Puzzles and Monsters

[TonyLB]

That "challenge to evade a different challenge" is not unique to problem-solving.  I'm reminded particularly of Nar turns out to be a good gamist penalty to evade.

[xenopulse]

Here's a question: Why is the puzzle there in the first place?

I want to answer in the same vein as Vaxalon did. It's there to be fun for the players, and if it's frustrating, it's not fun. If I as a GM insist that your answer to the puzzle is invalid and that play will not continue until you come up with my solution (or something I consider equally valid), I probably violate the purpose of the puzzle.

That said, in a Gamist context, we don't want players to continually come up with something unimaginative that has no Step On Up value. So we should attach rewards to players who Step On Up in the address of a challenge (puzzle, in this case).

Therefore, if the game stalls until the players find a certain address, fun is sucked out. If the players' address is accepted in any case, but also has the potential to be rewarded when it's especially "good", we're keeping the game going AND facilitate Stepping On Up. Sure, that's still subjective, but there can be rules that facilitate the player explaining why his/her address rocks.

I should write down my thoughts on how to build a game based on that premise, with using key words in Polaris' manner for a Gamist purpose, but it hasn't crystallized enough in my brain yet.

[contracycle]

Well I fully agree with all comments about ther limits of these two constructions.

In the case of the Closed problem, what if the players don't figure it out?  Then play stops.  Inevitably, the GM must then either attempt to feed clues or outright obviate the puzzle and let them through.

In the case of the Open problem, how do you predict the exit point?  Simon Hibb's example illustrates this well; it could be the case that the players next clue was due to come from the rescued girl.

Tackling the case of the Monster mentioned in the title that is really a puzzle, how do the players know whether it is Open or Closed?  It looks like an open problem - engage in melee.  But its really a closed problem - you must shoot the arrow at the missing scale.  How are the players to figure that out before they get burnt to ash?

These I think are the problems inherent to gamist play in RPG's.  They don't occur in non-RPG gamist play because the game itself sets the bounds of feasible action.  In a Diablo style game probable Simon's poor sacrifice victim would have been unkillable.  And thus I thnk the solutions to these problems have to do with with boundary setting.

[TonyLB]

In the case of the Closed problem, what if the players don't figure it out?  Then play stops.  Inevitably, the GM must then either attempt to feed clues or outright obviate the puzzle and let them through.

That doesn't seem inevitable to me:   The players try.  The players fail.  Failure has its own consequences.  Play continues in an interesting manner, informed importantly by the players and their efforts (i.e. their failure). 

Am I missing something?  It sounds as if a lot of the problems being attributed to high-challenge Puzzles are, in fact, problems of railroading disguised.

[Graham W]

One quick point: I think problems in roleplaying games are rarely completely closed.

Let's say you've got a closed problem - say, find an anagram of "Blowing a whistle" that's an English sentence. To which there's only one answer.

If you put that into a roleplaying game, you have to give it a context: for example, the password to get past a guard is an anagram of "Blowing a whistle" that's an English sentence.

But then, when you're actually playing the game, the players might find another way round the problem. They might shoot the guard or sneak past him. Of course, that's down to the GM: he might insist that the players must have the password and block any attempts to circumvent the problem.

So...I think there's very few entirely closed problems in roleplaying games. And whether the problem is closed or not is more a matter of GMing style than the problem itself.

[simon_hibbs]

In the case of the Open problem, how do you predict the exit point?  Simon Hibb's example illustrates this well; it could be the case that the players next clue was due to come from the rescued girl.
...

These I think are the problems inherent to gamist play in RPG's.  They don't occur in non-RPG gamist play because the game itself sets the bounds of feasible action.  In a Diablo style game probable Simon's poor sacrifice victim would have been unkillable.  And thus I thnk the solutions to these problems have to do with with boundary setting.

That's exactly right. There are actualy two different issues here. One is if any alternative solutions are possible at all. The other is what solutions are considered acceptable - which on moral grounds, genre appropriateness, or even just social acceptability within the gaming group (e.g. a solution that involves killing another player character).

Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

Am I missing something?  It sounds as if a lot of the problems being attributed to high-challenge Puzzles are, in fact, problems of railroading disguised.

I'm increasingly convinced railroading is a meaningless term that is preventing cogent analysis of some play structures.  It's one of those hot-button words that triggers a particular set of responses by reflex and if I had my way it would be stricken.  I'd prefer to talk about boundaries, prompts, structures.

[TonyLB]

Uh... okay.  So, if you've prepared a puzzle, and you have written yourself (as GM) into such a corner that you cannot continue play until that puzzle is solved, how would you describe that?

[contracycle]

Uh... okay.  So, if you've prepared a puzzle, and you have written yourself (as GM) into such a corner that you cannot continue play until that puzzle is solved, how would you describe that?

A chokepoint, or a gateway or similar.

It can be described structurally without the critical moral connotations implied by railroading.  The fetishization of player freedom hampers constructive and purposeful deployment of colour and staging, IMO.

[TonyLB]

Ohhhhh... you're objecting because you read the term "railroading" as implying that creating such a chokepoint in the game is an act of evil.  That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that creating such a chokepoint in the game is an act of incompetence.  It's not bad, just stupid.

[Graham W]

Ohhhhh... you're objecting because you read the term "railroading" as implying that creating such a chokepoint in the game is an act of evil.  That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that creating such a chokepoint in the game is an act of incompetence.  It's not bad, just stupid.

Well, hang on, I don't agree with that. There's essentially nothing wrong with setting the players a problem and not proceeding until it's solved (which I think was how chokepoint was defined above).

And I think it's a valid GM-ing style (though not one I'd enjoy) to refuse to let the players proceed until they're got the right answer.

I think, in this thread, we've just identified a few different ways of handling puzzles. Set up a puzzle and wait for the players to find the correct answer; set up a puzzle, have a correct answer in mind, but be prepared for the players to circumvent it; set up a puzzle, don't have a solution in mind and go with whatever the players suggest. There's nothing essentially wrong with any of them (although I have some strong preferences between them).

Graham

[xenopulse]

And I think it's a valid GM-ing style (though not one I'd enjoy) to refuse to let the players proceed until they're got the right answer.

Well--any GM style could be considered "valid." The question is, what is the purpose of this technique, and does it fulfill its purpose well in specific instances of play?

As I said above, I believe that the purpose of puzzles is to provide enjoyable adversity to the players.

That means, however, that if the players get frustrated over not getting it right, the puzzle has failed its purpose. It hasn't made the game fun; it's made the game unfun.

Too many people get caught up in these preconceived notions of how RPGs should be played and what techniques are "proper" to use, and they ignore the basic underlying idea: The techniques serve a purpose. They are not a purpose in themselves. There is no "right way" and no "right techniques" for everybody. It's all about enjoying the game.

Therefore, a chokepoint is only advisable if the players enjoy it. It is possible that you have a whole group of players who like puzzles with just one right answer and who will gladly spend an hour trying to figure out what you thought was the one correct answer, even if their answers make logical sense and are creative. However, if you see that (as I've seen in most of the games I ever participated in) players see this as a waste of their time and get frustrated, because they think *their* solution *should* work even if it's not yours, well then you're doing something wrong.

Remember: for many people, a big draw of RPGs is that anything is possible, and that people are not limited to single solution problems. When I first started playing, that blew my mind--I thought, "Wow, this is why this is so much more fun than a computer game could ever be. There is no set of options to choose from; it's all open for us to make our own solutions. Anything can happen." That's the sense of wonder that RPGs bring, and it's also the part that's violated when you bring in single-solution problems.

[Gamskee]

There is nothing inherently wrong with putting in a chokepoint puzzle as long as it serves its purpose for the game and results in fun.

So, if the frustration/fun prevention that the puzzle provides is in excess of the amount of fun it provides, its probably not worth it. I think in a gamist mode, with the whole social competition aspect in play, even if the puzzle causes initial frustration, it may be a worthwhile pay off for being the one to solve it.

My only problem with puzzles is that I generally don't come to a game for them. I'll pick up a mensa approved book of puzzles and riddles if I want that experience.

Deadlands: The Weird West has a great deal of puzzle monsters in it. Most of the time, a good deal of the events that created the horror happen to reveal its weakness. Some of the monsters had multiple weakness' in this vein, probably to prevent players from completely missing it.

[TonyLB]

I just don't see why you wouldn't include an option for the players (and by extension their characters) to fail.

If the players are going to have fun, solve the puzzle, and move on then having a failure option loses you nothing.  If they're going to get frustrated, cease to have fun, and generally get unhappy then having a failure-with-fun option saves you a lot of heart-ache.

Throw 'em in a dank, dark dungeon.  Force 'em to face the hangman's noose at morning.  Make 'em retreat in a humiliating rout from an enemy whose weakness they didn't figure out.  These things keep the game moving in the worst case.  How can having such a back-up plan be bad?

Seriously... maybe I've overlooked something.  Maybe there's a reason to halt the game until the players figure things out, and not to give any alternative to figuring it out (except ending the game).  So, what's the reason?

[Graham W]

Well, basically, Tony, I agree with you.

But what I'm saying is that I can imagine a GM who, in the course of an adventure, will set puzzles for his players. He's a good enough GM so his puzzles are always solvable but he won't put up with anything except the correct answer.

Eventually, his players always get the right answer (but sometimes only after they've sweated over it for a while). He's never had the problem that the players just can't think of the answer. (Perhaps he picks problems with a limited solution set, such as that anagram above.)

And I can imagine that being fun and the players enjoying it. And, also, I can imagine the players feeling let down if the GM let them get away with anything but the correct answer.