The Tao of D&D

[You can read today's post on Authentic Adventures Inc. here]


I hate puzzles in RPG game play.

These are a beloved part of the traditional game, but I absolutely feel that if anyone wants to improve their game, get rid of them.  They kill momentum; no action can take place until the puzzle is solved, if the puzzle is in the way.  They reward individual, instead of group achievement, as usually they are solved by One person, and usually the same person (one who has a mind that applies to puzzle-solving).  For every player who is fascinated and excited by the puzzle, four other players will be sitting around, silently and politely thinking, "I wish we could just get past this part."

I don't want players in my game thinking they're hating any part of my setting.  I don't need puzzles to gain their attention; I have far better options than puzzles; and fundamentally, people who like puzzles have hundreds of other game sources than can turn to if they want to scratch that itch.  RPGs are not predicated on the inclusion of puzzles.

Some DMs gets a facile sort of thrill from inventing puzzles that they do not have to solve; but which, during game play, feeds the DM's ego in that the DM knows the solution.  I cannot see any other motivation for a DM defending the use of puzzles.  I myself don't feel any ego-boost.  When I tried puzzles, in my early games, I despised the time I spent waiting for the players to stumble through a solution ~ which I often had to give in some manner, through clues or outright, because the players would be stuck.  This was double the time wasted: first, 20-40 minutes of the players banging their head against the puzzle, and the fact that the puzzle served no purpose at all, since I had to solve it for them.  Because of this, I ditched puzzles from my game.  I have never had a player say, "Gee Alexis, I wish your game had more puzzles."

Many people misunderstand the structure and function of puzzle-solving in game play, confusing them with mystery solving.  Mysteries and thrillers function on a premise that even if you don't know the solution to the mystery, the narrative can still continue.  If a party is stuck in front of a door, because the puzzle for opening the door hasn't been solved yet, there is no narrative.  This is absolute death for the players.

With mysteries, a wide variety of people enjoy the spectacle of having someone else solve them.  We are happy to listen to Sherlock Holmes or Poirrot walk us through the mechanics of a murder, because solving the mystery ourselves is incidental.  Some may feel the compulsion; but most of us are comfortable as long as the mystery is solved by the end ... and we know it will be solved, because that is the contract implicit in the narrative.

An RPG mystery should work the same way.  So long as the players move through the narrative collecting clues, in whatever order, and achieving whatever pattern, the adventure should be constructed so that the mystery Will achieve its solution with the last piece.  This steals nothing from the player's experience.  Momentum was maintained, they did their part in gathering clues and braving dangers ... and the pleasure of anticipating the solution of the mystery is ultimately rewarded.  Insisting that the players "solve" anything is a waste of effort in design; and no part of the narrative's momentum should ever rely on the players' timeliness in this regard.  We need to get out of the headspace that the players are expected to be police detectives.

They may be detectives if they so wish ... but it is critically important that they don't have to be.  They should, so long as they act the part of Dr. Watson, enjoy the revelation Watson enjoyed without having to be the source of it.  After all, Arthur Conan Doyle understood clearly that his readers would not identify with the detective, but they Would identify with the doctor.

Take wisdom from that.