[d&d4e] Puzzles in RPGs
Kevin Vito:
Quote from: FredGarber on September 22, 2009, 09:34:44 AM
Just an FYI, before you try this:
With four gnolls and four guards, and a two person canoe ? There is no "In the box" solution.
And the "standard" puzzle of 3x3 requires (at more than one point) two gnolls to row alone, and one to return alone to the guards with the canoe: not likely. There's even one point where all three gnolls are on the far side, and all three guards will be on the starting side.
I agree with the poster in the other thread that if my GM gave me a "standard" puzzle like this I would just roll an INT, and then go Google the answer.
-Fred
Heh. Yeah, I guess that's one of the problems with using puzzles in games. Sometimes the DM screws up and makes a broken puzzle. Heh. :) It's a good thing I haven't actually subjected any players to this yet. I'll get it fixed up somehow.
Callan S.:
I sat down with it and it works out
1. Player takes one gnoll to the other side
2. Player takes another gnoll (G2) to the other side. By strict wording of the puzzle, they attack when they are superior in numbers to PC on that side, and the PC is staying in the boat. He's not on that side! The wording doesn't describe them running off or anything, so they can be left there. Also it fits my imagination in that the player turfs the gnoll out of the boat and gets out of there pronto - but as I said before, I'm willing to patch the fiction to support the gamism. If you only want the fiction to happen how it'd just seem to happen...that's either sim or bitterest gamer territory.
3. Player takes another player (P2) to the other side. The both get out and now they equal the gnolls numbers, who are now co operative.
4. They send G1 back in the boat.
5. G1 brings over G3 in the boat. And lest we get onto the likelyhood of this, this is something that shits me - if someone says they're into the challenge, why, as soon as the fiction of the puzzle doesn't seem quite right, do they toss out the challenge? If they're doing that, in practical terms, they're not there for gamism. Preserving the integrity of the fiction has first priority with them, if they're doing that. And once it's first, gamism is not.
6. G3 is deposited on the other shore, where P1, P2 and G1 are. G3 is sent back again, because he's a filthy gnoll and can do all the work! >:)
7. G3 brings P3 over to the other side. There's just G4 and P4 on the other side now.
8. G3 brings G4 over.
9. G3 brings P4 over and then gets out himself. Ta da! Solveable! Where's my cookie!?
Callan S.:
That should be G1 being sent back in step 6 and doing all the work in the following steps. Gnolls...they all look alike, it's not hard to mix 'em up!
otspiii:
I don't really think the gnoll puzzle plays to the strengths of RPGs. It might be a fun puzzle to solve in a puzzle-book, but I think putting it in the context of an RPG just weakens it.
Callan, you're saying you don't understand why someone dedicated to the gamist agenda would try to come up with an alternate solution/'realistic' interpretation of the rules? I think it's because the gamist strength of roleplaying games is that they present more complicated situations than board games/puzzle books can. RPGs allow for 'outside the box' thinking because they give a human arbitrator who can take unexpected solutions to problems and use common sense to determine how well/poorly they work. If you discourage that kind of thinking you're minimizing the big advantage RPGs have over other puzzle-providing hobbies.
The other reason I think is that a big part of the gamist mindset is often a desire for maximum efficiency/power. This desire has a bad habit of encouraging min/maxing, breaking games, and taking the easy way out of puzzles, but it's not at its heart a bad thing. It's the desire to push forward, forward, forward. Burning passion and a desire for limitless expansion, pushing the limits of what you can do in a constant effort for self-betterment. The moment you start doing anything but the most effective solution to a problem you're limiting yourself unnecessarily, an action that's the antithesis of this desire. There's just something painful about having an effective and easy option hanging within reach, but then sitting down and taking the sub-optimal route because that's the way the GM wants you to do it.
It's a weird distinction, but I think 'Situations' are a lot better suited for RPGs than 'Puzzles', although there's so much overlap between the two it's a bit like drawing a distinction between being 'angry' and 'mad'. Basically, I think that rather than tossing a logic or sudoku or math puzzle at the party with a totally predetermined 'correct' answer it's better to just provide a situation that if handled poorly could be dangerous, and if handled well could provide benefit. The blood and sarcophagus/pit trap puzzles from earlier in the thread are good examples. They allow the players to keep approaching the game creatively and don't ask for any artificial reduction of efficiency. They take advantage of the fact that there's a GM sitting at the table that can understand complicated solutions, as opposed to the gnoll problem which a computer or answer-booklet could just as easily handle.
That said, 'not taking full advantage of the strengths of RPGs' isn't that bad of a crime. If the players all like puzzles like the gnoll boat thing and state beforehand that they'd enjoy a RP session that occasionally turns into a logic puzzle then you should absolutely put puzzles like that in. I've just seen a lot of trouble bubble up when the player's don't actively like that sort of thing (and not just because they're an 'imperfect gamist' or anything) and the GM just won't stop throwing that kind of puzzle at them. Although it can be really jarring to suddenly have the game for all intents and purposes stop being a RPG and turn into something else, it is something that lots of RPGs do. 4th ed D&D basically turns into a board game during combat, and this is fine, but only as long as it's something the players are aware of before-game and actively desire.
FredGarber:
Quote from: Callan S. on September 22, 2009, 02:19:47 PM
I sat down with it and it works out
2. Player takes another gnoll (G2) to the other side. By strict wording of the puzzle, they attack when they are superior in numbers to PC on that side, and the PC is staying in the boat. He's not on that side! The wording doesn't describe them running off or anything, so they can be left there. Also it fits my imagination in that the player turfs the gnoll out of the boat and gets out of there pronto - but as I said before, I'm willing to patch the fiction to support the gamism. If you only want the fiction to happen how it'd just seem to happen...that's either sim or bitterest gamer territory.
rings P4 over and then gets out himself. Ta da! Solveable! Where's my cookie!?
1. Gnolls are not Kobolds. They're seven foot tall hyena-men. Nobody's "Turfing" them out of a canoe, especially when they're religiously afraid of the water :)
2. Your solution depends upon bending the rules ("Stop biting, Mr. Gnoll! I'm in the boat, not on the shore!") as much as ignoring the canoe and building a raft does.
There's too much fiction you have to bend to get to the number crunching, for me. If I wanted to sit around and number crunch with people I'd stay at work :)
You get a bent cookie :)
-Fred
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page