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.

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.

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."

TonyLB wrote:
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.

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.

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

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...").

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.

Sean wrote:
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.

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

TonyLB wrote:
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.

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

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.")

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?

rafial wrote: 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?

Balbinus wrote:

TonyLB wrote:
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.

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.

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

Callan wrote:
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.

Callan wrote:
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.

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.

Callan wrote:
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.

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.

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.

contracycle wrote:
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.

contracycle wrote:
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. 

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?

Callan wrote:
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?

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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

contracycle wrote:
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.

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.

contracycle wrote:
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.

TonyLB wrote:
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.

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?

TonyLB wrote:
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?

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.

TonyLB wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

The reason GM's often don't build in a 'failure with fun' option is because they have made their own address of challenge. And they want to express it...by players fumbling around until they find this brilliant address and say it themselves. By that awkward, painful process the GM will then feel the players 'really get' his method of thinking. In my own case I'd say there was a touch of immersion involved, where I thought "Why don't they get exactly how the world works" rather than thinking "Why don't they get me?"

It's hard to create a problem without actually thinking of a solution yourself. And it's hard not to fall in love with your own solution. When the players try to solve the challenge in a different way...the GM himself feels the pangs of force (He feels he is being forced to take up their solution, when he's made an address of his own). This often results in quite unpleasant reactions from the resource rich GM.

You get this in narrativism (typhoid mary syndrome), but not as often because PC's are often treated more the property of a given player. A problem however, is usually treated as a shared property.

TonyLB wrote:
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.

TonyLB wrote:
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.

So the definition of a chokepoint seems to be, in this thread, a point at which the characters must achieve something particular before they can persue their goal(s). The most common example of this is a puzzle on which the pursuit of a particular goal depends, such as the Sphinx's riddle - although the downside need not always be death, just defeat.

I don't see a problem with this, a long as the chokepoint doesn't bloke all the PCs' goals.

If it does, then failure means the end of the game. Is this really an acceptable outcome?

If it doesn't then it's not so much a chokepoint as a reality check, "You thought you could do anything, well you can't. It's time to re-evaluate your priorities".

GB wrote:
If it does, then failure means the end of the game. Is this really an acceptable outcome?

Balbinus wrote: Anyway, I disagree, and strongly.  A chokepoint makes sense if the group derive pleasure in part from the knowledge that on any individual scenario they may fail utterly, they may simply lose.

Not necessary for STORY.  I've already publicly renounced all claim on "story".  And as I have often remarked, the story paradigm is over-extended.

What we are talking about is a game, and in a game it is legitimate to say, you must solve this problem to get to the next level, or to get the goody.  And as I have already pointed out, that can be solved at the game level rather than the character level by penalising the player a resource for failing to solve the puzzle themselves.

TonyLB wrote:

Balbinus wrote: Anyway, I disagree, and strongly.  A chokepoint makes sense if the group derive pleasure in part from the knowledge that on any individual scenario they may fail utterly, they may simply lose.

Sure, I agree with that (and said so).  But what about the chokepoint where failure isn't an option that the GM will allow?  What about situations where the GM presents a question, and then just stops the game dead in its tracks until the players do the one thing necessary for his story?

Balbinus wrote:

GB wrote:
If it does, then failure means the end of the game. Is this really an acceptable outcome?

To me personally, no, I wouldn't design a scenario that way.

But I can see how it could be desirable, it might be worth having some games simply end in failure if the result is that the games which succeed are even more fun because the players know how lousy it is when they fail.

Balbinus wrote: I think if the GM stops the game there and says "ok guys, you failed, I guess that's it for tonight, anyone want to play some Star Munchkin?" then we're into the territory of it may be worth one failed game to improve the games overall.

Balbinus wrote: If the GM forces you to keep bashing away even though you've evidently failed then I get left behind, the first option isn't me but makes sense to me.  The second just seems really kind of dispiriting.

contracycle wrote:
And as I have already pointed out, that can be solved at the game level rather than the character level by penalising the player a resource for failing to solve the puzzle themselves.

TonyLB wrote:
[Y]ou'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

TonyLB wrote:
My question:  "Is there any value to making a puzzle (or, more generally, a test) and not having any option to continue or conclude play until the test is passed?"  What do you think?

GB wrote:

Balbinus wrote: I think if the GM stops the game there and says "ok guys, you failed, I guess that's it for tonight, anyone want to play some Star Munchkin?" then we're into the territory of it may be worth one failed game to improve the games overall.

Do you mean "failed game"? Is the failure of the PCs to achieve their goals a failure of the game, time that might have been better spent doing something else? Or is this just shorthand?

Tony: Well one benefit is that the GM's hand crafted work isn't skipped idly. One could design things so the puzzle is re-occuring, or can be returned to and attempted another time. However, that may be disatisfying if you would like a focus on in a particular area, but at the same time that cool puzzle in the goblin caves never really got engaged (the one you put effort into). You don't get to just employ the puzzle and move on to new things.

It also lacks a certain "Bam, challenge in your face!" attitude.

TonyLB wrote:
My question:  "Is there any value to making a puzzle (or, more generally, a test) and not having any option to continue or conclude play until the test is passed?"  What do you think?