The Puzzle Problem Paridigm

[Terquem]

How do you handle puzzles in your games? I've have had players of many different opinions over the years, some like them and think it is fine if a smart player solves a puzzle a less smart character might not be able to understand, while I have also had players who will not even try to solve a puzzle and demand that a roll of the dice for success or failure is the only right way to represent in-game puzzles.

[Skarg]

I like clever interesting puzzles, and mysterious unsolved puzzles, clues and (often false) rumors, but mainly only when they exist as things that are there as part of the game situation, and may or may not be solved or even examined, and which may or may not have any sort of benefit to solving, as makes sense in the situation.

I like a game world that has a history or sequence of events that leads to the current situation and so leaves interesting unexplained details and perhaps puzzles such as artifacts, ruins, mysteries, hidden resources, that exist and behave rationally, more than I like "there's a puzzle thing here, because the GM thinks it's cool and wants the players to have to figure it out."

If the game is essentially stopped or the PCs are artificially required to solve some puzzle, then I tend to dislike that.

I like it when the players are naturally curious about mysterious things in the game world to whatever degree they naturally are, and do their own investigations and reach whatever conclusions and solutions (or not) however they naturally do.

I like to put down a situation that's interesting and makes sense, and may or may not have any puzzle elements, and then see how the PCs react to it and how it plays out.

[JLV]

I think it's a question of gamer taste. Personally, I like clever puzzles for the characters/players to think about (riddle games, and the like), but some players simply can't stand them or don't think that way, so they hate them. I'd say if my group had a majority of people who liked them, I'd give a few out, but make sure there's something for the ones who dislike them to do at the same time; and if the majority of my gamers didn't like them, I wouldn't use them, or I'd resolve them with a dice roll to move things along. There's no point in frustrating the players with things like that.

[Shostak]

This is an interesting issue. I love playing characters who, if the dice roll favorably, are physically or magically capable of things that would be impossible for me, but I don’t find it fun to resolve mental challenges like puzzles with dice rolls. This is especially true for beginning TFT characters, many of whom may have an IQ of less than 10, making it unlikely that they will succeed on any particular IQ roll. However, having a character not be able to solve problems because the player can’t doesn’t sound too fun, either.

In games with mysteries or puzzles, it seems best to borrow a page from GUMSHOE: the GM simply has to find ways to make certain that the players get the clues--and maybe even the solution--no matter what, preferably while making it seem like the characters are earning/solving them. For instance, if the adventure demands that the PCs be able to solve a murder for the game to progress, the GM has to be able to improvise how they acquire the requisite clues in consideration of their abilities and who could use a little spotlight time. So, while the clues are going to be found no matter what, who finds them and how can still be played out and therefore more fun than “Okay, gimme a roll v IQ to figure it out.”

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Shostak

This is an interesting issue. I love playing characters who, if the dice roll favorably, are physically or magically capable of things that would be impossible for me, but I don’t find it fun to resolve mental challenges like puzzles with dice rolls. This is especially true for beginning TFT characters, many of whom may have an IQ of less than 10, making it unlikely that they will succeed on any particular IQ roll. However, having a character not be able to solve problems because the player can’t doesn’t sound too fun, either.

In games with mysteries or puzzles, it seems best to borrow a page from GUMSHOE: the GM simply has to find ways to make certain that the players get the clues--and maybe even the solution--no matter what, preferably while making it seem like the characters are earning/solving them. For instance, if the adventure demands that the PCs be able to solve a murder for the game to progress, the GM has to be able to improvise how they acquire the requisite clues in consideration of their abilities and who could use a little spotlight time. So, while the clues are going to be found no matter what, who finds them and how can still be played out and therefore more fun than “Okay, gimme a roll v IQ to figure it out.”

Honestly, that's the mechanism that most of us probably use when ensuring the players accomplish something without being too obvious about it (the Gumshoe method, I mean). I was awfully glad when I saw Gumshoe make it an actual part of the rules, as opposed to "secret GM advice" for the first time (at least to my knowledge). In fact, I retrofitted that particular rule into pretty much EVERY CoC scenario and any other scenarios in any other game that seemed to call for it.

I also use the "three opportunities" rule in order to ensure there are mutliple venues for the players to gather the necessary clues from, though (because, sometimes, players just refuse to go where the clues would logically be -- "I'm going to the newspaper morgue! (It's in the hotel room where the murder occurred...); "I'm going to see if I can bribe someone to let me access police records!" (It's in the hotel room where the murder occurred...); "I'm going to question Dawkins -- that old bum down by the docks to see what he knows!" (It's in the hotel room where the murder occurred...)...

Well, you get the picture...we've all had groups like that! ;-) Using the "three opportunities" method however, the necessary clue might be in all four of those locations though, so problem solved.

But, having said all that, I THINK the question posed by the OP was more focused on whether or not you give them actual puzzles (like those old computer games 7th Guest or Myst and the like) that they have to figure out without any (or with very minimal) extraneous clues. The broader question of assuring necessary information availability (i.e., clue finding and accessibility) may beyond the scope of what the OP was looking for...

[Terquem]

JLV has the point of it. It is those sorts of math, logic, or geometry style puzzles you sometimes see in games that give me the most trouble. The sort of puzzle that is meant to be complex and difficult to solve, but that characters can somehow solve them.

[hcobb]

How about the reverse where a PC has say the perfect spell to deal with a situation but the player doesn't get it. Would you roll against the PC's IQ to suggest back to the player what they're overlooking?

[Skarg]

Whether it's a puzzle, combat, or other situation, I like the game to have a situation and I like it to be up to the players and how things happen during play to determine what happens, who figures out what, who dies, what gets attention and what gets ignored, etc.

I tend not to like anything that must happen, or at least not to pretend like it is part of the dynamic play if it really isn't.

If a puzzle really must be solved, then the Gumshoe approach works, but I'd rather the GM be able to play out whatever the players do or fail at and still have an interesting game happen based on whatever occurs.

Originally Posted by hcobb

How about the reverse where a PC has say the perfect spell to deal with a situation but the player doesn't get it. Would you roll against the PC's IQ to suggest back to the player what they're overlooking?

Usually not, but sometimes - it depends.

I estimate each player's grasp of the situation compared to their PC. If there's a glaring difference between what I think the character should probably realize, and what the player is or isn't having the character do/realize, then I sometimes roll IQ for the character to see if the character knows better or worse than the player.

The reverse applies for the IQ 8 character whose player comes up with the answer to some situation using their own high IQ/knowledge/experience.