The Outwit the Angry DM contest is now over. Those who are in the drawing (and those who are not) have been informed via e-mail. The winner will be contacted within the next few days for shipping information and then will be announced here. But a lot of folks want to know the solution, so here it is. Let’s take a look at what happens after Angry pulls New Guy from the room.
[In the Other Room]
New Guy: Look, I’m…
Angry: Shut up. I’m going to ignore that outburst for one reason: you are the only one who didn’t piss and moan and whine or make smartass remarks about the puzzle. You took the situation you were presented with and you tried to work it out. But the next time you quit the campaign, you quit the campaign.
New Guy: I didn’t…
Angry: You got it wrong, kid. Sorry. Those are the breaks. You missed something and I gave you every opportunity to notice it and rethink.
New Guy: I didn’t miss…
Angry: You did. How many statements did the statue make?
New Guy: Three. The copper chest is…
Angry: How many? Look at the paper. Count them.
New Guy: Thre… four?
Angry: Four. I speak truth only once, the copper chest is deadly, the bronze chest is deadly, and the copper chest is safe and has the crown.
New Guy: But that’s part of the conditions of the riddle, isn’t it? Its like the instructions.
Angry: Normally, yes. But isn’t it interesting that the Booming Voice didn’t say ‘Beware, the statue only says one true thing?’ The speaker himself – the statue – was making a claim about his own honesty. And admitting he was an occasional liar. Why should he be honest about how often he lies?
New Guy: So, the logic puzzle is impossible? The statue just lies or tells the truth at random?
Angry: Come on, kid. That’s what the smartass and whiny would say. You know better. Those are factual statements about a presumably consistent universe. They must either be true or false.
New Guy: Or the statue could be insane and spout gibberish.
Angry: Yes, but that wouldn’t be fair. So come on. Reason it out now.
New Guy: Okay, the first statement can’t be true because it would have to be the only true statement. Since the two statements about the copper chest can’t both be false, the first statement has to be a lie.
Angry: Right.
New Guy: So, the first statement is a lie. And one of the copper chest statements is a lie. So the third statement about the bronze chest can’t be a lie. If it is, that leaves only one true statement, one of the copper chest statements. And that would make the first statement true. But its a lie.
Angry: Right.
New Guy: Damn it. So the logic guarantees that, no matter what, the bronze chest is deadly.
Angry: And you proved that.
New Guy: So, we’re down to either the copper chest has the crown or its deadly. And… wait… there’s no way to get any more information than that.
Angry: Not from the logic puzzle.
New Guy: So… the logic puzzle is worthless.
Angry: No. If you figure it out – which you didn’t – it tells you the bronze chest is definitely deadly.
New Guy: But where do we go from there? All that means is that either the crown is in the iron chest or its in the copper chest. There’s no way to figure out which.
Angry: Yes there is.
New Guy: No there isn’t.
Angry: How did you discover the bronze chest was trapped?
New Guy: You mean we are seriously supposed to narrow it down to two chests and then risk blowing someone up to find out the last piece of information.
Angry: Risk and sacrfice. Might only gets you so far. Wisdom only gets you so far. Risk and sacrifice. If you figure out the puzzle correctly, you only have to risk one life, and there’s a fifty-fifty chance you’ll just find the crown outright. That’s the point. Sometimes, a good leader needs to be willing to send people on dangerous, deadly missions. A ruler who can’t make those tough decisions is unfit to rule. And the ruler can’t take the risk himself in this case, because the crown will only function for someone with a legitimate claim to authority. The crown can’t make you a king, it just makes you a better king.
New Guy: That’s a nasty puzzle. Really brutal. The way the logic puzzle is worded – its specifically designed to mislead people into doing exactly what I did. And when they do make that mistake, it is specifically designed so that their death doesn’t give any new information. I died and the party is no better off than they were before. They are still stuck with the same situation they would have been in if we’d solved the puzzle.
Angry: Yeah. I’m really proud of that, actually. Most parties, after someone dies, they go back and look at the logic puzzle again, trying to incorporate the new information. Eventually, they figure out what they did wrong. In this case, all they will discover is that they blew someone up for nothing except to punish their own failure. Except now, they are convinced the logic puzzle has the answer. They will spend hours trying to figure out what they missed before they tumble onto the idea that it doesn’t actually have the answer.
New Guy: That’s brutal. Its really unfair.
Angry: What’s unfair about it? The voice laid out the conditions: if you want the magic crown, you’re risking death. There are three chests. If you guess blind, there is a 66% chance someone will die. If you guess blind again, the next person has a 50% chance of dying. You weren’t locked in here. You didn’t have to take the dungeon up on its offer. You could have just walked away. You knew, up front, what the price of failure was going to be. And, thanks to Whiny, you also knew the designers of the dungeon were going to make sure you couldn’t circumvent the conditions of the puzzle. They were going to make sure you satisified their conditions: wisdom, risk, and sacrifice. You had everything you needed to at least know what the risk was going to be.
New Guy: But we couldn’t walk away.
Angry: Why not?
New Guy: Well, Ragnar needs to claim his father’s throne and raise an army because that demon’s gnolls are going to sweep across civilized lands and kill tons of people.
Angry: So?
New Guy: So… if we don’t do this, lots of people will die.
Angry: Risk one life – or maybe two – to save hundreds of thousands? That seems like a good trade to me. Besides, Ragnar doesn’t need the crown. He could still claim the throne and try to raise an army. Its just a trinket with some magical powers that will make it a lot easier for him to prove his claim and raise an army. Its a shortcut.
New Guy: So, we could have just walked away?
Angry: Sure. And you could have tried to put Ragnar on the throne the old-fashioned, non-magical way. Ragnar does have a legitimate claim to the throne. He’d have to. The Crown itself can’t make someone a king. It can only make a legitimate king better. At least you guys were smart enough to recognize that and not let Ragnar get himself blown up. Without royal blood or some other form of valid claim of authority, its just a pretty hat. Artifacts are like that: they only work for people who meet their conditions. So, yeah, you could walk away. Ragnar could declare his rule, win over his people, and raise an army. But there is always the chance that he fails at that. Or it just takes too long and, by the time his army is battle ready, you are already swimming in Gnolls. You guys would have to work fast and everything would have to go right.
New Guy: So we should go for the crown?
Angry: I can’t say. I won’t say. All I can say is that you guys have the information you need to decide which risk to take. At least as much as any characters in your position would have. That’s role-playing. You have to decide which risks to take and live with the consequences. Or die by them. Now, let’s get back in there and see what they do.
New Guy: Oh… will you tell me where the crown is? Since I’m dead, I can’t really help them. I’m just curious.
Angry: Sure, its in the copper chest. You’d be surprised how many people actually fall back on Smartass’ so-called logic: “the iron chest wasn’t mentioned as possibly deadly, so its most likely to be safe.”
New Guy: And you still insist this wasn’t designed to be a screw job?
Angry: I didn’t even tell you about the very specific definitions the booming voice used regarding the words “you,” “touch,” and “anyone.” Basically they ensure that only a willing touch by living humans and humanoids actually trigger the traps and the chests cannot be opened except by one of the people who was originally in the room when the booming voice spoke. I brought a dictionary in case anyone wanted to argue. Anyway, let’s get back in there.
[Back at the Table and Two Hours of Tortured Logic Later]
Smartass: I can’t take this any more. To hell with it. I’m going with my gut. The iron chest is the only one the stupid statue didn’t mention. I’m opening that one.
Whiny: At least let me open it.
Smartass: No! No one else is going to die for me. Besides, I’m thinking because I’m the one who wants to claim the crown and I’m the one who touched the statue to begin with, I have to open the chest. Angry, Ragnar steps up and opens the iron chest.
What Did You Have to Do to Get it Right?
Okay, I asked two very specific questions: “what did New Guy overlook” and “what should the party have done to find the crown?” And that tripped up a lot of people. I got a lot of answers “deducing” the location of the crown (which was impossible) and a lot of answers that explained the flaw in New Guy’s logic and nothing else. I also got more than a few answers that invovled the party just turning around and walking away. That’s obviously wrong because I asked about what the party should do find the crown, not what the party should to do survive. Frankly, if the party was concerned about survival, they would find a new DM.
The minimum needed for a correct answer was:
- Correctly identify the fact that New Guy did not consider the fact that the statement about how many true statements were made was, in fact, a statement that might be true or false.
- Recognize that the logic puzzle only eliminates the bronze chest as a possibility and that, in order to find the crown, the party must risk the death of a PC guessing between the copper and iron chest.
I didn’t disqualify anyone for not discussing who should be the one to take the risk or suggesting that Ragnar take the risk, even though the party did discuss the importance of keeping Ragnar alive. If the two conditions were met, I let it in.
I did, however, disqualify answers that were technically correct but got the logic wrong. There were a few folks who realized New Guy’s mistake and then analyzed the logic at length only to arrive at the wrong conclusion or to accidentally stumble on the right answer (copper chest) for the wrong reasons. Or to overlook the fact that they were expected to sacrfice someone to find the crown. I tried to be as liberal as possible, though, when it looked like someone had all the elements and understood the thrust of it.
Interestingly, many, many people saw the flaw in the logic and reach the proper conclusion but were then unable to figure out where to go from there. Apparently, the idea of a puzzle specifically set up to require a possible human sacrifice is a bit too brutal for some gamers to consider. A great many people also questioned their own logic when they realized the logic puzzle didn’t give the answer, fully admitting they couldn’t figure out what they were missing because “it looked like the puzzle was pointing to two different chests.”
Of course, I make no apologies for any of that.
Wow, that’s quite impressive. The events have a pretty epic feel. And they couldn’t work this sort of problem into a novel or movie, ’cause -gasp!- one of the HEROES would DIE! Or not die by a stroke of luck. But meh, luck’s for losers.
Anyway, I really like this sort of posts; as there are no other gaming groups in my area, I can’t just watch someone else play D&D when I need to resolve some issues I’m not sure how to tackle. This is perfect not just to witness other DMing styles (or even just read about them), but the whole interaction. It’s quite enriching, so please, do write more.
A very effective way to push players into a situation that requires them to grapple with how much they want to be a hero, and what they are truly willing to sacrifice. Well done, sir (golf clap).
[...] to solve (and steal) even if you didn’t get your entry in under the deadline. (Answer is here)You can still enter the Illuminerdy contest though, if you’re looking to win stuff. Share [...]
Devious, sir, very devious. Well played. Although I got the answer wrong, I enjoyed the process.
As an aside, kudos to you for not being as brutal as my answer made you out to be.
I’d love to see more of these.
Nice puzzle. And especially nice to not give it a positive answer, but to give it the elimination of one wrong choice. That bit got me going around in circles for a while.
Incidentally, if you want to soften this puzzle for personal use, there are a couple of things you can do.
First, consider reducing the explosion from instant kill to: Close burst 3, Level +3 vs. Reflex, Level + 10 average damage (for example, at level 7, 17 average damage is 2d10+6). That should be about right to make it dangerous but survivable, especially given the party can short rest at any time.
Second, consider using Schrodinger’s Gun as described in http://angrydm.com/2010/08/schrodinger-chekhov-samus/ . That is, the crown is located within either the Iron Chest or the Copper Chest, whichever one the party guesses. Don’t tell them that. But if you don’t want to endanger characters with instant death, that is a fair way to reward their logic, ask them to make the requisite sacrifice, and ensure they will survive.
Man, remind me to never play in your games.
That also seemed to be a very common answer, Colin.
I stumbled upon this way too late to enter the actual contest, and was only able to peruse the contest post for about 5 minutes before rushing out the door to work, and I do think that while the riddle and the party’s part in it were “fair” I do see one issue with the contest…the word “solution”. I can’t call this end to the riddle as a solution, as there is still a 50-50 chance of the answer being *boom* you die. A solution to a deadly trap is a way to get through *without dying*. Otherwise I don’t see it as a solution so much as a way to simply even the odds of death to a coin flip, as opposed to a only slightly worse 1 in 3 guess.
If you value the item you are seeking so much that risking a party member to death to get it is no problem, then why not 2 and simply brute force your way through, testing all the chests, one by one. First guess is the same as the faulty logic above, second one would be the same as “solving” the logic puzzle. If they would be willing to risk a 50-50 coin flip on a PC’s life, heck, why not two, and guarantee you get the prize?
Bakimono, you will notice that contest did not require you to solve the puzzle. It required you to answer two specific questions: what did New Guy get wrong AND what should the party have done to find the crown. I didn’t require anyone to figure out where the crown was. Merely to explain the logic puzzle and suggest a course of action that allowed the party to find the crown assuming they had gotten the logic right.
Throw me into the camp of ‘Could identify the logical problems, but didn’t hit on the idea of sacrificing someone’.
Very apropos.
“In this case fair means only that Angry has not misrepresented the conditions of the puzzle in his speech at the beginning and that the statue’s logic is sound. ”
The statue’s logic is not sound. Your puzzle was rigged and unsolvable. Because the statue claims that only one statement is true and since it cannot be the first statement, that makes all the statements either lies or truths. It turned your so-called puzzle into a guessing game.
1. I speak only one true sentence.
2. The copper chest is deadly to touch.
3. The bronze chest is deadly to touch.
4. The copper chest is safe to touch and contains the crown.
Statement 1 cannot be true, because statements 2 and 4 invalidate the “one true” part of statement 1. Because statement 1 is false, the other three statements are worthless. You cannot use any logic at all to discern whether or not those three statements are true or false.
Again, no logic at all will allow players to discern which statements are true or false, because statement 1 is false. Since statement 1 is false, any of the other statements can be true or false. [PERSONAL ATTACK REDACTED - ADMIN]
Puzzle Hater – You are entitled to your opinions and I am happy to give you the opportunity to voice your opinions. But if you cannot remain civil, your comments will be removed and you will be banned. If you don’t like my puzzle, I can live with that. If you can’t voice it without being insulting, you can voice it somewhere else.
I think the problem some people might be having is that they are looking ONLY at the puzzle for the answer. They really need to look at the entire scene, from start to finish. Everything you need to solve this puzzle is within that scene. When I made my choice of which chest the PCs should have opened, I made it with 99% certainty that they would be safe. I would have done it confidently with my own PC, even.
I see absolutely nothing unfair about the entire situation. I’m not sure I’d want to face it at the table, though, since it took me 2 hours to work through in my head. That would be a lot of table time spent doing very little.
I also gave a wrong answer, but I’m not sure how it was wrong. I love logic puzzles, and actually took notes for this one, so hopefully one of you folks can show me the error of my ways…
I know the four statements have already been posted, but here they are again:
1. I speak only one true sentence.
2. The copper chest is deadly to touch.
3. The bronze chest is deadly to touch.
4. The copper chest is safe to touch and contains the crown.
There can be 0-4 true statements made, but we can immediately eliminate the possibilities of 0 and 4 because of the contradictory statements (one has to be true, and one has to be false).
Those statements also mean #1 is false, since if there was only one true statement, that would be it, and we already know either #2 or #4 must be true as well. So there are either 2 or 3 truths.
Because #1 is false, only #2, #3, and #4 can possibly be true. Because #2 and #4 contradict each other, there can not be 3 truths either. That means there must be a total of 2 true statements.
So here is what we have:
There are 2 true statements.
Statement #1 is false.
#2 and #4 cannot both be true.
Either #2 or #4 MUST be true.
Therefore the true statements must be #3, and either #2 or #4. Considering #3, the only one of the contradictions that could possibly be true……….
…….son of a bitch. There it is. Either one can still be true.
OK, so I’d like to thank myself for all of my help to me.
Well played, Angry. Well played.
I presented this puzzle to my players at the table yesterday, just to see how they would react. Unfortunately, one key piece was missing for several players. Was the crown good or bad, was it created for good or bad and who built the trap. They reasoned that a neutral or evil entity would easily create this puzzle; they have no issues just randomly killing someone. They felt that if it was a good crown, and a good quest, they creator of the puzzle would definitely make the puzzle solveable without necessarily causing a player death.
They assumed the creator had to be on the evil/neutral side. They also reasoned thought that even needing the crown, as a bunch of good heros, they would consider not even opening the chests and moving on to find something else. Or even coming back with a couple of kobold prisoners to do the dirty work. (not sure how that fits into thier lawful style of play, but it was just conversation).
I thought this puzzle was something similar to what I presented to my group many weeks ago. They all thought at first it was the same puzzle until they read through; 1 of my players even caught that there were 4 statements; and that there was 2 possible solutions. My puzzle had a solution; but it was to enter a temple to the god of good, so I did not see destroying a party member being a very “good” act, which is where they might have deduced that it would not be a good act.
Anyways, from my point of view, it was a decent puzzle. I can justify that a any other alignment than lawful good might put the test of “one against many” to a future king, so I can overlook that myself. I also would not have a truly or mostly evil being create such a puzzle; because they would not part with a crown of this importance. So, having justified the backstory in my own mind, (since we do not have a full disclosure of the entire story) I could see me putting something like this in a quest. I would leave it up to the party to decide how to approach.
I quickly recognized New Guy’s flaw (failing to consider that the first statement was part of the puzzle), then worked through the logic to determine that the riddle definitely eliminated the bronze chest, realized the statements were consistent with the crown being in either the copper or the iron chest, as noted, and then spent a bunch of time trying to find a flaw in my reasoning to see why I couldn’t get the riddle to give me a clear answer. I clearly should have had more faith in my deductive skills and realized that there was no more information to be gotten from the puzzle!
I should have applied more of the story fluff from the description of the scenario to realize that the ambiguity was intentional. Well done, Angry — I am already considering where to use something similar in my own campaign.
I think the biggest confusion for people (including PuzzleHater, and I apologize for speaking on your behalf) is that the statue’s statements aren’t the puzzle. They are a *part* of the puzzle.
@Sean_Mc above has the details of the statements and how they determine there are two possibilities of where the crown is. Without any other information, this is as far as the statements explicitly bring us. This is where the voice’s statement about sacrifice comes in, which is the other part of the *whole* puzzle.
The voice says, “You may leave, of course, for a ruler must make great risks and sometimes make great sacrifices for the right to rule. If you are afraid to make sacrifices, you are not fit to rule.” At this point, there is a 50-50 chance each of the crown being in the copper chest or in the iron chest. A ruler must make the sacrifice that unless he makes the correct choice the first time, someone must die. This is different than if they opened all the chests or when they opened the bronze chest because those are *unnecessary* risks of life.
The correct choice, regardless of the crown, is to open either the copper or iron chests, and if the person dies, open the other. Opening both at the same time guarantees a death, which is again, unnecessary. The motivation and process for finding the crown is on some level just as important as actually finding the crown. Such is one to lead a kingdom.
I like this puzzle and feel the answer is fair. I also think my answer was decent as well. I came to the same conclusion that there were two possible safe chests as Angry described above. However, I narrowed down the safe chest to just one with what I thought was a legitemate reason.
I thought that the designers of the puzzle would be taking into consideration guesses through false logic. Since both the bronze and copper chests can be selected through false logic (ignoring that the first statement is part of the puzzle), the designers would be certain to place the crown in the one chest a person cannot select through false logic (iron).
Safe Copper Chest
1. I speak only one true sentence. (Ignore)
2. The copper chest is deadly to touch. (False)
3. The bronze chest is deadly to touch. (False)
4. The copper chest is safe to touch and contains the crown. (True)
Safe Bronze Chest
1. I speak only one true sentence. (Ignore)
2. The copper chest is deadly to touch. (True)
3. The bronze chest is deadly to touch. (False)
4. The copper chest is safe to touch and contains the crown. (False)
This seemed like a little more belivable solution to me because it took more of the situation into account. Specifically, how the designers would take into account the false logic above. Otherwise, a PC could guess copper as being safe for the wrong reasons and bypass the entire point of the riddle.
Wow, I see where I went wrong.
You see it now? You cannot ignore the first statement. It is a factual statement with a truth value possible. It has to be false or else it is the only true statement. The safe bronze chest scenario makes it true, which, because it is false, cannot be the case.
I wasn’t ignoring the statement. I actually did catch that. When I was trying to narrow down the two possible solutions (copper or iron) I tried to think as the designers of the puzzle would. What I thought was, if it was possible for a PC to come to a “correct” solution through faulty logic, the designers of the puzzle would want to prevent that. If it was possible to choose copper or iron through faulty logic, the designers would probably set that chest as trapped. However, my mistake came here…
Safe Copper Chest
1. I speak only one true sentence. (Ignore)
2. The copper chest is deadly to touch. (False)
3. The bronze chest is deadly to touch. (False)
4. The copper chest is safe to touch and contains the crown. (True)
Logic (faulty) does not dictate that copper would be safe. Statement 3 cannot be false while statement 4 is true. That would be saying both the bronze and copper chests have the crown.
I actually missed this because I misread what NewGuy originally attempted. I thought he selected copper first and was killed.
Basically, I was trying to ignore all possible faulty answers that improper logic was leading me to select. Next time I will read the post more carefully.
I really enjoyed this puzzle. I also really enjoyeed watching my coworkers huddle together discussing it all afternoon at work after I sent it to one of my friends. I’m pretty sure it caused a measurable loss of productivity at the office as it was passed around from person to person (which is ok as long as the studio head is working on it too!)
I’m torn between telling my players about it. On one hand its too cool not to share. On the other, I may want to use a variation on it against them someday.
I saw the missed statement, but my mind had already focused on the word “sacrifice”. I read the rest lightly knowing I had my solution to this puzzle. Play coy, pretend to try to solve the puzzle. Convince Whiny to try whichever chest sounded right to the group. If he died: admit an error and use strawman logic to appear to know why the first answer was flawed. Get Suckup to try chest #2. The whole thing shouldn’t have taken more than 30 minutes.