I mean, the Barbarian asked the one question and didn’t gain anything from it. Knowing which one is the liar doesn’t… help anymore.
Ah. Normally I see this with no limit on questions. You’re right. It’d only work with at least two questions.
I’ve only heard it with one question, that’s the whole point. Otherwise you just ask a guard some trivial question (e.g. What color is the sky?) to determine which is the liar, then just ask which is the safe door.
The whole point is to get the information you need from a single question.
Maybe I’ve only seen a fucked up version.
“What would the result be of combining the following terms with “and”: the direction of the correct door, and the color of the sky?”edit: im stupid
Careful with that because “the wrong direction and blue” would still be a lie. So would “the correct direction and fluorescent yellow”.
And it has a bunch of assumptions about the sky and their perception and knowledge of it built in.
The scenario usually says that “one only tells the truth” and “one only tells lies”. at this point it becomes a question of whether a truth and lie in one sentence is considered impossible
Yeah, it’s impossible to say one way or the other because the setup is underdefined and leaves a lot of room for ambiguity or loopholes.
On that note, don’t beat yourself up or consider yourself stupid because of that. Even though it’s questionable whether it would work or give them room to screw you, I think it was a good creative solution to the riddle that I’ve never seen before. If you came up with that on your own, I’d consider that a sign of good potential. Nurture and refine that, don’t try to beat it down to avoid being wrong ever. (Haha I really hope you’re not like 50 or that might come off as really condescending rather than encouraging).
Like, thinking about it more, I think it can be resolved by changing the “and” to an “or”, at least on the lying side. Though that would open up the truth side to be able to sneak in a lie while technically telling the truth. But there might be another adjustment that would close the loophole entirely and give a solution that doesn’t require a reference to the other guard’s answer.
You can ask both guards if an item is an item. “Does this cup contain fluid” would work, it doesn’t have to be a dead guy.
That’s why it’s funny.
That assumes the other guy holds to his principles in the face of death. If I were the dm, the act of tearing the other guy’s head off and then threatening to do the same to the other one unless granted another question would at least grant advantage on an intimidation check
I’ve always seen it as outside of their control. It’s not that the lying guard chooses to lie, it’s that they’re incapable of not lying.
I mean, he could still lie. He’d just have to afford one more question
That’s why this is a brilliantly played barbarian. They think they are clever but will still have to do things the hard way.
My favorite take on this:
Ask either guard: “If I asked the other guard which door led to the castle, what would they say?” The answer is always the door that leads to instant death; enter the other door.
The guard replies “I don’t know for sure”.
The third guard stabs people who ask tricky questions.
I feel like this is an XKCD…
It is
Then, rip both of them in half and knock down the safe door so that everyone after you immediately knows the safe route
But they gained no information on which door to choose ='(
The Barbarian got what they wanted, which is to have an excuse to rip another head off.
Barb could simply kill Death-itself if choice was certain death room.
Opening the certain death door reveals a guy in a dark robe with a scythe: “Hey, what’s up?”
PLEASE BE QUICK ABOUT IT, I HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO GET TO.
“Uhh… Wrong door, sorry.”
I think you mean
HEY, WHAT'S UP?
This still doesn’t accomplish the goal of knowing which door will kill you. All you’ve done is determine which guard is the liar.
So you ask them which way leads to the castle and you don’t pick the way they say.
If we’re assuming that these things are actually bound by some kind of rule stating they literally cannot lie or literally cannot tell the truth.
But you asked your one question to the one remaining guard. You gained no intel.
That is why it is better for the barbarian to snap the wrist of the one guard, so that you can ask them a question still or you ask the first guard which way to the castle then rip his head off followed by asking the second guard if the first guard is dead. You will get the question from each guard and know which one tells the truth.
I believe that’s the joke. The barbarians intelligence isn’t usually very high.
I love playing low Intelligence high Wisdom characters. Because Wisdom governs stats like Perception, Insight, and Animal Handling. So your character will notice things that the rest of the party misses, but often doesn’t have the intelligence to put the individual pieces together.
Once played a high wisdom barbarian. He would notice things like traps or clues, but I would RP it with things like “Hey, why’s that wire stretched across the path? Someone is going to trip over that…” The other players very quickly learned to pay attention whenever I asked stupid questions, because it was usually my way of announcing “I noticed something that the rest of you missed.”
I wish our DM had real-life message to telepathically convey stuff to just one person.
In my group there would be literal zero chance of the others not listening to me if I ever threw a “hmm why is that wire there”, because they would’ve heard the dm either tell me due to passive perception or had me throw a roll and then tell me. So they know it’s a trap no matter if I want to rp it. Every time I get frustrated and question it, there’s this one guy who always has the reasoning and justifying at hand why they would know to do the right thing and to be fair they kind of make sense always, but there’s zero chance he’d come up with that just by my rp line alone without knowing for a fact it’s a trap.
I think that’s the worst kind of meta gaming. They are fully blind to the meta gaming there and just do it by instinct. And when you try and question, they always have a defense ready, even if it’s so wildly specific and unlikely but you can’t really fault it because they’re not stupid, the justifications hold, it’s just that the only way they habitually generate them is because they know what I know despite they couldn’t in-game know.
Like I’ve occasionally just left the thing unsaid in-game out of frustration and just reason to DM that there’s so much going on, my focus instantly switched to another thing and I forgot because I’m not very smart. So we all know there’s a trap but now nobody has told this to the others.
What do they do? The one guy fucking always comes up with some shit like “hmmm be wary, they must’ve laid traps here, hey you with good investigation, please look around and see if there’s one in this specific place for some reason” and the rolls of course often succeed because they always choose to best one to solve that.
But from rp perspective, we’ve walked this path for a while, and this thought only came up now, that it might be trapped? Just right now when you know, outside of the game, that there’s a trap?
I call bullshit and it frustrates me so much, there’s very little chance of anything interesting ever happening in-game because we seldom miss anything or do the wrong things, because “somehow” we always happen to do the right things no matter who notices things in-game or rolls or whatever, no matter how much any of us attempt to rp it, somebody just meta games it without it being explicitly or admittedly meta gaming and gets all defensive when questioned and because they now know everything, can figure out an explanation the DM can do nothing but accept because it makes sense, now that they know to pull the right shit out their ass.
Ugh. It’s not even a big deal, our group is fun and the adventuring isn’t bad, these things don’t happen often enough for it to really affect things, but god do I hate it. This ended up being a rant, I didn’t even know how much I get frustrated with it until I just now read this back. Jesus…
Yeah, I agree that having a secret communication channel between the DM and players is good because it goes deeper than just meta gaming: there’s also meta meta gaming.
As in you hear a piece of information that your character would have no way of knowing and this piece of information makes the correct tactical option obvious. It might not have been as obvious before, but now that you know, you can’t unknow it (at least not without an even more severe disruption to the game). So does that mean you can’t pick that now obvious option to avoid meta gaming? What if your character probably would have chosen that option anyways? Same thing for trying to do something that would reveal that information to your character, would your character have done it without the information? Should you just pick a bad option now because any good option is meta gaming?
I don’t think there is a good solution once anyone knows about the information. Hell, even your barbarian’s decision to not say anything could be considered meta gaming because you were doing it in response to how the other players were acting and justified it afterwards just like they are doing. Avoiding the meta gaming option is still meta gaming, it’s just from a place of not being able to help but meta game.
It’s like playtesting magic decks against another one of your decks alone. Sure, you can see some things like how well the mana ramp works, how big of a threat you can get on the board relative to your opponents, but when it comes to interactions, you know exactly what spells you should counter or ignore, what might happen if you choose to block or let an attack through. There’s no tactical surprise or bluffing, which can both play a big role in the game.
When I DMed, I liked to have some rolls from the players ready ahead of time, because I found even “roll a spot/listen check” gave away too much information on its own. Pass or fail, it was a signal to start doing some active searching because there’s something of interest in the vicinity. So instead I’d just use the early rolls and cross them off my list as the players made passive sensory checks and only mention anything if the roll was high enough.
Then notes can be passed with the information to those who know it, plus extra nothing notes sent from time to time, maybe with a promised reward if they don’t say it’s a nothing note so the meta gaming that results just wastes time and discourages people just reacting to notes.
That’s funny! but if you want to know how to solve this problem every time, even when asking one single question, just ask this question:
“If I ask the other guy which is the correct path, which path will he tell me?”
No matter who you ask, both of them will point to the WRONG path, meaning the correct one is the one they DIDN’T point to. Here is the logic.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume the correct path is the right path. When you ask that question, if the person is the truthful one, he will be honest and say the left path. Because if you ask the liar what the correct path is, he will say it is the left path (which is false). Now if you ask the liar what the other guy will say the correct path is, he will lie to you and say it is the left path (which is also false, the truthful one will tell you it is the right path and not the left).
The liar responds “I don’t know”
Truth teller: “He’ll point you towards the door that leads to certain death”
“I have no idea what the other guy would say, we’re honest-lier pair of guards, not reading each other fucking thoughts pair of guards”
I got an unexpected laugh from Rick and Mortys take on this. His answer was “you ever fuck this guys wife?” And watched them fight to the death.
Ah man, I miss Rick and Morty before you know… everything.
They replaced the guy didn’t they?
Yes. And the show got a lot better. The voices are perfect matches and the writing is a lot less… “Eccentric” (while still being absurdist)
I think I agree.
Agreed. The writing for the last couple seasons has been insanely good.
This doesn’t help the party decide which door to go through at all
And the surviving guard will most definitely answer a 2nd question despite the rules.
The first time I encountered a version of this riddle it actually wasn’t Labyrinth. It was an old black and white episode of Dr Who aired on PBS when I was a little kid. Same scenario but if I recall, robots instead of guardsmen. I think the good doctor solved the riddle in the typical way of asking one robot what the other would say. I’m looking for it now but I can’t find the scene.
For years, I had my own headcanon for the Labyrinth movie. In the scene, the young Sarah correctly solves the riddle, passes through the correct door, says “This is a piece of cake!” and then she immediately falls down a pit of doom. This confused me, because she got the answer right. So I reasoned that the guards were both liars, and because they both participated in explaining the rules, they were lying about the rules.
It was only a few years ago that I read in an interview that the Labyrinth (or Jareth) dropped her down the hole because she said it was a piece of cake. It was her arrogance that set her back, not that she got the riddle wrong.
But now it still bothers me that the liar, whichever one he is, helps explain the rules of the scenario. If he always lies, then she can’t trust that either of them ever tells the truth. The rules have to be described separately, like on a sign or by a disinterested third party. Or you could phrase it differently, like “One of us will answer your question truthfully, and one of us will answer your question dishonestly.” That way you avoid saying that they always lie, and specify that the lie will only be in response to the one question.
Fuck, I’ve had too much coffee. How the fuck did I get up on this soapbox? Why are you still reading? Go do something productive.
Do you think it would suck to be one of the bottom heads? 🤔
Alternate solution:
I’m not going to trust the rules given to me by a guard who might be the one who lies
Is there more of this?
What’s this from?
Nhim is the artist. The character is Mimi. They’re all standalone comics, but there’s a bunch with Mimi. All have the same crazy goblin energy to them.
How can they both explain it when one only tells lies?
