Scampir

I am beginning to think that there's a contradiction between the following statements:

1. It's a challenge to implement a puzzle in a ttrpg, because you are relying on player knowledge to address an issue when the broader activity is about play and experimentation. If you desire to implement play experiences with puzzle design that rewards exploration like Myst and Outer Wilds, then you have to lay the groundwork of granting information through a different medium. For example, information might be released at the end of a quest and come together for players to figure something out, but it's not something very popular as a moment-to-moment exercise. Therefore, the maxim of "create problems not solutions" edges out puzzles with distinct solutions because player experimentation can be immediately validated by a facilitator, interesting play has happened, and the game can advance.

2. Tabletop Roleplaying Games that center combat with specific positioning (grids, zones, etc.) use definitive and sometimes hidden information to necessitate experimentation. However, there are wrong answers in these cases and that is communicated through consequences. There are many places to move your character on a grid that are the wrong place, and your puzzle is to find the correct places. You might not receive immediate feedback on an experimental move until later in combat play. It’s very important in that moment that you learn how else you can experiment, but not all games bridge that gap. If you do solve the problem, you have learned how to read the scenario and answer it correctly. You can now use that knowledge to inform further decisions. You might say that you the player have grown. Therefore, the design choice to create puzzles with specific solutions provides a rewarding feeling for those who complete it, and it’s at the potential players discretion to self-select for that experience.

All this to say

How does one engage with challenges, issues, or obstacles in the play of a ttrpg? I’ve presented a truncated view of two distinct design philosophies (written too quickly for me to say that I treated both fairly 😅), and I’m trying to work out how they stand against one another. Because they present two different approaches to the play experience. I don’t think that these are necessarily game-text only design choices for what it’s worth. These are two different approaches to at can influence any game with a mediator such as a Game Master or Facilitator, or even a group of players in a GMless game.