Here's my solution.

Instead of one method of learning, two methods of learning:

Studying: The boring method nobody wants to do. Reading a book, or watching someone else do something are two methods of studying. A book generally has a range.
If you read a book that's intended to teach people with 2-20 points in the skill, and you have 1 point, you'll learn slowly until you get to 2 points, in which case you got the concept, and are now learning rapidly. However, as you get closer to 20 points, it takes more and more time to learn it. Once you get there, the book only inspires you to think about your skill, causing you to learn at a VERY slow rate; slower then when you first learned.
The reason people will hate studying is because you don't do anything. You just read. That's why after you study a bit, you do the next method.

Experience: Once you're done studying, it's time to learn the good old fashioned way. Learning from doing something is slower then learning from a book, unless you're out of it's "range", in which case it's faster.

(Also, I didn't mention much about watching someone else, but that's about as slow as learning from a book that has the person's skill as the range. So if they have 50 skill points, then it'd be like learning from a 50-50 ranged book. Not very useful, though it does make you gain battle experience quicker (from watching your enemy).)

And finally, I know what good counter arguement can be used.
"Spuzzum said a way of learning interactively."
Here's my counter-counter arguement: Experience is that way. Reading a book isn't interactive at all.

I just re-read my first post and Spuzzum's original. Neither of us mentioned these minigames, though, the example he used probably infered it. I have never played Puzzle Pirates, so I had no idea what it's actually like. As far as I knew, he was talking about puzzles in general, which if you read my posts, is all I ever discussed.

Maybe part of the confusion is in the terminology. Puzzle is a general word. Minigames are a subset, though still puzzles. Although, a riddle is a puzzle too, as is the Rubik's Cube and computer programming. Puzzles aren't exclusively minigames, though, so when you first started discussing how puzzles aren't fit, I couldn't know you meant arcade-like minigames, if, in fact, that is what you meant. It seemed to me you changed what you meant mid-discussion becasue you knew you were wrong about puzzles, so you shoved meaning on my word that wasn't there to make it seem as though I was wrong.

And yes, you did contradict yourself, grossly.

It is about imagination and acting out a role, and that is why a puzzle ruins it - it gets in the way of that imagination and role acting.
Puzzles that are litterally part of the game are not minigames, they are just another part of playing the role.

Saying puzzles are not fit for an RPG, then saying puzzles that fit do fit, is a contradiction.

You also tried to steer the debate in your favor by inching ever-closer to a neutral position on a matter you yourself brought up, namely the difference between a minigame and puzzle.

I did not agree at all. If you cannot understand the difference between a puzzle which is directly game related and a puzzle which is indirectly game related then your mind is twisted, yes.

When it seemed you were losing ground, you switched to saying that 'of course puzzles fit, I was talking about minigames.' so it looked like it was me who was off-topic and obviously mental, or something.

In the end, it probably was my bad for not at least looking at the example Spuzzum gave. If I had, my reply probably would have stated that that game doesn't fit, but another sort of puzzle could. I still would have said go with a puzzle, though, and I still say it.

~X

Xooxer wrote:

I just re-read my first post and Spuzzum's original. Neither of us mentioned these minigames, though, the example he used probably infered it. I have never played Puzzle Pirates, so I had no idea what it's actually like. As far as I knew, he was talking about puzzles in general, which if you read my posts, is all I ever discussed.

I did not look at the example game either, though I could tell it was a minigame style puzzle by the way he talked about it. When I read it I got the image in my head of an old plumbing puzzle/math-learning game I used to play done with pirates in ships instead.

Maybe part of the confusion is in the terminology. Puzzle is a general word. Minigames are a subset, though still puzzles. Although, a riddle is a puzzle too, as is the Rubik's Cube and computer programming. Puzzles aren't exclusively minigames, though, so when you first started discussing how puzzles aren't fit, I couldn't know you meant arcade-like minigames, if, in fact, that is what you meant. It seemed to me you changed what you meant mid-discussion becasue you knew you were wrong about puzzles, so you shoved meaning on my word that wasn't there to make it seem as though I was wrong.

And yes, you did contradict yourself, grossly.

It is about imagination and acting out a role, and that is why a puzzle ruins it - it gets in the way of that imagination and role acting.
Puzzles that are litterally part of the game are not minigames, they are just another part of playing the role.

Saying puzzles are not fit for an RPG, then saying puzzles that fit do fit, is a contradiction.

I never said that puzzles in general do not fit. Every time I said a puzzle does not fit I was speaking of minigame style puzzles, and every time I said "but this kind of puzzle does fit" I was speaking of puzzles that are fit into the game itself rather than annexed as a minigame. Since you were not thinking of minigames from the start, it may very well have been confusing since you were not thinking what I assumed you were thinking; however it all makes sense when viewed in the context of the assumption that minigames were being debated and not just puzzles in general. Though I may have been a bit too vague even then when discussing it, as you said puzzle is too general a word and I might not have been descriptive enough when I used it each time.

You also tried to steer the debate in your favor by inching ever-closer to a neutral position on a matter you yourself brought up, namely the difference between a minigame and puzzle.

I never inched toward the neutral ground to steer the debate in my favor. I have my foot jammed in the door of severe oppinions and I'm not letting it go. I am a role playing game fanatic, so I will always be in someones face for a debate if I see something that doesn't look right at first glance.

There is no fine line between minigame style puzzles and "in character" puzzles, rather there is a large chasm seperating them. To find the difference all you have to do is ask yourself "If my character were real and in the situation he is in, would he really be doing this puzzle himself?" If the answer is yes, then you have a serious puzzle. If the answer is no, you have an out of character minigame-like puzzle. I even gave examples for that. You, as a player, throwing a rock and trying to get it 15 feet to determine if your character learns the new thrown weapons skill is an out of character thing. Placing stones with drawings on the bottom and having the player guess which stone the treasure is under because the character is facing the same thing and you need a way to figure if the character succeeds, now that is an in character thing that fits perfectly.

Whether a puzzle fits Spuzzum's situation or not depends on whether that puzzle is obviously a minigame, like the pirate game example he gave originally, or whether it fits better. Do you have any ideas of puzzles that would fit his need? I couldn't think of any before.

In the end, it probably was my bad for not at least looking at the example Spuzzum gave. If I had, my reply probably would have stated that that game doesn't fit, but another sort of puzzle could. I still would have said go with a puzzle, though, and I still say it.

Then we aren't really at odds. Splendid.

Now that we have been going back and forth about this so much, I am beginning to think that it might be possible to incorporate puzzles into what he needs. At first I was thinking no puzzle would fit this specific instance, but now I think there might be, so I am going to try to come up with some examples to help ol' Spuz out.

One thing you could do is make learning new alchemy recipes a thing of adventure. Reading the book is instantaneous, and it gives you the knowledge that you need to finish learning the recipe. The book could tell the player general types of things are needed, and it could be up to the player to figure out the specific ingrediants. And perhaps figuring out the specific ingrediants requires a side-quest type of adventure of its own.

After reading the book of superior health, I know I need a nut (though I don't know what kind), maple leaf juice, and an ounce of holy water, and it needs something diseased to activate its healing properties. The holy water, although straightforward, may or may not be easy to get depending on the place. The mable leaf juice is easy enough, just pluck one off a tree and grind it into a pulp. Something diseased requires a bit of thought and looking around for on my part, but I decide to go down into the town sewer and slay a rat, returning with its tail. I then round up a few of each kind of nut I can think of, and it takes a bit of experimentation to figure out which nut is the right one. Finally, after all is done, I have learned the healing elixer recipe.

If you don't want to make the player go through that every time, you can assume that the player has the ingrediants needed for any alchemical brew as long as the character knows how to make that brew, the character has an alchemy component pouch that he keeps miscellaneous needed ingrediants in, and the ingrediants are all of negligible value.

Concerning the side-quests to determine an ingrediant, perhaps part of the page was missing and needs to be found, or one of the components is magical and you need to figure out whether you need white or black magic since the wrong one could make the brew explode on creation and kill you.

I already learned how to make a potion of shapeshifting, but when I turn into another form I don't get its supernatural or magical abilities, only normal physical ones. I found someone else who is shapeshifting into a cockatrice and has the ability to use its petrifying glare, and I want to be able to do the same. I sneak into his laboratory and watch him make the potion one day, and he casts a spell into the brew which absorbs the energy and gives it the power needed. I am spotted while trying to escape, and the person calls out after me as I run away "You may have found my secret, but if you use the wrong type of magic you will die a terrible death upon drinking the potion!" I could pay a spellcaster a bit of money to cast a spell into my brew as I am making it, but I don't want to risk using the wrong type of spell and dying upon drinking it. So I make two brews, hire two casters to imbue each of my brews, one with white magic and one with black. I set out to venture to the well known yet far out of the way shrine dedicated to a good deity, as the shrine is known for its aura that disintegrates anything that is directly dangerous. After a short side-journey, I get there and step in. The brew with the white magic imbued in it evaporates into the air, while the other is left unaffected. I have my answer, the energy from black magic is what I need.

That is a puzzle of sorts, I suppose; and you could improve on that too.

After reading the book of superior health, I know I need a nut (though I don't know what kind), maple leaf juice, and an ounce of holy water, and it needs something diseased to activate its healing properties. The holy water, although straightforward, may or may not be easy to get depending on the place. The mable leaf juice is easy enough, just pluck one off a tree and grind it into a pulp. Something diseased requires a bit of thought and looking around for on my part, but I decide to go down into the town sewer and slay a rat, returning with its tail. I then round up a few of each kind of nut I can think of, and it takes a bit of experimentation to figure out which nut is the right one. Finally, after all is done, I have learned the healing elixer recipe.

If you don't want to make the player go through that every time, you can assume that the player has the ingrediants needed for any alchemical brew as long as the character knows how to make that brew, the character has an alchemy component pouch that he keeps miscellaneous needed ingrediants in, and the ingrediants are all of negligible value.

Concerning the side-quests to determine an ingrediant, perhaps part of the page was missing and needs to be found, or one of the components is magical and you need to figure out whether you need white or black magic since the wrong one could make the brew explode on creation and kill you.

I already learned how to make a potion of shapeshifting, but when I turn into another form I don't get its supernatural or magical abilities, only normal physical ones. I found someone else who is shapeshifting into a cockatrice and has the ability to use its petrifying glare, and I want to be able to do the same. I sneak into his laboratory and watch him make the potion one day, and he casts a spell into the brew which absorbs the energy and gives it the power needed. I am spotted while trying to escape, and the person calls out after me as I run away "You may have found my secret, but if you use the wrong type of magic you will die a terrible death upon drinking the potion!" I could pay a spellcaster a bit of money to cast a spell into my brew as I am making it, but I don't want to risk using the wrong type of spell and dying upon drinking it. So I make two brews, hire two casters to imbue each of my brews, one with white magic and one with black. I set out to venture to the well known yet far out of the way shrine dedicated to a good deity, as the shrine is known for its aura that disintegrates anything that is directly dangerous. After a short side-journey, I get there and step in. The brew with the white magic imbued in it evaporates into the air, while the other is left unaffected. I have my answer, the energy from black magic is what I need.

That is a puzzle of sorts, I suppose; and you could improve on that too.

Alchemy is easy, because there are absolutely no fixed recipes for alchemy. All of the game's knowledge from alchemy comes exclusively from experimentation. If the character is told a recipe from another alchemist, then the process of finding the necessary ingredients can be an adventure in itself. =)

Chemistry, on the other hand, is a scientific process with hard-coded recipes. Until someone knows those specific recipes, they can't duplicate the formula whatsoever. Word of mouth simply isn't precise enough to teach you a chemical formula: you either have to see it made, or have a reference available.


However, you did give me an idea: reading the chemistry book gives you a formula instantaneously, but as an "unproven formula". To be able to create that formula in the future, you have to try creating the chemical from the recipe as if your effective chemistry skill was crippled by half. Thus, you have to continually try to create the formula until you have it down; once you successfully create the formula, you have double the chance of success of creating it in the future.

Still bothers me that books are made so easy to read, however. I might try a combination of the two systems: have the player sit and do nothing while the character reads the textbook, but have a less bothersome (and less realistic) delay imposed on the time it takes to read the book in full -- a game hour or some such. Once you're done reading, you learn the formula as an "unproven formula", and can then prove the formula at your leisure.