Word puzzles worked with some groups I've been with. Funny enough, I had a puzzle in a temple of a god one of my players was a cleric of. The phase was one the player made up himself a few sessons earlier and I wrote it down. Once they got to the puzzle, no one could figure out the puzzle and never thought "Temple of Ze'hi? What would the cleric of Ze'hi know of this phase?"
This is my default response to all puzzles as a player.
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
My group's response to word puzzles is to apply explosives until the word puzzle is no longer needed. Blow up the wall, drop a grenade down the bouncer's pants, crash a star ship into the temple who's door won't open, etc.
Puzzles so much depends on the group and the time and phase of the moon.. I can enjoy them or I can just stare at them blankly and offer no help.
I think Puzzles make poor gatekeepers. I think they could make decent distractions, especially where we have a bunch of down time for individual members.
So toss a puzzle into combat where every round it does something that makes life for the heroes harder but not insurmountable. People are free to work out an answer while they wait for the rest of the table to do their combat bits but on their turn just do their combat bits while others work on the puzzle.
Not very simulation-y but I care not a fig for that.
I did a puzzle where each block had a symbol of a God on it. The safe path was going through the spaces with the season gods on it (It was in the Vault of Time). The wizard decided to take the creatures fighting them and control one of them and walk him around the board until something bad happen and grab the next. The team basically just held the other monsters in place until a safe path was found...
My one experience setting up a puzzle for the PCs to solve went over well with the PCs at the time, but it frustrated me as a GM to no end because I had to wait for them to solve it before I progressed to the next scene...
Yeah, I don't really do the whole "puzzle" thing when I GM.
EDIT: A potentially more interesting approach would be to give the puzzle out at the end of the session and have them try to solve it before the next session, but that would go down the route of "player homework", which some groups don't like. Then again, some groups consider spending XP for basic level-ups/abilities as homework, so...
Again, my players like the puzzle. I didn't like it as a GM.
Hahnsoo1 on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I'd rather give mysteries then puzzles. Throw out some hints about something and let the players chew on that. And while they express their wild and exotic theories, they also can do some word building for you.
I had a puzzle that required the players to have collected a variety of goblets and cups while exploring the dungeon. Easy enough, just make sure they were all made out of valuable metals!
There was a riddle they had to solve where they had to match each drinking vessel to a corresponding statue (each statue was of a different race).
Did I mention the room they were in was also sealed and filling up with high-proof dwarven liquor?
I'd rather give mysteries then puzzles. Throw out some hints about something and let the players chew on that. And while they express their wild and exotic theories, they also can do some word building for you.
Agreed. Tracking down clues, following up on leads, forming theories, all without any dependence on reading the DM's mind and the frustration it brings. If the mystery is good you can spend the entire session (or adventure!) on it.
I have stolen puzzles liberally from the God of War series of video games for use in my D&D dungeon crawls. Sometimes with combat attached, and sometimes not. They seemed to work out quite well in my group. Simple enough, with direct and immediate results.
My players have never tried to just throw dice at the problem from the get go, and if they did I would call them out as the geese they are being. But if they gave the puzzles an honest try though I would absolutely give them hints/help via dice rolls when I see that are genuinely stuck/frustrated/not in the mood.
+1
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
My issue with puzzles is that they make no sense.
Why would anyone who built a dungeon make opening a door contingent on solving a puzzle when they can just lock it?
+2
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Why would anyone who built a dungeon make opening a door contingent on solving a puzzle when they can just lock it?
Because it's alright for some things in the game to be gamey
I mean if that's not your style then okay, but I enjoy putting gamey things into my games. I design boss encounters like I'm playing WoW for instance, with unique mechanics in them and as such each fight resembles a combat and a puzzle mashed together and it's obviously contrived but my players have a lot of fun with it (and god knows I love to design them) so that's really what counts.
Disclaimer : this is just an opinion and I'm sure a lot of groups can have fun with puzzles
I really hate puzzles as a player but mainly puzzles that you end up solving out of character using your personnal knowledge and that require solving in order to advance the story. Puzzles included in a boss fight can be great but if I have to fart around for an hour to solve a puzzle that opens a door and all of it pretty much happens out of character..it takes me right out of the game. No offense to GMs wanting to create puzzles but if I want to solve some puzzles I'm sure I can find a better medium for me to solve some than a D&D game.
Losing half a game on solving a riddle? No fun at all there. Character interaction goes out the window and none of my character abilities matter.. I play TTRPG to play a character afterall.
Dwarves hate keys. They are always losing them. Puzzles they like so it's natural that they would build puzzles instead of locks.
Duh.
Hmmm. To riff off of this:
Maybe Dwarves are religiously proscribed from using locks, but their clerics have determined that puzzles don't count because of the technicality that there are no keys?
That would be for Orthodox Moradinites, obviously. The Reform Moradinites likely don't care.
Dwarves hate keys. They are always losing them. Puzzles they like so it's natural that they would build puzzles instead of locks.
Duh.
Hmmm. To riff off of this:
Maybe Dwarves are religiously proscribed from using locks, but their clerics have determined that puzzles don't count because of the technicality that there are no keys?
That would be for Orthodox Moradinites, obviously. The Reform Moradinites likely don't care.
It's totally okay to make head gestures to gnomes to get them to apply a key to a hole.
+2
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
There is a very good puzzle in Eternal Lies where the players need to use landmarks and string to work out where an unmarked grave was.
Anyone ever run a game loosely based on Uncharted before? Is this a bad idea, a good idea, or somewhere in between?
Also looking for feedback on Leverage system (e.g. would it work for this).
Kind of. I've run a modern day Indiana Jones type thing with more gunplay (which I guess is Uncharted/Tomb Raider). Used Fate, pretty vanilla, with only a few minor skill alterations (I think we split crafts into ancient knowledge and mechanics). Lots of traps, a few puzzles (put this stone here, kind of thing), some shootouts, and lots of wise-ass conversations. Only had 3 players, but they went mostly the stereotypical route (thug with some tech and ancient knowledge, university professor who can't fight a lick, trusty sidekick who can talk his way in and out of trouble). It was a good time. I did use the Leverage-esque setting from one of the Fate Worlds book for some of the ideas (designing the final vault).
It was a lot of fun. More work than some games because you had to plan out the landscape more than I normally would in a Fate game.
I've never played the Leverage game, but the system is Cortex Plus and I would imagine it would work well. I've only played a Cortex game a couple times and I didn't like it as much as I liked Fate, but obviously your mileage can vary. It's a pretty adaptable system and with the modernness of the show you could probably get it to work out of the box easily enough.
It was a lot of fun. More work than some games because you had to plan out the landscape more than I normally would in a Fate game.
I've never played the Leverage game, but the system is Cortex Plus and I would imagine it would work well. I've only played a Cortex game a couple times and I didn't like it as much as I liked Fate, but obviously your mileage can vary. It's a pretty adaptable system and with the modernness of the show you could probably get it to work out of the box easily enough.
Sorry to be so long to fire back. We're winding down our long Exalted game and need a change of pace. I've got the first run of GM for whatever we decide on. I've played with the Leverage engine (Cortex Plus is so close to Fate that I don't see any particular advantage in using the Fate Core rules over Cortex Plus, and Leverage is already designed to support the modus operandi I want to enforce), but never actually GMed for it. Anything likely to trip me up with it?
I've got a basic idea for what I want to do plot arc wise and I doubt I'll have much trouble ripping off Uncharted, The Librarians, Indiana Jones, and Tomb Raider (and some other more obscure stuff) for episodic stuff.
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
No one's really particular to the forthcoming Mage: The Awakening 2e, I hope? I'm brainstorming a PBP game, but I'd rather stick with 1e and the Free Council being part of the pentacle because them going Gangrel is kind of dumb.
It was part of the Pentacle but not the Diamond in 1e
The difference is that in 1e the Diamond was not really an important political distinction before whereas now it is, and the Free Council can expand as a result of being the group that Mages join when they just want to join a group for mutual benefits and a chance for their voice to be heard.
If your Mage doesn't have an ideology that specifically matches the rather specific order ideologies, then they used to be shit out of luck, whereas now they join the Free Council, because while it does have a few hard core sects, most of it's membership is made up of Mages who don't have some sort of all consuming perspective on reality like the Adamantine Arrow and Guardians of the Veil and so on do.
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
The Diamond Orders are the ones that claim decent from Atlantis, the Pentacle are a group of orders opposed to the seers. It's one of the things the core book doesn't make clear but the Arrow book talks a little bit about the Nameless War which was a three way war between the nameless orders that would become the FC, the Seers, and the Diamond Orders. Apparently there is still tension from that because there are masters who are old enough to have fought in it still a live on both sides and lots of students of said masters.
The three big factions of Mage society are the Diamond, the Free Council, and the Seers of the Throne. The Diamond and the Free Council form an alliance against the Seers called the Pentacle.
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Ah. I figured it meant the FC left the Pentacle and were now doing their own thing, but with an informal alliance, like the Gangrel after they left the Camarilla.
Why would anyone who built a dungeon make opening a door contingent on solving a puzzle when they can just lock it?
A long time ago my group got stumped by an especially hard puzzle.
In the end I had to have an NPC step in, because no Player got the idea to pull on the door instead of pushing it.
(yes, I should probably just have skipped over it or let them try a DC 1 Int check... but it was really funny for everyone involved!)
Gokerz on
+1
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Leaning towards Detroit as the setting, likely necromancy/Moros-oriented.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Puzzles are fine if they are either only one of many possible paths through the adventure or if solving them will lead to some bigger than usual reward. They are generally huge resource sinks either way so it's good to use them sparingly in my experience.
Me and my girlfriend like playing boardgames together and we've been interested in getting the D&D5e starter, but don't have a regular group to play with.
Me and my girlfriend like playing boardgames together and we've been interested in getting the D&D5e starter, but don't have a regular group to play with.
Vincent Baker's Murderous Ghosts is explicitly a two-player game
One person is the explorer, the other is the GM who controls the murderous ghosts
It's also pretty beginner-friendly since there's a book that outlines how to play the game, step by step
good intro-to-story-gamin'
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Promethean the Created is almost the perfect game for a narrative driven 1on1 roleplaying experience. It is one of few RPGs that specifically discourages needing groups of players.
Call of Cthulhu can be an excellent 2 person vehicle for fun and madness. The claustrophobia of a haunted house scenario works very well with one investigator (maybe with a player run secretary/assistant to cover whichever skill bases the investigator lacks and to die horribly when the rats and/or tentacles come out of the walls).
Muddypaws on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited October 2014
Oddly enough, a 1on1 Call of Cthulhu or Trail of Cthulhu game would actually be more Lovecraftian than the groups of investigators both games normally assume (Which is more like Derleth's stories). I also think that would work really well.
Marvel Heroics could also be played with player/GM, which seems more comic-like really. Hell, someone even did a "Choose your own Adventure" Event in which only one person was needed to play.
Posts
This is my default response to all puzzles as a player.
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
"I make an intel/whatever check".
"You don't pass it."
Until someone gives in.
I think Puzzles make poor gatekeepers. I think they could make decent distractions, especially where we have a bunch of down time for individual members.
So toss a puzzle into combat where every round it does something that makes life for the heroes harder but not insurmountable. People are free to work out an answer while they wait for the rest of the table to do their combat bits but on their turn just do their combat bits while others work on the puzzle.
Not very simulation-y but I care not a fig for that.
Yeah, I don't really do the whole "puzzle" thing when I GM.
EDIT: A potentially more interesting approach would be to give the puzzle out at the end of the session and have them try to solve it before the next session, but that would go down the route of "player homework", which some groups don't like. Then again, some groups consider spending XP for basic level-ups/abilities as homework, so...
Again, my players like the puzzle. I didn't like it as a GM.
There was a riddle they had to solve where they had to match each drinking vessel to a corresponding statue (each statue was of a different race).
Did I mention the room they were in was also sealed and filling up with high-proof dwarven liquor?
Agreed. Tracking down clues, following up on leads, forming theories, all without any dependence on reading the DM's mind and the frustration it brings. If the mystery is good you can spend the entire session (or adventure!) on it.
My players have never tried to just throw dice at the problem from the get go, and if they did I would call them out as the geese they are being. But if they gave the puzzles an honest try though I would absolutely give them hints/help via dice rolls when I see that are genuinely stuck/frustrated/not in the mood.
Why would anyone who built a dungeon make opening a door contingent on solving a puzzle when they can just lock it?
Because they are serious assholes.
Because it's alright for some things in the game to be gamey
I mean if that's not your style then okay, but I enjoy putting gamey things into my games. I design boss encounters like I'm playing WoW for instance, with unique mechanics in them and as such each fight resembles a combat and a puzzle mashed together and it's obviously contrived but my players have a lot of fun with it (and god knows I love to design them) so that's really what counts.
Gooses. That's who.
Duh.
Classism.
If you don't know the difference between the magical equivalent of boat shoes then we don't want you in our club.
Of course if you, well then that's jolly good old boy come right in.
I really hate puzzles as a player but mainly puzzles that you end up solving out of character using your personnal knowledge and that require solving in order to advance the story. Puzzles included in a boss fight can be great but if I have to fart around for an hour to solve a puzzle that opens a door and all of it pretty much happens out of character..it takes me right out of the game. No offense to GMs wanting to create puzzles but if I want to solve some puzzles I'm sure I can find a better medium for me to solve some than a D&D game.
Losing half a game on solving a riddle? No fun at all there. Character interaction goes out the window and none of my character abilities matter.. I play TTRPG to play a character afterall.
Like the lost vault of an ancient, fallen kingdom might be keyed with a puzzle that the rulers figured one of their heirs might one day solve.
Sometimes you don't just want a key, you want a test.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Hmmm. To riff off of this:
Maybe Dwarves are religiously proscribed from using locks, but their clerics have determined that puzzles don't count because of the technicality that there are no keys?
"The only real politics I knew was that if a guy liked Hitler, I’d beat the stuffing out of him and that would be it." -- Jack Kirby
It's totally okay to make head gestures to gnomes to get them to apply a key to a hole.
Also looking for feedback on Leverage system (e.g. would it work for this).
Kind of. I've run a modern day Indiana Jones type thing with more gunplay (which I guess is Uncharted/Tomb Raider). Used Fate, pretty vanilla, with only a few minor skill alterations (I think we split crafts into ancient knowledge and mechanics). Lots of traps, a few puzzles (put this stone here, kind of thing), some shootouts, and lots of wise-ass conversations. Only had 3 players, but they went mostly the stereotypical route (thug with some tech and ancient knowledge, university professor who can't fight a lick, trusty sidekick who can talk his way in and out of trouble). It was a good time. I did use the Leverage-esque setting from one of the Fate Worlds book for some of the ideas (designing the final vault).
It was a lot of fun. More work than some games because you had to plan out the landscape more than I normally would in a Fate game.
I've never played the Leverage game, but the system is Cortex Plus and I would imagine it would work well. I've only played a Cortex game a couple times and I didn't like it as much as I liked Fate, but obviously your mileage can vary. It's a pretty adaptable system and with the modernness of the show you could probably get it to work out of the box easily enough.
I've got a basic idea for what I want to do plot arc wise and I doubt I'll have much trouble ripping off Uncharted, The Librarians, Indiana Jones, and Tomb Raider (and some other more obscure stuff) for episodic stuff.
The difference is that in 1e the Diamond was not really an important political distinction before whereas now it is, and the Free Council can expand as a result of being the group that Mages join when they just want to join a group for mutual benefits and a chance for their voice to be heard.
If your Mage doesn't have an ideology that specifically matches the rather specific order ideologies, then they used to be shit out of luck, whereas now they join the Free Council, because while it does have a few hard core sects, most of it's membership is made up of Mages who don't have some sort of all consuming perspective on reality like the Adamantine Arrow and Guardians of the Veil and so on do.
The Diamond Orders are the ones that claim decent from Atlantis, the Pentacle are a group of orders opposed to the seers. It's one of the things the core book doesn't make clear but the Arrow book talks a little bit about the Nameless War which was a three way war between the nameless orders that would become the FC, the Seers, and the Diamond Orders. Apparently there is still tension from that because there are masters who are old enough to have fought in it still a live on both sides and lots of students of said masters.
A long time ago my group got stumped by an especially hard puzzle.
In the end I had to have an NPC step in, because no Player got the idea to pull on the door instead of pushing it.
(yes, I should probably just have skipped over it or let them try a DC 1 Int check... but it was really funny for everyone involved!)
Me and my girlfriend like playing boardgames together and we've been interested in getting the D&D5e starter, but don't have a regular group to play with.
Vincent Baker's Murderous Ghosts is explicitly a two-player game
One person is the explorer, the other is the GM who controls the murderous ghosts
It's also pretty beginner-friendly since there's a book that outlines how to play the game, step by step
good intro-to-story-gamin'
(Sorry, couldn't resist)