish those who don't belong here.

The goal is to make the clues "obvious", in a sense that they don't require player creativity to solve, but still rely on skills and decisiveness to accomplish. Don't make up some weird thing that requires you to read and piece together 4 different murals that the players have to make sense of due to the positions of the sun and moon in the skies; just make them strictly nonsensical until your player has enough information to make sense of it, then spell it out for them.

I use the example of the murals because that's the EXACT example that my DM pitted against us. And it sucked, and we hated it. We spend the better part of an hour trying to figure it out using Investigation, Perception, History checks, you name it. We ended up just trying to ignore the trap and mitigate the damage as we passed through it.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-26, 04:10 PM

Tanarii

2018-10-26, 04:53 PM

If the DM hasn't already set an Int check DC to solve the puzzle, that's probably not going to fly.

Instead, try asking if you can use Int (investigation) to look for or figure out a clue.

lall

2018-10-26, 05:19 PM

Agree with OP that puzzles are stupid.

lperkins2

2018-10-27, 03:11 AM

rmnimoc

2018-10-27, 11:21 AM

As a DM if your puzzle makes players want to roll to solve it, you're did a poor job of designing it and you should let the players roll to solve it. D&D is a game, not a battleground of wits. A DM's job is to facilitate an interesting and enjoyable story for the players and for himself. While "Jimjam the Wizard rolled a 32 on an Int check and solved the puzzle" isn't an interesting or enjoyable story at least it gets the party to get to the fun parts more quickly than "Steve, Carrie, and Tom spent an hour on a puzzle they didn't like because it took them that long to divine my will and saw a board in half and put the halves together to make a hole".

Honestly there's a reason adventure games get a lot of flack for stupid puzzles and it's not because the designers suck at their jobs. Coming up with creative and fun puzzles is absurdly hard and unless you're playing with Diviner Wizards they probably won't be able to pull the answer out of the ether.

I got a bit off track, but the point is if none of the players want to solve my puzzles, I'll just let them roll past it or contrive some excuse for how they get past it without needing to solve it.

Tanarii

2018-10-27, 12:20 PM

D&D was traditionally is a game of wits. Or as Gygax put it, a thinking man's game.

It's just that what my people consider "puzzles" are pretty garbage. Riddles are classic example. Things like the Sphinx riddles, or bilbo & golums riddle challenge. There's no real logic behind riddles, just DM (or author) mind-reading.

But many old-school tricks, traps and other exploration challenges are a much more well designed kind of puzzle, provided you start with a paranoid frame of mind ("everything in this dungeon is out to kill me") and the DM describes the situation properly, and the players proceed carefully. Heck, even combat challenges are a kind of puzzle.

RSP

2018-10-27, 12:45 PM

The answer will vary from table to table in practice, based on how the DM thinks it’ll be more fun (which unfortunately isn’t always how the Players think it will be most fun).

The “RAW” answer probably is an ability check if the DM determines there’s a chance a character (not Player) would know the solution. D&D is a role playing game and the characters’ knowledge/abilities is what determines outcomes, not the Players’ abilities.

Per the RAW: “Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.
Intelligence Checks
An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.”

I’d say any puzzle such as I’m seeing discussed here would fall under Int in 5e, possibly with Investigation (the ability to deduce from clues) proficiency added, depending on the situation/riddle/puzzle.

So first, the DM would need to determine if thepuzzle is something that the characters could solve (if not, no roll, no chance of success), or if it’s something they would know without fail (the 20 Int character easily gets the riddle at the end of the children’s book). If there’s a chance, roll an Int check or Int (Investigation) check.

A good analogy would be a Player who is very familiar with monsters’ stat blocks, using his knowledge to the advantage of his character, such as a Wizard who always targets a monster’s weakness even though the character shouldn’t know that info. Maybe the Player shouts this info out to the group at the start of each combat. Is that fun for a table? It probably varies from group to group.

tieren

2018-10-27, 01:13 PM

I didn't want to quote the whole thing, but I really like Man_Over_Game's response above.

The high Int wizard should figure out the nature of the puzzle, but that might not be the solution.

Wiz: I rolled a 24
DM: You discern to unlock the door the statues need to be repositioned...

Not just "the door opens" but they now know what they need to do instead of random guessing, it may be impossible to know the full solution (might be totally random elements). And a good challenging puzzle should require multiple skills different members of the party are good at.

The Wiz gets to feel good because their character knows things no one else does and can use the spotlight to help direct the group towards the solution. "You push that one over there (str), I need someone to climb up and get a rope over that beam so we can lift the fallen one (dex), does anyone know which of these represents the goddess of the harvest (religion), etc..."

They invested their resources in having a character that knows things, let them know things and enjoy it.

Darth Ultron

2018-10-27, 02:33 PM

I like puzzles and in more general problem solving or overcoming obstacles and challenges, and think it is very much a part of the game of D&D.

I really don't see the point of Roll Playing through a game. What is even the point of playing the game if you will simply ''roll around" everything?

It's like saying to the anti-puzzle people that we will Roll past all combat: We will just roll two d20, and whoever gets the high roll wins the combat. No need to play the combat out, just a three second roll. And yet, amazingly, the anti-puzzle people won't like that, as they just love spending hours on combat.

Of course, this is a big session zero thing. Where the DM needs to say ''my game has puzzles that you the player must solve for real". Then the player can choose if they want to stay for the game....or leave.

And as said above, even if the DM does have an INT of 18, that does not make every puzzle in the game a INT 18 level of difficulty puzzle. In fact, most puzzle's are right around INT 10 level.

If a player does not like puzzles, they are free to just sit there and do nothing...just like they do when anything they don't like happens in the game (so, in other words, they sit there unless there is some combat).

Maelynn

2018-10-27, 03:07 PM

If the whole group is like "well, that's an arcane puzzle, that's the wizard's job" but you are the wizard and you have no idea, I would accept it, because your character is supposed to be able to solve the puzzle.

If the whole group is like "well, let's think together to a solution", then I will refuse it, because you are breaking the fun of other players that I trying to solve it.

Basically this. Get a feel for what the rest of the players think of the puzzle before you throw in the towel dice.

Personally, as a DM I wouldn't be inclined to just straight out provide the answer, but give clues Myst-style. Give out the first clue if they ask for it, simply because they have high INT - no roll required. Then another one if they succeed a DC10. And a third one if they succeed a DC15.

Of course, if I feel the player(s) don't really appreciate the puzzle, I wouldn't force it upon them either and just end the torment by providing the answer.

willdaBEAST

2018-10-27, 05:47 PM

But many old-school tricks, traps and other exploration challenges are a much more well designed kind of puzzle, provided you start with a paranoid frame of mind ("everything in this dungeon is out to kill me") and the DM describes the situation properly, and the players proceed carefully. Heck, even combat challenges are a kind of puzzle.

I think this touches on a good point and is something ToA did to some degree. Have investment in lore pay off for puzzle solving. Ideally have a way for your players to succeed if they bullrush their way to the puzzle, but also reward them if they take the time to investigate ahead of time and try to prepare for the challenges they may be facing. Whether it's from a NPC, learning backstory or becoming more familiar with your enemy's tendencies.

Lunali

2018-10-27, 10:39 PM

It's just that what my people consider "puzzles" are pretty garbage. Riddles are classic example. Things like the Sphinx riddles, or bilbo & golums riddle challenge. There's no real logic behind riddles, just DM (or author) mind-reading.

Reminds me of one time when a DM made a riddle to solve the puzzle, no one could guess it so he gave checks to get hints, still couldn't solve it so he gave checks to solve it, we disagreed that the solution answered the riddle.

Pex

2018-10-27, 11:32 PM

I have problems at my table with the 8Int fighter being the master tactician, but I don't know how to handle it)

He's still a fighter. That is what he is trained to do. 8 Int does not mean ignorant of everything needs to roll against DC 20 to remember to put his pants on after his underwear let alone remember to put them on in the first place. For things not about combat, sure, he knows little to nothing. When it comes to combat that's what he knows. That's his focus. That is the one thing he's very good at to be an adventurer. He knows how to fight.

Anyway, a solution when you have some players who like puzzles and others who don't is not have the encounter be only about the puzzle. Have the puzzle, but also have something else happen at the same time such as a combat. Those not doing the puzzle fight off the bad guys keeping them away from the ones doing the puzzle. The bad guys are weak enough not to need the entire party fight them. Depending on the puzzle, the puzzle solver's action could be Use An Object action to move a puzzle piece in initiative order. If it's a riddle or code his action might be Thinking On It. The player thinks on it real world time while the combat is happening. He doesn't have to roll initiative. His character solves the puzzle whenever the player does.

qube

2018-10-28, 01:37 AM

Right, make sure you're not having the wrong kind of fun!
Because nothings more fun for a DM, then to spend time & effort inventing or reseraching a puzzle, only to have a player circumvent it without second thought

Think less "I wanna have fun screw everyone else" and more "show some respect to the guy facilitating it (and your fellow players who might like puzzles)". Because, yes, for very obvious reasons, the first factually IS the wrong kind of fun for D&D.

How to handle a puzzle:
Give the puzzle a fair effort. And at the moment the party gets stuck, ask the DM if you can make an intelligence check. This may result in you getting a clue or even the solution.

If the DM doesn't want you to have the prize without solving it yourself, you won't get the check, or only a clue. If it's part of the Journey, and the DM finds that the group has spend too much time on this step, you'll get a clue, or even the solution.

StoicLeaf

2018-10-28, 01:50 AM

EggKookoo

2018-10-28, 05:47 AM

Because nothings more fun for a DM, then to spend time & effort inventing or reseraching a puzzle, only to have a player circumvent it without second thought

Think less "I wanna have fun screw everyone else" and more "show some respect to the guy facilitating it (and your fellow players who might like puzzles)". Because, yes, for very obvious reasons, the first factually IS the wrong kind of fun for D&D.

Look, the OP asked if it was wrong to solve puzzles with a die roll. The objective answer is no, not on the face of it. It may or may not fit the style of a particular DM or a particular table, which is a different issue that can be applied to a metric crapton of things in this game. But if it's "playing D&D wrong" to make INT checks, the game wouldn't include rules for INT checks. I mean by RAW you make a single Stealth check to get past some guards, which is easily as complicated a process as solving the average puzzle or riddle. There's nothing rule-breaking with calling for a single check for a puzzle.

Everything beyond this answer is people asserting opinions about how they'd handle puzzles, or what it means when the players want to make checks to solve puzzles when the DM wants them to use their imaginations. That's all well and good and worth talking about, but don't confuse "this is how I'd handle puzzles" with "this is how everyone must handle puzzles."

My initial sarcastic comment to Asmotherion's post was not in response to how he'd handle puzzles but to the implication that to do it any other way was "not D&D."

And yes, sorry, but it's in the nature of a DM to prepare content the players will bypass, break, or just roll past. If you need people to consume your content in the form and manner you want them to, don't be a DM. Be a writer, perhaps. Being a DM means adapting to what the players do, or convincing them to do it your way without force. Really, when you get down to it, creating a puzzle and then insisting the players work it out in their own heads (despite them not wanting to, which is the crux of the issue) is in principle the same thing as the players not giving a crap that you want them to work it out and instead wanting to just make INT checks. The "screw you my fun is the only way" mindset is happening in both cases.

The good DM learns if the players want to work out puzzles or just roll past them. The good DM then presents the puzzles in a way that the players want. If the DM can't handle that, he's not ready to DM.

Gilrad

2018-10-28, 07:10 AM

From a practical point of view, I'm not a huge fan of "Diving Clockmaker" GMs who are extremely tight-lipped when it comes to puzzles. Getting a game group together when everyone's 30+ years old means I generally get to play that campaign maybe once a month. Spending the whole session mulling over a puzzle can wipe 1/10th of my yearly game time simply because the DM wants us to solve the puzzle ourselves.

((((Minor Out of the Abyss encounter spoilers))))

Three months ago (My last time playing in my Abyss group), we spent the whole 12-hour session going through a simple micro-dungeon. The ooze one, if anyone's read the book or played it. The puzzle was that the entrance was caved in, the dungeon was flooding from a freshly opened up cave above. To get out, we had to pull out crates and wooden things from another room, blast open the cracked ceiling, and float to the surface of the Darklake.

Nobody in the party picked up on that. Or at least, nobody thought that bringing down the ceiling on ourselves would be anything close to safe, and the DM, to encourage us to "figure it out ourselves", told us he would give us a hint and the dungeon would grant half xp, or tell us the answer for zero xp.

So clearly we spent the rest of the gaming day picking fights with already-solved encounters, tripping traps we have already overcome, and arguing over whether we should do X really inadvisable thing or Y really inadvisable thing.

The whole experience wasn't all that bad, we all had fun, it just felt a little bit of a waste to throw a whole day away on a three-hour dungeon when the chance to roll for even a slight hint could have meant almost a whole nother gaming day's worth of progress on the campaign.

qube

2018-10-28, 08:51 AM

Look, the OP asked if it was wrong to solve puzzles with a die roll. The objective answer is no, not on the face of it.You seem to forget the situation, which is that the DM presents the players with a problem he want's them solve out-game. Trying to sneak out of it by die-roll is just that: trying to sneaking out from it. You're not supposed to work against the DM - just as much as a DM isn't supposed to work against the players.

That's also why your reference to "it's in the nature of a DM to prepare content the players will bypass, break, or just roll past. " is inherently irrelevant, because that part of the game happens unintentional - players being players doing something else you prepared for. That's not the sitatuation we're talking about here.

If you don't like puzzles, the correct way, would be to inform the DM that you don't like puzzles. If then the DM still throws a puzzle at your party (because, of example, other people from your group like puzzles), to then go and ruin their fun & say "I roll and int check and solve the puzzle. Now we can continue to the stuff I find fun" is absolutely wrong.

it's also where the OP's analogy fails:

I mean, dm’s don’t make players lift stuff when they call for a strength check in game-you shouldn’t have to solve a color changing puzzle or a riddle for your character.

Unlike your character lifting stuff, a puzzle is specifically designed to solve out-game. The question isn't so much if some challenge could be solved with a check; but if something the DM deisgned to be solved out-game, could be solved with a check.

Objectively, the answer isn't "no" or "yes". it's "Look, what you're trying to do is generally considered a bad idea. Talk it over with your DM.".

The good DM learns if the players want to work out puzzles or just roll past them. The good DM then presents the puzzles in a way that the players want. If the DM can't handle that, he's not ready to DM.True that - but the opposite side of that coin is that a good player rolls with the punches, and doesn't complain - or even make a specific character build to corrupt - those few encounters he doesn't like.

I mean ... considering we're talking about a specifically making one's character like this ... There's a whisper in the back of my head that either the DM said, or the player knows the DM likes, a lot of these types of puzzles.
In that senario ... OK, cool, but if you as player don't want those, perhaps not being in the game is the better option then to ruin it for the rest of the people around the table.

RSP

2018-10-28, 08:55 AM

SodaQueen

2018-10-28, 09:03 AM

I agree completely with the OP. You're not required to be strong to play a high strength character, why would someone enforce that you be smart or charismatic to play a high intelligence or high charisma character? Let the rolls assist in solving the puzzle, that's why we're playing a character of our own design, not ourselves.

Every DM will eventually face instances where their grand plans get knocked out by a clever Player Character doing something the DM didn’t plan on. A DM who negates that just to make the players play the way the DM wants them to/expects them to, isn’t a good DM.

A DM isn’t writing a script of “this is what needs to happen,” they’re preparing encounters that the PCs need to deal with as they decide.Completely agree with this too.

Literally the dumbest idea (in the Realm of DND of course) I have ever heard.

The wisdom and intelligence skills are there to aid in the completion of a puzzle (finding stuff, to recognize certain parts, etc.) Finishing it is the part where the players come in.

This idea pretty much is the same as saying "With out numbers we have a statistical chance of 90% to beat that dragon, let´s roll a dice and skip the rest"

Honestly, it´s one thing to not participate in something (not every player tries to engage in social encounters either), but that´s just dumb.

Honestly, that´s the first question that I wouldn´t just answer with a no, but with a "no and you probably want to find an other table"Wow rude *and* unhelpful. I sure hope someone like you never finds their way to my table and I feel bad for anyone that does end up playing with you.

qube

2018-10-28, 09:30 AM

GloatingSwine

2018-10-28, 09:42 AM

The OP doesn't want to solve the puzzle (at least not in the traditional sense), he wants to roll & skip it.

He wants his character to be able to use the features of their character sheet irrespective of his out of game ability to replicate them.

EggKookoo

2018-10-28, 09:50 AM

You seem to forget the situation, which is that the DM presents the players with a problem he want's them solve out-game. Trying to sneak out of it by die-roll is just that: trying to sneaking out from it. You're not supposed to work against the DM - just as much as a DM isn't supposed to work against the players.

So assuming that the DM knows the players don't like solving puzzles (otherwise it means the DM isn't doing the due diligence of learning that), then the DM is being a bit of a jerk by expecting the players to conform to his definition of fun.

Why should the DM be able to impose that on the players without giving them an out?

Of course if the players like solving puzzles, then there's no problem to address here.

That's also why your reference to "it's in the nature of a DM to prepare content the players will bypass, break, or just roll past. " is inherently irrelevant, because that part of the game happens unintentional - players being players doing something else you prepared for. That's not the sitatuation we're talking about here.

If you don't like puzzles, the correct way, would be to inform the DM that you don't like puzzles. If then the DM still throws a puzzle at your party (because, of example, other people from your group like puzzles), to then go and ruin their fun & say "I roll and int check and solve the puzzle. Now we can continue to the stuff I find fun" is absolutely wrong.

"Other people in the party" are irrelevant if it falls to the one player who doesn't like solving puzzles to deal with it. If Bob hates puzzles but Sue loves puzzles, Bob isn't involved if the DM hands Sue a puzzle. But if the DM hands Bob a puzzle, he shouldn't be obliged to work it out because that's what Sue would have done.

We have to assume the DM knows Bob doesn't like puzzles from the beginning. Otherwise like I said above this whole issue is really the result of the DM not doing his job of learning that in the first place. If I said "hey, let's play D&D" and you showed up at my house and I had homebrewed the bejeezus out of the game so it was now space opera and you could only play orcs and there was no magic and ranged weapons did triple damage, you'd be well within your rights to be confused why I called it "D&D." I would be obliged to let you know I was changing the game dramatically. In the same vein, if I was DMing a game I'd want to learn what kind of gameplay you're looking for, or at least tell you what kind of gameplay I'm intending. That way, before we play, we all know what we're getting into. If I don't do this and I learn mid-game that you don't like what I'm running, I can't complain if you ask for a way to bypass the elements you don't like -- especially if that bypass comes in the form of already-established rules.

it's also where the OP's analogy fails:

I mean, dm’s don’t make players lift stuff when they call for a strength check in game-you shouldn’t have to solve a color changing puzzle or a riddle for your character.

Unlike your character lifting stuff, a puzzle is specifically designed to solve out-game. The question isn't so much if some challenge could be solved with a check; but if something the DM deisgned to be solved out-game, could be solved with a check.

I take issue with the idea that a puzzle is specifically designed to be solved out of game. That makes no sense to me. If the player is solving the puzzle, what did the characters do? Did the puzzle magically solve itself?

I understand full well that there's a gray area between what the players perceive and what the characters perceive, and there's not some wall between them. But at the same time, the game is about characters in a fictional reality who don't know they're part of a game. When the characters are presented with a puzzle, the characters must solve the puzzle. How they do that is what this discussion is about. If the player rolls a die to do it, it means the character worked out the logic behind the puzzle but that the player doesn't necessarily know what that was. If the player works it out in their head, it means the character also worked out the logic but now the player knows it too.

The DM can't design anything to work out of game. The DM doesn't have authority over anything out of game. This isn't saying the DM can't ask the players to try to solve it out of game, but a DM who penalizes his players for not wanting to do that is a jerk DM.

True that - but the opposite side of that coin is that a good player rolls with the punches, and doesn't complain - or even make a specific character build to corrupt - those few encounters he doesn't like.

This is true of general human interaction. The DM and players should communicate what they are looking for in a game and what they don't like. They can't cover everything beforehand, of course, but if something comes up mid-game (like a puzzle) and it hasn't been discussed, then one side or the other would benefit from conceding and moving on. In the case of a puzzle, it seems to me the onus is on the DM to let it go and learn from it. Being a DM is a big responsibility and part of that is making a game your players like. Otherwise you're just power tripping.

FWIW, I've been DMing for decades, so I'm not just an anti-DM player type.

I mean ... considering we're talking about a specifically making one's character like this ... There's a whisper in the back of my head that either the DM said, or the player knows the DM likes, a lot of these types of puzzles.
In that senario ... OK, cool, but if you as player don't want those, perhaps not being in the game is the better option then to ruin it for the rest of the people around the table.

I agree that if Bob doesn't want to hammer out the puzzle in his head but Sue wants to, Bob should let Sue try. That's just being a normal, civil human being. Unless the DM says only Bob can solve the puzzle, in which case Bob should be allowed to solve it with whatever approach he wants and that is legal within the rules.

RSP

2018-10-28, 10:26 AM

@Rsp29a, as noted above (I probbably ninja'd)

"Every DM will eventually face instances where their grand plans get knocked out by a clever Player Character doing something the DM didn’t plan"

Except ... that's not the sitatuation we're talking about here, are we? Unless you want to argue that asking for an int check to solve a puzzle falls under clever behavior?

If the rule is “the DM spent X amount of time designing this, so the Players have to spend X amount of time solving it,” which is the argument being made to not allow rolls, then that would apply to any situation where DM spends time designing encounters.

Further, this is not role-playing, which is the intent of the game.

Flip this around: the DM designs a puzzle that the characters aren’t supposed to know, but a Player does. Should the Player’s knowledge allow the character (who in-game has no way of knowing the answer) figure out the puzzle?

Again, this is the same thing as a Player using their knowledge of the Monster Manual to shout out what a creature has Vulnerability to, a creature the characters have no knowledge about in-game.

Is that how D&D is meant to be played, according to you?

You're ... not? out-game puzzles are usually a group activity to solve. In fact, at my tables, what we do, is try to solve the riddle as a group, and then consider the smartest character to have come up with the idea & solve the puzzle. Just like we let players give ideas to other players how they can intimidate or persuade an NPC.

Do you also really fight Orcs and then, when it’s dead, decide the strongest character killed it? Or do you roll?

Also, your argument doesn't support your conclusion. The OP doesn't call for assisting

I agree completely with the OP. You're not required to be strong to play a high strength character, why would someone enforce that you be smart or charismatic to play a high intelligence or high charisma character? Let the rolls assist in solving the puzzle, that's why we're playing a character of our own design, not ourselves.

Strong players don't have a lower DC then weak players. Their strength check completely replace whatever they can do out-game. Likewise, the OP argues, not assisting to solve the puzzle, but completely solving it: “We’ll, I’m not smart enough to solve this puzzle, but my character is” *rolls* “okay, 24, what’s the answer?”

The OP doesn't want to solve the puzzle (at least not in the traditional sense), he wants to roll & skip it.

No, Players want to have their characters be good and successful at, what they’re designed to be good and successful at.

Demanding Players solve riddles posed to characters isn’t role-playing, which is what D&D is:

“The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery...
...In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends)...The adventures can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure.”

So the adventurers (synonymous with characters) are meant to solve the puzzles, not the Players.

So I’m glad you’ve found a way that you think works for your table, but coming here and telling people they’re playing the game wrong because they don’t do it your way, when they’re actually playing the game the intended way, is wrong.

Naanomi

2018-10-28, 01:12 PM

Playing this *wrong* by other player’s/GMs expectations can be problematic... for example I’m usually pretty good at puzzles/riddles; but once when I was playing a low-Int no-nonsense Barbarian I refused to help solve a puzzle (my character couldn’t have been less interested); but the other players got mad at me personally for not helping slide the tiles to make a path (to drain acid out of a room in this case). Making it clear that this is a *player* activity and not character activity should be pretty explicit if that is the expectation

Tiadoppler

2018-10-28, 01:30 PM

Making it clear that this is a *player* activity and not character activity should be pretty explicit if that is the expectation

I agree, and that's where this causes headaches in some games:

Puzzles for the player are not necessarily what people think of when they think of D&D. Suddenly, you're not adventurers exploring an ancient tomb, learning arcane lore: you're a bunch of people sitting around a table doing a tile puzzle the DM copied from a 10-year-old video game. If you don't allow the PCs to help solve the puzzle, or even solve it themselves, you're not playing the adventure any more.

I like puzzles sometimes (and logic puzzles, pretty much always), and enjoy them as part of D&D, but if a DM told me that "your character can't solve the puzzle. You have to solve the puzzle before the game can continue." I'd be annoyed. That DM is all but telling me that the puzzle isn't part of the game: it's just homework that I have to do before I can keep playing.

StoicLeaf

2018-10-28, 01:39 PM

I agree, and that's where this causes headaches in some games:

Puzzles for the player are not necessarily what people think of when they think of D&D. Suddenly, you're not adventurers exploring an ancient tomb, learning arcane lore: you're a bunch of people sitting around a table doing a tile puzzle the DM copied from a 10-year-old video game. If you don't allow the PCs to help solve the puzzle, or even solve it themselves, you're not playing the adventure any more.

I like puzzles sometimes (and logic puzzles, pretty much always), and enjoy them as part of D&D, but if a DM told me that "your character can't solve the puzzle. You have to solve the puzzle before the game can continue." I'd be annoyed. That DM is all but telling me that the puzzle isn't part of the game: it's just homework that I have to do before I can keep playing.

but you can keep playing.
you just can't use that door/open that chest/take that shortcut.

Arkhios

2018-10-28, 01:49 PM

I tend to let my players figure out the puzzles on their own first, but if they have trouble in piecing together the parts, I generally allow them to roll an Intelligence or Wisdom check to represent that their characters were able to, when the players were not. In other words, I want to allow my players to feel they are smart when they are, and even when they fail at it, their characters can save their faces regardless. In the end, it's the character whose skills matter, not the player's per sé, because the game is played through those characters. And rolling dice is fun! I'm all in for RAF (Rules As Fun), myself.

For what it's worth, I consider myself to be above average when it comes to my smarts, but I'm far from being a genius at solving puzzles. My puzzles have been pretty simple so far, and most of them I have borrowed elsewhere rather than invented them from scratch.

BurgerBeast

2018-10-28, 02:04 PM

This is a reply to the OP, having not read the majority of comments.

I don’t think that the analogy holds. I don’t think rolling to solve a puzzle because it depends on intelligence is the same as rolling to lift a boulder because it depends on strength.

The reason that I do not think the analogy holds is because it’s not the same sort of application. Lifting a boulder (or pushing a cart, or whatever) is simply a brute application of an ability to your maximum capacity. If you were to rank-order ten people on the basis of their strength, then you could reasonably expect them to succeed or fail at lifting a given boulder consistently in accordance with their rank.

However, if you rank ordered people based on their intelligence, you could not make a similar prediction about solving a given puzzle. There is something more subtle going on.

Without calling on woo-woo or mysticism or X-factors, we can point to ideas related to ingenuity, creativity, luck, experience, trivial knowledge, etc, as factors.

Solving a puzzle would be more like opening a stuck device, where knowledge of how or where to correctly apply force is a bigger factor than sheer amount of force. Or maybe winning a jiujitsu match, or some such.

Forcing something by strength might be comparable to using wisdom to willfully resist eating a tempting doughnut, or constitution to resist screaming while tortured, because those are problems of sheer application. But when more subtlety and chance are involved, I would argue it is not appropriate.

To take a literary example, it was Frodo, not Gandalf, who solved the riddle to open the moon gate and enter Moria. Why? Because Frodo is more intelligent than Gandalf? No. Because Frodo is better at riddles? Perhaps... more experienced at riddle-games, maybe. But there is a lot of happenstance involved. Frodo was better at this riddle than Gandalf. There’s no strong reason to generalize much more than this.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-28, 02:19 PM

but you can keep playing.
you just can't use that door/open that chest/take that shortcut.

There's two aspects to this:

The first is social. A puzzle that the players can't solve can take up a lot of time. I've seen puzzles take up an hour of real time with nothing accomplished, and nobody having a "good time". D&D players are bad at giving up and moving on.

The second is about gameplay/story segregation. Why wouldn't the adventurers be able to solve the puzzle? Why wouldn't they even have a chance to solve the puzzle? Forcing the players to solve the puzzle means that the puzzle has no connection to the story. As far as the story's concerned, the puzzle doesn't exist. The characters don't interact with the puzzle.

That's why my opinion regarding puzzles/riddles is:

Step 1: Players spend 5-10 minutes MAX trying to solve the puzzle. If they succeed, the puzzle is solved in-game.
Step 2: PCs get a chance to roll for solving the puzzle. If they succeed, the puzzle is solved in-game.
Step 3: The party is unable to solve the puzzle and must move on.

I want the players who are interested to have a chance to solve the puzzle, but I don't want it to drag on too long if they're unsuccessful, and I don't want the uninterested players to have to wait too long.

I want the party to have a good chance of success, simply because the characters are competent.

qube

2018-10-28, 03:00 PM

He wants his character to be able to use the features of their character sheet irrespective of his out of game ability to replicate them.True, but it's the inherent nature of a puzzle NOT to do that - to make the players think, opposite to roll a die. So, what he wants directly conflicts with the nature of the challenge.

That raises a lot of questions
"will the DM allow a roll instead of thinging for yourself"
We don't know that. Ask 'm.
"should the DM allow a roll instead of thinging for yourself"
Inherently not. If he feels it betters the campaign if he doesn't (ex. because other players do like it) - then no.
"why does the DM give puzzles"
We don't know. Ask 'm. Maybe he incorrectly thinks the players don't mind (at which case, the DM should rethink his plan), maybe some players like it (as which point a roll-solve ruins their fun), ...
"is it OK for a DM to give puzzles"
I know many players who in fact like that stuff. So there's nothing inherently wrong with it.
"is it OK to go to the forum behind the DMs back, and ask for a build directly working against him".
No. Perhaps it is for theorycrafting, but in practice, no. ya'll should work together, not against each other.

That's why I feel the correct answer is "talk to your DM". Resolve the issue pre-game, out-game instead of making it a problem during game play.

I take issue with the idea that a puzzle is specifically designed to be solved out of game. That makes no sense to me. If the player is solving the puzzle, what did the characters do? Did the puzzle magically solve itself?... why do you take issue with that? A lot of people like it. Let me quote a wise man :smallbiggrin:

"Right, make sure you're not having the wrong kind of fun!"
~~ You

I agree that if Bob doesn't want to hammer out the puzzle in his head but Sue wants to, Bob should let Sue try. That's just being a normal, civil human being. Unless the DM says only Bob can solve the puzzle, in which case Bob should be allowed to solve it with whatever approach he wants and that is legal within the rules. Then I think we're in agreement: I'll quote the OP for you

when it comes to DnD, I HATE puzzles.
I think they’re a sore thumb,

I want to play a high intelligence/wisdom character with expertise in investigation and maybe perception, knowledge cleric and use guidance to add a d4 to checks, and when the DM plops a “player-puzzle” in front of us, I’ll say “We’ll, I’m not smart enough to solve this puzzle, but my character is” *rolls* “okay, 24, what’s the answer?”

That's Bob saying he doesn't like puzzles.
That's the DM giving Bob and Sue a puzzle
That's Bob saying "I roll a 24, give me the answer".

... do you agree with me, there's very little talk in the OP about his fellow players, and if they like to solve puzzles, he'll wait for them first; and only if they don't solve it, he'll use his build SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR THIS to ask the DM for the answer ?

Do you also really fight Orcs and then, when it’s dead, decide the strongest character killed it? Or do you roll?I didn't know orcs existed out game. If you know of some, I'm quite sure we would be happy to kill one, and say the strongest character did so in game. (then again, we have a strick no weapons at the table rule, 'casue they tend to distract)
(context: most of use do HEMA & reenactment)

Further, this is not role-playing, which is the intent of the game. Bringing drinks and chips to the table ain't roleplay either. Guess we should also stop doing that? OF COURSE not. Because role-playing is NOT the intent of the game - it's a role-play game with the intent is to give people a fun time.

RSP

2018-10-28, 03:40 PM

I didn't know orcs existed out game. If you know of some, I'm quite sure we would be happy to kill one, and say the strongest character did so in game. (then again, we have a strick no weapons at the table rule, 'casue they tend to distract)
(context: most of use do HEMA & reenactment)

Bringing drinks and chips to the table ain't roleplay either. Guess we should also stop doing that? OF COURSE not. Because role-playing is NOT the intent of the game - it's a role-play game with the intent is to give people a fun time.

This just shows how wrong you are. Fun is an intent of playing, but so is role-playing: there’s no way as a Player (as opposed to DM) you can sit down to play D&D 5e, assuming you understand the game (I understand you may not), without having the intent of role playing a character.

If you’re sitting down to put together a puzzle, you’re not playing D&D, you’re doing a puzzle.

You can even relate the success of that puzzle to D&D, but it’s still doing a puzzle, not playing D&D.

qube

2018-10-28, 04:25 PM

This just shows how wrong you are. Fun is an intent of playing, but so is role-playing
: there’s no way as a Player (as opposed to DM) you can sit down to play D&D 5e, assuming you understand the game (I understand you may not), without having the intent of role playing a character.

If you’re sitting down to put together a puzzle, you’re not playing D&D, you’re doing a puzzle.

You can even relate the success of that puzzle to D&D, but it’s still doing a puzzle, not playing D&D.Pfft. So what if it doesn't consititute as "playing D&D" under your definition. Neither would be setting up the game map. It's a meaningless distinction that doesn't contribute to the discussion.

1. Many players like it
2. Many DMs do it.

That's the bottom line. Call it "Part of za D&D Expérience" for all I care. It's still there.

RSP

2018-10-28, 04:33 PM

Pfft. So what if it doesn't consititute as "playing D&D" under your definition. Neither would be setting up the game map. It's a meaningless distinction that doesn't contribute to the discussion.

1. Many players like it
2. Many DMs do it.

That's the bottom line. Call it "Part of za D&D Expérience" for all I care. It's still there.

So you agree it’s not D&D. Okay, so that’s your answer, and the answer to the OP: rolling is the D&D answer. Sitting down to do a puzzle with friends can be fun, but it’s not D&D.

Feel free to do what you think is fun, but it would be incorrect to say “rolling is wrong,” if you’re talking D&D.

Naanomi

2018-10-28, 04:52 PM

MoiMagnus

2018-10-28, 04:58 PM

So you agree it’s not D&D. Okay, so that’s your answer, and the answer to the OP: rolling is the D&D answer. Sitting down to do a puzzle with friends can be fun, but it’s not D&D.

Feel free to do what you think is fun, but it would be incorrect to say “rolling is wrong,” if you’re talking D&D.

So in few words:
Technically, as pure RAW d&d5e, rolling an Int check yo solve puzzles is the way to go.
However, it would be impolite (and fun-breaking for some) to do so when the puzzle was clearly designed to be solved out of the game by the players.

Bohandas

2018-10-28, 05:20 PM

Personally I think it could be argued that if you don't roll you're not really playing the character as written

GreyBlack

2018-10-28, 05:29 PM

In some cases, I have no problems with characters rolling to figure out player puzzles if it's something they have time to solve. To steal from Indiana Jones for a moment, letting the character roll to figure out the location of the Well of Souls can be figured out by rolling and figuring out the steps you have to do. That's fine.

That said, if you have the characters activate a death trap that requires a puzzle solving, I wouldn't allow that. In this case, I expect the players to work together to solve the puzzle in an Escape Room kind of way.

Which actually.... I have a dungeon to create real quick. Excuse me...

RSP

2018-10-28, 05:45 PM

So in few words:
Technically, as pure RAW d&d5e, rolling an Int check yo solve puzzles is the way to go.
However, it would be impolite (and fun-breaking for some) to do so when the puzzle was clearly designed to be solved out of the game by the players.

I disagree it would be impolite (and what’s fun-breaking for some is fun for others): it’s how the game is played. I wouldn’t consider it impolite any time in-character actions solve encounters: that’s what’s supposed to happen.

I consider it impolite when Players use out-of-game knowledge to impact in-game encounters. It can very much be considered cheating.

EggKookoo

2018-10-28, 05:51 PM

... why do you take issue with that? A lot of people like it. Let me quote a wise man :smallbiggrin:

"Right, make sure you're not having the wrong kind of fun!"
~~ You

Clever. :smallsmile:

So I think we have to operate on the assumption that we're not talking about cases where the DM and the players at a given table all like crafting and solving puzzles. In the case of the OP, the player doesn't like solving them but the DM likes crafting them. So this instance kind of fails the "a lot of people like it" test.

Let me see if I can come up with a functional example of what I mean. This isn't a perfect analogy but hopefully it gets the point across. Let's say I'm running you through a dungeon. You come to a room with three exits. Before I can describe the three doorways, you say "I roll 1d6. On a 1-2 I take the door to my left. On 5-6 I take the door to my right. Otherwise I take the door in between them." Would I be justified in saying you can't decide that way and you must listen to the description I prepared for the room and the doors? Let's say each door has some quality to it that provides a hint which way you should go. Is it fair for me to say you have to consider all those details before making a choice?

The problem here is that the player simply doesn't care about the description. If you force the player to listen anyway, they'll pretend to and then roll the die anyway. All you can do then is punish the player for using the die to determine their decision, which is certainly going to be a major component if your table eventually falls apart. Your alternative is to realize what your player is expecting out of the game and make a decision on your own -- do I keep running games with puzzles knowing that's not what the player wants? Or do I change how I present puzzles and let the player "roll through" them? Of course things get complicated if you have different attitudes at your table but it doesn't represent an insurmountable problem. And addressing it openly is going to be much healthier for your game in the end.

"Wrong kind of fun" is talking about me, for example, telling you how you must run things at your table. D&D means Thing A to me. It means Thing B to you. I have no business telling you that Thing B is incorrect. However, if you were playing at my table, we'd have to come to some agreement about how much of A and B we'll include. Your fun is as important as mine, but if I'm the DM, I have greater authority to make sure both our fun needs are met, and thus I have greater responsibility to make sure it happens.

guachi

2018-10-28, 07:02 PM

Agree with OP that puzzles are stupid.

Puzzles for players to interact with are as old as D&D itself. It's part of what made D&D D&D.

You can think they are stupid, but D&D without puzzles isn't really D&D.

RSP

2018-10-28, 07:06 PM

Puzzles for players to interact with are as old as D&D itself. It's part of what made D&D D&D.

You can think they are stupid, but D&D without puzzles isn't really D&D.

What are you basing this off of? I think my current table has had 1 “puzzle” in the last year of gaming. So, to you, we aren’t playing D&D?

guachi

2018-10-28, 07:10 PM

Puzzles for the player are not necessarily what people think of when they think of D&D.

What is arguably the most famous module in D&D's history is largely a puzzle for the players.

EggKookoo

2018-10-28, 07:11 PM

You can think they are stupid, but D&D without puzzles isn't really D&D.

I'm running some players through Lost Mine of Phandelver at the moment. They're almost halfway though Cragmaw Castle. No puzzles so far. Is LMoP not D&D?

I'm prepping to run the same players (plus others, new chars) through Waterdeep: Dragon Heist. I've read through the adventure twice and I'm on my third pass through. No puzzles that I can see. Is W:DH not D&D?

Maybe we're not using the same definition of puzzle?

RSP

2018-10-28, 07:26 PM

I'm running some players through Lost Mine of Phandelver at the moment. They're almost halfway though Cragmaw Castle. No puzzles so far. Is LMoP not D&D?

I'm prepping to run the same players (plus others, new chars) through Waterdeep: Dragon Heist. I've read through the adventure twice and I'm on my third pass through. No puzzles that I can see. Is W:DH not D&D?

Maybe we're not using the same definition of puzzle?

Yeah I’m pretty sure the modules I’m familiar with for 5e are all of the DC X to solve variety, if there’s even anything that is considered a puzzle.

SodaQueen

2018-10-28, 07:32 PM

You're ... not? out-game puzzles are usually a group activity to solve. In fact, at my tables, what we do, is try to solve the riddle as a group, and then consider the smartest character to have come up with the idea & solve the puzzle. Just like we let players give ideas to other players how they can intimidate or persuade an NPC.

Also, your argument doesn't support your conclusion. The OP doesn't call for assisting

I agree completely with the OP. You're not required to be strong to play a high strength character, why would someone enforce that you be smart or charismatic to play a high intelligence or high charisma character? Let the rolls assist in solving the puzzle, that's why we're playing a character of our own design, not ourselves.

Strong players don't have a lower DC then weak players. Their strength check completely replace whatever they can do out-game. Likewise, the OP argues, not assisting to solve the puzzle, but completely solving it: “We’ll, I’m not smart enough to solve this puzzle, but my character is” *rolls* “okay, 24, what’s the answer?”

The OP doesn't want to solve the puzzle (at least not in the traditional sense), he wants to roll & skip it.I don't understand how this is supposed to refute my argument. It doesn't seem very coherent tbh.

We can just agree to disagree though! Thank you for replying :)

RSP

2018-10-28, 07:55 PM

What is arguably the most famous module in D&D's history is largely a puzzle for the players.

Interestingly, it’s that it’s specifically designed that way which makes it standout, as it was meant to be different than the rest of the adventures. It’s the outlier, not the norm.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-28, 07:58 PM

As long as things are going to be told ahead of time to the players so they can build accordingly.

Ex if I know that nobody will be rolling to find things unless they say they are looking in certain places or how, don’t expect me to waste a valuable training on investigation. If I have to look at and figure how the traps work I am not training in the skill to do it.

A real game example: I was playing a swashbuckler rogue level I think 7 at the time.

The group was making it down the hall of a castle we were sneaking into. We came to a locked door.

Me: I check the door for traps, and see if it is locked.
Rolled some dice and rolled ok.
DM: you notice the door is trapped and locked from the other side.
Me: ok I will try to disable the trap first?
DM: how, it is on the other side of the door.
Me: by being a rogue with expertise and 20 dex. I will roll for it.
DM: you can’t roll for it, it is on the other side of the door.
Me: ok, then if I will. Ever be able to actually roll the skill I have expertise in, I want to move the expertise to something that will actually matter.
DM: no, I will let you pick some locks and things, I just don’t want you picking this one l, it would bypass too many things.
Me: then don’t put a door there, if you won’t let me actually use a skill to open it
PC wizard: I just cast knock.
DM ok, I guess it opens, can’t really stop that.
Huge argument started that killed the game

lall

2018-10-28, 09:29 PM

Puzzles for players to interact with are as old as D&D itself. It's part of what made D&D D&D.

You can think they are stupid, but D&D without puzzles isn't really D&D.
So is violence, yet everyone at my table is alive at the end of the night.

Arkhios

2018-10-29, 12:37 AM

So is violence, yet everyone at my table is alive at the end of the night.

You know, a well built adventure is a puzzle in on itself. When the characters begin their journey they don't know much – or at all – where they're headed. As the adventure goes forward, more and more clues towards what the end game is going to be about are revealed and the players might be able to piece together the puzzle long before they encounter the BBEG for the final challenge.
Puzzles are not always things where you need to put a block of wood into a similarly shaped hole. Expand your point of view.

If all you have is violence, combat after combat, room after room after room, you're missing a lot from the whole picture. You're just fighting for the thrill of battle. It's almost as if you were building a 1000 piece puzzle backwards, with the picture facing down.
I find it's quite sad in many ways.

For the record, I understand it's fun to roll a crapload of dice over and over again every now and then, but I find it's boring if there's nothing else.

The Robot Goat

2018-10-29, 01:48 AM

I guess I'll throw in my two cents: talk to your DM.
If every now and then you have to do a puzzle because everybody else at the table loves them, well, either just learn to live with it or maybe find a new table. Alternatively, if nobody really cares about puzzles either way, maybe the DM just doesn't know that's how you feel, and will change it? This feels like a mismatch of expectations more than anything else.

On the topic of whether using OOC puzzles is D&D or not, I'd have to say that in my limited experience, if everybody is sitting down at the table and using the D&D Players Handbook to play a game, then they're playing D&D. Does adding homebrew mean that you aren't playing D&D anymore? Because then I've never played D&D in my life, even though I love D&D. Technically, I think that would mean Chris Perkins hasn't either.
There's more than one way to play D&D, if you want to solve puzzles with a roll, or by literally solving it, it doesn't matter, because D&D is a game where you make things up. The only way to play D&D wrong is to play it in a way so nobody has fun.

Apologies for typos, or general unclear writing,this was written late at night and on my phone.

Darth Ultron

2018-10-29, 01:50 AM

So I think we have to operate on the assumption that we're not talking about cases where the DM and the players at a given table all like crafting and solving puzzles. In the case of the OP, the player doesn't like solving them but the DM likes crafting them. So this instance kind of fails the "a lot of people like it" test.

I think the more basic problem is most games have the One Player...often the optimizing all combat roll player...that wants to do nothing but endless combat.

The problem here is that the player simply doesn't care about the description. If you force the player to listen anyway, they'll pretend to and then roll the die anyway.

Well, ''listening to descriptions" is part of playing the game. So if a player does not want to do that, it's a problem.

For..oh, Evil Fun...I'd turn that ''no descriptions" right around on the poor player and have no descriptions in combat. Oh, endless fun...''the something attacks your character for 10 damage..sorry you get no description of what it looks like.

Yeah I’m pretty sure the modules I’m familiar with for 5e are all of the DC X to solve variety, if there’s even anything that is considered a puzzle.

Really, after 3E D&D just about dropped the idea of Real Puzzles.

A real game example: I was playing a swashbuckler rogue level I think 7 at the time.

The group was making it down the hall of a castle we were sneaking into. We came to a locked door.

I would note this is a Bad DM. And it's not a puzzle, it's a trap.

A crunchy rule trap is a thing there for a character to roll play against using their crunchy rule character sheet.

A Puzzle is a fluffy descriptive thing there for a player to role play against using their own mind, wits and skills.

Reynaert

2018-10-29, 02:21 AM

Just a suggestion to drop in here:

Players are allowed to help each other play their characters. There is not a single rule against it.

Arkhios

2018-10-29, 02:25 AM

Just a suggestion to drop in here:

Players are allowed to help each other play their characters. There is not a single rule against it.

I'd like to remind that don't over-do it. Some people might not be comfortable with other players telling them what to do.

Mordaedil

2018-10-29, 02:39 AM

Pelle

2018-10-29, 04:43 AM

DM: you can’t roll for it, it is on the other side of the door.
Me: ok, then if I will. Ever be able to actually roll the skill I have expertise in, I want to move the expertise to something that will actually matter.

You are supposed to describe your approach for the use of any skill, not just disabling traps, so switching expertise won't necessarily change this. It's not up to the DM imagine how your rogue disables a trap in another room, that's your job as the player. If you can't even imagine how it could potentially be done yourself, you shouldn't roll.

EggKookoo

2018-10-29, 05:32 AM

I think the more basic problem is most games have the One Player...often the optimizing all combat roll player...that wants to do nothing but endless combat.

Eh, people play the game for different reasons. I'm lucky that my players tend to not be that kind, but I don't want to tell people how they derive enjoyment. I say I'm lucky because I'm not that kind of player either, so it's a good fit. My players (and I) don't care about "party balance" -- we care about being able to provide a unique value to the party. I'd be fine with a one-class party, for example, if the players were satisfied that each could still make a distinct contribution.

Well, ''listening to descriptions" is part of playing the game. So if a player does not want to do that, it's a problem.

For..oh, Evil Fun...I'd turn that ''no descriptions" right around on the poor player and have no descriptions in combat. Oh, endless fun...''the something attacks your character for 10 damage..sorry you get no description of what it looks like.

And of course the player could turn this right around.

DM: What do you do?
Player: I roll a die.
DM: Which one?
Player: Whichever one you think makes sense.

The reality is, though, that the OP specifically isn't a huge fan of meta-puzzles. So it's not like he's trying to avoid all descriptive gameplay. He just has a preference. I'm not sure it's healthy for the DM to become vindictive over it.

And I do have a mix of "puzzle" players. Some love them, some don't really care for them. No one asks to just roll past them but the ones in the latter camp tend to give up quickly and look for something else for their character to do -- like hit something.

NichG

2018-10-29, 05:55 AM

If I'm DMing at least, the purpose of the activity is to set up scenarios which I and the players can think about, work through, and be inspired to realizations, acts of ingenuity, creativity, brilliance, discovery, etc - fundamentally, those are the essential elements of tabletop RP for me, and things which take them off the table risk making the game stop being worthwhile for me. That's not necessarily incompatible with someone who wants something very different out of the game, like feeling powerful or simulating fictional characters or optimizing systems or whatever. But whatever the compromise is should leave that intact.

So for example, if a player doesn't personally want to have to work through some mental gymnastics for a particular scenario, I'm happier if they would agree to step back in those situations than if they want to bypass the situation with mechanics in a way that doesn't permit anyone to try to engage as a player. That would be my main objection with e.g. 'I hate puzzles, so I am going to play a character with very high Int so that they can roll past any puzzle' - that it goes beyond letting the player avoid the activity they find tedious and actually prevents anyone else at the table who might enjoy it from actually engaging in it.

Altair_the_Vexed

2018-10-29, 06:07 AM

I think we have this one solved at my table, the way we do it is that we allow players to roll checks to get hints and they do so in order until they can either solve it or the DM basically spells the puzzle out. Usually starting with clues like "you remember reading a book where you saw this conundrum stated before, it was in the Arcana Superfluous" and then eventually "You remember reading a trick to solve this one you learned while peddling with a merchant. It goes like this..."

Similar for social checks, we usually asks for a roll before we make our argument, and if it is a success the DM says "you are quite convincing, but what did you say?" and if it is a failure he says "you fail to convince the guard, but how did you screw up?"

This, we found, fascilitates convincing roleplay as our characters can act more in tune with how we rolled, rather than get a roll juding our argument for us, especially when it would normally be a sound argument. If the player can give a convincing or non-convincing statement, it is already an auto-success. After all, you only roll if the outcome is in question. (Or if the DM wants to onset a bit of paranoia)

^ This, almost entirely!

Of course, some players will engage with puzzles and try to solve them with their own intelligence and knowledge. That's no good if they're playing a dumb character.
We have a solution for that at the table - if one player thinks of an answer that their character wouldn't, we allow the player who might think of the answer to make a DC 10 INT check - a success means that the other player can tell them their idea. Because we all know this houserule, it means that players of dumb characters can still pay attention during intellectual scenes, and that the less super-smart players can have fun playing clever characters.

Social skills are of course one of the toughest things to rule. I once had to deal with a strongly charismatic player who consistently failed to play his low CHA character - it was really difficult, because he was so powerfully persuasive in himself, it was hard to steer him away from ignoring his character's low score.
That's why I generally ask for the social roll first, then the player RPs the result.

As for "rolling the dice instead of solving the puzzle = no description" - reducing the argument to such absurd levels is helping no-one.

Willie the Duck

2018-10-29, 08:52 AM

On a fundamental level, a bunch of this can be preemptively shunted off into a discussion about DM-Player communication and people wanting to play what they want to play. If you and your DM (plus other players) have a disagreement about what constitutes a fun gaming experience, that requires an adult conversation and reasonable levels of discussion, negotiation, and compromise. If you can't resolve that table issue, than any of the rest of this is going to be water under the bridge.

Players make all the decisions for their characters and they decide what their characters will say and how they will interact with the game and other players. These decisions and interactions rely on the PLAYERS intelligence, wisdom and charisma.
...
However, in the end, it is still the PLAYER making the decisions and coming up with the ideas and actions for the character through out the game. The characters can't play themselves. So the player's capabilities are always a factor which the DM needs to consider when setting up a campaign since it is unfair to throw in mental puzzles and challenges which a character could probably solve relatively easily but which the player will find challenging and not very much fun without allowing the player to utilize aspects of the character to either completely or partially solve the puzzle or other challenge.

Therein lies the problem, I feel. Where exactly is the line where we don't want player aptitude to matter? Because even if we make combat, door-bashing, social, and puzzle-solving encounters all into rolling-for checks, it was still the player who allocated character creation resources into each of the different slots, so to speak. On some level, if one player is genuinely massively smarter than the other players*, they are going to succeed more often, luck of the dice notwithstanding.
*smart, not intelligent, and in this context I mean specific to playing the game (how smart you are at running your outside-D&D life is your own business)

D&D is a game, not a battleground of wits. A DM's job is to facilitate an interesting and enjoyable story for the players and for himself. While "Jimjam the Wizard rolled a 32 on an Int check and solved the puzzle" isn't an interesting or enjoyable story at least it gets the party to get to the fun parts more quickly than "Steve, Carrie, and Tom spent an hour on a puzzle they didn't like because it took them that long to divine my will and saw a board in half and put the halves together to make a hole".

Well, on some level, D&D is the players trying to compete (with the monsters the DM populated the world with, with the world itself, or with their own previous high score, so-to-speak). If not a battle of wits, what types of battles (/competitions) will the players and their opposition be competing in?

KorvinStarmast

2018-10-29, 12:34 PM

Depends entirely on whether the other players are onto puzzles. If they are, you don't have to participate in solving it or even pay attention while they do. Nice time to grab a beer or take a comfort break.

Do you also force the fighter/barbarian to roll int or wis to avoid making bad tactical decisions during combat?
Do you let the wizard roll to force the bad guys into a tight group for fireball? I find that tactical mistakes get made by characters of all INT ranges without having to roll anything. :smallcool:
I didn't realize "D&D is more than just die rolls" was a dogmatic statement. But it's true.
Would a good compromise be that a good intelligence check equals a number of hints to help solve the puzzle? Yeah, it's a good technique. (At this point, someone might want to revisit what a passive (INT) (Investigation) check is all about. :smallwink:

Oh god. My players would sit there for hours trying everything but stacking the stones large-to-small on the assumption that it's so easy it must be a trap. Been there, done that, from both sides of the table.

I think it also worth pointing out that while your Int 20 wizard might be able to easily solve the problem, we also know that the DM that created the puzzle is not Int 24 either and isn't going to have figured out a puzzle as clever as the Int 24 BBEG is that built said puzzle. So it is all being scaled back. How long did it take Gandalf to figure out the doors of Moria?

I like puzzles and in more general problem solving or overcoming obstacles and challenges, and think it is very much a part of the game of D&D. I really don't see the point of Roll Playing through a game. What is even the point of playing the game if you will simply ''roll around" everything? Aye; I have a feeling that the age of computer games has had an influence on expectations.

I counted numerous posts that made a great suggestion: use INT (passive or active) {and I recommend Investigation) as a way to get a hint or a clue. Great advice.

This just shows how wrong you are. Fun is an intent of playing, but so is role-playing: there’s no way as a Player (as opposed to DM) you can sit down to play D&D 5e, assuming you understand the game (I understand you may not), without having the intent of role playing a character. If you’re sitting down to put together a puzzle, you’re not playing D&D, you’re doing a puzzle. You are unfortunately wrong. Puzzle solving has been in the game since three little books in a box. (1974). It is a part of playing D&D; how big a part is open to question. If the DM gets too puzzle heavy, player feedback might be the only way to get that changed. "Dude, if all we are going to do is puzzles, how about let Ted DM for a while? We like varied challenges. This is getting tiresome, and not fun." Communicate.

See also a creature: doppelganger. Almost every adventure with a doppelganger NPC is a puzzle of some sort. Likewise: Rakshasa.

And, of course, historically it has been a component of many published modules Yeah, loads of them, not just ToH.

Personally I think it could be argued that if you don't roll you're not really playing the character as written
You don't have to roll to play.
Read the basic rules on how play goes. (1) DM describes environment or situation; (2) player describes decisions and actions, what they try to do (3) DM narrates the results.
In theory, the DM could roll every die roll. I played in a campaign like that, back in the 70's (with to hit, damage, and saves being the only rolls the players made). It was great fun. But it takes a good DM, and trust between players and DM. That last bit, trust, seems to be lacking in some of this conversation's undercurrents.

Puzzles for players to interact with are as old as D&D itself. It's part of what made D&D D&D. You can think they are stupid, but D&D without puzzles isn't really D&D. Yeah.

What are you basing this off of? I think my current table has had 1 “puzzle” in the last year of gaming. So, to you, we aren’t playing D&D? How long have you been playing this game? Have you ever encountered a weretiger NPC? A wererat NPC? In human form?

Interestingly, it’s that it’s specifically designed that way which makes it standout, as it was meant to be different than the rest of the adventures. It’s the outlier, not the norm. Nope. Not even close. It was just an egregious case of puzzle over combat. Loads of modules have puzzles in them; if you go back to submissions to Dragon Magazine, Dungeon Magazine, and (White Dwarf -- UK mag that had monsters end up in the fiend folio) there were loads of dungeons that included puzzle solving. It's a long and storied tradition. See also in Wilderness and Underworld adventures the moving / sliding room.

You know, a well built adventure is a puzzle in on itself. Bingo.

Demonslayer666

2018-10-29, 02:54 PM

I really hate it when DMs pick on players that aren't witty, rules savvy, and good at tactical combat. Or they take that player's action in the worst possible light, while other players do something very similar and don't get penalized.

The goal is to have fun, not show your superior intelligence, or acting skills.

I think riddles are fine as long as they are short and simple. D&D is still D&D if you don't have riddles.

Yes, I allow rolling when the player isn't good at math, fast talking, and if they aren't tactical, will warn them when they make bad decisions.

Darth Ultron

2018-10-29, 03:00 PM

The reality is, though, that the OP specifically isn't a huge fan of meta-puzzles. So it's not like he's trying to avoid all descriptive gameplay. He just has a preference. I'm not sure it's healthy for the DM to become vindictive over it.

The point is more the player wants a new Meta Game rule of : anything a player does not personally like will have it's description removed from the game and I will be able to roll past it by roll playing.

And, sure, the player loves that meta rule...until it's for something they DO like....then the rule is bad and wrong. It's the classic double standard: the player will say the rule is good for them, but only when they use it...and everyone else uses the rule wrong.

lall

2018-10-29, 04:06 PM

You know, a well built adventure is a puzzle in on itself. When the characters begin their journey they don't know much – or at all – where they're headed. As the adventure goes forward, more and more clues towards what the end game is going to be about are revealed and the players might be able to piece together the puzzle long before they encounter the BBEG for the final challenge.
Puzzles are not always things where you need to put a block of wood into a similarly shaped hole. Expand your point of view.

If all you have is violence, combat after combat, room after room after room, you're missing a lot from the whole picture. You're just fighting for the thrill of battle. It's almost as if you were building a 1000 piece puzzle backwards, with the picture facing down.
I find it's quite sad in many ways.

For the record, I understand it's fun to roll a crapload of dice over and over again every now and then, but I find it's boring if there's nothing else.
I just don’t want to stop Activity A (D&D) to start Activity B (New York Times crossword puzzle), especially because B has zippo to do with A and B blows. My character can make a check. Once players start committing murder at the table, I’ll start solving puzzles.

Arkhios

2018-10-29, 04:14 PM

I just don’t want to stop Activity A (D&D) to start Activity B (New York Times crossword puzzle), especially because B has zippo to do with A and B blows. My character can make a check. Once players start committing murder at the table, I’ll start solving puzzles.

Why are you so passive-aggressive about this whole issue, I wonder?

It's not that black-and-white...

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-29, 04:40 PM

Do you also force the fighter/barbarian to roll int or wis to avoid making bad tactical decisions during combat?
Do you let the wizard roll to force the bad guys into a tight group for fireball?
I find that tactical mistakes get made by characters of all INT ranges without having to roll anything.

My point was that if you can use INT rolls to get out of puzzles then you should be able to use INT (or Wis) rolls to make the bad guys move into fireball formation.

I didn't realize "D&D is more than just die rolls" was a dogmatic statement.
But it's true.

What is true? That "D&D is more than just die rolls" or that saying "D&D is more than just die rolls" is dogmatic and worthy of challenge?

EggKookoo

2018-10-29, 04:46 PM

My point was that if you can use INT rolls to get out of puzzles then you should be able to use INT (or Wis) rolls to make the bad guys move into fireball formation.

Ridiculous. That's CHA. :smallsmile:

RSP

2018-10-29, 04:59 PM

You are unfortunately wrong. Puzzle solving has been in the game since three little books in a box. (1974). It is a part of playing D&D; how big a part is open to question. If the DM gets too puzzle heavy, player feedback might be the only way to get that changed. "Dude, if all we are going to do is puzzles, how about let Ted DM for a while? We like varied challenges. This is getting tiresome, and not fun." Communicate.

No I’m not. The game is a Role Playing Game. You can certainly figure out puzzles in character during the game, but that’s going to require you to use your character’s abilities while doing so. If you’re sitting there trying to figure out a puzzle using your own abilities, you’re no longer role playing, which is a necessary component of 5e (playing a character). You yourself indicate this in your post: the quote you use states the group is tired of doing puzzles and want to play D&D, therefore, they aren’t one and the same.

To put it another way: the game gives advantages (not Advantages) for having higher stats and skill proficiencies and expertise. If you, the Player, don’t have these abilities, how are you solving the puzzle as your character would? Why would you want your character to have those abilities, if those abilities are worthless because all that matter are your (the Player’s) abilities?

See also a creature: doppelganger. Almost every adventure with a doppelganger NPC is a puzzle of some sort. Likewise: Rakshasa.
Yeah, loads of them, not just ToH.

How long have you been playing this game? Have you ever encountered a weretiger NPC? A wererat NPC? In human form?
Nope. Not even close. It was just an egregious case of puzzle over combat. Loads of modules have puzzles in them; if you go back to submissions to Dragon Magazine, Dungeon Magazine, and (White Dwarf -- UK mag that had monsters end up in the fiend folio) there were loads of dungeons that included puzzle solving. It's a long and storied tradition. See also in Wilderness and Underworld adventures the moving / sliding room.
Bingo.

I think we have different ideas of what a puzzle is. I don’t consider were-creatures puzzles in how it’s been discussed in this thread, which, as I’ve understood it, is more the “solve this Rubix cube to open the door” or “answer this riddle to pass” type scenarios.

Deceit and who dunnit’s could certainly be called puzzles, it’s just not the usage I’ve (and I think the thread have) been using.

As for the game being puzzle-based, I’m not sure I’d agree. I’ve been playing for 30+ years and started with original D&D. I’ll say in my experience the game has gotten more RP-based, but that just may be the difference between my friends and I now, vs my friends and I in elementary school.

My various groups over that time haven’t had many, if any, puzzles in their games, yet we’ve definitely been playing D&D over that time (unless your actually arguing we haven’t been).

To add to that, I think 5e has a lot more RP elements than AD&D in its RAW, though it has been a while since I read those old books. I could see how there was less of a stress on “play your character, not yourself” in older editions, but again, this is just from my experiences and memories; I don’t claim to be a historian of the game.

Certainly in 5e where character creation calls for your character to have a background, ideals, personality traits, flaws and bonds, the game is designed to play a character and not yourself.

The RAW says “An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability.” Again, if you dump your character’s Int and rely on your own (assuming you’re above a 6-8 in real life, while your character isn’t) aren’t you cheating? Haven’t you then stepped away from the Ability score measuring your character’s abilities? Your competence, training and innate capabilities are going to be different than the characters’, in most cases, so using that is going to be out of character and against the idea of role playing.

Tom Hanks played a great role in Forrest Gump, by the two are different people and you wouldn’t say Hanks is “in role” if he’s walking around using his normal mental abilities (as opposed to those of Gump); the same goes for D&D players who stop using their character’s stats and start using their own: they’re no longer in character. That’s fine for some tables, but the game is a role playing game.

Lunali

2018-10-29, 09:26 PM

You are supposed to describe your approach for the use of any skill, not just disabling traps, so switching expertise won't necessarily change this. It's not up to the DM imagine how your rogue disables a trap in another room, that's your job as the player. If you can't even imagine how it could potentially be done yourself, you shouldn't roll.

I could easily imagine disabling the trigger or setting off a trap on the other side of a door depending on the trap. If the DM insists on me describing how I do it, he will have to describe the trap in great detail as my character understands it then wait a while as I consider the possibilities to make up for the fact that my character is an expert in disarming traps and I am a novice.

If the lock can only be accessed from the other side of the door, you are most likely already inside the door, where the hinges are.

Pelle

2018-10-30, 03:53 AM

I could easily imagine disabling the trigger or setting off a trap on the other side of a door depending on the trap.

That's great! In the post I was responding to, the poster just wanted to roll, without any attempt to describe how something seemingly impossible could be approached. It's not that much that is needed, you just need to hint at something that maybe could be plausible, instead of claiming that the character would know. If the DM isn't able to imagine how it's done in the fiction you won't be allowed, so please help the DM to imagine it somehow.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-30, 07:37 AM

That's great! In the post I was responding to, the poster just wanted to roll, without any attempt to describe how something seemingly impossible could be approached. It's not that much that is needed, you just need to hint at something that maybe could be plausible, instead of claiming that the character would know. If the DM isn't able to imagine how it's done in the fiction you won't be allowed, so please help the DM to imagine it somehow.

Not really what happened.

The dm was. It going to let me roll disarm the trap at all “because it is on the other side of the door” he just wanted to make sure I set off a trap.

I pointed out that that is wat the skill is for, the fact it is on the other side of the door is not a magic anti-thieves tools button.

I thought of like 5 ways to do it but his response was always, it is on the other side of the door, no roll.

Aelyn

2018-10-30, 07:58 AM

Not really what happened.

The dm was. It going to let me roll disarm the trap at all “because it is on the other side of the door” he just wanted to make sure I set off a trap.

I pointed out that that is wat the skill is for, the fact it is on the other side of the door is not a magic anti-thieves tools button.

I thought of like 5 ways to do it but his response was always, it is on the other side of the door, no roll.

It's definitely possible to design a trap which can be detected, but not disarmed, from one side of a door. The fact that thieves' tools are intended to help disarm a trap doesn't magically mean you can disable something if you literally can't reach the mechanism.

He was describing a situation, you asked if you could roll a check, he determined it was not possible and said no. That's not him refusing you agency, that's him literally doing the DM's job.

Maybe the intent was to give you the tools necessary to pass the door - such as a potion of incorporeality or a druid NPC who could get to the other side - at a later point, amd having the door then was just a teaser for what you could get later.

If he was genuinely trying to punish you for curiosity, it's also very possible to design a trap which can't even be detected from one side of a door, no matter how good you are. That would have also been within his rights (albeit a bit of a **** move if he hadn't at least given you some sort of trap warning ahead of time.)

But as described, I can't see that your DM did anything wrong there with regards to your skill usage.

(That's not to say he was perfect overall -
breaking the fourth wall to say "I don't want you to get past" wasn't ideal, and not having a ready solution to Knock was a lack of foresight on his part, but in terms of you using skills his actions were reasonable.)

Pelle

2018-10-30, 08:00 AM

Dudewithknives

2018-10-30, 08:07 AM

Allright, that's better then. In your dialog log I was commenting on you didn't include that, though.

Curious to know what your suggestions were, but depending on the door and trap it could very well be a magic anti-thief tool button. If so the issue isn't denying you rolling with expertise per se, it is in including unfun obstacles that can't be avoided. (i.e. as it's there the adjudication of it may be fine, but it's a bad decision to put it there in the first place)

It was more of the fact that he put an obstacle in front of the group, one that was made to be sure to screw us over, and a character specifically designed to deal with it was not even given a chance to roll on it but one spell and poof.

It seems that any time a non-magic way is found around an issue it has to pass a logical and schematic tests but if some just casts a spell at it, poof problem solved, no explanation needed.

If I spend one of my very few expertise abilities to do something, I damn well expect to be able to do it, not being told, just move out of the way and let a spell do it.

Pelle

2018-10-30, 08:24 AM

It seems that any time a non-magic way is found around an issue it has to pass a logical and schematic tests but if some just casts a spell at it, poof problem solved, no explanation needed.

Yes, that's correct. In a role-playing game, the character actions should make sense in the fiction. Magic can shortcut that, that's inherent in it.

I'm just saying you are focusing on the wrong thing. You should have the DM work on designing obstacles where it is possible to demonstrate your characters skills, instead of wanting your non-magic way to become magic.

GloatingSwine

2018-10-30, 10:08 AM

Yes, that's correct. In a role-playing game, the character actions should make sense in the fiction. Magic can shortcut that, that's inherent in it.

I'm just saying you are focusing on the wrong thing. You should have the DM work on designing obstacles where it is possible to demonstrate your characters skills, instead of wanting your non-magic way to become magic.

It's not even that.

The GM wanted a Plot Door, and had excuses for when the thief tried to unlock it but not for when the wizard did.

It's a classic "don't put doors in your campaign that you don't want the PCs going through" lesson.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-30, 10:56 AM

It's not even that.

The GM wanted a Plot Door, and had excuses for when the thief tried to unlock it but not for when the wizard did.

It's a classic "don't put doors in your campaign that you don't want the PCs going through" lesson.

The same thing comes up often in some of these situations:

Different DM:

PC: wants to sneak by a guy who is sitting at a table.
PC rolls stealth gets in the low 20s.
DM: Rolls for the PC's perception, and spots the other player.
PC: Why did he get a roll, he was not on alert and spending actions looking for people.
DM: If you use a die roll to stealth, they get to roll one to spot you.
PC: No they don't that is what passive perception is for.
DM: Well, that is stupid and makes stealth too easy, we are not using passive perception.
PC: Ok, then that makes it impossible to actually stealth by a group of people because of a random group, somone is going to roll well.
DM: Then stop trying to stealth.
PC 2: I will just cast invisiblity.
DM: There, much easier.
PC1: He still has to roll stealth to sneak by.
DM: Why, he is invisible?

Still a different DM:

PC: I will climb the wall and let us in.
DM: Make an athletics check.
PC: Ok, rolls dice, and does very well.
DM: OK, make a roll every 5 feet and it will take you 30 mins to scale the wall, if you fail a roll, you will take falling damage.
PC: That is not how climbing works, like at all.
DM: It is now, stop trying to skip obstacles without spending resources.
PC: I am a fighter, I don't have any resourses to spend.
DM: This is how DND works, stuff is put in your way to make you spend resources to get by, so you are not full powered when you get to the real fight, if you do not spend anything to get by it throws off the balance of the game.
PC 2: I just cast fly on us and we fly over the castle wall.
DM: Finally, that works. Stop trying to skip things without spending resources.

That is 3 totally different DMS, who do not even play in the same group together.
2 of the 3 did not even know each other.

As a matter of fact just about every DM I have ever known has had the same mentality of "Martials must explain everything in detal, casters can do that, or just cast a spell and bypass it all."
I have been to multiple cons and this has been the same there too.

I am not a woodsy, or nature kind of guy, I know almost nothing about hunting or living in the woods.
Am I going to have to explain how my ranger is going to track someone through the forest, or am I just going to roll the dice?
If I have to explain it in detail to the point that I use enough detail that makes sense to make the roll, why am I rolling at all?
Should I get advantage for describing it?
Should I get disadvantage for not describing it?

Why is it that some skills are almost always just rolled with no second thought: Slight of hand, knowledge skills, survival, and yet some skills are never just rolled and you have to do the legwork for first: Deception, persuasion, intimidation. That makes sense to me, your character speaking is you speaking and they may bring up the same points and the same details but the dice roll determine how well youget that idea across.

The same goes for people not RPing social skills and stats.
Generally people who play DND are fairly smart people, and their characters tend to come up with what ever cool plan or strategy their player does, whether an INT or WIS of 8 or 20.

However, things like thieves tools, or stealth are looked at like they are a DM vs Player roll where you are trying to cheat the DM if you win.
Not only do you have to explain well enough to even get a chance to roll, then you have to roll to see if you can get it or not.

EggKookoo

2018-10-30, 11:16 AM

As a matter of fact just about every DM I have ever known has had the same mentality of "Martials must explain everything in detal, casters can do that, or just cast a spell and bypass it all."
I have been to multiple cons and this has been the same there too.

Ok, first off I think there are a lot of people who don't understand how to have a philosophy behind DMing. Which is a way of saying there are a lot of bad DMs out there, but sometimes when I say that it kind of triggers a Godwin-esque response from people.

And I am explaining without condoning, but part of why this happens is because spells tend to have very specific descriptions for what they do, while skills are more open-ended. The spellcaster doesn't have to explain what's going on because the spell description did that already.

I am not a woodsy, or nature kind of guy, I know almost nothing about hunting or living in the woods.
Am I going to have to explain how my ranger is going to track someone through the forest, or am I just going to roll the dice?
If I have to explain it in detail to the point that I use enough detail that makes sense to make the roll, why am I rolling at all?
Should I get advantage for describing it?
Should I get disadvantage for not describing it?

Personally, I modify the DC based on the amount of effort the player puts into describing how their character is attempting to do the task in question. Not much, just enough to encourage the player to put some thought into it.

Why is it that some skills are almost always just rolled with no second thought: Slight of hand, knowledge skills, survival, and yet some skills are never just rolled and you have to do the legwork for first: Deception, persuasion, intimidation. That makes sense to me, your character speaking is you speaking and they may bring up the same points and the same details but the dice roll determine how well youget that idea across.

Just like with spells vs. skill, not all skills are equal. Some skills are fairly non-specific, or the specifics typically don't matter. Other skills depend heavily on the specifics. One could say an athletics check is one of the former and deception is one of the latter, although I guess you could find DMs who would reverse that. It's much more subjective which is why you get inconsistencies.

The same goes for people not RPing social skills and stats.
Generally people who play DND are fairly smart people, and their characters tend to come up with what ever cool plan or strategy their player does, whether an INT or WIS of 8 or 20.

However, things like thieves tools, or stealth are looked at like they are a DM vs Player roll where you are trying to cheat the DM if you win.
Not only do you have to explain well enough to even get a chance to roll, then you have to roll to see if you can get it or not.

If I'm a railroading DM, it's easier for me to blunt your attempts to bypass my content with social interactions than with mechanical skills. I don't typically have to justify why my NPC doesn't quite believe your Bard and still won't let you past the locked door he's guarding. Even if you make your persuasion check, I can manage the response, or throw in some random event that makes the guard become suspicious again. But it's harder for me to justify why you can't pick your way past a locked door if you make your check. Especially if I made the mistake of describing the existence of a lock in the first place. My response becomes more heavy-handed.

Again, I'm not trying to justify this kind of DM behavior. I've experienced it as a player as well. I think it just mainly comes from a DM not quite understanding how to get you to go through the content they prepared without removing your agency. That's a tricky thing to explain to someone, and even if they understand the explanation, it can sneak up on you as you're playing and you can feel like your whole adventure is ruined. If you've become emotionally attached to your content, and having your content unfold in a particular way, you can get reactionary and angry, and try to force your players to do what they "should just be doing." It's a sign that the DM has much more to learn about the craft.

Willie the Duck

2018-10-30, 11:17 AM

You're third DM doesn't understand they design intent of the system. "Stop trying to skip things without spending resources" is nonsensical, given that some classes are built (and the decision to take said classes are built with the opportunity-cost of not choosing another class) around having less impressive powers, but which can be performed repeatedly.

The overall martial-caster divide has been something people have been wrestling with pretty much since the beginning. Mind you, the non-chance of failure for spellcasters is supposed to be significantly limited/offset by the fact that they really aren't supposed to have enough spells to go round. The decline of OSR style dungeoncrawling (where you frankly aren't going to get a long rest during the dungeon, and if you leave the dungeon, more monsters will come or perhaps they monsters there will leave with the treasure) has made this constraint often be something of a paper tiger.

That said, it sounds like you run into a lot of DMs who are violating the stated spirit of how 5e is supposed to play out. I don't know how the game is supposed to fix this, but I can certainly sympathize.

Pex

2018-10-30, 12:11 PM

MoiMagnus

2018-10-30, 12:15 PM

PC: I will climb the wall and let us in.
DM: Make an athletics check.
PC: Ok, rolls dice, and does very well.
DM: OK, make a roll every 5 feet and it will take you 30 mins to scale the wall, if you fail a roll, you will take falling damage.
PC: That is not how climbing works, like at all.
DM: It is now, stop trying to skip obstacles without spending resources.
PC: I am a fighter, I don't have any resourses to spend.
DM: This is how DND works, stuff is put in your way to make you spend resources to get by, so you are not full powered when you get to the real fight, if you do not spend anything to get by it throws off the balance of the game.
PC 2: I just cast fly on us and we fly over the castle wall.
DM: Finally, that works. Stop trying to skip things without spending resources.

I understand this point of view, but it is just wrong for any D&D other than 4e.
(And 4e is an edition precisely designed for that kind of DM: all the classes have the same kind of ressources.)

The first one is a more classical example of bad DMing for stealth. I've yet to encounter a DM that did not try to overhaul the stealth system because he didn't like how the official rules dealt with them. I strongly advise to anyone who plan to make a stealth build (or an illusion wizard) to have a talk with their DM beforehand...

Dudewithknives

2018-10-30, 12:26 PM

I understand this point of view, but it is just wrong for any D&D other than 4e.
(And 4e is an edition precisely designed for that kind of DM: all the classes have the same kind of ressources.)

The first one is a more classical example of bad DMing for stealth. I've yet to encounter a DM that did not try to overhaul the stealth system because he didn't like how the official rules dealt with them. I strongly advise to anyone who plan to make a stealth build (or an illusion wizard) to have a talk with their DM beforehand...

Or as I was told on these forums: DND is not made to be an espionage game, your stealth does not matter.

Willie the Duck

2018-10-30, 12:32 PM

Providing benchmark example DCs of things PCs can do?

Clearly they haven't changed the skill system since your last voicing of dissatisfaction with it, and I'm not going to go through the exact same argument again. However, I don't see how a list of DCs are relevant in a situation where the DM's aren't following the rules regardless, and when Dudewithknives's complaint is that he has to roll at all in a situation he thinks he shouldn't have to.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-30, 12:36 PM

Clearly they haven't changed the skill system since your last voicing of dissatisfaction with it, and I'm not going to go through the exact same argument again. However, I don't see how a list of DCs are relevant in a situation where the DM's aren't following the rules regardless, and when Dudewithknives's complaint is that he has to roll at all in a situation he thinks he shouldn't have to.

Actually my complaint was that there should always be a roll allowed and not the DM magic bullet of, "Uhhhh, no, I do not want you to be able to win this."
Or
If magic can do something with no effort or explaination at all, mundane ways should not be much harder than a dice roll.

EggKookoo

2018-10-30, 12:39 PM

Actually my complaint was that there should always be a roll allowed and not the DM magic bullet of, "Uhhhh, no, I do not want you to be able to win this."
Or
If magic can do something with no effort or explaination at all, mundane ways should not be much harder than a dice roll.

Not sure I agree with this in the broad strokes. There's nothing wrong with the DM flat out telling you that you can't do something. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with a spell accomplishing a task that non-magic can't. And just because you can think of a way you might accomplish something doesn't mean you ever could.

The issue seems to be the DM really didn't want you to go through that door. Which is fine, but he should have been prepared for the Knock spell. This is more about a DM being caught off-guard than anything else.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-30, 12:50 PM

Not sure I agree with this in the broad strokes. There's nothing wrong with the DM flat out telling you that you can't do something. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with a spell accomplishing a task that non-magic can't. And just because you can think of a way you might accomplish something doesn't mean you ever could.

The issue seems to be the DM really didn't want you to go through that door. Which is fine, but he should have been prepared for the Knock spell. This is more about a DM being caught off-guard than anything else.

That is the whole point, if I think of a way to solve a problem using a skill, but the DM says, "I don't want you to be able to do that."
Then let me change the skill to something that will matter.

Ex. Never, in the over 20 year history of me playing DND have I EVER seen a use of the intimidate skill used by a PC not come back to be horrible. Guards get alerted, fights get started, ect.
So, people never train in intimidate, no big deal. It is not a skill that will ever NEED to be rolled. There will always be Persuasion or Deception to do its job.
However, thieves tools, stealth, or maybe slight of hand, do have uses that are not covered by other skills, if you are not going to allow those to be used in the very defined place that they are built to be used, let us know ahead of time so we do not waste skill proficiency or expertise in it.

Willie the Duck

2018-10-30, 12:52 PM

Dudewithknives

2018-10-30, 12:55 PM

Okay, right, but it wasn't the DC given that was the problem (since there wasn't one), right?

Well, no the dc given was not the problem.

The problem was being told I could not roll because the DM did not want me to be able to succeed in a skill that should have been very easy for the character, but then turning around and letting a spell automatically do it, "because they spent a resource."

EggKookoo

2018-10-30, 01:02 PM

KorvinStarmast

2018-10-30, 01:54 PM

My point was that if you can use INT rolls to get out of puzzles then you should be able to use INT (or Wis) rolls to make the bad guys move into fireball formation. Sure, I guess that can work. (Seems to add zero value, though ... rolls aren't needed for a lot of stuff).

What is true? That "D&D is more than just die rolls" Yes. :smallcool: I was supporting your point.

No I’m not. The game is a Role Playing Game. You can certainly figure out puzzles in character during the game, but that’s going to require you to use your character’s abilities while doing so. We part company here. There isn't a magical line between character and player. At best, that's a membrane.

\If you’re sitting there trying to figure out a puzzle using your own abilities, you’re no longer role playing,
Yes, you are. And I say that having played this game since about the time it came out. Puzzles are / were built into its DNA. If you don't have a copy of Wilderness and Underworld Adventures, then I am sure you have not been playing it since it came out 44+ years ago. (No worries, the various newer versions often had a lot of improvements to them ... Mentzer and Moldvay did a lot to clean up the original game ... Basic, and the BECMI were great ways to start playing the game. Ask my kids. )

I think we have different ideas of what a puzzle is. I don’t consider were-creatures puzzles in how it’s been discussed in this thread, which, as I’ve understood it, is more the “solve this Rubix cube to open the door” or “answer this riddle to pass” type scenarios. They are both puzzles. You are being way too restrictive in your definition, I think.

As for the game being puzzle-based, I’m not sure I’d agree. I’ve been playing for 30+ years and started with original D&D. I’ll say in my experience the game has gotten more RP-based, but that just may be the difference between my friends and I now, vs my friends and I in elementary school.
As I noted above, it varies with the table, and at some tables getting too heavy into puzzle solving or riddle solving isn't welcome. I've seen puzzle light and puzzle heavy games. (Hell, the Butcher in Diablo I was a puzzle to solve)

My various groups over that time haven’t had many, if any, puzzles in their games, yet we’ve definitely been playing D&D over that time (unless your actually arguing we haven’t been). Sure you have been playing D&D; in this conversation, you are the one pretending that puzzles don't belong in the game even though they've been in the game since the beginning. What I objected to was the assertion otherwise: but how much, how many, and how well they fit will vary with the tastes at a given table. At your tables, fewer is better, it seems. Cool.

I will repeat the point made in this thread time and again (by a variety of posters) that agrees with us both a bit: if the player(s) are having trouble with the puzzle, such that it is bogging down play, a good way to get the Char ability score involved to help with that is the roll-to-get-a hint that improves the player's view of what problem (or puzzle) it is that they are trying to solve. That folds in your ability score focus. ("I roll a 17 on a d20 and it's solved" is Roll Playing, not the role playing that you are advocating).

I think we may agree on a bit more than we don't, all said and done. I also agree with you and others that the frequency of that feature is a matter of taste: not a bad topic for session 0.

---------------------------------------------------

Here's a pointer at what I was talking about in re OD&D, three books ... page six, book III. It is really important to remember that originally, a lot of the exploration phase included a player with a sheet of graph paper making a map as the DM described the unexplored area you were going through. The map itself, or that process, had in it an imbedded series of problems that could crop up ... I quite frankly miss that part of the game in our roll20 sessions.

-----------------------------
(From Wilderness and underworld Adventures, TSR 1974, page 6, tricks and traps)

(1) Steps which lead to a slanting passage, so the player may actually stay on the same level, descend two levels, or ascend two levels

How do the role playing characters deal with this? Partly through how the map ends up, and if you have a dwarf, there's a good chance that the dwarf will note sloping passages underground. Another way to figure out if you are going down hill, or up hill, is to pour some water on the floor and see which way it runs. Versimilitude played into quite a bit of this.

Trap steps which lead up a short distance, but then go downwards for at least two levels, with the return passage blocked by bars or a one-way door

More a trap than a puzzle, but it's a problem to solve; the early editions of the game called on the Players to use their wits. To claim that "that isn't role playing" is bizarre. As I said, it was built into the DNA of the game. The "push a button/roll a die, and yeah, I sure am role playing" isn't role playing. (Dave Arneson wept ....)

Intra-level teleportation areas, so that a player will be transported to a similar (or dissimilar) area on the same level, possibly activated by touching some item (such as a gem, door, or the like)

I ran into these more than once. It took a bit of puzzle solving/problem solving, and map review to figure out what had been happening to us.

Sinking rooms, including rooms which seem to sink, while the doors remain shut fast for a period of several turns

As much trap as puzzle. But how to you get out of this?

Sections which dead-end so as to trap players being pursued by monsters

Trap.

Doors which are openable from one side only, which resist opening from one side, or which appear at random intervals

We had a variety of puzzle type problems that included opening doors in a certain order.

Natural passages and caverns which have varying width and direction, so that it is virtually impossible to accurately map such areas

How do we keep track of where we are going? (One group I was in basically blazed trails by carving runes into the stone at certain intervals).

Space distortion corridors or stairs which seem longer or shorter than they actually are

Unless you solve this puzzle, you may not find the next set of stairs down, or up.

-----------------------------

Lastly, when you play the Tomb of Annihilation, D&D 5e, you'll be required to solve a puzzle/riddle when and if you visit the sage of Orolunga. No spoilers; enjoy.

-------------------------

One last recollection of a puzzle based challenge: in the late 70's or early 80's we were in a dungeon, from one of the magazines (maybe White Dwarf?) where we encountered a monster called a Thesaurus.
Yeah, groan.
To get past him and into the next chamber we had to deal with a word game .... if a challenge like that is occasional, it can be fun. If the whole game is a never ending series of stuff like that, either the table likes it or hates it. I don't think there's a middle ground.

Darth Ultron

2018-10-30, 04:03 PM

It was more of the fact that he put an obstacle in front of the group, one that was made to be sure to screw us over, and a character specifically designed to deal with it was not even given a chance to roll on it but one spell and poof.

It seems that any time a non-magic way is found around an issue it has to pass a logical and schematic tests but if some just casts a spell at it, poof problem solved, no explanation needed.

This is more just a Bad DM. A Bad DM will offend put something in place for the PCs to run into...and it could be anything. And the Bad DM just gets all mad when a player just says ''we avoid it" .

As a matter of fact just about every DM I have ever known has had the same mentality of "Martials must explain everything in detal, casters can do that, or just cast a spell and bypass it all."

Well, you can put me down as not one of them.

Your talking about a more broad ''mundane vs magic", not just puzzles.

RSP

2018-10-30, 04:48 PM

We part company here. There isn't a magical line between character and player. At best, that's a membrane.

If you think the character and the Player are the same being, we are definitely thinking different things.

5e has a way it’s written to played (which includes throwing out the RAW if doing something else is better for your game). Those rules seperate Player and character. (All quotes come from the Basic Rules)

Players create a character and the character “can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure.”

It is a very different thing if the Player is doing battle then if the character is.

The game separates abilities and skills that the character has from those of the Player. Specifically, “Much of what your character does in the game depends on his or her six abilities: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.” Note: it’s not the Player’s ability to do these things but the character’s.

Further, “Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score
is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability.”

And, Intelligence measures the character’s “mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.”

So per the RAW, if the Player is using their abilities to solve an in-game puzzle, and not their character’s abilities, you’re not playing the game as it’s written (again acknowledging that tables are meant to customize to what they find works best for them).

I’m not saying it’s wrong for a DM to play differently than the RAW; I’m saying it shouldn’t be out of place for a Player to request to use his character’s abilities to solve in-game situations, which is what the OP was asking.

Yes, you are. And I say that having played this game since about the time it came out. Puzzles are / were built into its DNA. If you don't have a copy of Wilderness and Underworld Adventures, then I am sure you have not been playing it since it came out 44+ years ago. (No worries, the various newer versions often had a lot of improvements to them ... Mentzer and Moldvay did a lot to clean up the original game ... Basic, and the BECMI were great ways to start playing the game. Ask my kids. )

Again, 5e seperates character and Player and their respective abilities. If the DM says “You can’t pass this door until you complete these problems,” then passes out his math homework to the group, making them do his math homework, at that point they’re not playing D&D 5e, they’re doing math homework.

They are both puzzles. You are being way too restrictive in your definition, I think.

Of a sort, yes, but not the sort this thread was referring to: as I’m writing in response to the OP’s question, im going by what they were referring to as “puzzles.” If you want to start a new thread that goes into wererats and Raksashas as puzzles, I’ll take a look; but I’m trying to stick to the thread’s questions here.

Sure you have been playing D&D; in this conversation, you are the one pretending that puzzles don't belong in the game even though they've been in the game since the beginning. What I objected to was the assertion otherwise: but how much, how many, and how well they fit will vary with the tastes at a given table.

I never said anything regarding whether or not puzzles belong in a game or not. I said the rules state a character’s abilities should determine how/if they can solve in-game puzzles, not the Players. Further, I stated if the DM gives the Player a rubix cube to solve in real life, then you have stopped playing D&D and have started working on solving the rubix cube.

Now if you were LARPing and we’re live action solving the rubix cube, you would still need to follow the rules of the game (whatever your LARPing rules are) and use the character’s abilities to solve the rubix cube, not your own. Again, Tom Hanks acting as Forrest Gump to solve a problem will probably be different than how Tom Hanks would solve that same problem.

You seem to equate in-game puzzles with Player’s abilities, which I’ve quoted the rules on already: you’re in house rule territory if you’re going that route. In those games, I’d imagine there’s no reason to take certain skills as they’re useless (Expertise in Investigation is pointless if it’s the Player’s ability to make deductions from clues that matters), and dumping Int is a given as it doesn’t matter, but if that’s how your group works and everyone’s having fun, cool.

Regardless, if a thread starts that asks if it’s wrong to request to use a character’s abilities to solve in-game problems, I’m going to post the rules again for reference and tell the poster that all they’re requesting is to play the game by the rules, and there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that.

Aelyn

2018-10-30, 07:51 PM

Well, no the dc given was not the problem.

The problem was being told I could not roll because the DM did not want me to be able to succeed in a skill that should have been very easy for the character, but then turning around and letting a spell automatically do it, "because they spent a resource."

Wait, that's not what you said earlier - you said that the door was "this is a plot door that you aren't supposed to get through yet, but I don't have a ready excuse for Knock" and that the wall was "you're not allowed to do this without some sort of resource expenditure."

Either way, I'm sorry that you're as frustrated about this as you are, but again - there are definitely ways a door can be validly and logically constructed so that a lockpick is useless but a Knock spell is perfectly valid. There are also ways that the exact opposite is true, where a Knock spell doesn't get it done but lockpicks will do just fine.

I'm not sure if your descriptions might jave been coloured by your frustration, but I have to say that in my eight years or so playing D&D and many other systems, I've never known a DM to have the attitude you're claiming. Is it possible that you're being somewhat hyperbolic?

Dudewithknives

2018-10-30, 09:15 PM

Wait, that's not what you said earlier - you said that the door was "this is a plot door that you aren't supposed to get through yet, but I don't have a ready excuse for Knock" and that the wall was "you're not allowed to do this without some sort of resource expenditure."

Either way, I'm sorry that you're as frustrated about this as you are, but again - there are definitely ways a door can be validly and logically constructed so that a lockpick is useless but a Knock spell is perfectly valid. There are also ways that the exact opposite is true, where a Knock spell doesn't get it done but lockpicks will do just fine.

I'm not sure if your descriptions might jave been coloured by your frustration, but I have to say that in my eight years or so playing D&D and many other systems, I've never known a DM to have the attitude you're claiming. Is it possible that you're being somewhat hyperbolic?

No, I just play used to have to game with a lot of jerk dms.

Key words are used to, I completely changed all friends and towns I play in, just to leave the toxic situations.

Many times I have been told:

"I don't care how good you are at it, you can't roll/kill that npc/convince them/find them/stealth past that point/ect"
"Magic does not have to care about making sense, it does what it says."
"If you want to be useful play a caster or shut up."
"This is what you get for not building a caster, just get out of the way."

My whole group used to think it was hilarious to piss me off, well because they were useless stoners and I take things seriously.
The game I made a warlock and was going to single class them the whole way, someone else made a Sor/Lock just to make fun of how useless my guy was.
Same game as soon as I got devil's sight and darkness, the 4 other people in the game, all with darkvision all bought driftglobes just to disspell my darkness every time I cast in anywhere because it was funny.

Or my personal favorite:

The barbarian in the group literally gets handed, or more accurately forced into being king of the dwarven nation, his first act was to have my character's, who is fanatically devout by the way, his entire religion bannished, and all followers put to death. Despite the fact he went from being CE to LG as soon as he became king because... the gods said so, and the fact he had no clue who was even a member of my religion. However, when my rogue whose entire job was to be an undercover assassin (not assassin subclass, he was a swashbuckler) tried to get revenge I was told:

I don't put up with that PVP crap in my game, if you try to attack him, you will die and I won't roll dice.

This was also the same DM who after pointing out for the 4th time that I was not a bard when he tried to give me an instrument of the bards, just decided there will be no loot I could ever use because I kept turning it down.

EggKookoo

2018-10-30, 09:44 PM

All I can say is I'm sorry you had to put up with people treating you like that. I've had "friends" from time to time who would act that way. The best thing to do is remove them from your life and move on. No one deserves to be the ongoing butt of the joke, and some people will be abusive because they feel like you'll put up with it. You don't have to. Life's too short.

It's better to not play than be part of that kind of hell.

furby076

2018-10-30, 09:54 PM

You are right. Player does not equal PC.
1) Most people who try to make puzzles are terrible at them. Either they make them overly simple where it's not worth it, or they make it so complex only they can solve it.
2) Some players like em, some do not. It's possible for there to be a mix at the table. The DM can't make everyone happy
3) DM who wants to build a puzzle should set a metagame timer (not to be confused with a timer where the puzzle causes the trap to go boom). The table has X minutes to solve the puzzle. DM can make it fun (e.g., hot/cold, closer/farther, clues drop on randomly). After the timer is up, resort to player rolling
4) Any DM who wants to try puzzles should go to a session (with the group is even better) of Escape the Room (google it). In this game, the person who monitors the game will randomly drop clues to help push the team along.It should give the DM good insight into 1) how long puzzles can take, 2) how to help without spoiling the fun, and 3) when to know to give up the puzzle (timer) for PC rolls.

I really think the above should help any DM/players out. Also, I highly recommend Escape The Room (i've played it twice...Scotland and Philadelphia)

Tanarii

2018-10-31, 01:44 AM

i
3) DM who wants to build a puzzle should set a metagame timer (not to be confused with a timer where the puzzle causes the trap to go boom). The table has X minutes to solve the puzzle. DM can make it fun (e.g., hot/cold, closer/farther, clues drop on randomly). After the timer is up, resort to player rolling

Metagame timers in D&D are usually called "wandering monster checks", aren't they? :smallamused:

wallyd2

2018-10-31, 09:51 AM

I will repeat the point made in this thread time and again (by a variety of posters) that agrees with us both a bit: if the player(s) are having trouble with the puzzle, such that it is bogging down play, a good way to get the Char ability score involved to help with that is the roll-to-get-a hint that improves the player's view of what problem (or puzzle) it is that they are trying to solve. That folds in your ability score focus. ("I roll a 17 on a d20 and it's solved" is Roll Playing, not the role playing that you are advocating).

Within my first 30 minutes of learning the game (circa 1984, Basic Set, Red Box) I was presented with a puzzle/riddle in the solo adventure walkthrough. I've been hooked ever since. Since then, I have incorporated puzzles in my game and have had a lot of success doing so. Yes, puzzles are geared towards players, but we can use ability checks to give them insight on what may be needed to solve the puzzle or how the puzzle works. If the players are stumped, then an ability check, as KorvinStarmast pointed out, is a fantastic way to provide a "hint" on what to do next.

Puzzles, to me, are a third element to the game. An aspect that is not combat or role playing, but still very much a part of D&D, as it has been for 30-40 years. IMO... they should not involve frustration. Hints need to be given if the players struggle after 5-10 minutes.

Of course, all being said, I really do believe there are right and wrong ways to do puzzles. I definitely do not agree with giving complex math problems or a Rubik's Cube like item. I lean more towards "video game" type puzzles. Finding objects along the way that fit into a puzzle, or looking at paintings and determining a correct order that they need to be placed in, or even grid-based logic puzzles that are masked in D&D type stories or events.

EggKookoo

2018-10-31, 10:29 AM

Of course, all being said, I really do believe there are right and wrong ways to do puzzles. I definitely do not agree with giving complex math problems or a Rubik's Cube like item. I lean more towards "video game" type puzzles. Finding objects along the way that fit into a puzzle, or looking at paintings and determining a correct order that they need to be placed in, or even grid-based logic puzzles that are masked in D&D type stories or events.

Simple, context-based puzzles are good because you can use a lot of them without your players getting "puzzle fatigue." But they need to be largely intuitive.

I ran a game based on Highlander-style immortals a few years back. The players were in an ancient facility that had been built to study immortals, back in the mists of history. They needed to get into a locked chamber at one point. The door had a vertical cylindrical handle made up of small segments, which the party quickly determined were modeled on vertebrae. They pulled and pushed and tried a bunch of ways to open the door, but when one player looked closer (and I believe made a roll -- they were struggling a bit), he noticed there were small gaps between the segments and they were basically being held in place in relation to each other via magic. He took out his sword, gently slid it across one of the gaps, and *click* the door unlocked. They got a kick out of that.

Pelle

2018-10-31, 10:46 AM

I really think the above should help any DM/players out. Also, I highly recommend Escape The Room (i've played it twice...Scotland and Philadelphia)

Escape Rooms are great fun, but the puzzles in them are most of the time very disassociated/metagamey. Just like they tend to be in RPGs. Yes, it can be included in the fiction somehow, but it rarely makes sense narratively why there would be a puzzle to solve. There needs to be solid reasons for why someone wanted to make a puzzle in the first place, which is almost never.

It's fun to design puzzles specifically for the players to Gordian knot them. :smallbiggrin:

wallyd2

2018-11-01, 08:59 AM

Simple, context-based puzzles are good because you can use a lot of them without your players getting "puzzle fatigue." But they need to be largely intuitive.

I ran a game based on Highlander-style immortals a few years back. The players were in an ancient facility that had been built to study immortals, back in the mists of history. They needed to get into a locked chamber at one point. The door had a vertical cylindrical handle made up of small segments, which the party quickly determined were modeled on vertebrae. They pulled and pushed and tried a bunch of ways to open the door, but when one player looked closer (and I believe made a roll -- they were struggling a bit), he noticed there were small gaps between the segments and they were basically being held in place in relation to each other via magic. He took out his sword, gently slid it across one of the gaps, and *click* the door unlocked. They got a kick out of that.

That's a fantastic story... and great RPG puzzle! I love it!

Willie the Duck

2018-11-01, 09:29 AM

Escape Rooms are great fun, but the puzzles in them are most of the time very disassociated/metagamey. Just like they tend to be in RPGs. Yes, it can be included in the fiction somehow, but it rarely makes sense narratively why there would be a puzzle to solve. There needs to be solid reasons for why someone wanted to make a puzzle in the first place, which is almost never.

It's fun to design puzzles specifically for the players to Gordian knot them. :smallbiggrin:

Lindybeige had an interesting escape-room-style (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWCU2aF1TL0) puzzle (that your players would genuinely keel-haul you for if you used unaltered, because there's no way you and their descriptions of what the situation actually is would match up without you giving away the mechanism) that is actually rather clever, overly frustrating, but makes sense in that it is a conceivable low-tech method of making a door lock-and-key mechanism.

Talderas

2018-11-01, 01:43 PM

Here's a pointer at what I was talking about in re OD&D, three books ... page six, book III. It is really important to remember that originally, a lot of the exploration phase included a player with a sheet of graph paper making a map as the DM described the unexplored area you were going through. The map itself, or that process, had in it an imbedded series of problems that could crop up ... I quite frankly miss that part of the game in our roll20 sessions.

Roll20 does not do three dimensional terrain but then again, three dimension terrain on graph paper has all the same issues. You have to notate those elements as the player making the map. That all said, it sounds like whoever is GMing in r20 either isn't familiar with all the tools available in it or you're playing with a GM that isn't paying for the more advanced features. One thing I did with r20 while running a game was to heavily lean on dynamic lighting and dynamic fog of war. Dynamic lighting only reveals areas visible to tokens the player controls. Dynamic fog of war lets areas of the map the player's token has passed through to remain visible although they don't see any object or tokens that are outside of their token's line of sight. When I did this, if a player would scout ahead of the group, I would convey information to that player. That is the only player that has any knowledge of the terrain and mapping ahead of the group and when he returned he would be responsible for conveying the terrain or intel. I force the player and the player character who is scouting to play the part of a scout with revealing the information and more importantly give the player/character the freedom to elect what information he wants to relay to the party.

I also would look at the objects I want to place in areas that I thought might interfere with sight lines then I would visually place such things on my maps and then draw line of sight blockers. I would make a warehouse with stacked crates to the ceiling. Those line of sight markers not only blocked site but also established where the tokens are permitted to move. In general, I am a huge proponent of dynamic lighting primarily because it significantly helps with determining what a character might have visibility on.

Trustypeaches

2018-11-01, 02:47 PM

Darth Ultron

2018-11-01, 03:59 PM

The issue with puzzles in D&D is that it's hard to know if you have all the information.

I don't mind getting stumped on a puzzle because I'm too much of a stupid doodoo head to get it, but if it's because a key part of the solution is hiding behind a perception check or some crap, then I get annoyed.

This is exactly why puzzles are for the players, not the characters.

Like take the All Seasons Room in the ruined druid stronghold: Each of the four walls is painted with a mural representing a different season in order, Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. In the middle of the room is a small patch of dirt. Buried in the dirt is a seed.

As seasons are real things...most players will know what they are without needing to know special game related stuff.

Each season must be replaced in order on the dirt(and seed). Winter:cold/ice, Spring:water, Summer:fire or heat, Fall: wind.

and when the puzzle is done the secret door opens.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-01, 05:19 PM

This is exactly why puzzles are for the players, not the characters.

Like take the All Seasons Room in the ruined druid stronghold: Each of the four walls is painted with a mural representing a different season in order, Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. In the middle of the room is a small patch of dirt. Buried in the dirt is a seed.

As seasons are real things...most players will know what they are without needing to know special game related stuff.

Each season must be replaced in order on the dirt(and seed). Winter:cold/ice, Spring:water, Summer:fire or heat, Fall: wind.

and when the puzzle is done the secret door opens.

They really Fifth Elemented that one.

qube

2018-11-02, 09:17 AM

And, of course, historically it has been a component of many published modulesOh, obviously.

So you agree it’s not D&D.No I don't. It's not what you define as "playing D&D" - but it's very much part of D&D (and, if you equate the 2, that only means you are wrong). Case in point:

Etched onto the floor in Elven is a phrase that was apparently also translated recently into Common in chalk: "To pass, youmust speak the titles of each of the three, divided by three." Then etched into the floor is a long string of letters:
TLLHOAERDSDYLVAAEGYNOEONRMY

The Puzzle in Harried in Hillsfar, an offical WotC 5E D&D adventure (free FYI (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/DDEX31_HarriedHillsfar.pdf), which also contains the solutions (won't post hit here, for spoilers) ). It notes

Give the players a couple of minutes to see if they can come up with an answer. If not, tell them that they can either turn back or continue through the room and take the damage.

I doesn't note: "each character reading this rolls a DC 15 intellegence check. If one succeeds, he knows the answer". Which is not to say that a DM can't allow a roll (he's always free to deviate from the written word) - it's only to show that WotC doesn't agree with your stance that solve-it-out-game-puzzles aren't part of D&D.

Sure, they are not prevelent, but neither are Bulettes.
Over many years of gaming, I've yet to encounter a pre-made campaign that uses them (or maybe we accidently were able to circumvent all of them?) , yet have encountered many non-roll puzzles.
But to use that as "evidence" that Bulettes aren't part of D&D, or try to sequence the claim "Bulettes are part of D&D" with "so, that means I haven't been playing D&D?" are both, very obviously, silly.

However, if you were playing at my table, we'd have to come to some agreement about how much of A and B we'll include. Your fun is as important as mine, but if I'm the DM, I have greater authority to make sure both our fun needs are met, and thus I have greater responsibility to make sure it happens. yup, as well as a responsability to make sure the fun needs of the other players are met.

With the above example, assuming a good DM
if nobody on the table likes riddles, he divert from the written story, and ask for an int check
if some people like puzzles, then this is a challenge for those players.

But, and I can stress this enough, neither are what the OP suggests. He wants to make an int/wis-character that can solve the puzzle by making a roll because he doesn't like puzzles. Making that kind decision
on your own (without regard of what your fellow players like)
and
behind the DMs back (which will mean the player will try to o force the DMs hand when the occasion arises)are IMHO hallmarks of being a bad player.

KorvinStarmast

2018-11-02, 09:25 AM

You seem to equate in-game puzzles with Player’s abilities, which I’ve quoted the rules on already: you’re in house rule territory if you’re going that route. It isn't either or, it's both. To artificially divorce the player from the character is to misunderstand the genre and the game form. I recommend to you AngryGM's commentary on that nebulous boundary (https://theangrygm.com/through-a-glass-darkly-ic-ooc-and-the-myth-of-playercharacter-seperation/).

He does a nice job (despite his overblown writing style) of addressing your mistake regarding separation of player and character. To roughly quote a point that Mike Mornard used to make about role playing games and role playing: yes, player skill is a thing that grows over time, in an RPG, just as it does in board games, in chess, and in card games. (If it didn't, we'd not have a lot of these discussions at GiTP, nor some of the great stories that come from at table experiences... )

Through a Glass Darkly: IC, OOC, and the Myth of Player/Character Separation
(Note, the following does not apply to that subset of the few professional actors who are actually very good at method acting)

You Can’t Compartmentalize
Let’s get one thing straight: no matter how great a role-player you think you are, YOU are always a part of the equation. You’re not BEING a character. You’re attempting to make choices for a character based on your understanding of their motivations and the world and the consequences. Everything you choose for your character is warped through the lens of your own perception, your own understanding, your own experiences, your own biases.
And, a lot of the time, you’re guessing.
You’re guessing what it would be like to be this completely different person in completely different circumstances in a world that doesn’t exist. Two players playing identical characters in identical situations will still arrive at different choices because their choices are skewed through the lens of their own perceptions and experiences. Even actors – who don’t have to make decisions for their characters because some screenwriter already made the decisions – even actors bring something of themselves to every role they play.

It is impossible for you to ignore your own brain. Moreover, it is impossible for you to ignore information that exists in your head. That’s why the metagaming fights are so stupid. What the ability scores do for us is twofold:
(1) add a few modifiers to the RNG for those things that we roll for.
(2) gives us a rough picture of who this make believe character is, and what his/her strength's and weaknesses are.
Play the character, not the numbers on the sheet.

The player plays the character; the character does not and cannot exist without that profound connection.

To be very clear, character ability, expertise, and such are not to be ignored, nor discarded. And I have been very clearly in support using the appropriate ability score (just as we do for climbing or picking a pocket) to influence the success of failure of a given challenge.

FWIW: the "three clue rule" is as applicable to this kind of challenge as it is to other mystery/unknown elements of an adventure.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 09:28 AM

Oh, obviously.
No I don't. It's not what you define as "playing D&D" - but it's very much part of D&D (and, if you equate the 2, that only means you are wrong). Case in point:

Etched onto the floor in Elven is a phrase that was apparently also translated recently into Common in chalk: "To pass, youmust speak the titles of each of the three, divided by three." Then etched into the floor is a long string of letters:
TLLHOAERDSDYLVAAEGYNOEONRMY

The Puzzle in Harried in Hillsfar, an offical WotC 5E D&D adventure (free FYI (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/DDEX31_HarriedHillsfar.pdf), which also contains the solutions (won't post hit here, for spoilers) ). It notes

Give the players a couple of minutes to see if they can come up with an answer. If not, tell them that they can either turn back or continue through the room and take the damage.

I doesn't note: "each character reading this rolls a DC 15 intellegence check. If one succeeds, he knows the answer". Which is not to say that a DM can't allow a roll (he's always free to deviate from the written word) - it's only to show that WotC doesn't agree with your stance that solve-it-out-game-puzzles aren't part of D&D.

Sure, they are not prevelent, but neither are Bulettes.
Over many years of gaming, I've yet to encounter a pre-made campaign that uses them (or maybe we accidently were able to circumvent all of them?) , yet have encountered many non-roll puzzles.
But to use that as "evidence" that Bulettes aren't part of D&D, or try to sequence the claim "Bulettes are part of D&D" with "so, that means I haven't been playing D&D?" are both, very obviously, silly.

yup, as well as a responsability to make sure the fun needs of the other players are met.

With the above example, assuming a good DM
if nobody on the table likes riddles, he divert from the written story, and ask for an int check
if some people like puzzles, then this is a challenge for those players.

But, and I can stress this enough, neither are what the OP suggests. He wants to make an int/wis-character that can solve the puzzle by making a roll because he doesn't like puzzles. Making that kind decision
on your own (without regard of what your fellow players like)
and
behind the DMs back (which will mean the player will try to o force the DMs hand when the occasion arises)are IMHO hallmarks of being a bad player.

This is the part I have a major issue with. Why do I have proficiency or expertise in thieves tools then?

How about instead of solving the puzzle which might take multiple minutes, I just roll the tool that it was made for and disable the thing?
Issue is that yeah, I may disable the puzzle, but I also might just set the thing off if i roll badly.

The answer usually comes back with something along the lines of, "I spent a few hours designing this thing so you are not solving it with a dice roll."

Which always comes back to, "Then why do we have thieves tools and expertise? Just so we can solve problems you don't care about?"

KorvinStarmast

2018-11-02, 09:43 AM

Which always comes back to, "Then why do we have thieves tools and expertise? Just so we can solve problems you don't care about?" False equivalency. We also don't set fire to torches each time we say "I light a torch!" (though I have been with a few groups years ago who did stuff like that ...). It's also why we don't actually kick down a door in the house each time we do it in game to prove that it can be done. It isn't practical. Solving a mystery, or a puzzle, or a riddle, is something we can do without it being impractical. The Harried in Hillsfar example is a good one.

Etched onto the floor in Elven is a phrase that was apparently also translated recently into Common in chalk: "To pass, you must speak the titles of each of the three, divided by three." (snip more detail from previous post)
Give the players a couple of minutes to see if they can come up with an answer. If not, tell them that they can either turn back or continue through the room and take the damage.
It doesn't note: "each character reading this rolls a DC 15 intelligence check. If one succeeds, he knows the answer". Which is not to say that a DM can't allow a roll (he's always free to deviate from the written word) - it's only to show that WotC doesn't agree with your stance that solve-it-out-game-puzzles aren't part of D&D. Have run into many of those kinds of things over the years, in published material and otherwise.

Games use your brain, and RPG's are no different.

How common such a challenge is, however, and how enjoyable, is a matter of taste.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 09:50 AM

False equivalency. We also don't set fire to torches each time we say "I light a torch!" (though I have been with a few groups years ago who did stuff like that ...). It's also why we don't actually kick down a door in the house each time we do it in game to prove that it can be done. It isn't practical. Solving a mystery, or a puzzle, or a riddle, is something we can do without it being impractical. The Harried in Hillsfar example is a good one.

Games use your brain, and RPG's are no different.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said.

I mentioned that in the example you used, it is solved by the player or not.
I mentioned that this is the exact situation where you could roll Thieves Tools to solve this, but the discription you used does not allow that.

So why bother using thieves tools at all if you can use them to disarm a trap/puzzle?
Also if this is a "Puzzle" that causes you damage if you don't solve it correctly, then it is a trap.

Nowhere did I say anyhting about being exact about what you were doing or acting out things in real life, or being practical.

To the edit you made after I posted this:

This is how this should work:

You encounter this elven script on the floor, and the chalk in common, next to it.
The group looks at in and starts talking.
The person who has thieves tools proficiency or possible expertise, looks at an says, "Hey, you want me to try to disarm this thing? I will give you a min or so to solve it first."

Now comes the question of as a DM do you:

1. Give them a min to try to figure it out, and if they don't they roll a tool use to disable it.
or
2. You do not give the person with tools use a try to disable the obvious trap in the floor?

This is a perfect example of a "Player puzzle" that the character should be able to deal with using their various skills and abilities, but it is up to the player to actually do things themselves instead of the character.

KorvinStarmast

2018-11-02, 09:51 AM

This is a perfect example of a "Player puzzle" that the character should be able to deal with using their various skills and abilities, but it is up to the player to actually do things themselves instead of the character. I am sorry, I misunderstood your post.

qube

2018-11-02, 10:16 AM

This is the part I have a major issue with. Why do I have proficiency or expertise in thieves tools then?
...
Which always comes back to, "Then why do we have thieves tools and expertise? Just so we can solve problems you don't care about?" No - You have prof/exp. in thieves tools to solve challenges you can beat with thieves tools.

A 20ft wide cavern. It has a linnen cavas spread over it, nailed to the ground on each side. there's a thin layer of sand & stones on it so adventurers might mistake it for a natural bridge crossing.

... Please do explain to me how exactly do you think your thieves tools will help you?

--------------------------------------------

Look, in the end, I get it. You having a major issue with something that's part of D&D.
...
...
But then what? Congrats, now it's no longer part of D&D?

Do you want an intelligence check to see if you comprehend that just because a few people don't like something, while a huge amount of others either like it, or don't mind - it's generally considered a bad idea to kick it out?

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 10:24 AM

No - You have prof/exp. in thieves tools to solve challenges you can beat with thieves tools.

A 20ft wide cavern. It has a linnen cavas spread over it, nailed to the ground on each side. there's a thin layer of sand & stones on it so adventurers might mistake it for a natural bridge crossing.

... Please do explain to me how exactly do you think your thieves tools will help you?

--------------------------------------------

Look, in the end, I get it. You having a major issue with something that's part of D&D.
...
...
But then what? Congrats, now it's no longer part of D&D?

Do you want an intelligence check to see if you comprehend that just because a few people don't like something, while a huge amount of others either like it, or don't mind - it's generally considered a bad idea to kick it out?

No, I have a problem when people suddenly decide that disabling a trap, like runes on the ground that get set off if something is not done correctly, cant be done with the tools used to disarm a trap.

As for your example, that is not a trap, that is a perception check to notice it then you just dealing with a hole in the ground, you are not disabling anything at all.

You know what else has been part of playing DND for decades? Skill checks to solve problem.

As soon as you say, "No the character can't solve this, you at the table have to come up with the answer to this riddle." It is no longer Role Playing, you are puzzle solving as a person.

I personally am pretty good at puzzles, not great or anything, but pretty good.
If I am playing a 6 int barbarian orc, why should how smart I as a person make the dumb brute a genius of runic language and various scripts?
Conversely, my best friend sucks at puzzles, he could not solve sudoku puzzle if his life was on the line but he is very smart in other ways, so does that mean his 20 int arcane trickster rogue who is trained in thieves tools just sits there staring at it?

You have to allow for both situations, the players get to reason it out and find a way and if they don't then the characters get to roll a skill check to disarm.

qube

2018-11-02, 10:52 AM

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 11:14 AM

Dudewithknives, you aren't making any sense at all.

You can't say "No, I have a problem when people suddenly decide " - about something that's part of a pre-written adventure specifically, and something that's been done for more then 30 years, generally.

As for "As for your example, that is not a trap, " ... yes it is. Your inability to answer it doesn't mean it's not a trap. It's a variant of a pit trap - the false bridge. The same thing can be done with a pit trap that you can't walk around. If the pit trap is just a piece of fabric, opposite to wooden trapdoors or something.
Yes, thieves tools can be used to disable some traps - but if you think they should be able to disable all traps, you're very VERY much mistaken.

As for "You know what else has been part of playing DND for decades? Skill checks to solve problem." ... that's quite irrelevant - considering puzzles have always been there as well, skill checks have never been the solution to any problem (or at least to the aformentioned puzzles which you try to make a case for)

I can only repeat myself:

Look, in the end, I get it. You having a major issue with something that's part of D&D.
...
...
But then what? Congrats, now it's no longer part of D&D?

Do you want an intelligence check to see if you comprehend that just because a few people don't like something, while a huge amount of others either like it, or don't mind - it's generally considered a bad idea to kick it out?

I don't need elaboration why you don't like it. I get it. you don't like it.

What you fail to answer: But then what?

Let's break this down:

1. Having a trap that is not allowed to be solved using tools designed to disable traps is a problem.
Almost every module used to have a line along the lines of, "The player can roll,(X) to do (X)."
The example is saying, the player has to solve the problem out of character, or their characters take damage.

Either you can solve out of character, but you can have a chance to roll, should be the general rule.

2. You could solve the pit trap with just a grappling hook, the "trap" is so simple you don't even need thieves tools at all. As long as you spot the trap you can deal with it without any training at all, and spotting a trap in 5e does not take any special training at all either. To deal with a simple pit trap all you have to do is notice it and use a rope.

3. So are you saying that skill checks are not used to solve problems, and that skill checks to do things being around for 30 years does not matter? I am not getting what your complaint is here.

If it is a normal puzzle, like there is a message hidden in this scroll, then sure thieves tools would do nothing, that is a whole different skill.
If it is a puzzle along the lines of figuring out from a crime scene what really happened, then again no, it would do nothing.
If it is a "solve this riddle or take damage" that is a trap, which is exactly what the tool does.

That would be the same as a wizard who has the spell feather fall being told that it is "A special kind of hole in the ground, you can't cast feather fall to stop the damage, what do you do?"

The solution is simple, let both work.

You can find a creative answer to the problem to the situation, or you can roll an appropriate skill check or tool check if you invested in the proper areas.
A trap, is a trap, tools disarm traps.

KorvinStarmast

2018-11-02, 11:30 AM

Let's break this down:

1. Having a trap that is not allowed to be solved using tools designed to disable traps is a problem.
A dead fall trap (typically used out of doors) isn't something thieves tools will disable. The party has a variety of other things it can try to do if they recognize a dead fall trap while checking out their environment.
SO here's what the party does, when

(1) the DM describes the environment as "you realize that the rope, logs, and rocks are a kind of dead fall trap ..."

(2) the players describe what their characters do in order to neutralize the trap.
Describes what they are going to do
(It may be that the rogue or monk or the fighter climbs up one side of the trap and jams a dagger or spike into the part that is supposed to slip and release the rocks ... the variations are endless).

(3) The DM narrates the results

Dice only rolled when necessary.

Or, you can roll play, and use no imagination in that encounter.
Someone roll a d20 (barbarian quickly adds "I'll help" since he knows it gives advantage)
Someone rolls.
Trap neutralized or not.
Each table will have its preference on this.

Dark Schneider

2018-11-02, 11:39 AM

For in-place puzzle I see fine that is presented like an investigation check like any other in-place maneuver.

But if the "puzzle" itself is part of the adventure, some kind of searching for the clues to solve, then is roleplaying. Ask your DM for rolling investigation to get some advice about how to solve, but in that case I think it can't be all reduced to a single roll.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 11:42 AM

A dead fall trap (typically used out of doors) isn't something thieves tools will disable. The party has a variety of other things it can try to do if they recognize a dead fall trap while checking out their environment.
SO here's what the party does, when (1) the DM describes the environment as "you realize that the rope, logs, and rocks are a kind of dead fall trap ..."

(2) the players describe what their characters do in order to neutralize the trap.
Describes what they are going to do
(It may be that the rogue or monk or the fighter climbs up one side of the trap and jams a dagger or spike into the part that is supposed to slip and release the rocks ... the variations are endless).

(3) The DM narrates the results

Dice only rolled when necessary.

Why do people keep coming up with the idea of, "this is a trap thieves tools can't solve"

Why?

Why would thieves tools not be able to disable a imple deadfall trap?

What you discribed is a very simple trap that is so easy to disable it would not even take special training to deal with.

A simple pit trap does not require thieves tools to deal with, you can just use a grappling hook.
A simple deadfall doesn't either, just use an iron spike or dagger.

It even describes these kinds of traps in things like Yawning Portal.
Things like, "You can make a thieves tools check of X, to disable the trap, or use an iron spike to jam the mechanism."

There are some things however that are too complicated to do without the use of thieves tools.
Like a mechanical trap set inside the lock of a gate door.

If every trap can just be solved by me being creative, let me know ahead of time so I will not bother training in the tool or putting expertise in it, which was my origional point in the first place.

ADDITION:
This would be so much easier if you would stop editing after I post.

I am not saying only use skills, I am saying don't tell the player they can't use a skill.

Being creative is always prefered and should always take priority, but telling the player they can not use a skill the player has is wrong.

Also, rolling a skill can ALWAYS go wrong and have disasterous results, coming up with creative solutions is usally much safer.

Dark Schneider

2018-11-02, 11:46 AM

Why do people keep coming up with the idea of, "this is a trap thieves tools can't solve"

Things like, "You can make a thieves tools check of X, to disable the trap, or use an iron spike to jam the mechanism."

I was thinking exactly that. If the trap itself does not says it cannot be disarmed by thieves tools, then it can. Thieves tools are not only lock picks, but a full set of tools for anything. IMO the rules are made so all the mechanical traps can be disarmed unless it says it cannot.

Because, we can think that who placed the trap also put some way to avoid it for himself, that could be activating a mechanism, but if not present, then it should be disarmed in other way, like with tools.

In some rare cases the trap could not be disarmed, but then always there is another way. Like a false floor, only sustained by weak base. There is nothing to disarm, but in this case of traps, there is always a secret door way, and the trap one is only a false way.

qube

2018-11-02, 11:59 AM

Let's break this down:

1. Having a trap that is not allowed to be solved using tools designed to disable traps is a problem.
No - you have a problem with that. If it actually was a problem, it wouldn't have persisted for 30 years.

2. You could solve the pit trap with just a grappling hook, the "trap" is so simple you don't even need thieves tools at all.Thank you with confirming my retort:

You have prof/exp. in thieves tools to solve challenges you can beat with thieves tools.

3. So are you saying that skill checks are not used to solve problemsNo, what I said - or intended to say - was that not all problems can be solved with skill checks.
Case in point: those puzzles that go aroudn for 30 years.

You, pointing out that skill checks were a thing all the time that those puzzles were a thing as well, only confirms the first point: the difference between you having a problem with it, and it being a

The solution is simple, let both work.

You can find a creative answer to the problem to the situation, or you can roll an appropriate skill check or tool check if you invested in the proper areas.
A trap, is a trap, tools disarm traps. So, if you have 4 players at the table, who all like solving puzzles, and one who does't ... and the DM gives the players a puzzle ... why should the DM allow the fifth player to just roll and skip the entire thing?

Take into account that if you take away any sort of reward for solving them - you grealty deminish the fun of puzzle challenges - And this, with the example presented, results in a net loss of fun at the table.

At which point, I am wondering about your justifaction of that loss, other then, you presonally not liking those type of challenges.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 12:07 PM

No - you have a problem with that. If it actually was a problem, it wouldn't have persisted for 30 years.

Thank you with confirming my retort:

You have prof/exp. in thieves tools to solve challenges you can beat with thieves tools.

No, what I said - or intended to say - was that not all problems can be solved with skill checks.
Case in point: those puzzles that go aroudn for 30 years.

You, pointing out that skill checks were a thing all the time that those puzzles were a thing as well, only confirms the first point: the difference between you having a problem with it, and it being a

So, if you have 4 players at the table, who all like solving puzzles, and one who does't ... and the DM gives the players a puzzle ... why should the DM allow the fifth player to just roll and skip the entire thing?

Take into account that if you take away any sort of reward for solving them - you grealty deminish the fun of puzzle challenges - And this, with the example presented, results in a net loss of fun at the table.

At which point, I am wondering about your justifaction of that loss, other then, you presonally not liking those type of challenges.

Our answers are not mutually exclusive.

Thieves tools are there to solve problems that require thieves tools. Yes, we both agree on that.
What we disagree on is that there are plenty of mundande and simple mechanical traps that thieves tools do not work on.

To your last part, the 3 people try to come up with a creative surefire solution which is great and should always be the first choice, but if they can't come up with anything the 4th player rolls a skill check and hopes they roll well enough not to screw up.

Are you saying that the person who spend a tool proficiency, and maybe even an expertise should not be allowed to use their own skill?

You also take away the reward of spending valubale training and expertise by not allowing a roll of a skill/tool on the exact thing it does, that is no different.

RSP

2018-11-02, 12:13 PM

No I don't. It's not what you define as "playing D&D" - but it's very much part of D&D (and, if you equate the 2, that only means you are wrong).

Lots of things can be “part of D&D” depending on how you want to define it; that doesn’t make it the same as playing D&D. Watching the D&D movie could be considered part of D&D, however, that’s not playing D&D. Reading the D&D books could be part of D&D, but again, diferent than playing D&D.

At its core, 5e is a game where role play a character you create. When you eliminate that aspect, such as by using Player’s abilities rather than the character’s, you aren’t in the RAW of the game.

At no point am I arguing that tables need to adhere to the RAW, nor that shouldn’t add in non-RAW elements.

Again, is it fun for a Player who has memorized the Monster Manual to shout out all the abilities and weaknesses of every creature the group encounters? This is the same thing: not separating Player knowledge from Character knowledge.

Again, if this is fun for your group, have at it. But to say a Player is wrong to use their character’s abilities to solve in-game obstacles is not right. The RAW states that’s how it’s written to be played.

RSP

2018-11-02, 12:21 PM

It isn't either or, it's both. To artificially divorce the player from the character is to misunderstand the genre and the game form...

What the ability scores do for us is twofold:
(1) add a few modifiers to the RNG for those things that we roll for.
(2) gives us a rough picture of who this make believe character is, and what his/her strength's and weaknesses are.
Play the character, not the numbers on the sheet.

The player plays the character; the character does not and cannot exist without that profound connection.

To be very clear, character ability, expertise, and such are not to be ignored, nor discarded. And I have been very clearly in support using the appropriate ability score (just as we do for climbing or picking a pocket) to influence the success of failure of a given challenge.

FWIW: the "three clue rule" is as applicable to this kind of challenge as it is to other mystery/unknown elements of an adventure.

Of course the Player plays the character, but thats irrelevant here. What is relevant is the idea you propose of completely eliminating the character from the scenario by relying on the Player’s knowledge of puzzles.

This is even worse when you take into account those characters who have dedicated resources to be specifically good at puzzles, only to have the DM completely neglect the character and say, “no this is for the Players to figure out.”

How, in that scenario, is the “player playing the character?”

qube

2018-11-02, 12:53 PM

Lots of things can be “part of D&D” depending on how you want to define it; that doesn’t make it the same as playing D&D. Watching the D&D movie could be considered part of D&D, however, that’s not playing D&D. Reading the D&D books could be part of D&D, but again, diferent than playing D&D.
Yeah, but see,

Nobody is arguing that watching the D&D movie is playing D&D
Nobody is arguing that reading the D&D books is playing D&D

... but the fact that puzzles are part of offcial D&D capaigns ... you know, that's a small little detail that was the core of the argument ... oh, that little thing you forgot to adress ...

In some rare cases the trap could not be disarmed, but then always there is another way.
there is always a secret door way, and the trap one is only a false way.boy, you would so die in my dungeons :smalltongue:.

I have already
put traps in corridors that enemeis don't use, and thus don't have a secret way around (either because the hall ends, or because there's an entirely different corridor, that also leads to the next room. )
used natural selection (pit traps with no way around, usually have a couple of bodies of baddies who fell into it)
used traps the baddies don't have problems with (pit traps that can hold small creatures, but not medium ones, or poison traps with specific poisons the baddies are immune against)
Now, don't get me wrong - many of my traps can be disabled with thieves tools ... but not all of them (esp. the second point one)

Are you saying that the person who spend a tool proficiency, and maybe even an expertise should not be allowed to use their own skill?Yes. But unlike you, I'm honest about it.

The moment you no longer cared about thieves tools, and went for the grappling hook to solve the trap - YOU are the one who didn't allow someone who "spend a tool proficiency, and maybe even an expertise" to use that investment.
Hope that rogue brought a grappling hook, cause his valuable training & investment in thieves tools ain't worth nothing.

You also take away the reward of spending valubale training and expertise by not allowing a roll of a skill/tool on the exact thing it does, that is no different.Fristly, I didn't take away that that - becasue the encounter is specifically catered towards the 4 people who do like it. The guy who has thieves tools will get other encounters he can get spotlight.

Secondly it's not "the exact thing it does" - becasue as we already established, there is not one training/expoertise that works on all traps.

Thirdly, it's not the "exact same thing", because you ignore the fact you reduce the fun of 4 players to increase the fun for 1. which, to quote myself

...results in a net loss of fun at the table.

At which point, I am wondering about your justifaction of that loss, other then, you presonally not liking those type of challenges

... Your own justification of a net of -3 fun (= -4 +1) so far, is that otherwise it would be -1 fun, ignoring it's +4-1.

Erloas

2018-11-02, 12:55 PM

This is even worse when you take into account those characters who have dedicated resources to be specifically good at puzzles, only to have the DM completely neglect the character and say, “no this is for the Players to figure out.”
Do you have a "solve puzzle" skill or knowledge (puzzles)?
Not to say that some types of puzzles couldn't be solved with skills like thieve's tools but that doesn't mean all of them can be. Maybe the door\locking mechanism is too heavy to move with tools and needs the counterweights inside the wall to move it. Maybe there are no moving parts at all and it is entirely magical.

It is a matter of balance too. If you run into one trap the entire time and can't use your tools\skills there that could be an issue. But if you've picked a dozen locks and disabled half a dozen mechanical traps already and you come across one thing that can't be solved that way it's hardly like the skill is now suddenly not worth taking.

It's not any different than having a monster you're fighting be immune or very resistant to certain types of abilities or damage types.

Just because you have a hammer (thieve's tools) doesn't mean everything is a nail (mechanical trap).

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 01:06 PM

Yeah, but see,

Nobody is arguing that watching the D&D movie is playing D&D
Nobody is arguing that reading the D&D books is playing D&D

... but the fact that puzzles are part of offcial D&D capaigns ... you know, that's a small little detail that was the core of the argument ... oh, that little thing you forgot to adress ...

boy, you would so die in my dungeons :smalltongue:.

I have already
put traps in corridors that enemeis don't use, and thus don't have a secret way around (either because the hall ends, or because there's an entirely different corridor, that also leads to the next room. )
used natural selection (pit traps with no way around, usually have a couple of bodies of baddies who fell into it)
used traps the baddies don't have problems with (pit traps that can hold small creatures, but not medium ones, or poison traps with specific poisons the baddies are immune against)
Now, don't get me wrong - many of my traps can be disabled with thieves tools ... but not all of them (esp. the second point one)

Yes. But unlike you, I'm honest about it.

The moment you no longer cared about thieves tools, and went for the grappling hook to solve the trap - YOU are the one who didn't allow someone who "spend a tool proficiency, and maybe even an expertise" to use that investment.
Hope that rogue brought a grappling hook, cause his valuable training & investment in thieves tools ain't worth nothing.

Fristly, I didn't take away that that - becasue the encounter is specifically catered towards the 4 people who do like it. The guy who has thieves tools will get other encounters he can get spotlight.

Secondly it's not "the exact thing it does" - becasue as we already established, there is not one training/expoertise that works on all traps.

Thirdly, it's not the "exact same thing", because you ignore the fact you reduce the fun of 4 players to increase the fun for 1. which, to quote myself

...results in a net loss of fun at the table.

At which point, I am wondering about your justifaction of that loss, other then, you presonally not liking those type of challenges

... Your own justification of a net of -3 fun (= -4 +1) so far, is that otherwise it would be -1 fun, ignoring it's +4-1.

1. A grappling hook could easily be part of a thieves tools kit.
2. My point was that that is a trap so simple that anyone could deal with it, It is like you are intentionlly coming up with points nobody made just to argue at this point.
3. Puzzles are an official part of DND. So what? So are skills.
4. Yes there is a proficiency to deal with all traps, it is called thieves tools.

You keep coming up with the idea that only one side works, nobody has ever said that, at all.

You can RP through a trap, but if the DM does not think that is good enough, roll a skill for it.
Everyone wins.

KorvinStarmast

2018-11-02, 01:09 PM

Being creative is always prefered and should always take priority, but telling the player they can not use a skill the player has is wrong. Nobody is saying that. Nor is someone mean if they tell a cleric that the Guidance cantrip won't neutralize a trap.

Also, rolling a skill can ALWAYS go wrong and have disasterous results, coming up with creative solutions is usally much safer. I think we agree more than we don't.
A grappling hook could easily be part of a thieves tools kit Fair point. I am not sure if we have an agreement, inside of our two heads, of "just what is it that's in a thieve's tools kit" so perhaps I am being to narrow in focus. My mental picture is that such a kit is lock-picking focused. That is due to the necessity of that proficiency for a lock picking attempt.
A more expansive, or broad, definition of what's in the kit better fits what you are describing to me.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 01:15 PM

Nobody is saying that. Nor is someone mean if they tell a cleric that the Guidance cantrip won't neutralize a trap.
I think we agree more than we don't. Fair point. I am not sure if we have an agreement, inside of our two heads, of "just what is it that's in a thieve's tools kit" so perhaps I am being to narrow in focus. My mental picture is that such a kit is lock-picking focused. That is due to the necessity of that proficiency for a lock picking attempt.
A more expansive, or broad, definition of what's in the kit better fits what you are describing to me.

I don't remember who brought it up but actually, yes, people have said that there are plenty of traps that thieves tools do not get a roll for like:

1. A simple deadfall trap.
2. A simple pit trap.
3. The riddle on the floor trap

KorvinStarmast

2018-11-02, 01:31 PM

I don't remember who brought it up but actually, yes, people have said that there are plenty of traps that thieves tools do not get a roll for like:

1. A simple deadfall trap.
2. A simple pit trap.
3. The riddle on the floor trap If the thieves tools kit is "stuff to pick locks with" then those people are using common sense to assess how that kit is applied to a different challenge.
Not sure if you spent any time as a mechanic or not, but you don't use a lock pick when a hand axe is the tool for the job.
If the thieves tools kit is a more expansive tool kit -- as you mentioned with a grapple, which certainly fits into a thief's standard tools -- then your point is better made.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-02, 01:44 PM

If the thieves tools kit is "stuff to pick locks with" then those people are using common sense to assess how that kit is applied to a different challenge.
Not sure if you spent any time as a mechanic or not, but you don't use a lock pick when a hand axe is the tool for the job.
If the thieves tools kit is a more expansive tool kit -- as you mentioned with a grapple, which certainly fits into a thief's standard tools -- then your point is better made.

Isn't a grappling hook a separate (and heavy) piece of equipment on the equipment table (thus suggesting that it's not part of a "thieves tools kit"?

Specifically, a grappling hook is 4 lbs. A thieves tools kit is 1 lbs. I doubt even the shoddy weight-tracking of 5e can explain how a 1 lb kit can contain a 4 lb object + a bunch of other stuff.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 02:09 PM

Isn't a grappling hook a separate (and heavy) piece of equipment on the equipment table (thus suggesting that it's not part of a "thieves tools kit"?

Specifically, a grappling hook is 4 lbs. A thieves tools kit is 1 lbs. I doubt even the shoddy weight-tracking of 5e can explain how a 1 lb kit can contain a 4 lb object + a bunch of other stuff.

A "small knife" is also a different item in the equipment section, are we going to assume there is not one in any other kit?

Weight is so screwed up in the equipement section that it makes no sense.

A Heavy Crossbow is said to wight 18 pounds... EIGHT TEEN POUNDS?
Same with a pike, which is just a long spear, 18 lbs.
And yet a Halberd which has a lot more mass and metal than a pike weighs 6.

The whole gear section of 5e is a mass of screwups, and the magic items are even worse.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-02, 02:15 PM

A "small knife" is also a different item in the equipment section, are we going to assume there is not one in any other kit?

Weight is so screwed up in the equipement section that it makes no sense.

A Heavy Crossbow is said to wight 18 pounds... EIGHT TEEN POUNDS?
Same with a pike, which is just a long spear, 18 lbs.
And yet a Halberd which has a lot more mass and metal than a pike weighs 6.

The whole gear section of 5e is a mass of screwups, and the magic items are even worse.

But it would make absolutely no sense to say that a 1lb thieves tool kit can do the same job as a 4lb grappling hook, especially if it doesn't say it includes that. Especially when it says specifically what's included:

...a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers.

No mention of lots of tools used by thieves. This is the sort of thing you'd find rolled up in a small piece of leather, like a computer-repair toolkit of the ancient age.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 02:31 PM

But it would make absolutely no sense to say that a 1lb thieves tool kit can do the same job as a 4lb grappling hook, especially if it doesn't say it includes that. Especially when it says specifically what's included:

No mention of lots of tools used by thieves. This is the sort of thing you'd find rolled up in a small piece of leather, like a computer-repair toolkit of the ancient age.

Yes, but you left out the next line:

"Proficiency with these tools lets you add your
proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to
disarm traps or open locks."

It does not even say you have to have the item included in the kit to do it.
If I am disarming a trap and I am using a fishing pole all Hudson Hawk style, it is still fine.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-02, 02:33 PM

Our answers are not mutually exclusive.
Thieves tools are there to solve problems that require thieves tools. Yes, we both agree on that.
What we disagree on is that there are plenty of mundande and simple mechanical traps that thieves tools do not work on.

Well, talking about Traps...not Puzzles...

Once upon a time in D&D the Thief Character Class had the ability to Pick Locks, and they had the tools to do it: Lockpicks.

By 3E the Rogue Character Class had the ability to Disable Traps, and they had the tools: the vague Thieves Tools.

So the designers don't put much thought into this...but the idea is the Rogue has a bag of stuff that can disable traps. So this means that there are really no traps the thieves tools won't work on. If you are thinking of ''thieves tools" as just ''lock picks", then yes they can't really be used to disable most traps. But a bag of things that is made to disable traps...can disable like at least most of them.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-02, 02:35 PM

Well, talking about Traps...not Puzzles...

Once upon a time in D&D the Thief Character Class had the ability to Pick Locks, and they had the tools to do it: Lockpicks.

By 3E the Rogue Character Class had the ability to Disable Traps, and they had the tools: the vague Thieves Tools.

So the designers don't put much thought into this...but the idea is the Rogue has a bag of stuff that can disable traps. So this means that there are really no traps the thieves tools won't work on. If you are thinking of ''thieves tools" as just ''lock picks", then yes they can't really be used to disable most traps. But a bag of things that is made to disable traps...can disable like at least most of them.

I was the one making that point, odd to quote me and not someone else, but yeah, that is what I am thinking too.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-02, 05:03 PM

Yes, but you left out the next line:

"Proficiency with these tools lets you add your
proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to
disarm traps or open locks."

It does not even say you have to have the item included in the kit to do it.
If I am disarming a trap and I am using a fishing pole all Hudson Hawk style, it is still fine.

I was specifically and only talking about whether the kit itself contained a grappling hook. To which the answer is "absolutely not." Anything else is goalpost moving.

The answer to "can I apply <X> proficiency to this check" is "ask the DM." Remember the default is for ability checks (without adding any proficiencies), and the DM is specifically authorized to allow or deny any proficiency at any time, or disallow a check entirely. Players do not call for checks. Ever. They describe attempted actions and the DM decides how those will be resolved, using mechanics if he so chooses.

furby076

2018-11-02, 10:25 PM

Metagame timers in D&D are usually called "wandering monster checks", aren't they? :smallamused:

Lulz. True. "ok guys, you are all boring me, a beholder appears"

RSP

2018-11-02, 10:56 PM

RSP

2018-11-02, 11:02 PM

Do you have a "solve puzzle" skill or knowledge (puzzles)?
Not to say that some types of puzzles couldn't be solved with skills like thieve's tools but that doesn't mean all of them can be. Maybe the door\locking mechanism is too heavy to move with tools and needs the counterweights inside the wall to move it. Maybe there are no moving parts at all and it is entirely magical.

It is a matter of balance too. If you run into one trap the entire time and can't use your tools\skills there that could be an issue. But if you've picked a dozen locks and disabled half a dozen mechanical traps already and you come across one thing that can't be solved that way it's hardly like the skill is now suddenly not worth taking.

It's not any different than having a monster you're fighting be immune or very resistant to certain types of abilities or damage types.

Just because you have a hammer (thieve's tools) doesn't mean everything is a nail (mechanical trap).

Yes and no. Can there be different types of puzzles? Sure. However the fact that Investigation is the skill that lets a character deduce from clues means it’s probably involved in solving that puzzle in some way (unless the “puzzle” involves no clues or deductive reasoning” but then that’s really just a bad thing that happens to the characters and isn’t a puzzle).

Further, regardless of what kind of puzzle it is, the skill of “what the Player can figure out completely apart from the character’s abilities” isn’t a type of in-game puzzle.

qube

2018-11-03, 04:01 AM

1. A grappling hook could easily be part of a thieves tools kit.No, it can't, as already adressed.

"Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks."

2. My point was that that is a trap so simple that anyone could deal with it, It is like you are intentionlly coming up with points nobody made just to argue at this point.Ah, but you seem to be confused about your own point - because your point was that thieves tools should be able to circumvent all traps, including puzzles. It's an investment the character made, so he should always be able to use it.

To which I specifically gave you an example of a different trap, a very simple one in fact, that can't be circumvented with thieves tools.

As is, you've proven how silly your point is. No, thieves tools can't be used against all traps. And that makes your initial claim, that you should be able to use thieves tools against puzzles, a claim based on nothing but quicksand.

"Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks."Yes. and if you'd bothered to read up the section about traps.

Poison Dart trap
... A successful DC 15 Dexterity check using thieves’ tools disarms the trap, removing the needle from the lock. Unsuccessfully attempting to pick the lock triggers the trap.

Locking Pit.
... A character in the pit ((!!))can also attempt to disable the spring mechanism from the inside with a DC 15 Dexterity check using thieves’

Simple Pit.
A simple pit trap is a hole dug in the ground. The hole is covered by a large cloth anchored on the pit’s edge and camouflaged with dirt and debris. The DC to spot the pit is 10. Anyone stepping on the cloth falls through and pulls the cloth down into the pit, taking damage based on the pit’s depth (usually 10 feet, but some pits are deeper).
((note the lack of mention what so ever of you getting a check to disarm it))

Your idea of simply able to roll a die to circumvent the trap, even in core, is proven wrong.

And if the Players are doing the puzzle outside of playing their characters, they’ve stepped outside the RAW of the game.

It’s not a hard concept: the game is to play a character, if you aren’t doing that, then you aren’t really playing the game.Intersting... so, what you're saying that, if it is written, in the rules, of an official 5E D&D adventure, that you're playing, that you have to solve the puzzle ... then if you do that ... you're no longer ... playing ... by the ... rules ... as they are ... written

... yeah, see ... euh ... how do I put this ...

"No"?

I mean, I get what you're saying, but you try and pick and chose what "playing D&D" is. Sorry, you can't do that. And trying to grasp at some deification of the holy trinity that is PHB/DMG/MM ain't going to help you - because the rules of a specific adventure overwrite the general rules of core.

Dark Schneider

2018-11-03, 07:35 AM

Do you have a "solve puzzle" skill or knowledge (puzzles)?
At least in 5E that is Investigation skill. You determine by reason if something fits in another things, if there is something unusual, joining clues to conclude something...

But in any case automatic success for adventure puzzles (not those simply requiring a roll, that also could exists), I personally would not apply. As mentioned, ask the DM for advices if succeed on an investigation check roll.

RSP

2018-11-03, 10:02 AM

Intersting... so, what you're saying that, if it is written, in the rules, of an official 5E D&D adventure, that you're playing, that you have to solve the puzzle ... then if you do that ... you're no longer ... playing ... by the ... rules ... as they are ... written

... yeah, see ... euh ... how do I put this ...

"No"?

I mean, I get what you're saying, but you try and pick and chose what "playing D&D" is. Sorry, you can't do that. And trying to grasp at some deification of the holy trinity that is PHB/DMG/MM ain't going to help you - because the rules of a specific adventure overwrite the general rules of core.

The rules of an adventure don’t change the rules of the game. I’ve quoted the rules of the game twice now. You can chose to ignore them, as can any DM or any single adventure, but that doesn’t change the rules of the game, which very clearly state “The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure.”

Further: “Part 2 details the rules of how to play the game, beyond the basics described in this introduction. That part covers the kinds of die rolls you make to determine success or failure at the tasks your character attempts, and describes the three broad categories of activity in the game: exploration, interaction, and combat.”

Emphases mine.

You can go ahead and change this to “The Players can solve puzzles...,” or disregard the part that specifically says die rolls determine success or failure at the tasks characters attempt, but you’ve now deviated from the RAW. I understand this works for some tables, which is fine. But it’s still a deviation from the RAW.

If you’re definition of the “rules” of 5e is meant to include everything that happens in any 5e product, you’re going to run into inconsistencies (which is why they have something that actually states the rules, that is the “Basic Rules” and the PHB.). Keep in mind Crawford’s tweets are also considered “official” yet he’s made mistakes, meaning at one point Cutting Words reducing the value of a natural 20 die roll on an attack roll was official. It now isn’t. That’s part of the difference between RAW and “official” rules and again, you’ll see problems and contradictions throughout all the “official” products.

But the RAW is still the RAW.

Dark Schneider

2018-11-03, 10:41 AM

What @Rsp29a says is that the character is the character, and you as player puts into its skin. Your roleplay is decide what that character does (supposedly as close as possible to its alignment and mind), but not requiring or substituting its skills with your own ones.

Think about these cases:
- When attacking with a sword, do you give the player a (fake) weapon and tell to demonstrate if is skilled enough?
- If a chess match happens, then you put a chess board and play against the player? Or match a game check roll concerning that game bewteen characters involved?

It's the same. Player skills and character skills have nothing to do with it. And it's exactly what I say to other DMs when they goes directly against the casters because "hey they are dangerous with their spells", but wait a moment, the foes know anything about that? how spells work? if they are concentration based?, do an Arcana check roll like players must do when they have to demonstrate their characters know about something, or are you applying an auto-20 roll to all the lore skill rolls for your creatures?
Players are not their characters, DM is not the creatures.

But again, I think there are enough ways to handle this.
- There can be simple puzzles that could be solved in-place with only an investigation roll.
- There can be more complex puzzles divided by parts and distributed through the adventure. In this case give advices and clues on success investigation check rolls. But not too automatic, don't reduce everything to succeed roll - teleportation to the solution. But you can give clear advices like "you are sure this piece fits into something you already have seen, this something is of XXX type". Because if there are multiple, they should try all them.
- If solved by player initiative, then it is a good way for giving Inspiration points.

Tanarii

2018-11-03, 10:52 AM

What @Rsp29a says is that the character is the character, and you as player puts into its skin. Your roleplay is decide what that character does (supposedly as close as possible to its alignment and mind), but not requiring or substituting its skills with your own ones.

Think about these cases:
- When attacking with a sword, do you give the player a (fake) weapon and tell to demonstrate if is skilled enough?
- If a chess match happens, then you put a chess board and play against the player? Or match a game check roll concerning that game bewteen characters involved?

It's the same. Player skills and character skills have nothing to do with it.The player still has to tell you they are attacking a specific target to hit with a sword or playing a game to win with a chess set. There's minimum Intent and Approach required for the DM to adjudicate. And the amount of Approach detail required varies depending on the task.

"I solve the puzzle" is usually only going to be considered as giving Intent, not giving sufficient Approach detail. And in the case of a puzzle, significant detail on Approach may be required to decide if a roll is necessary or not, and if so what the roll should be, and decide on the Outcomes and Consequences.

What I'm referring to:
https://theangrygm.com/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

Dark Schneider

2018-11-03, 11:00 AM

But as mentioned the "I solve the puzzle" could be applied to small puzzles, as all the required content is at your hand. It is the same, you are targeting an specific puzzle, just like any other targeted skill check (including attacks).

Look at the Maze spell, you can get out with an INT check. Would you draw a random maze and tell the player to solve it for leaving the maze?

Then, for larger puzzles, when you can't target so specific, you can translate the character reasoning capability by giving advices and clues, as also mentioned.

KorvinStarmast

2018-11-03, 11:13 AM

And if the Players are doing the puzzle outside of playing their characters, they’ve stepped outside the RAW of the game. That is still false, no matter how many times you assert it. It is the player who thinks for, and makes decisions for, the character. The character is an empty shell until animated by the player.
That will never change.

You need to read the DMG if you want to understand RAW, specifically on page 5. Why you have chosen to ignore that puzzles me.

A player tells the DM what he or she wants to do, and the DM determines whether it is successful or not, in some cases asking the player to make a die roll to determine success. Your assertion that the player simply rolls dice to resolve a situation, like being confronted with a puzzle, is utterly false by the rules as written. So, when the situation is some kind of puzzle, and the DM doesn't tell you to roll the dice to solve it, but asks you to describe what you are doing, that is RAW as shown above.

The CHARACTER never rolls the dice, only the PLAYER does, or the DM. Each and every die roll is a meta game action. Back to How The Game Is Played

DM describes environment
Player describes what they do or try to do
DM narrates the result (and calls for any die roll necessary)

Tanarii

2018-11-03, 11:44 AM

RSP

2018-11-03, 01:28 PM

That is still false, no matter how many times you assert it. It is the player who thinks for, and makes decisions for, the character. The character is an empty shell until animated by the player.
That will never change.

You need to read the DMG if you want to understand RAW, specifically on page 5. Why you have chosen to ignore that puzzles me.

Your assertion that the player simply rolls dice to resolve a situation, like being confronted with a puzzle, is utterly false by the rules as written. So, when the situation is some kind of puzzle, and the DM doesn't tell you to roll the dice to solve it, but asks you to describe what you are doing, that is RAW as shown above.

The CHARACTER never rolls the dice, only the PLAYER does, or the DM. Each and every die roll is a meta game action. Back to How The Game Is Played

DM describes environment
Player describes what they do or try to do
DM narrates the result (and calls for any die roll necessary)

I’m not arguing against that. Read what I’ve written. The Player clearly plays the character. This isn’t in dispute. The Player clearly chooses the actions done by the character. Again, not in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether a Player’s skill at a task being done in-game should take precedence over the character’s skill.

The OP stated their character is better at puzzles than they are, so the Player, in this case, cannot adequately portray the skills of the character. In this case, the character knowledge needs to be represented in a way other than Player’s ability, because the Player can’t roleplay the skill.

Similarly, picking a lock can be like solving a puzzle. I don’t know much about picking locks. If a DM says there’s a standard locked door in front of the group and my character is skilled in thieves tools, and I want to pick the lock, I’ll say “my character tries to pick the lock.” If the DM asks how, I’ll respond “with my thieves tools.”

If they require me, the Player, to go into detail on how to pick a lock and what specific tools in the thieves tools my character is using, we’ve stepped out of what I’m capable of role playing; regardless though, my character still possess knowledge and skills I do not. And the game states it’s the character’s ability that is to be used. So in this case, like the OP, the game gives us rules on how to figure this out: that is, use their stats and abilities, to include an ability check if the DM believes there a chance of failure/success.

The flip side of this: let’s pretend I’m actually quite skilled in picking locks, yet my character has no profiency in thieves tools. Should I, the Player, be able to walk the DM through picking a lock that is obstructing the characters?

The idea that the Player needs to go into greater detail than they’re capable of for their character to do what their character should be capable of, is faulty, in that it prevents the very purpose of the game, which is to play characters capable of things we, the Players, could never do.

Unless you, the Player, is capable of explaining the exact verbal and somatic components needed to manipulate the Weave to successfully produce a fireball?

Darth Ultron

2018-11-03, 01:56 PM

What is in dispute is whether a Player’s skill at a task being done in-game should take precedence over the character’s skill.

I don't think that is the exact dispute. It's much more basic:

Should Roll Playing take precedence over Role Playing. Should the player just be a ''zombie slave to the dice" and just react to dice rolls or should the player act in character as if they were the character in the game reality.

It's a classic player problem.

A lot of players will insist that the *Rules and Rolls are Almighty*, at least when it gives them some advantage or exploit in the game(wink wink). Of course, at exactly the same time the exact same players will insist that the ''rules and rolls" that effect the character do not in any way effect how the player uses the character. A good example here is fear: in the game rules the character fails a save and is struck with fear....and the player just says ''whatever" and ignores it.

Really, though, it just comes down to a player being lazy casual: "I don't want to think or problem solve...I just want to roll my way through the...um...fun"

RSP

2018-11-03, 02:08 PM

I don't think that is the exact dispute. It's much more basic:

Should Roll Playing take precedence over Role Playing. Should the player just be a ''zombie slave to the dice" and just react to dice rolls or should the player act in character as if they were the character in the game reality.

It's a classic player problem.

A lot of players will insist that the *Rules and Rolls are Almighty*, at least when it gives them some advantage or exploit in the game(wink wink). Of course, at exactly the same time the exact same players will insist that the ''rules and rolls" that effect the character do not in any way effect how the player uses the character. A good example here is fear: in the game rules the character fails a save and is struck with fear....and the player just says ''whatever" and ignores it.

Really, though, it just comes down to a player being lazy casual: "I don't want to think or problem solve...I just want to roll my way through the...um...fun"

I’m not agreeing to your assumption that people who are arguing my position are just doing so because they want to take advantage of the rules only in their favor.

I also don’t agree that a Player who wants to roll to represent their character’s abilities is doing so out of laziness. I actually think these two positions say more about you than other players.

The argument I’m making is exactly what I stated it is, regardless of what you think it is.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-03, 02:22 PM

I’m not agreeing to your assumption that people who are arguing my position are just doing so because they want to take advantage of the rules only in their favor.

I also don’t agree that a Player who wants to roll to represent their character’s abilities is doing so out of laziness. I actually think these two positions say more about you than other players.

The argument I’m making is exactly what I stated it is, regardless of what you think it is.

You and I have very similar points:

My main point was to the exact "puzzle" presented, straight from a module.

You encounter a "puzzle" but you are not allowed to roll any skills, tools, or whatever to deal with it, only the player gets to figure it out.
The "Puzzle" causes damage if you do not solve it correctly, that means it is a trap.
Thieves tools are used to disarm traps.
The moment I point out that this is a trap, I have tools to disarm traps, and I am told I do not even get to roll because it is for me as a player to solve, I have a problem.
Either let me roll the ability I paid for, or let me change it to something that will be used.

No different than if Caster X encounters a common bandit and tries to cast Magic Missile at him and is told.
DM: Oh, no you can't use magic missile, it doesn't work.
Player: Why not, is there some kind of anti-magic zone or something?
DM: No, I just don't want you to use it, it takes away the "fun" of others actually fighting.
Then either you let the caster change his spell selection, or you let it work, or you suck at being a DM.

Nobody has a problem when a caster casts a single spell to completely trivialize an encounter, so why is it considered "taking away the fun of the rest of the group" if someone rolls a skill check for the exact definition of what the skill does?

I tell you what, the next time you are in combat, complain that the Wizard should not AOE the enemies because it takes away the fun of the martials getting to attack.
See how far that gets.

Erloas

2018-11-03, 03:23 PM

You encounter a "puzzle" but you are not allowed to roll any skills, tools, or whatever to deal with it, only the player gets to figure it out.
The "Puzzle" causes damage if you do not solve it correctly, that means it is a trap.
Thieves tools are used to disarm traps.
The moment I point out that this is a trap, I have tools to disarm traps, and I am told I do not even get to roll because it is for me as a player to solve, I have a problem.
Either let me roll the ability I paid for, or let me change it to something that will be used.
What we don't know in this specific case is what the nature of the trap/puzzle is. If it is magical there might not be anything at all for the thieves' tools to interact with, there is no trigger to supress or break, there is no arrow slit that can be blocked off. This might be able to be solved by some sort of anti-magic ability, rather than a mundane set of tools. Maybe the damage is coming from some magical object in the room and is could alternately be smashed by a sufficiently powerful blow.

The same way that a pit trap can be bypassed many different ways, such as jump or a rope or flying, but a set of thieve's tool won't help.
"I've spent points I'm never going to use" is a balance issue for the DM to take into account. Has there been zero traps and locks you could use the skill/item on? Then the DM needs to find ways to get the rogue more ways to get involved. But at the same token if you've already picked a dozen locks and stopped a few traps, having one that you can't easily bypass could be a very good thing.

In short, it isn't that no puzzles should be able to be solved by thieves tools, but that it is perfectly fine for some things to not be solvable in the simpliest and most obvious method of a simple DC skill check.

Tanarii

2018-11-03, 03:37 PM

The same way that a pit trap can be bypassed many different ways, such as jump or a rope or flying, but a set of thieve's tool won't help.
A locking pit trap is also given as an example in the DMG where you need to be inside it to get access to the spring mechanism to disable with your Thieves Tools.

qube

2018-11-03, 05:22 PM

The rules of an adventure don’t change the rules of the game. I’ve quoted the rules of the game twice now.And you blatently ignored what I pointed out: That official D&D adventure as a puzzle written down in it. To play that adventure, you must solve that puzzle (in case you encounter it, etc ... ).

You seem to forget you got yourself in this mess with this:

If the rule is “the DM spent X amount of time designing this, so the Players have to spend X amount of time solving it,” which is the argument being made to not allow rolls, then that would apply to any situation where DM spends time designing encounters.

Further, this is not role-playing, which is the intent of the game.

Flip this around: the DM designs a puzzle that the characters aren’t supposed to know, but a Player does. Should the Player’s knowledge allow the character (who in-game has no way of knowing the answer) figure out the puzzle?

Again, this is the same thing as a Player using their knowledge of the Monster Manual to shout out what a creature has Vulnerability to, a creature the characters have no knowledge about in-game.

Is that how D&D is meant to be played, according to you?

I'm going to take the "bold" stand that, when you play a D&D adventure, and that adventure includes a puzzle, then according to me, D&D is played by solving that puzzle (if you encounter that puzzle, etc, ...)

... I'm not sure why you think that puzzle shouldn't be solved, or if you agree that that puzzle needs to be solved, but somehow are hellbent on not giving it the syntax "playing D&D".

If the latter is the case - I could not care less what you want to call it. 'cause that puzzle, it's still there. That DC? It's still not there.

Think about these cases:

- When attacking with a sword, do you give the player a (fake) weapon and tell to demonstrate if is skilled enough?

It's the same.But it isn't the same. Not by a long shot. You know why? Because puzzles are part of official D&D campaigns. Giving a player a fake sword to demonstrate if they are skilled enough or not, isn't.

You can argue "I don't like puzzles" or "I think WotC is wrong to include them" or "this is how I handle puzzles" ... but they are still there. To act as though they aren't, as though they are some crasy homebrew an out-of-touch DM concoted, is intectually dishonest.

Look at the Maze spell, you can get out with an INT check. Would you draw a random maze and tell the player to solve it for leaving the maze?No, but only for the reason that maze is usually used in combat, where in-game & out-game time are VERY different.

... otherwise? if for instance we were in a social encounter, and the kings wizard mazes a PC who was being annoying, and I had a maze printed out ...

... I could TOTALLY see me giving the player that piece of paper, and saying he needs to go in the other room until he solved it. The more I think about it, actually, the more awesome that sounds !

You encounter a "puzzle" but you are not allowed to roll any skills, tools, or whatever to deal with it, only the player gets to figure it out.
The "Puzzle" causes damage if you do not solve it correctly, that means it is a trap.
Thieves tools are used to disarm traps.
The moment I point out that this is a trap, I have tools to disarm traps, and I am told I do not even get to roll because it is for me as a player to solve, I have a problem.
Either let me roll the ability I paid for, or let me change it to something that will be used.the common pit trap can't be disabled with thieves tools
the locking pit trap can't only be disabled from the inside.

The ability you paid for was the ability to disable many/most traps, not all traps.. Do you grasp that?

That's why your argument falls flat:

The moment I point out that this is a trap, I have tools to disarm some traps, and I am told I do get to roll, I have a problem

If that's your argument, I'm sorry, but that's childish. You don't get to willy-nilly substitute your lfireball for a lightningbolt becasue the enemy you encounter is a fire elemental either.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-03, 05:47 PM

The argument I’m making is exactly what I stated it is, regardless of what you think it is.

So, your argument is you are right and anyone who things differently is wrong?

Nobody has a problem when a caster casts a single spell to completely trivialize an encounter, so why is it considered "taking away the fun of the rest of the group" if someone rolls a skill check for the exact definition of what the skill does?

That is a bit Apples and Oranges comparison. And I would point out most DMs and many players would have a problem with that one player doing the ''magic trivialize encounter" thing.

RSP

2018-11-04, 12:12 AM

Again, this is the same thing as a Player using their knowledge of the Monster Manual to shout out what a creature has Vulnerability to, a creature the characters have no knowledge about in-game.

Is that how D&D is meant to be played, according to you?[/I][/indent]

I'm going to take the "bold" stand that, when you play a D&D adventure, and that adventure includes a puzzle, then according to me, D&D is played by solving that puzzle (if you encounter that puzzle, etc, ...)

... I'm not sure why you think that puzzle shouldn't be solved, or if you agree that that puzzle needs to be solved, but somehow are hellbent on not giving it the syntax "playing D&D".

If the latter is the case - I could not care less what you want to call it. 'cause that puzzle, it's still there. That DC? It's still not there.

The idea of the DM not caring how or if Xerinthal the PC can solve the puzzle, and only caring if Phil the Player can solve it, is when you stop role playing, and since D&D is, at its heart, a role-playing game, you’ve stopped playing D&D and moved into a game of solving puzzles the guy who DMs your sessions has made.

And what you boldest was a question for what directly preceded it. Do you play that Players should should out and have their characters act with full knowledge of the monsters’ stats? Or does character knowledge matter in your game?

RSP

2018-11-04, 12:16 AM

So, your argument is you are right and anyone who things differently is wrong?

You should pay more attention to what is being written. I stated my argument. You then quoted me and told me that it was actually a different argument. I corrected you stating I meant what I said. I’m not sure what’s hard to follow about that.

You’re welcome to make whatever argument you want, just don’t quote me and say that my argument is not my argument.

qube

2018-11-04, 03:39 AM

The idea of the DM not caring how or if Xerinthal the PC can solve the puzzle, and only caring if Phil the Player can solve it, is when you stop role playing, and since D&D is, at its heart, a role-playing game, you’ve stopped playing D&D and moved into a game of solving puzzles the guy who DMs your sessions has made.Yes, D&D, in it's heart, is a role-playing game.
but playing D&D is also more then roleplaying.

When you roll a fireball and add up the dice, you're not roleplaying, you're doing maths.
When you do something unexpected, and the DM has to look something up in his note, he's not roleplaying.
When the DM changes the mustic on the computer to match the tone of the game, he's not roleplaying.
When you help the DM with making an initiative list, or setting up the combat map, you're not roleplaying.
...

If you say, well, in these senarios you/the DM has stopped playing D&D for a couple seconds - your defineition of what playing D&D is, is utterly meaningless in the scope of this thread. Because then, ou argue that puzzles are "only" as much part of D&D as other things that are considered part of D&D (with varying degree of optionality. Perhaps you don't use a map, music, perhaps you play a campaign without combat, ...).

And what you boldest was a question for what directly preceded it. Do you play that Players should should out and have their characters act with full knowledge of the monsters’ stats? Or does character knowledge matter in your game?No - because that's not how the game is expected to be played.
Oppositely, when the adventure gives you a puzzle, like the one I pointed to you, you're expected to solve it.

THAT is the elephant in the room that you and your silly analogies horribly fail to adress.

Dark Schneider

2018-11-04, 04:16 AM

Thats a reasonable position to take.

Who are you and what are you doing on the internet? /joke
Internet is so vast :)

Should Roll Playing take precedence over Role Playing. Should the player just be a ''zombie slave to the dice" and just react to dice rolls or should the player act in character as if they were the character in the game reality.

Yes, it should. The player is the director, the character is the performer. I think from this POV could clear some positions.

The same way that a pit trap can be bypassed many different ways, such as jump or a rope or flying, but a set of thieve's tool won't help.

That's why I mention if the puzzle is not simple, give advices to the player, and in the case of multiple options, are them who need to decide what to try (please revise my previous answers if interested). This shows well the director/performer comparison I mentioned above. The player skill (performer) shows the options (discovering what the character can do, not the player that is not the performer), then the player (director) decides what option to chose (as the player is only the performer, an empty shell, but with the skills, he puts the body and you the soul).

But it isn't the same. Not by a long shot. You know why? Because puzzles are part of official D&D campaigns. Giving a player a fake sword to demonstrate if they are skilled enough or not, isn't.

But at the end are the same, everything is part of official D&D campaigns. Combat abilities for players and creatures are part of D&D campaigns. If we only split for "where they are placed", then the example traps included in DMG are not part of the D&D campaigns if you put any into your campaigns? Are them part of D&D rules instead campaigns because that? The rules are a full set of things to put into campaigns, they are not different classes.

If we apply the rules themselves, we have that specific (campaign) overrides general (rules), but this can be this way because they are the same.
Then, if the campaign specifies the puzzle must be solved by players, fine, specific overrides. In other case (there is no indication), you as DM should decide.

At the end is a DM decision, but I personally see no problem about representing the character reasoning capability like any other skill. Probably the problem is that representing "mind" could be more confusing that "physical", because that I am sure no one see rare to rely on a check roll if you want to move a rock based on Athletics (STR), but seems much more obscured when the "task" is mental involved. And I think that is because the players cannot be physically in the game, and because that all their physical abilities are translated to characters, but they can be mentally, so usually we tend to rely everything involving mind to players.

Reynaert

2018-11-04, 05:08 AM

Aelyn

2018-11-04, 05:13 AM

So IF you get to make an ability check to disarm a trap, THEN you get to add your proficiency bonus.

This does not, in any way, grant you the power to use thieves tools to disarm anything that you make out to be a trap.
Man, if only Admiral Ackbar had had a set of thieves' tools, that film would have ended very differently...

qube

2018-11-04, 08:30 AM

Then, if the campaign specifies the puzzle must be solved by players, fine, specific overrides. In other case (there is no indication), you as DM should decide.Agreed. And even more, , the DM can still chose to use Rule zero and say "you can just roll an int check DC 15, and I'll give you the answer" or something.

This has never been an argument about puzzles being good or bad - because that's entriely dependant on the players & DM on the table. Only that they are part of D&D* (not mandatory, or course, but like combat maps, or Bulettes**). And on that - the OP shouldn't come here to make a build behind the DM & tables back for a character that rolls to get answers to puzzles. He should first talk to the DM, and ask if that's OK.

*: which is why your analogy of using fake swords isn't a good analogy. it's the same end, sure, but not part of D&D AFAIK.
**: a reference to a remark I made earlier in this thread, that I've seen lots of official D&D adventures with puzzles, but never one with a Bulette.

Man, if only Admiral Ackbar had had a set of thieves' tools, that film would have ended very differently...

https://i.imgflip.com/2lopff.jpg

https://i.imgflip.com/2lopj5.jpg

RSP

2018-11-04, 09:41 AM

Yes, D&D, in it's heart, is a role-playing game.
but playing D&D is also more then roleplaying.

....

No - because that's not how the game is expected to be played.
Oppositely, when the adventure gives you a puzzle, like the one I pointed to you, you're expected to solve it.

THAT is the elephant in the room that you and your silly analogies horribly fail to adress.

I have addressed it, repeatedly, you just chose to ignore that for some reason.

Let me try this:

The DM presents an in-game puzzle to the Players. You have 3 Players playing 3 PCs.

Player 1 has a character who is a Rogue, has expertise in Investigation and Thieves Tools and a 16 Int. Player 1 isn’t great at figuring stuff out so he thought it would be fun to play a character who is.

Player 2 is a pretty smart guy, works as a mechanical engineer figuring out how to make current machines better, more efficient at what they’re supposed to do. P2 plays a Barbarian with 6 Int, and no Proficiencies relevant to solving puzzles.

Player 3 is an average intelligent person, isn’t great at puzzles but enjoys an occasional crossword or Sudoku. They’re playing a Wizard with 18 Int but no proficiencies relevant to solving puzzles.

The DM presents the puzzle which they’re trying to impress P2, the mechanical engineer, with, knowing how good they are at these things in real life.

P1 asks if they can roll to see what their character knows. The DM tells them no, the Players need to figure out the puzzle. P1 sits there, not wanting to participate knowing they’re not as smart as P2 and only will embarrass themselves with any suggestions. They start playing a game on their phone.

P3, knowing what P1 was just told, tried to figure out the puzzle, knowing anything they come up with, their 18 Int character could reasonably come up with in-game.

P2, disregards anything to do with their character and the PC’s 6 Int, and starts going into technical terms and mathematical equations with the DM, trying to solve the puzzle.

The puzzle takes a half hour of real time to solve, which is done with engineering skills held by P2. P1 and P3 don’t contribute anything to solving the puzzle. The DM spends the time answering P2’s questions. Who’s Playing D&D during that time?

RSP

2018-11-04, 09:49 AM

And on that - the OP shouldn't come here to make a build behind the DM & tables back for a character that rolls to get answers to puzzles. He should first talk to the DM, and ask if that's OK.

So you’re of the opinion the OP went behind the DM’s back in choosing proficiencies? You think its going behind his DM’s back to request to use his character’s abilities during a session?

qube

2018-11-04, 10:12 AM

"They start playing a game on their phone."

Who’s Playing D&D during that time?Yeah, you think nobody would spot you trying to move the goalpost? You're not asking if they are playing D&D when they are busy with the game - you're asking if they are playing D&D when playing a different game on their phone.

If they were all three trying to solve it, even if 2 of them didn't contribute, they would all three be considered playing D&D.

Why? Because when everyone's waiting for Player 3 to add up his damage die of his fireball, Player 1 and player 2, and even the DM, are also not contributing anything - but under no relevant definition of "playing D&D", one would consider them to have stopped playing. D&D is more then just roleplaying.

Bob rolls his dice. "Oooh, there are a lt of sixes in there" he exclaims.
Carol walks in the room. "Hi guys, what ya doing?"
Alice sighs "well, with the exception of Bob, non of us are playing D&D"
"But ... isn't friday night D&d night?", Carol asks confused.
Alice retorts "Yeah. But some guy on line said we werent playing D&D when we aren't roleplaying or contributing, so ... we're not playing D&D. I guess we're 'existing', till Bob is ready."

So you’re of the opinion the OP went behind the DM’s back in choosing proficiencies? Have you read the OP????

"when the DM plops a “player-puzzle” in front of us, I’ll say “We’ll, I’m not smart enough to solve this puzzle, but my character is” *rolls* “okay, 24, what’s the answer?”

What do you guys think? How would you respond to a player who wants to roll to solve?"

he's CLEARLY going behind the DMs back.

RSP

2018-11-04, 02:39 PM

Have you read the OP????

"when the DM plops a “player-puzzle” in front of us, I’ll say “We’ll, I’m not smart enough to solve this puzzle, but my character is” *rolls* “okay, 24, what’s the answer?”

What do you guys think? How would you respond to a player who wants to roll to solve?"

he's CLEARLY going behind the DMs back.

First off, I’m not sure you and I have the same definition of “going behind someone’s back.”

If I take an idea to my boss and she says no, then without telling her, I take that same idea to my boss’s boss seeking to get the approval my boss already denied, that’s going behind her back: that is, I’ve done something to intentionally keep her out of the loop on something she should have been involved with.

Making a character in D&D and choosing proficiencies for that character according to the rules, then wanting to use those proficiencies in the game as the rules tell you they should be used, isn’t going behind anyone’s back. I’m interested to hear your take on how this is going behind the DM’s back.

Secondly, are you disagreeing that the OP is asking his DM to play the game using their character’s ability, according to the RAW? This is a significant point I’d like your opinion on.

Yeah, you think nobody would spot you trying to move the goalpost? You're not asking if they are playing D&D when they are busy with the game - you're asking if they are playing D&D when playing a different game on their phone.

Nothing to do with “moving goal posts.” I’ve asked you a question regarding the situation proposed by the OP.

If they were all three trying to solve it, even if 2 of them didn't contribute, they would all three be considered playing D&D.

Disagree. In the scenario listed, one Player is working out a problem absent any rules of the game and in direct contradiction to how the rules say that should be handled. One Player is playing on their phone.

I’d say Player 3 is playing D&D because they’re doing their best to role play their character (even in light of the DM preventing them from using their character’s abilities).

Why? Because when everyone's waiting for Player 3 to add up his damage die of his fireball, Player 1 and player 2, and even the DM, are also not contributing anything - but under no relevant definition of "playing D&D", one would consider them to have stopped playing. D&D is more then just roleplaying.

Side note: I find it humorous someone worried about moving goalposts tries to answer a question about the OP’s situation with a completely different scenario, but I’ll humor you...

[INDENT][I]Bob rolls his dice. "Oooh, there are a lt of sixes in there" he exclaims.
Carol walks in the room. "Hi guys, what ya doing?"
Alice sighs "well, with the exception of Bob, non of us are playing D&D"
"But ... isn't friday night D&d night?", Carol asks confused.
Alice retorts "Yeah. But some guy on line said we werent playing D&D when we aren't roleplaying or contributing, so ... we're not playing D&D.

It depends what the other Players are doing when the other Player is totaling their dice. Are they thinking about what their character will do on their turn? Then, yeah, I’d say they’re playing D&D. Or are they playing on their phone? Then I’d say they aren’t playing D&D.

The simple fact that they’ve put “Playing D&D” on their calendar doesn’t mean they’re playing D&D throughout the entirety of that time period.

When I used to play with people physically gathered around a table, we’d spend at least an a hour of every 4-hour-ish session BSing, talking about the news or telling stories about what happened to us since the last time we all met up.

It was fun, but those talks weren’t “playing D&D” regardless of the fact that it transpired during our “D&D playing time;” they were people talking and telling stories and sharing opinions on current topics.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-04, 02:56 PM

What is in dispute is whether a Player’s skill at a task being done in-game should take precedence over the character’s skill.

Well, guess this might be your argument? I'd point out 5E is not a roll playing game. The rules are clear that that actions and events in the game are to be role played out...with the DM, and only the DM deciding when and even if any sort of roll is needed.

The DM presents an in-game puzzle to the Players. You have X Players playing X PCs.

The puzzle takes a half hour of real time to solve, which is done with engineering skills held by P2. P1 and P3 don’t contribute anything to solving the puzzle. The DM spends the time answering P2’s questions. Who’s Playing D&D during that time?

Good example.

Point One: As the DM knows the players are not so smart, they accept this and use relatively simple and easy puzzles. There are tons of places to get kid puzzles for kids age seven or younger and they make perfect puzzles for 'not so bright people'. You can even go up to 'teen' level puzzles. So the puzzles are not so much ''hard'' as you must just ''think the right way"

Point 2: Like I said in my post when you were not talking about this: Player Two is not role playing. If their character is dumb, then they should be role playing that character as dumb. That is what a good player does.

Point 3: Fancy so smart player 2 might have good book learning, but this does not always translate into puzzle solving. Puzzle solving is a thinking skill.

Player 1 has a character who is a Rogue, has expertise in Investigation and Thieves Tools and a 16 Int. Player 1 isn’t great at figuring stuff out so he thought it would be fun to play a character who is.

This player here deserves special highlighting, as they are Wrong. You can not, ever, fake being something you are not will a roll of some dice. When you roll some dice...that is all you are doing: rolling dice. Your character did not ''figure out the puzzle", you the player just rolled some dice. This is in no way playing a character that is great at figuring out stuff.

Worse the poor player that is faking it, will often feel worse then when they started:

Player Bob: His character discovers a puzzle. The DM describes the puzzle and gives Bob some puzzle handouts and pictures. Bob thinks it over, tries a thing or two...and works out the puzzle. The others clap, say good job and Bob gets to feel good.

Player Ed: His character discovers a puzzle. The DM does not bother to describe anything and just says ''roll your check". Ed stairs off into space, drinks some Mt. Dew and rolls. Ed then says "I rolled a 30". The DM shrugs ans says "ok, your character got past the puzzle". No one claps...no one does anything except just sit there. So Ed just feels..well, normal. All he did was roll some dice

qube

2018-11-04, 04:38 PM

wanting to use those proficiencies in the game as the rules tell you they should be used
except of course, if you were intelectually honest, you'd accept that the puzzle posted in the ofificial D&D adventure shouldn't be solved by a roll, but with how it's discribed in the adventure.
... else it would contain a ability/skill and DC, opposite to tips the DM can give the players if they are stuck.

But it's clear that that level of intelectual honesty is to much to muster.

It depends what the other Players are doing when the other Player is totaling their dice. Are they thinking about what their character will do on their turn? Then, yeah, I’d say they’re playing D&D. Or are they playing on their phone? Then I’d say they aren’t playing D&D. Cool. Considering that phone is just a fighment of your imagination - the OP never ever mentioned his phone or claimed such a thing - only that he's bad at it
- your entire logic of "oh, then they're not playing D&D" falls out the window as well.

Point One: As the DM knows the players are not so smart, they accept this and use relatively simple and easy puzzles. There are tons of places to get kid puzzles for kids age seven or younger and they make perfect puzzles for 'not so bright people'. You can even go up to 'teen' level puzzles. So the puzzles are not so much ''hard'' as you must just ''think the right way"Oh, a couple of weeks ago, I heard some great advice. and that was to use ... IIRC lateral(?) problems (I hadn't heard the term before so I could be wrong). simple math/logic puzzles.

With the example given was something in the line of:
"if only one of the following statements is true, how many McGuffins to I have.
-- I have ten or less McGuffins
-- I have more then ten McGuffins
-- I have one or more McGuffins

Pex

2018-11-04, 05:48 PM

0
:smallsmile:

qube

2018-11-05, 12:28 AM

0
:smallsmile:the vault opens, and are able to take the McGuffin - realising you're not only found, but are furfulling , the answer to the riddle

Mordaedil

2018-11-05, 02:36 AM

It's fair to note that the official puzzle offered in that module still offered an alternative to bypass it, taking the damage in this case.

But in a lot of home-made custom modules puzzles are used as gate-keys, where progress is impossible unless you resolve the puzzle. If that is the case, I think offering hints is fair and if you need to, having the player take fatigue or take damage to bypass it are also alternatives you have to allow them to bypass it.

It's just nobody enjoys being stuck with an unsolvable riddle (see Lord of the Rings, trying to solve the door riddle, it is implied they spend a long time outside of that door)

You don't actually want to put your players through that waiting.

Son of A Lich!

2018-11-05, 04:05 AM

So, the other day I was playing a 'Fun House' dungeon one-shot with a group of players.

I was playing Algernon, my Int 6 wizard.

The dungeon featured a really clever Monty Haul Problem;

5 doors, 1 that progresses you to the next stage, 1 that is insta-death, 3 that were neither. We picked door number 4, and the host revealed a 3 doors (One with insta-death, and 2 with goats) and the question was; "Do we pick the other door, or do we stick with what we chose (Or a door that was revealed, but we weren't looking for literal goats... or death)?"

I apologized to the DM and stepped out of the room for a smoke, because I (The Player) knew the solution to the problem, but Algernon most definitely would not be able to grasp what was going on.

The DM caved to the other players and explained what was going on and the statistics behind why it worked when I came back in. To my knowledge (Although I don't know for sure), they didn't pass a check to complete the puzzle, but it was all beer and pretzels fun anyway.

The next room was promised to have a powerful magic item behind the 'right door', we picked one and the doors that Monty revealed was our McGuffin, and two goats. That is what made it really interesting. Do we switch, knowing we couldn't get the McGuffin, or do we pick the other door and get the magic item? we decided to play it safe and grab the McGuffin, but I wonder if the Magic Item would have allowed us to get the McGuffin, too.

well, anyway, I think What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander; If my players are lost in how to progress in a Dungeon because of the puzzle in front of them, it's more then in character for a DM to ask a player to make a knowledge ______ check and slip them a helpful hint to solve it if they pass the check.

I think that it's bad dungeon design to put puzzles into a dungeon that MUST be solved to progress, because that forces the players down one specific railroad and that isn't fun. I think a puzzle ought to exist independently of the player's progress, and should offer a reward for being completed, and the only punishment necessary for not completing it is not getting the award.

For example, in the lich's Library, the spell book of whozit is locked behind a puzzle box key. The players have to figure out how to solve the puzzle box to get the spell book. This does not help them defeat the Lich, it is not required to beat the Lich, but it's a good item for the party's wizard and can help them cut-off the villain's plan by expanding their wizard's spell vocabulary. If someone finds a way around the puzzle, without solving the puzzle, I'm perfectly fine saying they've earned it. It was an encounter, and they solved the problem by thinking laterally, which is the whole point of a puzzle in the first place.

Beyond that... I think Futurama says it best;

Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared!

The last thing I want to feel when playing the role of a character smarter then myself is the Lucas art's Point and Click adventure of realizing I had to drop the Octopus on the guy in the outhouse to get a belt buckle. Puzzles can be completely sound to a dungeon master without the players having the slightest clue what the solution is supposed to be. If I'm incidentally making my players feel dumb for not following my logic from my narrow perspective and coming to my specific solution, I'm going to lose players. It's not cheating, it's just being sensible to the enjoyment of the game.

Pelle

2018-11-05, 04:23 AM

First off, I’m not sure you and I have the same definition of “going behind someone’s back.”

I wouldn't call it that, but it's clearly acting in bad faith, going against the intention of the DM and presumably the kind of game the rest of the table wants to play. Like the bored player, when the rest of the group is having fun playing out a social encounter, just decides to kill the npc and ruin everyone else's fun. Don't be that guy.

Tanarii

2018-11-05, 10:20 AM

Puzzles can be completely sound to a dungeon master without the players having the slightest clue what the solution is supposed to be. If I'm incidentally making my players feel dumb for not following my logic from my narrow perspective and coming to my specific solution, I'm going to lose players. It's not cheating, it's just being sensible to the enjoyment of the game.
Yeah, pixel-bitching to proceed is the most common form of "puzzle" in home brew. Especially the ones that come in the form of "riddle".

Dudewithknives

2018-11-05, 10:26 AM

Yeah, pixel-bitching to proceed is the most common form of "puzzle" in home brew. Especially the ones that come in the form of "riddle".

I don't so much have a problem with puzzles or riddles when it comes to NPC's and things.
I do not like it when it is like:

DM: There is a door with engraved letters in it that are all pushable like buttons, the letters make out a poem that is a riddle.
(For those who have seen the DND movies, think the Jubilex puzzle in DND 2.)
You could either think about the puzzle and logic it out, or someone could attempt to just thieves' tools to pop the lock bypassing the puzzle.
Or
Give the people who have a high int character a roll to get a hint.

Telling the players they can not use any character resources or skills to help and must do it on their own, is a DickDm(tm) move.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-05, 11:55 AM

I've used a total of two "puzzles" in the out-of-character sense, and one was only sort of OOC.

The first was as comic relief during a tense session--it was a punning, pictoral version of the Konami code.

The following symbols were arranged in the approximate shape of an NES controller:
a puppy => pup => up
a crown => down
a man holding a weight => heft => left
two people fighting => fight => right
the greek letter alpha => A
the greek letter beta => B

This one I told them that it's out of character and gave them a hint as to the context. I'd have been fine if they had just said "no, let's roll for it."

The second was four colored gems (red, green, blue, amber) arranged in a diamond on a chest. They'd found a journal that talked about "elemental opposition" and so the only real task was where to start. They guessed right on the first try.

RSP

2018-11-05, 11:59 AM

Well, guess this might be your argument? I'd point out 5E is not a roll playing game. The rules are clear that that actions and events in the game are to be role played out...with the DM, and only the DM deciding when and even if any sort of roll is needed.

Im not sure why you need to guess at it if that’s what I stated, but to each their own.

D&D 5e is a role playing game. The rules, however, are clear that, to determine if a character is capable of completing a task successfully, the DM should determine if the character has a chance of failure or success (that is, if there’s no chance either way, just say so and move on, no need to roll anything). When there is a chance, the DM should call for an ability check roll.

Per the Basic Rules;

“An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.”

So, per the RAW, the DM should decide whether or not the characters can solve the puzzle or not. If there’s a chance of failure, you roll.

In the OP’s example, I don’t think it’s horribly out of place to make the roll, though, yes, proper decorum would say wait for the DM to ask. I’ve played at plenty of tables where the same thing happens all the time, such as a Player declaring “I hide” and then just rolling. The roll still only matters if the DM wants it to, so there’s really no issue except a slight save in time to not play out “I hide,” “Okay, give me a Dex (Stealth) check,” prior to rolling.

His table dynamics (which we don’t know based off his post) would mean a lot more than any of our experiences, though. Obviously if his table always just rolls then he didn’t do anything out of the oridinary, but, if his DM constantly tells him “don’t roll unless I ask” then thee might be some tension involved.

But again, the Player rolling doesn’t mean anything unless the DM wants it to anyway, so I really don’t see this as a big deal to what the OP’s asking.

This player here deserves special highlighting, as they are Wrong. You can not, ever, fake being something you are not will a roll of some dice. When you roll some dice...that is all you are doing: rolling dice. Your character did not ''figure out the puzzle", you the player just rolled some dice. This is in no way playing a character that is great at figuring out stuff.

I completely disagree and, if this is how you feel, I think you’ve missed the point of RPGs.

Your words (let me know if my correction is wrong): “You can not, ever, fake something you are not [with] a roll of some dice.” This, as stated above where I quote the rules of ability checks, is exactly what the rules tell us to do.

If you can’t play a character different from you what’s the point? I certainly don’t want to play a tax adviser who spends 8 hours a day doing math at a computer screen. I want to play an adventurer who’s capable of things well beyond myself.

If we’re all stuck having to play characters who can only accomplish what we ourselves can, D&D becomes a much different game.

Can I dodge a fireball exploding in my face while wearing full plate armor? No, I can’t. But a die roll can let my character do that (what you call “faking”).

More over, no one would be able to optimize their character’s if you were correct as no one I’ve ever seen play D&D would i the real world qualify as a 20 in of the six Ability scores: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Chr. So unless you’re playing with the peak of humanity, everyone at your table is “faking” something with a die roll.

RSP

2018-11-05, 12:14 PM

except of course, if you were intelectually honest, you'd accept that the puzzle posted in the ofificial D&D adventure shouldn't be solved by a roll, but with how it's discribed in the adventure.
... else it would contain a ability/skill and DC, opposite to tips the DM can give the players if they are stuck.

I’m not sure what you think “intellectually honesty” is. If it’s similar to your definition of “going behind someone’s back”, I imagine it’s not a correct definition (though I still really want to hear your definition of that)

But it's clear that that level of intelectual honesty is to much to muster.

Go back and read what I wrote: no adventure over-writes the rules of the game. I don’t care if a DM writes a campaign where the PCs all get flying speeds of 60’ for the entire campaign, regardless of what the character’s normal abilities are, that doesn’t change the RAW on how you determine character’s abilities.

For some reason, you think an adventure over-writes the rules of D&D (and think not allowing this is some sort of “intellectual dishonesty.”

Cool. Considering that phone is just a fighment of your imagination - the OP never ever mentioned his phone or claimed such a thing - only that he's bad at it
- your entire logic of "oh, then they're not playing D&D" falls out the window as well.

I don’t think you understand logic, but you could just be “going behind my back.”

If the game is a role playing game, in which each player (other than the DM) plays a character, then doing things that are expressly not role playing that character, is not playing the role playing game.

Apologies if that logic doesn’t fit into your definition of “intellectual honesty.”

Darth Ultron

2018-11-05, 08:24 PM

So, per the RAW, the DM should decide whether or not the characters can solve the puzzle or not. If there’s a chance of failure, you roll.
But again, the Player rolling doesn’t mean anything unless the DM wants it to anyway, so I really don’t see this as a big deal to what the OP’s asking.

So, I guess you and ''RAW" agree that the DM can decide the characters can't solve a problem and that the players instead must do it?

If you can’t play a character different from you what’s the point? I certainly don’t want to play a tax adviser who spends 8 hours a day doing math at a computer screen. I want to play an adventurer who’s capable of things well beyond myself.

Yes, you can role play...and by role play here I'm talking about only acting out fictional personality. You can not role play to have skills or abilities you don't have, other then by pure faking it.

If we’re all stuck having to play characters who can only accomplish what we ourselves can, D&D becomes a much different game.

Well, not exactly...but maybe it's just not the game you thought it was?

A character is always limited by the player. No matter what is said about the character, the character only does things the player thinks of and wants to do. You can say your character is a super smart puzzle solver, but you can't role play that skill to any real effect. All you can do is fake it, and roll play it.

To just fake roll play something you are not, is just getting a participation trophy.

More over, no one would be able to optimize their character’s if you were correct as no one I’ve ever seen play D&D would i the real world qualify as a 20 in of the six Ability scores: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Chr. So unless you’re playing with the peak of humanity, everyone at your table is “faking” something with a die roll.

Of course, this is exactly why I have the players solve puzzles with real life, real world skills.

Take poor dull Bob who can't figure out any puzzle ever. He wants to be a 'puzzle genius' so he makes a character and fake roll plays the character for a whole year...and Bob is still just as dull and puzzle clueless.

Now take Dan who is not good at puzzles, but wants to get better. He makes any character he wants, though likely one with higher mental scores. Then, over the course of the same year, Dan encounters puzzles...and figures them out in real life using his real life skills and knowledge. And some times does not figure them out too. But, at the end of the year player Dan has a huge amount of real life puzzle experience.

So at the end Bob is still fake roll playing as he is so amazed his character can solve puzzles for him. Dan, on the other hand even as a puzzle novice, can really be a puzzle genius in the game play(keeping in mind that most DM's are not puzzle making geniuses either) by using all of his real world experience.

Erloas

2018-11-05, 10:11 PM

Trying to say that player knowledge shouldn't effect character effectiveness/ability is just ... not really true. I've seen plenty of gamers that are really bad at tactics. If a player is not doing something useful should the DM make them roll or change what they're doing because "the character wouldn't be that stupid?" Sure that kind of happens in social situations on occasion, but no where else. Would a DM force a fighter to make an Int test to see if they're not going to know to get into the perfect position for giving bonuses and supressing ranged opponents? The player might see that, but is the low Int fighter going to? Conversly if the player is going to move into some place really stupid is the DM going to make them roll to see if "no the character is more aware than that, they're going to move HERE instead." In many cases combat is, or at least can and should be, a lot more of a "puzzle" than simply rolling attack dice until something dies.

Do you not expect *players* to have a good sense of what they might expect and pick the right spells, or when to grapple, or when to be cautious of entering a room? Or is the DM going to "let them roll then tell them what they should do based on how good the roll is?"

NichG

2018-11-06, 12:52 AM

If you can’t play a character different from you what’s the point? I certainly don’t want to play a tax adviser who spends 8 hours a day doing math at a computer screen. I want to play an adventurer who’s capable of things well beyond myself.

If we’re all stuck having to play characters who can only accomplish what we ourselves can, D&D becomes a much different game.

By playing the character, you give yourself the opportunity to discover what it would take to become capable of accomplishing things that you, currently, cannot. In real life I wouldn't know how to move on a battlefield so as to maximize my own safety. I might be able to know that, but the cost of experiencing it in real life would be actually putting my life in danger. By playing out scenarios in a tabletop environment, I can get a (imperfect) feeling for the sorts of considerations that would matter and what it would feel like to be in that situation, but with zero actual risk.

Someone playing a social manipulator has the opportunity, which they may or may not take, to learn what is possible when one discards ethics and approaches people around them purely from the point of view of how they may be used - and they can do so without actually harming any real people, putting real relationships at risk, etc. So while they may not already be a good social manipulator in real life, the opportunity to actually play it out in detail rather than just rolling for it gives them the possibility of exploring what it would be like to be such a person. Or, if they roll for it, tho tey're choosing not to take that opportunity.

Someone playing a MacGyver-like thief has the chance to see how their ideas would actually work, and to hone their improvisational ability against (simulations of) life-and-death situations - they can get a fraction of the feeling that someone who had to improvise to save their life might experience, and maybe actually become someone more capable of thinking on their feet or reacting flexibly in real life - and at no actual real-life risk. Or, if they roll for it, they're choosing not to try to take that opportunity.

I think players who play a character because they themselves are fundamentally interested in the things that character is purported to be good at generally do a much better job of portraying the character, and get more out of it in the end, than players whose motivation is to be seen as good at something without digging deeply into what it means to actually be good at that thing. I'd love it if the player behind the Fighter actually brings knowledge of martial arts, fencing, etc to the table and uses it to inform their portrayal, even if that isn't something which is required in order to play a Fighter. It's not a mandatory requirement in order for someone to play the character, but it is definitely strictly better when someone brings that willingness to engage than when they don't.

So given that, I'd much rather protect the interests of players who do bring that sort of thing to the game, than to protect the integrity of the game system as written or the meaning of stats or some abstract boundary of character ability vs player ability.

kamap

2018-11-06, 03:48 AM

To the OP make that character but don't block the other players fun if they like doing puzzles.
Just state that you don't like it and your character could easily solve the puzzle, then do something else for a while but nothing disruptive to the game.
Let the others have some time to solve it and if they can't solve it, ask the DM if you can roll to get clues or solve it.

To the discussion that sprouted from the OP's question:
Its not role play or roll play its role play and roll play.
Sometimes a roll to get past something should be enough. Like stating that you want to talk to the gaurd and bribe him / her. Then making a roll to see if you succeed.
You don't have to specifically role play out the bribe attempt though you could if you would like to.

Same with the puzzle, if you have a very intelligent character but you aren't that intelligent to solve a puzzle or just don't like puzzles.
Sometimes it should be enough to state: my character spends some time thinking about the puzzle and tries to solve it. Then a roll is made to see if you succeed.

Player tests can be fine and good but we are playing a character that might be completely different then us, though is influenced by us.
The shy guy playing the ladies man. The gentle soft spoken girl playing the brutish barbarian who loves to get into bar fights and so on.

Someone playing a dumb character that couldn't for his live solve a puzzle. I can see that player on occasion come across a puzzle then try and solve it with his own skills while forgetting or disregarding he or she is playing a character that couldn't solve the puzzle. The DM and / or other players might point it out or just let that person do his thing. So long as everyone has at least fun playing the game it doesn't really matter when you go out of character and do things that your character couldn't or vice versa, have your character do things that you couldn't.

I'm playing a charismatic, flamboyant, smooth talking half elf sorlock. Though I can be charismatic myself I'm not a smooth talker nor am I flamboyant, I don't like the spotlight very much as person. My character on the other hand thrives on it.
I'm glad my DM lets me and our group role play when we want and roll play otherwise.
We get the occasional puzzle and can solve it in a whole lot of ways mostly.
Sometimes we like to spend time as a player trying to solve it, sometimes we try it as our character and ask for rolls to get hints or rolls to get passed it.

Tanarii

2018-11-06, 09:48 AM

Sometimes a roll to get past something should be enough. Like stating that you want to talk to the gaurd and bribe him / her. Then making a roll to see if you succeed.
You don't have to specifically role play out the bribe attempt though you could if you would like to.
But that isn't enough. You've only told the DM your Intent. "Talk to the guard and bribe him/her" does not contain enough about your Approach. The DM cannot adjudicate the action properly. That's not even enough information to determine what kind of ability check or proficiencies (if any) are involved, nor DC, let alone possible Outcomes and Consequences.

kamap

2018-11-06, 10:33 AM

If you as a player have no clue about bribery, you can't describe your approach. Though your character could be the best at bribery there is.
Your DM or fellow players will need to help you out.
Asking questions in the trend of: Would you approach it this, this or maybe that way?
Giving you pointers or giving a few scenario's you could choose from.
Giving you more info or asking for a roll to see what info you gathered about the guards and what a good bribe might be.
Maybe even a few rolls and the DM builds a tale around those rolls.
Hopefully you'll learn something about bribery that way and can give more details about your approach the next time you try your hand at bribery.

Tanarii

2018-11-06, 10:52 AM

Dudewithknives

2018-11-06, 10:55 AM

Sure.

In other words, player skill matters, and is relevant to making decisions (aka roleplaying) prior to a DM deciding if a die roll is needed. You can't just say "I want to roll to bribe the guard" and expect that to be enough.

Yes you can, it is up to the dm, what you mean is that in your game where what the player at the table says means a lot more than what the character is actually good at, it would not work.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-06, 11:43 AM

By playing out scenarios in a tabletop environment, I can get a (imperfect) feeling for the sorts of considerations that would matter and what it would feel like to be in that situation, but with zero actual risk.

This is my point though, in order to get even that vague imperfect feeling, you must play out a scenario for real.

Lets take two players that want to be War Generals.

Bob just rolls his way through using the knowledge tactics skill. So Bob just rolls and rolls and learns nothing. When Bob's army wins, it's just a pure roll of the dice. So Bob can be happy he rolled, but never gets any real feeling about being anything....other then a guy that rolls dice.

Dan on the other hand, has to lead his army for real. At the very least he will learn very basic tactics, and get an vague imperfect feeling of being a war general. And when Dan plans a maneuver and then plays out the battle, he can get real satisfaction of seeing his plans work...or not.

jdolch

2018-11-06, 12:03 PM

So you basically want to build a whole character around the idea that you should be the one who dictates how the game is played for everybody else?

LMAO.

Dudewithknives

2018-11-06, 12:06 PM

So you basically want to build a whole character around the idea that you should be the one who dictates how the game is played for everybody else?

LMAO.

How is that any different than the skill monkey bard/rogue doing all the skill rolls while the person with only 4 skills sits around?

Or to the complete opposite side

How is that any different than the person who is very smart and creative doing all the talking for the group despite the fact that his character is not built to do it?

jdolch

2018-11-06, 12:10 PM

Dudewithknives

2018-11-06, 12:25 PM

It's different as in how you don't abuse ingame mechanics to got your OOC way.

I have literally zero problems with a skill monkey doing what he is supposed to do.

A much better example would be a Paladin/Hexblade/Shadow-Sorc who drops Darkness on the Barbarian every time a Battle starts to ensure that he has the highest DPR because the Barb can't see anything.

Solve your OOC problems before the game starts, not passive aggressively ingame.

It works both ways though.

Is the guy who can not talk well enough to sell medicine to sick people in real life but his bard/sorcerer/paladin is high charisma and very dashing with skills in all social sides supposed to just ignore his in game abilities because he can not RP it out and not be allowed to roll to convince the guard to let his guys go because he can't come up with anything other than "I ask nicely?" and wants to roll persuasion, any worse than the guy who is a natural leader and speaker in real life and is great with people playing a 8 int/wis/cha orc barbarian who has not a single skill in anything other than physical skills supposed to be able to RP through every social situation at the court of the noble just because his player is great it but his character isn't?

Someone is getting cheated in both of those, for the bard/sorcerer/paladin it is the player because he spend skills resources to be good at something he is not allowed to actually be good at in the game, but for the Orc it is the other players who actually did build people with social skills because someone else at the table gets to be just as good but with no investment.

jdolch

2018-11-06, 12:46 PM

Somehow you manage to completely ignore the real issue.

This isn't about skills. This is about trying to force other players to do what you want through ingame mechanics.

If the other players at the table agree that they don't want riddles in their games then there will be no riddles. There is no need to make up a whole character trying to game the system.

That need only arises if the player doesn't want to do riddles BUT ALSO doesn't want to wait for anybody else to solve riddles in a game he is attending. It's the second part where the problem is.

If everybody at the table agrees that they don't want to solve riddles then either there will be no riddles or there will be implied riddles that the Character with the highest INT score auto-solves.

If the general consensus is that there will be riddles then either our player has to bide his time while the other players go riddle solving OR he needs to find a new table.

None of which demands to expertly craft a whole character to do something you don't want to do in the first place.

Arelai

2018-11-06, 01:45 PM

Man, I spawned a huge discussion here.

All in all, I would prefer DnD be almost completely puzzle-less. One person brought up how it’s a break in the flow of a game, and it’s an entirely OOC brain challenge. And THAT is what bothers me the most.

We’re all having a good time role playing and making decisions and doing things-and then we get to a room with a puzzle to proceed and it’s time to put the game on pause while we try to solve some riddle or puzzle.

You’re not role playing when it’s puzzle time-it’s a ROLE PLAYING game. Puzzles ruin the role part of it

Erloas

2018-11-06, 02:12 PM

It works both ways though.

Is the guy who can not talk well enough to sell medicine to sick people in real life but his bard/sorcerer/paladin is high charisma and very dashing with skills in all social sides supposed to just ignore his in game abilities because he can not RP it out and not be allowed to roll to convince the guard to let his guys go because he can't come up with anything other than "I ask nicely?" and wants to roll persuasion, any worse than the guy who is a natural leader and speaker in real life and is great with people playing a 8 int/wis/cha orc barbarian who has not a single skill in anything other than physical skills supposed to be able to RP through every social situation at the court of the noble just because his player is great it but his character isn't?

Someone is getting cheated in both of those, for the bard/sorcerer/paladin it is the player because he spend skills resources to be good at something he is not allowed to actually be good at in the game, but for the Orc it is the other players who actually did build people with social skills because someone else at the table gets to be just as good but with no investment.
I'm not the only one that sees it more as a group of players and an adventuring party, rather than 4 tightly contained player/characters, am I? It seems pretty common for players to come up with ideas and then have the correct character do the thing. We don't just let the rogue come up with the entire plan for sneaking into the castle because he has the highest stealth do we? We don't stop the tactically minded players from suggesting to the new players a more useful spot to be or some ability/skill that they might have forgot about, do we?
Do you not let a player help come up with a plan to steal the ship just because they're playing a dumb barbarian?
If a character wants to bribe a guard, why not let all the players come up with a good way before the Bard goes up and actually does it?

There are of course issues with bad players, but that manifests in many ways. But the long and short of it is that it is a team game on the player side just as much as it is on the character side.

You’re not role playing when it’s puzzle time-it’s a ROLE PLAYING game. Puzzles ruin the role part of itAs has been clearly demonstrated, that isn't true for everyone. What if both the player and the character are good at solving puzzles, or bad for that matter? What about all the puzzles that are more about timing than "solving."

Dudewithknives

2018-11-06, 03:17 PM

I'm not the only one that sees it more as a group of players and an adventuring party, rather than 4 tightly contained player/characters, am I? It seems pretty common for players to come up with ideas and then have the correct character do the thing. We don't just let the rogue come up with the entire plan for sneaking into the castle because he has the highest stealth do we? We don't stop the tactically minded players from suggesting to the new players a more useful spot to be or some ability/skill that they might have forgot about, do we?
Do you not let a player help come up with a plan to steal the ship just because they're playing a dumb barbarian?
If a character wants to bribe a guard, why not let all the players come up with a good way before the Bard goes up and actually does it?

There are of course issues with bad players, but that manifests in many ways. But the long and short of it is that it is a team game on the player side just as much as it is on the character side.

As has been clearly demonstrated, that isn't true for everyone. What if both the player and the character are good at solving puzzles, or bad for that matter? What about all the puzzles that are more about timing than "solving."

Let's look at a scenario that could come up in many games:

4 player party:
Wizard, Cleric, Rogue and Fighter.

The Rogue has the best charisma by far, because the rest did not and the only person trained in Persuasion, Deception, and actually has expertise in Deception because he has a Conman Background.
The Fighter completely dumped charisma, and has no proficiency in any social skills at all.

However the PLAYER of the Rogue is very anti-social and not very creative when it comes to talking, to be blunt, he sucks at it.
The PLAYER of the Fighter is a professional speaker like a lawyer/professor/ect and is great with people and making an argument.

The building the group needs to enter has 2 entrances, one in front, one in back, they are not within sight or normal hearing distance of each other, each entrances has 2 guards.

The Fighter goes up to the guard at the back door and makes a very good argument as to why he should be let in, complete with a good explanation.
However, his character sucks at this kind of thing, 8 charisma, no proficiency at all at anything involving this.
What happens?

The Rogue goes up to the guard at the front gate and essentially says, "Umm, I am late for a meeting, can you step aside?"
However, his character is has a 16 charisma, training and expertise in deception, and even at least trained in persuasion.
What happens?

RSP

2018-11-06, 04:17 PM

This is my point though, in order to get even that vague imperfect feeling, you must play out a scenario for real.

...

Dan on the other hand, has to lead his army for real. At the very least he will learn very basic tactics, and get an vague imperfect feeling of being a war general. And when Dan plans a maneuver and then plays out the battle, he can get real satisfaction of seeing his plans work...or not.

No. Leading an army in D&D is not leading an army “for real,” in any sense of the word.

You aren’t learning the skills needed to lead an army. At best, you’re learning tactics that work in a game against that particular DM, depending how that DM plays it; like if they substitute Risk or Axis and Allies for the D&D Rules, you’ll get some skill in those rulesets playing against the DM. You will not, however, equate to being “a war general.” And those games do not equal learning real war strategy and/or tactics.

Im assuming you have no real world experiences with armies or leading groups of people, particularly in combat, so I’m just trying to relay that playing D&D is not the same as actually doing what the characters do in D&D. If you actually think this, you are wrong.

It’s a fun game but in no way a substitute for reality. Just because I play a level 8 Fighter, doesn’t mean I have the experiences and capabilities of someone who fights for a living.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-06, 05:40 PM

You’re not role playing when it’s puzzle time-it’s a ROLE PLAYING game. Puzzles ruin the role part of it

But your not Role Playing in combat, your Roll Playing, and I'd guess you don't want to eliminate combat from the game, right?

And if you agree that problem solving is role playing, why is not a puzzle just another problem to solve?

What happens?

So first off, it needs to be said yet again, that if a player is using their own skills and ignoring the charters skills then they are not role playing their character, they are doing the dreaded ''playing themselves as the character".

Second, the average scores for humans are 10 and 8 to 12 is normal. So a character with an 8 or 10 charisma is in no way ''that bad". For a character to be "very anti-social and not very creative when it comes to talking, to be blunt, he sucks at it" you are talking more like Charisma of 6 or less.

Third, to "very good argument as to why he should be let in, complete with a good explanation" is not exactly god level charisma...the average charisma 8 guy can do that. And so can the player that ''sucks" at charisma.

And in the game, the ''average guard" should have a low charisma, so again even the player that sucks at it won't have too hard of a time. If the DM plays the guards right.

And even if the player can't talk their way past the guards...there are other ways to use charisma to get in. Kinda like what the player would do if they rolled low.

No. Leading an army in D&D is not leading an army “for real,” in any sense of the word.

Correct, as was said it is vague imperfect feeling/knowledge/skill, but it still is something. You can't play a couple games of the board game Risk and then take command of a real life army.

But playing Risk can teach a clueless person things like ''the importance of having reserve troops".

It’s a fun game but in no way a substitute for reality. Just because I play a level 8 Fighter, doesn’t mean I have the experiences and capabilities of someone who fights for a living.

Right, again it is vague imperfect feeling/knowledge/skill, but it still is something.

A RPG in no way gives you ''real" life skills that require real training, but playing an RPG can give you vague imperfect imaginary skills that can be used in RPGs. (and some real life social skills too).

Just take the simple ''watch your back/don't let a foe get behind you".

A real life fighter (and anyone who has taken a self defense course) knows this as they were taught this very eaitly on. The average clueless player has no idea about it. So when in the game the DM says "three goblins move around behind your character", the player just shrugs and says ''whatever, I roll to attack!" . A round later the goblins attack from behind and kill the character. But the next time a goblin tries to sneak around that players character, they will be aware enough to say "Woah...my character moves to put his back against the wall so the goblins can't get behind me". It's not super deep ten year training military school tactics, it's literally elementary school tactics.

It's not much ''in the real world", but it is something...and something is better then nothing.

Erloas

2018-11-06, 06:10 PM

Let's look at a scenario that could come up in many games:

Seeing as how the players are at the same table, it really comes down to how the whole situation started. I'll assume the group purposefully split up and went to different doors for a very specific reason. Maybe during the planning stages where the players and characters *are* all together, even if the fighter's player came up with the ruse it could be played as the rogue said "there is no way you're getting by on your charm, say THIS to the guard, while I'll just use my charm on the front guard."
Even if we take the Giant's diplomacy modification, or TheAngryGM's stance on it (Overcome an Objection, Appeal to an Incentive, Create an Incentive), they'll play out about the same way. Did the Fighter offer anything to actually get the guard to let them through? The rogue didn't offer anything at all, he has given the guard no reason at all to care. If they're both offering 100gp to bribe them to get through, well that is different. The exact words used aren't important, it is the nature at which they want to get cooperation that is. If the fighter comes up with a great incentive then that will lower the DC, if the rogue is offering nothing at all, that will likely increase the DC.

It isn't that the rogue player needs to be eloquent and come up with a great speech, but he needs to at least come up with some reason why the guard is going to help. "I try to convince the guard that I'm very important and have a meeting with the boss and it is one of those meetings he doesn't want documented and I'm running late so you don't have time to check" would be diplomacy.

"I'm going to tell the guard that I'm very important and have a meeting with the boss and if he doesn't let me in right now I'm going to make sure he is fired/killed/demoted" would be intimidation. Without more information about the how and why the rogue's player hasn't given the DM enough to know what skill to use or any potential outcomes if the check is failed.

That doesn't take acting, it doesn't take being eloquent or verbose, it just takes thinking about how you want something to happen.

The same thing is true for the fighter though. Is the fighter just using a bunch of fancy words to say "please let me in" then that isn't going to get him very far. Is he threatening to slowly break every one of the guards limbs if he stands there another minute? Is he guessing at, or know, the guard's background and coming up with some reason it is in the guard's best interest to let them in? Those will all change things.

In the end though both rolls come down to "how well did the actual character do at delivering the intention of the player" with an adjustment based on "did they give the guard any real reason to help" (money, threat, appeal to their good/evil nature)

To tie that back to the puzzles, that is pretty puzzle like too, it takes some thinking and planning on what you're going to do. Would that encounter be of any value to the players if the rogue just said "I'm going to use my investigator skill to learn about the building, I'm going to then use my sneak and diplomacy skills to get in and move around and get what we need." "Here are my 3 rolls, all very high, just go ahead and give me the McGuffin DM."

Arelai

2018-11-06, 06:28 PM

You can role play in combat just fine.

By biggest gripe, I’ll try to restate another way.

When you start a puzzle, there are no decisions to be made. Nothing interesting to express. It’s just “hey everyone, lets stop playing our characters and making decisions based on what our characters would do, halt the story and progression of events, so we can solve this dumb puzzle I found online.

I know you like playing dnd-but that’s not as fun as the 4 of you trying to solve this riddle that has a definite answer-and we can just waste time trying to get past it.”

It’s not fun. It’s not dnd. It’s just a puzzle, that 99% of the time does NOT make any sense to exist in the scenario in which its framed.

MaxWilson

2018-11-06, 06:56 PM

I don’t consider myself to be that smart. By dnd standards, I’m probably an 11 or 12 at best. And when it comes to DnD, I HATE puzzles. I think they’re a sore thumb, very gamey, and not very fun.

So my solution-I want to play a high intelligence/wisdom character with expertise in investigation and maybe perception, knowledge cleric and use guidance to add a d4 to checks, and when the DM plops a “player-puzzle” in front of us, I’ll say “We’ll, I’m not smart enough to solve this puzzle, but my character is” *rolls* “okay, 24, what’s the answer?”

I mean, dm’s don’t make players lift stuff when they call for a strength check in game-you shouldn’t have to solve a color changing puzzle or a riddle for your character.

What do you guys think? How would you respond to a player who wants to roll to solve? Rationalizing that his 20 int expertise guidanced wizard or cleric could figure it out easily.

My take on this:

I want to support both playstyles, player-knowledge-based and character-statistic-based, but I don't feel obliged to make a riddle or secret door or trap DC low even if the riddle/etc. I actually give to the players is relatively easy (I'm willing to assume that some difficulty is lost in translation and that the "real" in-world riddle is somewhat harder), and if you want to bypass riddles by rolling you might need to do exactly as you did above and invest some build resources.

And I would prefer it if players stick to one approach for a given challenge, rolling or thinking, because that way I can save my good riddles/traps/puzzles for when players are interested in them instead of "wasting" them on something that just turns into a roll. If I know you like to roll for puzzles and traps, then when you enter an "interesting" room, I might just straight up ask you, "There's something interesting here. Do you want to hear about it or just roll for it?" and if you say "roll," I'll just roll some dice, tell someone to make a saving throw, and apply whatever damage or reward or treasure is associated with that, and then move on. I don't want to tell you all about my clever fiendish trap and THEN have you make an Investigation check at +17 to bypass it. I mean, maybe if I were better at thinking up fiendish traps I'd be fine with that, but I'm not all that creative at trap-making yet, so I'd prefer to get to use what I do think of instead of wasting effort.

Implication of my approach: yes, players who are genuinely good at riddle and trap-solving will get some stuff "for free" because they won't "have" to invest in trap- or riddle-related character abilities. That's fine. Being good at the game makes you good at the game, and preventing people from being good at the game is a non-goal for me. I'm just trying to support people like yourself who hate that part of the game enough to want to invest in beating it "automatically."

Boci

2018-11-06, 07:02 PM

And I would prefer it if players stick to one approach for a given challenge, rolling or thinking, because that way I can save my good riddles/traps/puzzles for when players are interested in them instead of "wasting" them on something that just turns into a roll. If I know you like to roll for puzzles and traps, then when you enter an "interesting" room, I might just straight up ask you, "There's something interesting here. Do you want to hear about it or just roll for it?" and if you say "roll," I'll just roll some dice, tell someone to make a saving throw, and apply whatever damage or reward or treasure is associated with that, and then move on. I don't want to tell you all about my clever fiendish trap and THEN have you make an Investigation check at +17 to bypass it. I mean, maybe if I were better at thinking up fiendish traps I'd be fine with that, but I'm not all that creative at trap-making yet, so I'd prefer to get to use what I do think of instead of wasting effort."

You are obviously trying to be fair, but that doesn't seem fair to me. It reads as "entertain my traps or be punished by trying to use your characters skills". You don't want to describe the trapped and then have the characters roll their skills? Isn't that how the game usually works? DM describes the enviroment, PCs respond with their actions and ability checks when appropriate? Why is it suddenly only one for a trap room?

MaxWilson

2018-11-06, 07:14 PM

You are obviously trying to be fair, but that doesn't seem fair to me. It reads as "entertain my traps or be punished by trying to use your characters skills". You don't want to describe the trapped and then have the characters roll their skills? Isn't that how the game usually works? DM describes the enviroment, PCs respond with their actions and ability checks when appropriate? Why is it suddenly only one for a trap room?

Are you saying that the maximum enjoyment for you comes from hearing a fiendish trap described AND the solution? That is, you don't just want to roll your dice and claim the treasure and move on, you want to experience the trap, but as a spectator and not a participant?

If my players felt that way, I'd probably oblige them by trying to get better at fiendish trap-invention. Asking them to stick to one approach at a time is for my sake, a courtesy to me as a fellow player and adventure-writer so that I don't waste prep time on things that don't matter, but if it were genuinely impacting their enjoyment we'd have a conversation and then try to find a resolution that is fun for everybody, which could be "Max needs to get better at inventing traps/puzzles/secret doors" or "obviously nobody is enjoying these traps/puzzles/secret doors, let's just not have any" or something else I haven't thought of yet.

Edit: RE "DM describes the enviroment, PCs respond with their actions and ability checks when appropriate? Why is it suddenly only one for a trap room?" that's backwards. Normally you don't get a choice at all. You can't use player skill to kill the vampire with your sword--no matter how much you know about fencing, you just have to make your attack rolls and damage rolls count. Trap rooms are the exception in that you now suddenly get two choices instead of one: engage with player skill or engage with character skill. This exception is justified on metagame grounds: it's because I recognize that some people want to be able to skip over traps/riddles/secret doors/etc. by spending character resources on being automatically good at them.

Boci

2018-11-06, 07:24 PM

Are you saying that the maximum enjoyment for you comes from hearing a fiendish trap described AND the solution? That is, you don't just want to roll your dice and claim the treasure and move on, you want to experience the trap, but as a spectator and not a participant?

No, I'm I don't being told to choose between hearing a description and rolling. I want a chance to bypass a traps through my own creative thinking, but not without forfiting my characters skills to roll with.

Am I missing something, because to me the set up seems redicolous. Let's change the scenario from traps to a swamp

DM: Before you are the dreaded Mahira Marshes. You must pass through them to reach your destination.
PC: We proceed cautious. What does it look like?
DM: Are you just going to roll survival? Because I'm not describing the marsh if you then just roll survival to try and bypass the dangers. I will describe it if you want, but then no rolling survival

Did I miss something, or is that exact choice you are offering players for a trap room? Hear the description or roll your character's relevant abilities, but not both?

Edit: RE "DM describes the enviroment, PCs respond with their actions and ability checks when appropriate? Why is it suddenly only one for a trap room?" that's backwards. Normally you don't get a choice at all. You can't use player skill to kill the vampire with your sword

That's combat, not exploring the enviroment.

Erloas

2018-11-06, 07:39 PM

Did I miss something, or is that exact choice you are offering players for a trap room? Hear the description or roll your character's relevant abilities, but not both?
I think the point is: If I'm going to put a trap in this room, how much effort am I going to put into it? If the players are just going to default to rolling a die and taking damage or not accordingly, does it matter if it is a simply floor trap, a complex trap that has a time limit before it releases gas, is it one that is going to require moving parts around to trigger switches? In many cases puzzles are complex traps or locks. Why would the DM spend their limited time making a complex trap/puzzle when the players will put the exact same amount of time and effort into it as a very simple trap/puzzle?

That's combat, not exploring the enviroment.But combat is still an encounter just the same as a trap or puzzle, and solving it with more or less resources and taking damage or not, and getting whatever loot is around, are all the same possibilities and outcomes. If the characters are taking actions that have effects on themselves or others that is an encounter, whether it is with words, swords, or any other skills.

MaxWilson

2018-11-06, 07:39 PM

No, I'm I don't being told to choose between hearing a description and rolling. I want a chance to bypass a traps through my own creative thinking, but not without forfiting my characters skills to roll with.

If my players felt as strongly as you seem to, I'd oblige them. As I've said multiple times, my preference is not to waste material, but if as you seem to be saying you want to engage through BOTH mechanisms (player skill and then also character skill) it's not as much of a waste.

Am I missing something, because to me the set up seems redicolous. Let's change the scenario from traps to a swamp

DM: Before you are the dreaded Mahira Marshes. You must pass through them to reach your destination.
PC: We proceed cautious. What does it look like?
DM: Are you just going to roll survival? Because I'm not describing the marsh if you then just roll survival to try and bypass the dangers. I will describe it if you want, but then no rolling survival

Did I miss something, or is that exact choice you are offering players for a trap room? Hear the description or roll your character's relevant abilities, but not both?

Yeah, you missed something: the social context including prior conversations about my preferences and the player's preferences. Edit: if it helps, imagine that that last conversation happens in the context of a table where the players have already skipped over the last five traps by rolling dice. That's what was in my head when I wrote it.

I mean, I've only been talking to you for five minutes now and at this point it's clear that you are interested enough in the trap descriptions that for you, I would not skip over them. Do you really think a player who was interested in engaging with the traps would fail to make his preferences equally clear?

Here's the modified conversation:

DM: Before you are the dreaded Mahira Marshes. You must pass through them to reach your destination.

Player: We proceed cautious. What does it look like?

DM: They're nasty and swampy and deadly. Let me say up front that I know Bob hates logistics and mapping and probably just wants to skip to the next fight; I know that Boci loves survival and may possibly want the swampy terrain described in detail so he can eke every possible ounce of advantage out of the situation. We could do either, but for now you're paddling a boat along the Mahira River, which is slow and muddy and only just barely wider than your little boat in places, and probably not more than about a fathom deep in most places. There are trees along both banks. I need to know in what level of detail you guys want to play out these next few days. Bob, you're the party leader, please confer briefly with your fellow players and give me your decision.

Boci

2018-11-06, 07:48 PM

I think the point is: If I'm going to put a trap in this room, how much effort am I going to put into it? If the players are just going to default to rolling a die and taking damage or not accordingly, does it matter if it is a simply floor trap, a complex trap that has a time limit before it releases gas, is it one that is going to require moving parts around to trigger switches? In many cases puzzles are complex traps or locks. Why would the DM spend their limited time making a complex trap/puzzle when the players will put the exact same amount of time and effort into it as a very simple trap/puzzle?

Its a roleplaying game, so for the same reason I know roughly how my character is dressed and largely have written a background story, along with dozens of other things. I don't expect a mechanical advantage for doing:

"I yell -My claws that catch!- and make a slashing motion towards the nearest goblin. The air ripples with a transluscent shape suggestive of three claws."

Rather than just saying "I cast eldritch blast on the nearest goblin", but I do it anyway, because its a roleplaying game.

But combat is still an encounter just the same as a trap or puzzle

No it isn't. Combat has its own rules for interaction, initiative, attack rolls. Puzzles and traps are not combat, they are interacting with the enviroment, which doesn't have combat's rules and so follows the "DM describes, players respond with actions and/or checks".

DM: They're nasty and swampy and deadly. Let me say up front that I know Bob hates logistics and mapping and probably just wants to skip to the next fight; I know that Boci loves survival and may possibly want the swampy terrain described in detail so he can eke every possible ounce of advantage out of the situation.

See? You misunderstood, its not about eeking out every advantage. I'm playing a rolepalying and using a system. That means I want to hear the DM describe the world, yet still use rules like character abilities.

If my players felt as strongly as you seem to, I'd oblige them. As I've said multiple times, my preference is not to waste material, but if as you seem to be saying you want to engage through BOTH mechanisms (player skill and then also character skill) it's not as much of a waste.

Shouldn't that just be how it works by default? Groups differ, but in general terms giving players both mechanism for interacting with challenges seems like the best way to go, not an option players have to confirm as wanting.

MaxWilson

2018-11-06, 08:03 PM

See? You misunderstood, its not about eeking out every advantage. I'm playing a rolepalying and using a system. That means I want to hear the DM describe the world, yet still use rules like character abilities.

Shouldn't that just be how it works by default? Groups differ, but in general terms giving players both mechanism for interacting with challenges seems like the best way to go, not an option players have to confirm as wanting.

I feel like you're missing the point here. You're picking on technicalities, "Oho, you misunderstood why I want to hear about more detail!" and not engaging with the fact that I am totally cool with it if you want more detail.

And no, there is no default level of detail. Designing and running an adventure always involves judging what level of details player will be interested in. You want to buy spell components? There is no "default" for whether you (1) charge them some gold and have them write the new components on their character sheet, vs. (2) describe the nearest town and the streets in it and the conversation they have with the urchin they ask for directions to the nearest magic shop and the shopkeeper they meet there, and roleplay everything out in excruciating detail vs. (3) ask for some Persuasion checks and Arcana checks to ensure that the spell components they buy are of the correct quality vs. (4) something else entirely.

Yes, you may have to have a conversation with your DM if you want a different level of detail than what he thinks you want. Quelle surprise. You're playing a game which features a lot of people sitting around a table talking. If you're not comfortable talking to your DM about game pacing, you need to get over that and speak up. The DM will do his or her best, but they're not telepathic.

Boci

2018-11-06, 08:09 PM

I feel like you're missing the point here. You're picking on technicalities, "Oho, you misunderstood why I want to hear about more detail!" and not engaging with the fact that I am totally cool with it if you want more detail.

I feel that you're willfully ignoring the fact that mnost people will get ticked off when someone else falsly claims they are fishing for mechanical advantages.

And no, there is no default level of detail. Designing and running an adventure always involves judging what level of details players will be interested in.

Which is why giving both options is a pretty good idea, because players won't mind that. Sure you can ask which of the two options they prefer, and preferences will vary, but its hard to go wrong with giving players two choices to freely mix and match rather than locking in one.

KorvinStarmast

2018-11-06, 08:09 PM

{Scrubbed}

MaxWilson

2018-11-06, 08:14 PM

I feel that you're willfully ignoring the fact that mnost people will get ticked off when someone else falsly claims they are fishing for mechanical advantages.

I apologize if you feel that I was misrepresenting you. I should have made it Bob and Nelson or whatever, and I don't really care WHY Nelson wants more detail.

Which is why giving both options is a pretty good idea, because players won't mind that. Sure you can ask which of the two options they prefer, and preferences will vary, but its hard to go wrong with giving players two choices to freely mix and match rather than locking in one.

I agree it's a good idea, and that's why I use that approach.

Boci

2018-11-06, 08:16 PM

I agree it's a good idea, and that's why I use that approach.

That's the thing though. To me your default approach was:

"Choose hearing the description or rolling abilities, but not both"

Which came off as passive aggressive to me. I feel a much better opening stance is "Descriptions and action respose, or rolling, or both, whatever you feel like. Btw though, if you'll always stick with one option, I might not plan for the other if you will never use it" which did not seem to be the approach you initially described.

MaxWilson

2018-11-06, 08:20 PM

That's the thing though. To me your default approach was:

"Choose hearing the description or rolling abilities, but not both"

Which came off as passive aggressive to me. I feel a much better opening stance is "Descriptions and action respose, or rolling, or both, whatever you feel like. Btw though, if you'll always stick with one option, I might not plan for the other if you will never use it" which did not seem to be the approach you initially described.

There's a reason I used terms like "prefer". I guess I'll quote myself again here:

And I would prefer it if players stick to one approach for a given challenge, rolling or thinking, because that way I can save my good riddles/traps/puzzles for when players are interested in them instead of "wasting" them on something that just turns into a roll. If I know you like to roll for puzzles and traps, then when you enter an "interesting" room, I might just straight up ask you, "There's something interesting here. Do you want to hear about it or just roll for it?" and if you say "roll," I'll just roll some dice, tell someone to make a saving throw, and apply whatever damage or reward or treasure is associated with that, and then move on. I don't want to tell you all about my clever fiendish trap and THEN have you make an Investigation check at +17 to bypass it. I mean, maybe if I were better at thinking up fiendish traps I'd be fine with that, but I'm not all that creative at trap-making yet, so I'd prefer to get to use what I do think of instead of wasting effort.

You could have saved us both a lot of typing if you'd asked a clarifying question like, "What happens if the player says, 'Can I hear about it and then roll if it sounds too hard?'" instead of jumping to conclusions.

But hopefully things are clear now.