A puzzle constructing question

[Iliya]

I have a question about a puzzle constructing. Here is the situation:

- Person A (the player) has an inventory item X
- Person B needs that item X
- Person A doesn't have a slightest idea that B needs that item X

What to do when A (the player) accidentally gives that item X to B? To allow A to give X directly to B or first A has to know that B needs that item X?

What is the better decision?

[Gilbert]

Just some thoughts:
1. Don't let Person A take the object before he knows someone wants it, like saying "Why shall I take it? I don't know if there is anybody having any use for it!" This in general is quite awkward but some commercial games did do this.
2. This is actually a special case of 1. Just invent some more reasonable... reason for Person A to refuse to grab the item beforehand. Like, the item is mixed with a pile (or arranged on a cabinet) full of different junks, all look equally useful (or equally useless) as that one single object, so Person A can refuse taking any item out of them as there are too many to carry, until he learns which specific item is sought after by Person B.
3. Make the item unavailable before it is known to be useful. This a bit artificial but is also done frequent by commercial games. Say, the item is in a bottle which would be washed up the shore when a specific time arrives, or it's visible at the beginning but a rat immediately steals it and hides it in a rat hole, where means for retrieving the item will arrive only until some specific moments (like getting a stick to get it or whatever).
4. Make Person A refuse to give it to Person B by saying something like "I don't want to lose it to some strangers until I know it's worthwhile to do so!" This is also quite awkward but may work if that item does look useful or valuable.
5. Just let Person B have it if you have already thought of the consequences and know that it won't really break the game. Person B may even split out "Why thank you! How do you know I really need this? Can you read my mind?" for humour effect if desired.

[HandsFree]

This is a situation you want to avoid I'd say. Neither solution sounds very satisfactory.
If possibile, I would have the object locked away/thrown into the river/guarded by the alien. And then have the solution to getting it only available after the player found out B needs it.
That would make it a fetch quest though which is not always what you want.

Alternatively, maybe the object has to be involved in solving an earlier problem (that is connected to A finding out B needs it).
If then A gives the object to B too soon, he can just say "I may need this myself" or something like that.

edit: yeah, what  Iceboty said.

[Iliya]

In my games I used solution 4 and I received a lot of complaints like this:

"Sometimes I am afraid we dont understand the puzzles, or better we miss the hint what to do, especially if we know what to do but we were asked why?".

I think it's better to avoid that kind of puzzles. When we create the game and puzzles, we know everything - the story, the gameplay and everything is logical for us. But the players sometimes (very often) are missing something. And then they're saying: "It's illogical".

It's so hard to decide what is the best (the golden) solution, so the puzzle to be not so easy and not so hard.

[Ghost]

Some games show the "needed object" but do not have it active- and then, once the player "knows" that he needs it, the object becomes an interactive one, and can be picked up. (Solution 2 in effect). It makes the most sense as far as "game play rules are concerned but it feels constructed.

But I agree, such a situation is best avoided, because you can't win here- either you have a situation where players will think "Unfair puzzle" OR the will see the rules of an adventure game in action, breaking Willing Suspension of Belief.

I ran into some complaints with a game where the player was not able to use objects on a machine before he learned how the machine parts worked. The PLAYER had that knowledge right away (or at least a good idea), but the in-game character had it not. Where do you draw the line between player knowledge and character knowledge?

One solution would be to drop at least a subtle hint that Character B could have a use for item X, and then drop another more concrete hint a bit later. If the CHARACTER could have guessed that B needs X, players will (with some luck) feel satisfied that they guessed right.

[cat]

I like Iceboty's 5: People usually don't walk around giving random items to random people (at least I think so). Just make sure that B mentiones in the first conversation that he needs that item.

A few other solutions:
6) To get the item, you need something you get from B (key, some tool, ...). I.e. "I need this item, take this key and get it for me"
7) When getting the item, have another NPC around telling the player that B might need that thing.

[Iliya]

7) When getting the item, have another NPC around telling the player that B might need that thing.

This is an interesting solution.

[Ali]

In this situation Gilbot's 4th example would be completely reasonable.

If you told me to give person x object y, I'd refuse to do it without a reason. It's perfectly OK for a character to do the same until they discover the reason. This is much trickier when it comes to picking up objects / entering locations out of sequence, but your example can be easily solved.

Gilbot's 5 and Cat's 7 both short-circuit the narrative / puzzle and so I would avoid them.

[Khris]

My rule when facing such situations: don't frustrate the player. I hate it when I can't pick something up until later in the game, or when the character has to learn something first I already know.

If there wasn't any indication yet that person B needs the item, wouldn't the only player trying to give it to them be the one that's already stuck, using every item with every hotspot, desperate for a reward?
I don't know what the item is or what the person needs it for, but is it entirely absurd to offer random items to people? Not in a situation where, say, two technicians try to fix their crashed spaceship, I'd reckon.

So to actually answer the question, yes, give it to them.

[Eggie]

In dat game I yam making, I got around this issue by not having the PC say anything when he hands over an item. The NPC just goes "Hey, that's just what I was looking for!" or something to that effect. Then there's generally a bit of exposition about what they're going to do with it, which might run the risk of repeating the same information the player's heard earlier but I think it's just the language of this medium; not really bothersome.

Not more bothersome than putting in a bunch of "I don't have a reason to take this out of my pocket" lines for puzzles are technically correct. Poential to confuse the player once they DO get the info and it screws up people's speedruns.

[Stupot]

Locking an item that is perfectly visible isn't my favourite solution to this problem.
Nor is having an item magically appear in a previously visited area once the player has been made aware that he needs it.
My solution is this:

8 ) Ensure that Person A has met and spoken to Person B before even coming across the item.

You could do this by ensuring that the item is beyond a room or area that has yet to be visited.  A boring example could be Person B says 'I need a rubber duck, here is a map to the rubber duck factory'.  This ensures that the player won't accidentally stumble upon a rubber duck factory before knowing what he needs a rubber duck for.

I'm fine with the player being able to pick up random stuff and using them in creative ways to solve puzzles on the way, but when it comes to fetching items for NPCs, I think it is best to make sure that the 'quest' is spelled out to the player before he has even had a chance to happen upon the requested item.