Anatomy of a puzzle: Keyboard Worrier

Years ago, I was speaking with a puzzle designer who shared a piece of wisdom that has guided me ever since:

A puzzle has two parts — what is the puzzle, and how do you solve it?

This simple concept has become the foundation of how I approach puzzle creation. In this post, I’ll walk you through the development of a puzzle whose solution is C2 (the letter C, followed by the number 2), showing how I embedded that answer into a richer, layered experience.

Starting Point: A Recognisable Structure

For this puzzle, I wanted to make use of the QWERTY keyboard — a layout familiar to most users around the world. The keyboard offers a standard sequence of keys in horizontal rows, making it a versatile and intuitive structure to build upon.

But how do we hide “C2” in a way that is both fair and satisfying to solve?

Step One: Disguising the Answer

Rather than presenting players with the abstract “C2” directly, I decided to embed it in natural language. I transformed:

• C into “Sea”

• 2 into “Two”

This gave me six letters to work with: S, E, A, T, W, O. Not only does this shift turn two keystrokes into an anagram-style challenge, it also fits thematically — in this puzzle, players are identifying parts of a map, so the word “sea” is contextually appropriate.

During playtesting, solvers quickly recognised that “sea” was standing in for the letter “C”, so the metaphor was effective without being misleading.

Step Two: Avoiding the Anagram Trap

Although anagrams can be fun, they aren’t always ideal. Not all players are equally good at them, and many online tools can easily solve them, making the experience less satisfying. (I use Inge's Anagram myself when struggling, or write the letters randomly in a circle formation).

To counteract this, I added a layer of sequencing. Rather than simply providing the six letters, I wanted to guide players toward the correct order without handing it to them outright.

Step Three: Introducing Structure

That’s where the keyboard layout came back into play.

I began by overlaying numbers onto the six relevant keys. The idea was that players could deduce the correct sequence (e.g., pressing key 1, then key 2, and so on), which would spell out “C2”.

However, this version lacked sufficient challenge — it relied more on observation than deduction. So I decided to develop a concept that would require players to solve for the sequence themselves.

Step Four: Nesting the Puzzle

To add a further layer of depth, I used a method known as nesting — embedding one puzzle inside another.

I created six hexagons, each representing a point in the sequence. Each hexagon had one filled-in corner, pointing in a specific direction. When these hexagons were placed over the keyboard, each filled-in point indicated a particular key.

Now, rather than being told which keys to press, players had to interpret the hexagons, determine which key each was pointing to, and identify the letter. Once correctly interpreted, these six letters spell out the solution: C2.

Step Five: Elimination Over Confirmation

Sometimes, puzzles aim to confirm the correct answer. In this case, I wanted the puzzle to drive players toward eliminating the wrong answers.

In the wider puzzle set, there are nine possible options. Rather than using one puzzle to confirm the right one, I designed eight puzzles — each eliminating an incorrect choice. Only by solving all eight can players be confident about the correct answer.

This is similar to escape rooms where you need four numbers to open a lock, and each number must be discovered through a separate puzzle. It's more complex, but ultimately more satisfying.

Conclusion

Hopefully, this breakdown has provided some insight into how I structure and layer puzzles — from initial concept to final design. If there’s interest, I’d be happy to continue this series and explore more puzzle types in detail.

Let me know what you'd like to see next.

Header Image: Photo by Sergi Kabrera on Unsplash