Puzzles and Monsters

[Graham W]

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.

This is interesting. I like Tony's solution. It strikes me as very close to what a GM would do intuitively: set a puzzle and have a solution in mind, but if the players come up with an alternative solution, then run with that solution.

I recently ran a Paranoia LARP, in which the players were locked in a room from which they had to escape. I had a couple of ideas of how they might do that, but I was happy to go with any vaguely creative solution I was offered. (Eventually they used a mutant power to disable the locking mechanism, I think).

So there was still a element of pitting wits against the players. Ultimately the players would have got the answer, but only once they offered me an intelligent solution. (Shoulder barging the door wouldn't have worked)

There's an element, here, of rewarding the players for coming up with creative solutions. You reward creative solutions by letting them solve the puzzle.

Graham

[contracycle]

Hmm, while objecting to puzzles that are really an opinion poll in disguise, I am all in favour of open ended problems, sure.  I dunno, to me 'puzzle' kinda means there is only one solution.

[Callan S.]

You can have just one solution. It just doesn't actually need to be set by the puzzles maker.

Given a healthy approach to the game, the player is going to give the one solution that he is really invested in. One he's really thought about and believes it will work. As a fellow player, your going to understand a little bit more, the way this player handles the world (game world or real world).

It's exactly the same thing the puzzles maker would have to do, in making a solution for the puzzle. If your letting the GM bring that into play, it's okay for it to be another player to bring it in instead.

Address of Challenge: The care and feeding of

[contracycle]

It's exactly the same thing the puzzles maker would have to do, in making a solution for the puzzle. If your letting the GM bring that into play, it's okay for it to be another player to bring it in instead.

No its not, in my book.  From my perspective, what the players are invested in is irrelevant and unimportant.  I cannot solve problems, and enjoy the solving of problems, if the solution doesn not exist prior to my encounter of the problem.  Any time the solution emanates from the players, instead of from the Situation, iut ceases to be a problem to solve and becomes a request for creative input.  If that is the desire, then I do not see why it cannot be asked for openly instead of smuggled in under the guise of a puzzle or problem.

There is no victory when the opposition throws the match.

[contracycle]

It's exactly the same thing the puzzles maker would have to do, in making a solution for the puzzle. If your letting the GM bring that into play, it's okay for it to be another player to bring it in instead.

No its not, in my book.  From my perspective, what the players are invested in is irrelevant and unimportant.  I cannot solve problems, and enjoy the solving of problems, if the solution doesn not exist prior to my encounter of the problem.  Any time the solution emanates from the players, instead of from the Situation, iut ceases to be a problem to solve and becomes a request for creative input.  If that is the desire, then I do not see why it cannot be asked for openly instead of smuggled in under the guise of a puzzle or problem.

There is no victory when the opposition throws the match.

[Callan S.]

The GM himself is going to have to make up a solution to the situation (for the players to find). That's just creative input coming from him, rather than coming from another player. This doesn't create a puzzle like a sedoku is, it creates a "If they do exactly x, then I'll throw the match" situation. Usually x is supposed to be possible to arrive at in some logical manner, but really that idea just helps smuggle the thing in as a puzzle.

[contracycle]

The GM himself is going to have to make up a solution to the situation (for the players to find). That's just creative input coming from him, rather than coming rom another player.

Yes exactly.  Thats the specific role that the GM fulfills, at the behest of the other players.  The GM has been delegated to formulate and present problems for the others to enjoy solving.  That IMO is the most fundamental role of the GM.

[Callan S.]

Fair enough, that's a valid style. I was refering more to a style which revolves around the idea that players can beat a GM, because they can often come up with much more interesting, compelling and pratical solutions than that invented by the GM.

[contracycle]

Well perhaps we are talking past each other.  I see much similarity in your thought to mine but then we seem to disagree,

I like open ended challenges.  Here is a problem, YOU figure it out.  I've had much joy out of this, both as player and GM.  As mentioned elsewhere, I like to observe players solve problems; I've learned quite a bit about how people think, how players parse information, just by observing their dialogue.

On the other hand these problems do have constraints.  I may not care how you get the ball in the back of the net, as long as you do.  The getting-the-ball-in-the-net is not negotiable. 

To me, the open ended problem, to which there is no particular solution, and the closed problem which has only one solution, are very different.  I would not present an open problem and then demand the players second guess whatever solution I had dreamed up.  In that scenario, my function as GM is to judge the plausibility of their proposed solution.  But in the closed problem scenario, the entire point of the problem is to get the one right solution.

What I object to is the presentaiton of what appears to be a closed problem "you must find the clue" but which is in fact not really an problem at all, as in "whatever you decide is the clue is the clue".  I find that aesthetically displeasing and would take no joy in it as either player or GM.

Open problems, great.  Closed problems, in moderation, ok.  Fake problems, no.

[simon_hibbs]

Yes exactly.  Thats the specific role that the GM fulfills, at the behest of the other players.  The GM has been delegated to formulate and present problems for the others to enjoy solving.  That IMO is the most fundamental role of the GM.

This discussion is to a certain aextent also a discussion about illusionism. A lot of different issues are involved here and as a result a certain aamount of talking at cross pusposes may be going on.

I suspect there may be less fundamental disagreement here than it appears. It depends what we mean by puzzle. We all seem to agree that open ended problems are fine. It just depends on the definition of a puzzle. The example given earlier of a player who used a 'Justice' card to support a novel resolution to a dangerous situation isn't actualy a puzzle according to Contracycle's (quite reasonable) definition.

I think the real question is if, or in what circumstances puzzles with a single, pre-defined solution are appropriate and of course this will depend on the individual tastes of players and GMs.

Personaly I intensely dislike geometric/numeric/word puzzles in RPGs. If I wanted to solve those kinds of problems I'd buy a puzzle book or do a crossword, not play a roleplaying game. An A D&D GM friend of mine back in the day routinely put mind-bender puzzles in his games and I took the opportunity to take a break and got some sleep while everyone else sorted it out (we were students and played weekend-long game sessions. Ahhh... those were the days!).

On the other hand, the kinds of puzzles the orriginal poster mentioned - how to defeat a monster using it's weakness against it - can be an interesting challenge. But this sort of problem doesn't have to be of the closed kind with only a single viable solution, so long as the alternative solution does make sense and is consistent with the game continuity.

Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

On the other hand these problems do have constraints.  I may not care how you get the ball in the back of the net, as long as you do.  The getting-the-ball-in-the-net is not negotiable. 

This reminds me of a Call of Cthulhu game I was in long ago. The cultists were going to sacrifice a young woman with a special knife in order to summon Nyarlathotep and essentialy destroy the world. We burst into the ritual chamber and one of the other players said "I pull put my gun and shoot her ... I roll 01 for ... 22 points of damage."

The way the scenario was framed we were supposed to be rescuing the girl, but actualy killing her totaly ruined the bad guy's plans beyond repair. It was a novel, if ruthless way to resolve the problem. Did we succeed? Well, it depends what at.

A more controversial situation came up in a previous discussion on The Forge (which I feel justified in summarising because the context of the discussion is very different). Achilles and Agamemnon are arguing over a slave girl. If the problem isn't resolved the Greek army will be divided and the war will fail. My solution if playing a heroic Greek character - kill the slave girl. Sure I'd probably end up dead too, but I'm prepared to risk death to make sure we are victorious - what soldier isn't? Is this a valid resolution to the problem? In the orriginal thread many people said no, but in a roleplaying game there realy aren't always clearly defined win and lose conditions. There are merely different possible outcomes and their consequences.


Simon Hibbs

Hmm... I assure you that not all my solutions to roleplaying games are to kill women - and in fact in the first example it wasn't my fault, honest!

[Callan S.]

Hi Contra,

Yeah, we were talking past each other. Gotcha now.

Now that's established, what about another type of challenge? One where the player defines the constraints himself, with the focus not just on solving the problem, but the player being clever enough to identify the constraints involved and introduce them to play?

Hi Simon,

That slave girl thing sounds more like narrativism, actually. Got a link to that thread?

[contracycle]

Now that's established, what about another type of challenge? One where the player defines the constraints himself, with the focus not just on solving the problem, but the player being clever enough to identify the constraints involved and introduce them to play?

Hmm, I'm having trouble visualising that, do you have an example?  At the moment all I am seeing are drinking games like Fuzzy Duck or Coinage but these seem both unlikely and may not be meaningful to you.

[Vaxalon]

1> Gamemaster proposes puzzle. Gamemaster has a cool answer in mind.

2> Player encounters puzzle.  Player thrashes around a bit, then comes up with an answer.  He thinks it's a cool answer.

3> Gamemaster hears the answer.  Gamemaster tells player it's the wrong answer.

4> Player is frustrated.  //This is bad//  Player thrashes around a while longer, finally comes up with (or is handed) the answer that the GM had.

5> Player thinks his answer was cooler.  Player feels cheated.  //This is bad//

For this reason, if I present a puzzle to the PC's, and their solution is cool and satisfying (rather than a facile attempt to do an end-run around the puzzle) then I will do my best to adjust to make it fit.  Illusionism?  Perhaps.  But I think it makes for a more satisfying play experience.  After all, the purpose of  the puzzle is to get the players thinking, not to get them reading my mind.

[M. J. Young]

I cannot solve problems, and enjoy the solving of problems, if the solution doesn not exist prior to my encounter of the problem.  Any time the solution emanates from the players, instead of from the Situation, iut ceases to be a problem to solve and becomes a request for creative input.  If that is the desire, then I do not see why it cannot be asked for openly instead of smuggled in under the guise of a puzzle or problem.

There is no victory when the opposition throws the match.

I think we've got some grey areas here. I'm particularly reminded of the Gordian Knot. Whoever "untied the knot" would become the ruler of the realm. After examining it for a moment, Alexander the Great drew his sword, cut the rope, and announced, "This is how Alexander unties knots."

The question that this thread would seem to raise is whether that's a valid solution to the puzzle.

Let us suppose for a moment that as referee I create some puzzle, and state that you have to solve this puzzle to open the door. Or else what? Well, I'm going to have to decide what happens if the players do something else to open the door. Does it explode? Does it create a vortex and suck them into another dimension? Players are resourceful cusses at times, and can frequently find a way to do something I said could not be done. As soon as I've defined what happens if you attempt to open the door without solving the puzzle, I have essentially placed the puzzle I want them to solve inside another puzzle--how can we get this door open without solving that puzzle? Like the Riddle of the Sphinx, the Sphinx will eat me if I fail to answer the riddle or attempt to pass without doing so. Can I kill the Sphinx if he attacks me? Can I sneak past him undetected? Is there another way to solve the real problem, that gets me around the one on which the referee has focused so much attention?

There is a part of me that always hated those moments. I would have created a problem, and my players would mercilessly attack not the problem I had created but the context in which I had placed it. All that work for nothing!

Was there a "real" solution to the Gordian Knot? History does not tell us, because Alexander's solution displaced any real solution that might have existed. Does it matter if there were such a solution? Could the knot have been created by someone whose intent was to prevent anyone from ruling the land by posing an insoluble puzzle as the requirement? However, even if there is a "right" solution to our in-game problems, often there is yet a "creative" solution that gets around it entirely, and there is something unfair about deciding that the creative solution does not work merely because it robs us of the satisfaction of watching them wrestle with our clever handiwork.

There are no single solution puzzles, and probably no completely open puzzles, at least within the game context. Always there are options and limits, and it's just a matter of seeing them.

However, in general I agree that there's something unfair about a referee posing a problem and pretending he knows the answer when in fact he's just going to go with what the players devise. That's an illusionist technique which I usually don't enjoy, and would only employ if the point of the puzzle is to create the color of "there were puzzles that had to be solved", in the same way that telling the players that they see a trip wire tells them that this is a dangerous place filled with traps even if you don't have any traps worked out.

--M. J. Young