Have you as DM ever decided a module goes too far? (Possible module spoilers)

[el-remmen]

While I would re-do any kind of deus ex machina I found in a module, things like "the slavers will destroy any of the PCs equipment they get their hands on that they cannot use, including personal effects and heirlooms" is right up my DMing alley.

1) It makes sense that the villians would want to destroy the effects (and potential morale) of those they want to make into slaves

2) Anything to make the PCs hate the villians even more and make the conflict personal.

 

[lukelightning]

I've heard that the Dragonlance modules are particularly bad in this regard (I've never read them). The common term seems to be "railroading."

This is Why Books Should Not Be Made Into Modules.

Unless, of course, the designer wisely allows things to go differently. Then it could be fun. Could you imagine a "Lord of the Artifact Jewelry" adventure in which the pc halfling decides to use the Evil Artifact to further his own desires rather than destroy it?

In any adventure in which I've encountered a person from a book I've had the urge to kill them, just because. I did this in the Dragonlance adventures, luckily the DM thought it was fun so we all had a blast "ruining" the adventure, and Fizban was the first to go. I was really annoyed by Elminster and Drizzt in the Baldur's Gate computer games and wanted to kill them as well.

 

[Cam Banks]

This is Why Books Should Not Be Made Into Modules.

The modules came first, although eventually (around DL7 or so) the novels were being written faster than the modules, and thus the modules later borrowed from the novels.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[John Morrow]

I must compliment John Morrow on how he tweaked the various parts of the Slave Lords module, although I wonder whether it wouldn't be possible to, instead of being captured without a chance to escape, make the players the victims of a hellish cat-and-mouse game when, either after defeating some of the Slave Lords or finding themselves overmatched, they run like hell and end up having to fight the Slave Lords on the run. They still have all their equipment and magical gear...although their resources are depleted and whether they have time to rest and recover their spells, hit points and supplies is another matter entirely.

Screw making the mice run through a maze...there are a few very powerful cats that want to clean their claws...

Well, I was specifically trying to keep the bit about the players having absolutely nothing in unfamiliar territory to see how the PCs would behave without their equipment to rely on. I thought that would be an interesting and different experience I was really happy with how that worked out. If I wanted to do it again and not stick so closely to the modules, I could probably get the same affect through a magical portal that teleports people but not their stuff or something like that.

Your idea is interesting, too, but the whole key to either one is to get the players to accept the "unfair" situation, in one case a railroad and in the other case, being reduced to prey. That breaks what a lot of people expect and enjoy in a D&D game. I think preparing the players for that situation and in some way promising them that it will all work out in the end if they don't mess up goes a long way toward getting them to swallow such a situation as a temporary problem, not a horrible shift in how the campaign is going to be run until the end or a random slapdown by the DM.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I remember a while ago on the old Web RPG forums about a guy who initially ran the Slave Lords supermodule, having all four modules in a single booklet. This guy read through the text, which apparently had the players getting captured in deus ex machina manner, and then the text explicitly said that the Slave Lords and their minions would deliberately go out of their way to destroy keepsakes, heirlooms, and other things especially dear to the PCs, without their even getting a chance to save the things they cherished. The guy immediately called foul, and overrode the module and did things his own way.

As a result, my question is this: Has there ever been a time where a module goes too far in the difficulty, unfairness, deus ex machina, or utter cheapness that you as DM overrule it and adjust things for the PCs' benefit? What was it that ticked you off? And what did you do to fix it?

Slave Lords (A4) is probably the first such - and I'll echo the praise of John Morrow's noted modifications. I have run A4 but once for the sole reason that it was so outrageously over-the-line, though I've run the rest of the Slavers series three times. Tomb of Horrors, maybe, because it seemed so often that there was no way to "win" short of first informing the players of the exact TPK nature of the modules design. The most recent example is mild by comparison but I found one of the unavoidable, crux encounters in "The Speaker in Dreams" to be INEXCUSABLY overpowered for the intended PC levels.

The problem with Slave Lords was that it fails to acknowledge what should be a FUNDAMENTAL understanding - when the DM wants to win - he wins. What the DM wants to happen - happens. He just has to be enough of an ass to FORCE the outcome when it doesn't go his way. Going down that path with such an arbitrary, ham-fisted, weasel-y railroading move as A4 did cannot help but chap any players ass. Moreso when topped by that spiteful bit about, "I'm not just capturing you by sheer fiat, I'm also DESTROYING everything you carried. Isn't this FUN?" It works in a tournament, where the long-term goal is only completion of the module. It does NOT work when players might have longer term goals for their characters in a campaign beyond the end of that nights session, and there's no excuse for the DM sucking all the fun out of that just because he can (or because the writer of the module thinks he should).

 

[3catcircus]

Hmm - I'm *running* Slavelords *now* - MY PLAYERS KEEP OUT!!!

I had to use the deus ex machina in a different way. Only one of the players wanted to really rescue Dame Gold's brother (I'm using Forgotten Realms) by going from Cormyr to Chult. They wanted to return to Nesme...

So, the party split up. Some of them got shanghaied through the use of "stasis-balls" - magical spheres that burst open and set up a temporal stasis field on the unlucky victim. So, the slavers just basically captured them while in stasis and chained 'em up in the ship. The others got called back by Spit to the burning wreckage, got the clues to the next locale, but got their asses handed to them by Agnar and his merry band - unconscious and left in an alley with most of their stuff gone.

If they had simply stuck together, they would've gotten the clues to the slavers, without me having to shanghai some of them. They later stated that their biggest concern was that they were doing everything in their power to make damn sure that they *weren't* going to Chult, because they didn't want to end up wandering the jungles, dieing of malaria.

Essentially - the initial shanghai is *unnecessary*. The "smoke of the little death and left in the caves" *should* be dependent upon whether or not they defeat the slavelords. This should be a BBEG deathmatch - no holds barred and the slavelords should be fully statted out like a PC. If the party wins - great. If they get defeated - they get a shot at payback after escaping from the caves. Two routes to the same goal - one easier, one harder.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

While I would re-do any kind of deus ex machina I found in a module, things like "the slavers will destroy any of the PCs equipment they get their hands on that they cannot use, including personal effects and heirlooms" is right up my DMing alley.

1) It makes sense that the villians would want to destroy the effects (and potential morale) of those they want to make into slaves

2) Anything to make the PCs hate the villians even more and make the conflict personal.

It doesn't make any sense to me. Why would they destroy it instead of using it or selling it?