Puzzles and Monsters

[Sean]

In fantasy fiction, a lot of monsters are actually puzzles. That is, they are problems of the form:

- Hero can't solve the puzzle (of the monster's weakness) = hero is physically overwhelmed by beastie.

- Hero figures out the monster's weakness = hero can beat the beastie fairly handily, or at least with an utmost exertion of his abilities.

This has partly to do with the fact that reading about a fight is basically jacking off, but reading about a hero solving a puzzle invites you to try to figure it out as well. And partly to do with the tradition of heroes going back to Odysseus (as opposed to Achilles, who's a whole other kind of mensch) who use their cunning as well as their meaty thews.

So anyway. As I never tire of pointing out, I'm a GM of the old school. And I've always liked puzzles in my games. But partly because they cut through the bullshit. No more my guy syndrome. It's me, Sean, saying to you, my player: can you, not your freakin' character and his pussy 19 Intelligence or whatever, solve this puzzle, or not?

Of course this takes mental skill on the part of the player. But it also takes skill on the Puzzle Master's part. Neither to be so easy as to be trivial ("Round she is, yet flat as a board...") nor so hard as to be idiosyncratic.

Someday I'll learn to get to the fuckin' point. Look, the question I'm asking is this. Here are two ways of dealing with puzzles in RPGs:

(a) totally real, the real old school: can you, the player, irrespective of all that shit on your character sheet, solve the puzzle I'm posing you? (The puzzle could be weirdness on a map, or a riddle, or a clever description of a trap that provides clues for what the disable is, or whatever. Good puzzles give the meat for a smart person to solve them. I don't know how exactly they work. I can get out Sam Lloyd or whatever, but I don't know a puzzle algorithm, except for individual puzzle-types.)

(b) totally abstract, the 'don't hang up the game' method: roll a DC 24 intelligence check (or whatever the hell) to guess what Sphinctor the Sphinx has in mind.

Are there others, better than these? And better than (b1) give clues on the intelligence/wisdom/insight/judgment/thoughtfulness/ratiocination/reason/wits/whatever check? Particular cases as well as general answer would be muchly appreciated.

[TonyLB]

A classic is "Give them a bunch of clues... when they think up a theory that (a) fits the clues and (b) sounds really cool to you then that theory is, in fact, the solution."  That doesn't have people solving the One True Puzzle, but it does have the benefit that the answers are sometimes much cooler and more satisfying than the puzzle-answer you thought was right.

[Andrew Norris]

Ooh! I've got one from our Actual Play this week.Conflict resolution works pretty well for this stuff.

The system's kind of like PTA, with Fan Mail replaced with a hand of tarot cards that you play to "trump" the dice. (They're interpreted freeform, like Everway... really they're just there to give people to riff off of.)

The PC's battling a pack of wolves in a fairy-tale forest. Mechanically he's outmatched, made worse by the fact that he's not willing to kill them.. He slams down a trump card, "Justice", and narrates that he wrestles the alpha to the ground and forces it to yield. He closes out the scene with the pack sleeping by his campfire.

He got a "whoa" out of me. The player took the challenge as a puzzle, and came up with a plausible answer that was far better than anything I had planned.

So I guess this is sort of (b), with the mechanical check replaced with "Spend resources, suggest a solution, justify why those resources mean your solution is the right one."

[contracycle]

A classic is "Give them a bunch of clues... when they think up a theory that (a) fits the clues and (b) sounds really cool to you then that theory is, in fact, the solution."  That doesn't have people solving the One True Puzzle, but it does have the benefit that the answers are sometimes much cooler and more satisfying than the puzzle-answer you thought was right.

It may be a classic, but it is one I regard as totally unacceptable.  Better not to have bothered claiming it was a puzzle at all, for that was a lie.

[Jack Aidley]

Of course it's still a puzzle. In many ways, a free-ending puzzle is a better and more satisfying puzzle because it means you're looking for a solution to the puzzle based solely on what the parameters of the puzzle were rather than attempting to guess what the GM thought of first.

Suppose I give you the sequence of numbers 1, 2, 4 and ask you what's next. I'm guessing that most people here will answer '8' because thats the binary sequence but answering '7' is every bit as logically valid - why should players be punished for thinking differently to the GM? That's the height of arbitariness.

[rrr]

Hi Sean

Regarding the idea of whether the puzzle needs a set and definitive "One True Answer" which the players must discover, I suspect the answer is it depends which CA you are aiming to fulfill and on what level the puzzle is:in game, out of game, merely symbolic of something else..?  Here are some examples that occurred to me.

I can see certain Gamist players enjoying the challenge to themselves of figuring out a well constrcuted puzzle, if they are the kind of player who likes the "step on up" level to reach all the way out of the game as it were.  You're not testing anything in the game, or even the player's tactical ability with the game mechanics.  You are simply testing the player.  Some players may like that.  You seem to be of this camp and I can totally understand why.  There is a satisfaction in personally solving a puzzle which is not the same as having your character roll Intelligence to solve it.  You have to be sure that your players are looking for that kind of experience.

I can also see certain Gamist players being frustrated by this kind of puzzle.  They play to be tested by the rules and systems of the game, not some external thing like their personal puzzle solving ability.  It's like asking a Soccer player to complete a crossword puzzle before he can score a goal, what's it got to do with his ability to play Soccer?

I can imagine plenty of Narrativist players simply viewing the puzzle as inconsequential.  Who cares what the puzzle actually is... roll the dice and either we pass or fail... let's get on with the story!

On the other hand, perhaps the puzzle is part of the story and part of addressing premise.  Alexander and the Gordian Knot springs to mind.  Premise: "What does it take to be a great leader..?"  or similar.  Alexander approaches the puzzle: he has to untie the knot.  How he unties the knot may tell us something about his nature as a man and his strength as a leader...  He pulls out his sword and slices the knot in two.  He cheats, but gets the job done.  Premise addressed in some sense.

I'd try and work out what kind of game your players and yourself are looking for, and then you'll probably be able to take the right tack with the puzzles.

Drew

[Jason Lee]

Perhaps my definition of puzzle is more narrow, but I wouldn't consider (b) a puzzle either.  Without the challenge being directed specifically at the player as in (a), the conflict is no different in play than attack versus dodge, and I think is best served by the open-ended conflict resolution/FitM stuff people have mentioned.  (a) and (b) look like mental challenge for the player, versus mental challenge for the character, and I can't think of any other kind of mental challenge.

I certainly don't think the two methods should ever be mixed, such as in (b1).  If you are targeting the players, then fed them clues directly without making their own ability dependent upon the character's intelligence/personality/etc.  The character they've built will affect their options enough ("Maybe it's weak to fire.  Shit, anyone have Fireball?"  No, but I can set that tree on fire with a lightning bolt...").

[Sean]

Some people like (b1), Jason. It can actually be pretty functional.

An analogy is the way my father plays solitaire. He always wins, but he scores himself by how many times he has to cheat to win, and feels better about himself when there are fewer cheats.

When you have a puzzle or library research or trap or whatever, you start out on the level of pure description and see if the player can figure it out. If they can't, they use their character as a resource to get hints or whatever, rolling appropriate stuff or marshalling appropriate resources or whatever.

I've seen this method work well for lots of groups.

I'm also interested in the 'monsters as puzzles' thing. Many fictional fights aren't the stronger-man-wins hackfest at all, and when they are there's little doubt that the protagonist is the stronger. Rather, the dragon has one weakness, or the beast's home tree must be cut down before swords can cut it, or you have to go for the eyes to disable it, or whatever. Few games take this kind of approach to monsters or develop it much, though Thugs and Thieves at least acknowledges this genre feature with its monster lore stat.

[Jason Lee]

Some people like (b1), Jason. It can actually be pretty functional.

An analogy is the way my father plays solitaire. He always wins, but he scores himself by how many times he has to cheat to win, and feels better about himself when there are fewer cheats.

When you have a puzzle or library research or trap or whatever, you start out on the level of pure description and see if the player can figure it out. If they can't, they use their character as a resource to get hints or whatever, rolling appropriate stuff or marshalling appropriate resources or whatever.

I've seen this method work well for lots of groups.

That's not quite what I was refering to.  If they are using character resources (which are player resources) that interact with the puzzle (poking at it to find a weakness), then whee!  That often a key element of (a) from how I see it.  But if you are simply making a check to see if the conflict is overcome, then you're shifting hard away from player skill having any impact, so you can't have (a) anymore.

The solitaire thing I also see as different.  Just a distraction, a time sink, because there is no risk.  Well, perhaps that is a reason for (b1) - filler. I know that I don't enjoy it, but I suppose from that perspect I suppose I have seen the method "work".

[M. J. Young]

Sean, I probably have more answers to this than I can give you, but I'll give you a couple.

I have used intellect checks along with puzzle solving ability in games, particularly if there is a significant disparity between the intellect of the player and that of his character.  If a player has tried unsuccessfully to solve a puzzle, but his character is significantly more intelligent than he is, I'll allow him to roll to see whether his character could get it even though he could not. But that cuts both ways:  if a very intelligent player easily solves a puzzle that should have been a serious challenge to his considerably less intelligent character, I'll sometimes require an intellect check to determine whether the character was smart enough to come up with that.

For a character who is more intelligent than the player, I would usually prefer one of these alternatives to a mechanical check:

• Give the player time. Take a break from play, order pizza, deal with other game issues.  It is amazing how much better our answers are when we have time to think about them than when we're put on the spot at an instant. So the superintelligent character has two minutes to decide how to save himself from the trap. Why can't the player of ordinary intelligence take ten times that long to consider his options, ask questions, get a full idea of the current situation, and carefully craft a response which his smarter counterpart could have devised in seconds?
• Allow extensive out of character discussions; that is, if Average Joe is trying to solve a problem faced by his lone character Genius George, let Superior Sam and Star Student Stan give him their insights. I've often suggested that there's nothing wrong with the smart player giving the right answer and having it attributed to the smart character played by the dumb player.
• Provide better information. One of the things that makes Magyver so clever is that he notices more and makes connections. If the player isn't as bright as the character, tell the player what things the character would see and what he would probably know about them. "You don't have a rope, but there are vines growing here that are thick enough to be strong enough to support your weight."  Part of the point is for the out-of-game perception of the puzzle to be roughly as difficult for the player as the in-game puzzle itself is for the character. The character is not being told what he notices; the player is being told what his character notices, based on the assumption that the more intelligent character is well ahead of the player in terms of perceiving possibilities.

On the particular point of monsters with specific weaknesses, we had a solution for that in The Farmland (beta) in The Second Book of Worlds. The core of the adventure is that aliens in spaceships invade a pre-gunpowder mostly agrarian world, and the player character has to find ways to battle the aliens.  Of course, you have so many tropes that come into play here--aliens might be immune to bullets, or they might not. There might well be something completely harmless to humans but deadly to aliens. On the other hand, you might attack them with something that actually makes them stronger. We wanted all of those things to be possible. On the other hand, we were faced with some obvious problems. If we chose the weakness, it would be pot luck whether the players ever managed to find it. We couldn't possibly list everything anyone might want to try, but of course there was always the possibility that something would be a really good idea that we had not considered. Besides, if someone were to read the book they would know what the alien weakness actually was, and could go directly to that.

What we did was create a table, based on our 3d10 general effects roll, which ranged from killing the aliens outright to strengthening them tremendously. We allowed referees to modify the balance according to the likelihood that a particular attack would have any impact, but kept it such that no matter what inane thing the players attempted it had a chance of harming the aliens, whether water or salt or Don Ho records. The referee was then instructed to record any such attack forms that were tried, and what the results were, so that these would be consistent thereafter.

This gave us pretty much what you're looking for. The aliens would have hidden strengths and hidden weaknesses, and the players would bring these out by trying things. If the players made a good case for something given what they knew, the referee could skew the roll in their favor increasing the likelihood it would be damaging or even deadly, but if they were trying really stupid ideas he could as easily skew the roll against them. At the same time, even if the players had played this scenario before or knew all about it, each time they played it the alien's weakness would be different.

It's a way of establishing random strengths and weaknesses based on what the players try, rather than on what the referee guesses they might try.

I hope that's helpful.

--M. J. Young

[Balbinus]

A classic is "Give them a bunch of clues... when they think up a theory that (a) fits the clues and (b) sounds really cool to you then that theory is, in fact, the solution."  That doesn't have people solving the One True Puzzle, but it does have the benefit that the answers are sometimes much cooler and more satisfying than the puzzle-answer you thought was right.

The difficulty is, the original poster described himself as old school and that part of the attraction was pitting his wits against those of another player.  Your solution rather deletes that element, there is no pitting of wits because ultimately the player will always get the answer.

The other thing is that for some folk the point of this kind of play is that there is a real answer and that they determine what it is, playing with your method (which often works extremely well) will disappoint those players.

Turning back to the original post, there are a variety of ways of dealing with this.  One is a pure player skill approach, which works well if you want a clear player to player challenge in which the clash of wits is part of the fun.  Another is a wholly abstracted approach, roll your intelligence, which works well if the puzzle is flavour but the group don't really enjoy puzzles.

But there are other approaches too.  For example, players may use their own abilities but good rolls could result in hints or access to further clues, player skill still matters but character abilities are taken into account.  That may be preferable where the player considers that the character's ability should be relevant or where the player considers the selection of relevant character abilities as part of the tactical challenge.

Alternatively, you might use primarily character abilities, interpreting player thoughts and actions by reference to character abilities and rolls.  Or you might give a bonus to the character's abilities based on how well the player actually did.

There isn't really a choice of options here, rather a spectrum.  At the end of the day, if your players enjoy being directly challenged then go with that, if not go with one of the solutions I discuss above or MJ posts so eloquently about.

[M. J. Young]

Reading over some of the answers here, I recall an old-school solution to a similar sort of problem which was used in Gamma World and I think Metamorphosis Alpha.

The problem there was that characters whose intelligence varied significantly were faced with figuring out how to use objects with which they were completely unfamiliar, but which may well have been familiar to the players running those characters. Thus, rather than describe the object and fumble around with, "would my character know that this is a toaster, used for heating breakfast foods" and such nonsense, the game used a sub-game for artifact identification.

The book contained several charts (four, if I recall correctly) that were scaled for difficulty. I call them charts for lack of a better word; they looked much like flow sheets, in that there were various geometric shapes connected by lines in different directions. One was marked "start" and one "finish", but there were bad outcome spots on the sheet as well. A token was placed on the start polygon and the player rolled a die.  The number on the die told the referee which way to move the token (the lines were weighted, low numbers were always better, and high intellect or certain skills got subtraction bonuses on the die rolls). Each roll consumed a certain amount of time for the characters. Since these were technological devices, there were possibilities such as injury from the object and damage to the object on the more difficult charts. Players could decide whether to continue their efforts or stop after each roll.

When we played, the charts were kept secret, but in retrospect I don't know that they would have to have been. There was a certain amount of gamble involved, certainly, and that would have been more interesting if we could have seen how close we were to what outcomes before we rolled the dice.

I think something akin to that could be adapted to a variety of puzzle situations (since after all that was a puzzle of sorts).

--M. J. Young

[jaw6]

I think the question is, "What is this challenge/monster/puzzle meant to represent?"

If it's meant to challenge the players' "on the spot creativity and/or logical puzzle-solving skill", then Option A is the way to go. If it's meant to challenge the players' understanding of the System and how it/their character operates mechanically, then Option B is more like it. (Though I think Option B fails to provide a challenge at all, if the appropriate skill or check is called out. I'm only willing to call it a challenge if the appropriate skill must be summoned up by the player.)

The problem I see with the monster angle, is two-fold:

+ Hit points - Too many RPGs describe combat as the only multiple-round challenge event. True, some include rules for "extended contests" or somesuch, but these are often just "re-roll until someone wins". So, I think there's an expectation that combat *is* about wearing down the monster's defense stat.

+ The Monster Manual Effect - GM-created monsters are great, but who has time to come up with a million-and-one new special monster weaknesses every week? But, if off-the-shelf monsters are used, Players have access to all the monster's secrets. ("Oh, this monster has DR 5/silver. Better switch to my nine-iron.")

[rafial]

Yeah, I remember those charts from first edition Gamma World.  Although I also seem to recall that at least part of the fun for us at the time was as players figuring out what some random artifact was/did based on ambiguous descriptions from the GM.  A particular incident that sticks in mind was the players finding a cranked pencil sharpner, and finally deciding that it was some kind of machingun (they never did find ammo for it).

The drawback to the sub-game idea as presented in MA/GW was that as I recall, there wasn't really anything to do "as a player" other than roll, roll, roll until you either blew yourself up or got it working.  Is there a way to use the subgame idea, but to put some decisions in the players' hands?

[M. J. Young]

The drawback to the sub-game idea as presented in MA/GW was that as I recall, there wasn't really anything to do "as a player" other than roll, roll, roll until you either blew yourself up or got it working.  Is there a way to use the subgame idea, but to put some decisions in the players' hands?

Yes, I think so. Put the chart in plain view of the players, so that they can see whether a roll gets them closer to danger or closer to success. That way they have to make the decision as to whether to roll or not when they need a 1 to reach success but a 9 or 10 will kill them. It's an entirely chance game, but it forces players to make informed strategic decisions about whether the risk is worth it.

--M. J. Young