I Just rolled a 35 on my Dungeon Solving Skill, now what?

[Rust]

While gaming last weekend I watched as my group spend a good 90min on explaining how they'd use rope and pitons to by-pass a series of pit traps. 

And while it was a clever, remarkable instance of abstract engineering, I asked myself, "Is this why we play a Fantasy game?"

Then people yelled at me for not paying attention. Yeah, I had tuned out from a game of engineering done by a paladin and two elf scouts.  And I know this issue has popped up here and there, but here's my question, as a player, to you GMs:

Would you allow a player to by-pass a puzzle or a complex series of pit traps with one simple role?  If yes, what role? If no, what detailed information do you require?

Example:
Lets say I have a mage with Int of 25 and we encounter a simple riddle. 
Would you allow the mage to solve it with a simple Int roll? Why/Why not?

Example:
Lets say I have a rogue with a backstab ability, would you allow me to do massive damage based on a simple dice roll without first detailing where she placed the blade?

[Rift]

Well I'm new to the forum and new to GMing and D&D altogether.  I would have to say that complex mechanics are not something I want to focus on, I came to D&D because I saw it as full of possibilities that video games limited only to graphics could never emulate.  I knew with pen and paper RPGs I could have someone play in a fantasy world of my own creation.

I guess its my stepson's age, but he doesn't focus on the mechanics much, as long as they work and I seem to know what I'm talking about when I explain them. However, I can see how it can become a pitfall as I myself am trying to make the game more complex.  I only got the Basic D&D game, with the rules as stripped down as it gets, but I kind of want to look into more rules as I would like the player to be able to do something like say, throw a grappling hook up a wall, pickpocket a passerby, ect.  I know that if I get the Players Handbook there will be rules for dice rolling those actions that have been thoroughly play tested, and I'm sure it would make the game more interesting.  I guess the trick of GMing complex rules is to pick the ones that have the least acrimony surrounding how they are used/understood.

[Carolina]

Tracy Hickman (of DRAGONLANCE fame) does an annual GenCon seminar on heroic roleplaying.

he relates his first time playing D&D, with a group of experienced players. He describes a similar encounter to the one you described, elaborate engineering just to open a dungeon door.

After watching one of these 90-minute "I'll rig an elaborate mechanism to avoid 1d4 dmg traps," he said to himself "the heck with this!"
 
The very next door the party encountered, he watched again as the party went into its engineering-avoidance mode, stepped forward and declared: "I'm a barbarian, I'm bashing open the door ...."

He then related how a kick=in-the door approach completely changed the makeup of the group. How they moved briskly through the dungeon, took on multiple monsters at a time, and most of all, had a wild time.

Not everyone likes this style of play, but nothing drags down a group faster than the 90-minute solve a puzzle approach.

His advice: If you can't resolve an encounter in 10 minutes, bash it, break it or leave it.

So in this case, I'd allow the single roll.

[Rust]

Welcome to the Forums Rift!

Check out Donjon.

[Telas]

Frankly the answers depend on whether or not it's fun for the group.  I'd imagine a gaming group at MIT would answer differently than a gaming group at Stoner State.  (Not to pick on one or the other...)

I enjoy riddles, but there's nothing worse than spinning your wheels for an hour over some poorly-worded amateur riddle.  I'd go with a Int check after 15 min or so.  I also enjoy problem solving, but not everyone does; as a GM, I try to recognize when the players are flailing and (most importantly) not enjoying themselves. 

Would you allow a player to by-pass a puzzle or a complex series of pit traps with one simple role?  If yes, what role? If no, what detailed information do you require?

No, not as such.  A combination of rolls, perhaps, with an intelligently given reason for them, and only if the party wasn't willing to actually do the gruntwork. 

Lets say I have a mage with Int of 25 and we encounter a simple riddle.
Would you allow the mage to solve it with a simple Int roll? Why/Why not?

Yes, but only if you weren't obviously into the riddle, if time was a factor, or if you've already given it your best, and "fell back" on the character's IQ.

Lets say I have a rogue with a backstab ability, would you allow me to do massive damage based on a simple dice roll without first detailing where she placed the blade?

Absolutely.  I don't require you to know everything the character does to play the game.  I'll just make it up if you don't: "You slip the dagger between his ribs, twisting it as you withdraw it.  Bright red blood - lung blood - burbles out and he coughs up more as he steps away from you."

[Rust]

Thanks for the Replies Telas and Carolina.

On a social contract level, how uncomfortable would it make you (or your group) if a player just said, "this challenge bores me-- you other players can do it, I'm going for a soda."  Would you feel judged? Insulted? Happy that they told you what they feel?

I know player preference controls quite a bit on how games are played.  What suggestions do you have on playing the game of communicating player preference?

[Telas]

As long as it's delivered in a pleasant tone and manner, I'd be very cool with it.  "Hey guys, this part really isn't my forte but y'all are digging it.  I'm going for a Coke while y'all sort it out.  Anyone want anything?" 

You're doing it wrong: "Goddamn it.  This sucks; I hate it when y'all pull this MacGyver B.S.  I'm gonna get a Coke; think you might possibly be done in the next hour?  (whiny teen voice)  I WOULD like to kill SOMETHING tonight..."   

[brcarl]

Telas has (again) covered the bases nicely.

I might only add that something to keep in mind in these "roll or not" situations is pacing.  Regardless of whether your players are MIT gear-heads or Stonerville kick-in-the-door types, most people don't like getting stuck.  If you've set something up to challenge the players (ie., no roll), but they've been churning for a while, throw them a bone.  Remember that the roll result could mean a lot of things: solve it and move on, or perhaps an INT check to give them a clue ("The wizard suddenly remembers...")

One rule of thumb I've heard is to only let the players churn for 10% of your session time before offering a hand.  So if game night is only scheduled to run for 4 hours, don't let them grind for more than about 25 minutes at a shot.  A personal corollary of mine is that after the first "bail out" you should probably reduce the "wait time."


As for your follow-up question, I would MUCH prefer that a player state their displeasure openly and in a tactful way than what you often see: either a) dysfunctional behavior like attacking other PCs or otherwise making the situation difficult for everyone, or b) passive-aggressive behavior like just sitting there disconnected, making dice towers.  Communication, even if painful at first, is better than wondering.

Besides, if you hear complaints about how certain things run, then you can adjust for the future.  Maybe only plan puzzle situations when the puzzle-haters are off for the night.

As for how to solicit player feedback with respect to preferances... you could just ask. Of course, many people don't respond well to that, so you're probably stuck with the tried-and-true method of observation: try some stuff and watch how the players react.  I always make a note of spending a short while after each session to notes "hits" and "misses" for each player (an excellent suggestion from Robin Laws, I believe).

[Rick_TWA]

Tracy Hickman (of DRAGONLANCE fame) does an annual GenCon seminar on heroic roleplaying.

he relates his first time playing D&D, with a group of experienced players. He describes a similar encounter to the one you described, elaborate engineering just to open a dungeon door.

After watching one of these 90-minute "I'll rig an elaborate mechanism to avoid 1d4 dmg traps," he said to himself "the heck with this!"
 
The very next door the party encountered, he watched again as the party went into its engineering-avoidance mode, stepped forward and declared: "I'm a barbarian, I'm bashing open the door ...."

He then related how a kick=in-the door approach completely changed the makeup of the group. How they moved briskly through the dungeon, took on multiple monsters at a time, and most of all, had a wild time.

Not everyone likes this style of play, but nothing drags down a group faster than the 90-minute solve a puzzle approach.

His advice: If you can't resolve an encounter in 10 minutes, bash it, break it or leave it.

So in this case, I'd allow the single roll.

I remember that Tracy Hickman wrote and article for dragon magazine based on this same story.  He was playing a barbarian and the rest of the party was what he refered to as "forensic gnomes" who took soil and mold samples in jars, checked every surface of every room meticulously, and drew elaborate maps with painstaking detail.  He then relates how he got sick of this and bashed down a door, alarming the gnome players, and proceeded to run through the whole dungeon, smashing door after door to tinder without regard to what was in them or the gnomes who ran after him, pleading with him to stop.

After I read the article, I thought "Man!  This guy is AWESOME!  Look how much more fun he made that game!"  Then I thought about it and came to the conclusion that he was actually a pretty big asshole about the whole deal.  It's easy to think of Hickman as the hero of this story, because his idea of fun matches ours much better than the forensic gnomes' idea of fun but it's important to remember that those could well be OUR forensic gnomes happily playing in our own idiom and Hickman is the same as any other PITA spotlight hog, "play it MY way" player that we've had at our own tables.

In short, if your players want to play forensic gnomes, let them play forensic gnomes.  If they want to play barbarians, let them play barbarians, and if they want to mix it up and play a team of both, do your best to put situations in the game that highlight each and both.

[Carolina]

Maybe ...

but at least he did it in character. I mean, no barbarian is going to stand and watch the CSI team tackle a dungeon.

That said, I've heard him tell other stories where his approach was a bit of being a P**ck. Namely, when he tells about sidetracking a "celebrity" convention game DM'd by Peter Adkisson that had Ed Greenwood and Margaret Weis and others at the table. 

You make a good point about what's fun for one group isn't necessarily fun for another,  though. I think D&D makes an baseline assumption that it's a game of tactical combat and a fair amount of action. I mean, most of the folks in the group are usually carrying a sword or can cast combat-oriented spells. And all those monsters, of course. If they weren't there to slay, what good are they?

[reedu21]

but at least he did it in character.

Sorry, but "that's what my guy would do" is no excuse for being rude and disruptive.  It's the same as Telas' example of how to handle it "wrong."  It's all about communicating like adults and looking out for everyone's fun, not just your own.  This goes back to the OP, the issue should be out in the open, if something is killing the fun for one or more of the players, so they can work out a compromise such that everyone can have a good time.

[Carolina]

No, respectfully, it's not the same as Telas' example.

In my example, the barbarian DID NOT disrupt the first go at the CSI approach.  He let them have their fun ...

(If anyone was not considering everyone's fun at the table, it was the CSI team, which didn't consider that having a barbarian on the team presented them with an opportunity to do things differently.)

He didn't react as a barbarian should until the SECOND door. He waited his turn before doing a kick-in-the-door. Nor did he leave the room and say, "I'll come back when you play like I want to." He acted on his turn and approrpiately to his character. He did nothing to spite the other players, he simply openned the door in a manner that wasn't risk avoidance.

This isn't  a case of "I'm rude because that's my character, and he's rude." Of course that approach is insentive and ruins the fun.

My example is one of "i'm a barbarian, and barbarians kick in doors."

Now, if you don't want a barbarian on your team -- then that's another matter, altogether. But if a barbarian's in the mix, then you might expect to see the bull in the china closet act every once in a while.

And that's what HEROIC roleplaying is about. There is a time for stealth, a time for magic, a time for sword play, a time for ranged attacks, a time for fisticuffs, a time for negotiation, a time for righteous anger and even a  time for deception (just find something for the paladin to do elsewhere at that moment.) D&D is about forming a team of specialists, each using their abilities to resolve problems, overcome obstacles and beat monster to bloody pulp.

[reedu21]

No, respectfully, it's not the same as Telas' example.

It's the same in that it's the wrong way to handle it.  The right way is to discuss it like an adult, not passive-aggressively disrupting the game.  Now, obviously, it all depends on metagame stuff that we don't know about.  Assuming it's the same story from Dragon that Rick mentioned, I get the vibe that Tracy was basically saying, "they're having BadWrongFun and I'm going to show them why!"

Now, if you don't want a barbarian on your team -- then that's another matter, altogether. But if a barbarian's in the mix, then you might expect to see the bull in the china closet act every once in a while.

Yep, assuming you've practiced good group character creation, so everyone knows what the expectations are from the rest of the group.

[Telas]

If I can throw in a monkeywrench...

(No, I haven't read the article in question.  Yes, given the story, I think it flies in the face of the assumption here that we should act within the social contract.)

Sometimes in life, the best answer is to aggressively challenge the assumptions of the group, take a chance, and shake things up a bit. 

Many times, this figuratively leaves you waking up in a back alley, wondering what the hell happened.  But sometimes, you're right and the message gets through; the rest of the group has a big "A-ha!" moment, and realizes that there really are other ways to do things.  ("Holy crap, we don't have to stand here against the wall, we can actually ask the girls to dance!") 

That said, it's a truly wise or lucky person who gets it right consistently.   

[Carolina]

I think one of the things that really missing from this discussion is context -- because there have been made several excellent points about the DM-player and player-to-player relationship -- and how character roles should fit into that.

This 20-plus year old example comes from the first edition days of dungeon crawls, which were little more than excercises in kill the monsters, grab the treasure, level up.

And in the absence of story -- or any compelling reason for the player actions, DMs often assumed adversarial roles. It was, in many cases, DM vs. the party.

This resulted in DMs using the tools most readily available to them: the overpowering encounter and/or the undetectable trap. Basically, dungeons turned into killing zones, as DM's "competed" with the players. It also gave players no incentive to approach a dungeon within the context of story: that is, should we rush through this dungeon to save the princess or grab the ancient relic; or its opposite, should we use stealth and guile to achieve what we can without facing a timetable.

Faced with killer DMs and no incentive to move fast, risk avoidance became the tactic dujour of many gaming groups. And dungeons truly became the dungeon "crawl." And because that was so widespread, in many cases, it was killing the game.

So it's possible, that this entire example I unearthed from Hickman is more a criticsm of the DM, the type of game he was running (or running poorly) and the somewhat natural reaction of players to those perameters.

[godcomplex]

Also back to the barbarian, CSI gnomes thing, it isn't like thats the last door they will get to mechanize open, or the last dungeon. The barbarian screwed with the gnomes way of getting through the dungeon in an entertaining way, is that SO wrong?

[reedu21]

Also back to the barbarian, CSI gnomes thing, it isn't like thats the last door they will get to mechanize open, or the last dungeon. The barbarian screwed with the gnomes way of getting through the dungeon in an entertaining way, is that SO wrong?

If it was entertaining to the players of the gnomes, then no, not at all.  In context, it may have been the case that Tracy knew the other players would be entertained by his antics, in which case it's all good.  The vibe I got from reading these two 2nd (or is it 3rd) hand accounts was that he was new to the group, discovered that he didn't like their style, and determined to show them how they were having BadWrongFun.  We're now veering into the overthinking category.  My point is, just, be adults about it and communicate like a normal person.  I know it's asking a lot of us geeks and nerds, and I'm not claiming to have mastered that skill quite yet.  Passive-aggressive sarcasm is so much easier

[JMeganSnow]

I know I'm a bit of a latecomer to this thread, but I try to leave the option for my players to solve a difficulty by rolling OR by doing something else.  If there is only one way to advance, you may want to re-think your strategy as a GM.  You are going to wind up with stuck players and long stretches of frustrated boredom.

Having a high stat or skill (or the right spell, like Knock or Teleport) is an *investment* on the part of the player.  They had to forgo other options in order to get the numbers that would allow them to get around the challenges.  If you just arbitrarily decide that they can't use their skill (or set them up for failure with DC 100 stuff), you've negated their entire investment.

I remember reading somewhere (maybe The Forge?) that your players invest their points/attributes/etc. in the things they want to spend the most time doing.  I actually think it's the opposite: they invest in stuff they just want to roll and dispense with, because they spend the most *time* doing things they have to be creative to accomplish.  The Bard who invests in having every knowledge skill in the game doesn't want to spend time carefully digging up answers.  He wants to roll and have you tell him what's going on.  The character that invests in being a combat monster doesn't want to spend a bunch of *time* killing things, he wants to roll and have the monster go squish.

While it's okay to have times in the game when even the things that people are good at are a challenge, for the most part if they are stellar in one area, they should breeze past challenges in that area.

[Rick_TWA]

Re: the Hickman story-
It was in Dragon just a few years back.  That doesn't mean that the incident in question didn't happen decades ago though.  I think, as Hickman described it (in that article) the players of the gnomes were upset at his actions.  If THAT is the case, then I'd say he was inconsiderate.  Of course, that doesn't make him a horrible person.  We all have our moments and overlooking them is part of what friends do.  If, however, Hickman played his barbarian as impulsive and bashing in doors and the players of the gnomes started RPing them running after him on their stumpy legs, panting and yelling, and generally everyone was having a ball, then I'd say that he may have acted selfishly but that it turned out well.   By the same token, if it was taken well, as the enthusiasm for his antic waned, the proper thing to do would be to finally stop, then RP a quick close and let the gnomes have their turn again for a while.  Again, that's not how I remember the article, but as long as you're sharing your type of fun, not usurping others' type of fun, it should be fine.

[Telas]

I remember reading somewhere (maybe The Forge?) that your players invest their points/attributes/etc. in the things they want to spend the most time doing.  I actually think it's the opposite: they invest in stuff they just want to roll and dispense with, because they spend the most *time* doing things they have to be creative to accomplish. 

Now that's an interesting topic.  Hope you don't mind, but I'm starting a new thread on this one...

Here.

Telas