Riddles

Enig · Post by **Enig** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:03 am

It's sort of my understanding that one of the bigger problems you fellows have with writing up riddle quests is that, well, people are apt to share answers OOCly. So this is just a little note, and I admit, it's partially written out of frustration, but might I suggest that some of these riddles be written in to give second chances, even if there's a very long lag time associated between tries? I have to admit, it's pretty aggravating to muddle through five or six riddles and then, because of a lapse of judgement, "Oh, sorry, you're now totally screwed. Tough luck." Granted you can't win them all of course, but this kind of thing really doesn't encourage a person to go out on a limb and try to work it out for themselves, especially if the reward is known to be a particularly valuable one.

As an addendum to this post let me just say that I'm not really trying to debate whether this practice is 'fair' or not. The only thing I'm suggesting is that it really seems to promote the sort of OOC information-sharing that abounds around these sorts of quests, and seems like a rather counter-intuitive method of implementing them. My suggestion would be to put some sort of extremely long lag time between attempts, something in the area of at least a few RL weeks. You definitely couldn't spam answers but it would still offer a chance to try over again.

Thanks for your thoughts in this matter

Kohadon · Post by **Kohadon** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:33 am

Me 2nd this suggestion. My mind....its not good.

Raona · Post by **Raona** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:39 am

Based on my experience with a related problem in standard exams...a good way to catch the OOC cheaters is to have a quest randomly ask one of several very similar questions. With chemistry exams it was almost too easy, I'd make two versions of the test, distributed to every other seat. One version had 56.8 grams on it and the one next to it had, say, 59.8 grams. Maybe three changes like this throughout the exam. Someone gets the answer to the other computation on their paper in a few spots, it was obvious what they were up to. (When I first arrived at my Peace Corps posting, I'm sad to say, I caught over a third of my class cheating this way!

)

Anyway, how this is relevant:
Someone gives the quest answer to ANOTHER question involved in the quest, not the one asked, they lose the quest forever. If they give a wrong answer, but not one of the other right ones, they get another chance later. Sticks for the naughty, carrots for the nice.

So, for example:

Player one
Bob the Barker asks you "What is round on top and has three legs on the bottom?"
"I eat fish, but never touch water. What am I?"
"The clock stopped at midnight on the tenth day. How many hours had it run?"

Player two
Bob the Barker asks you "What is round on top and has three legs on the bottom?"
"I eat fish, but never touch water. What am I?"
"The clock stopped at noon on the tenth day. How many hours had it run?"

If player two answers the last question with the answer to the midnight version, Bob howls "Ye wretched creature! Out of my sight, and never return again!" But if any other incorrect answer is given, he says "I think my questions be tiring ye. Ye have done well up to this point...why not return again in a fortnight and try again?" When they return, the question might be either of the two (or more) versions, chosen at random.

The q-log might even read "Bob the Barker suspects you of having tried to cheat in answering his riddles, and has refused to deal with you again." vs "Bob the Barker will eventually give you another chance to answer his riddles."

I realize this would be more work to code, but it would be very effective, I think!

Easy for me to say...maybe I should save my big ideas for when I get off the couch and write a quest, hmm?

Raona (not a coder...still a newbie!)

Japcil · Post by **Japcil** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:17 am

This has been discussed before, and really the point is: Should we use our time to make it harder to cheat for the few that do, or should we spend our time making new areas that are fun and exciting for all players? While yes we could impliment policies and programs to catch everyone who cheated on quests, but if someone wants to ruin the game for themselves and it has no direct effect on any individual players they why bother. If a player were to cheat an area I built I would be upset that they wasted a chance to experience the area properly.

Sairaven · Post by **Sairaven** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:17 am

I'll be honest:

I suck at riddles. I mean suck.

Areas that include riddles make me unhappy, and are likely to be an area I do not visit a second time.

Will I cheat to get past them? No.

I will just get frustrated and leave.

Of course, that means I'll have a glaring open line in my qlog that, to me, stands out like a slap in the face.