D&D General Orcs on Stairs (When Adventures Are Incomplete)

[Ruin Explorer]

The main villain, Melissan. I spotted "you are the villain" right off, and the game frustrated me at every turn when I tried to attack her, or even not do what she said. And it's not like my Intelligence 20 Kensai/Wizard was too dim to figure it out! There is a lesser one in Pillars of Eternity, where when confronted with the revelation that the gods aren't real, all the dialogue options are shocked and amazed, with no "yeah, yeah I figured that out weeks ago, tell me something I don't know".

That at least that Pillars one has a triumphant option for if you a specific background, I think it's philosopher, you can say "I KNEW IT!!!" or something to that effect. But yeah that kind of thing is super-annoying.

EDIT - Tried to link it but it won't work - Nihilist Philosopher gets to say it anyway!

maybe some people are learning to DM from CRPGs?

Definitely some people will be. But honestly that's a better footing for learning to DM than learning from adventures written in the 1970s through 1980s! So if Gen X could learn from the original Keep on the Borderlands or Tomb of Horrors, I'm sure Gen Z will be fine learning from The Witcher 3 or Dragon Age Inquisition.

But unfortunately the adventures I'm thinking of are either older (so it's unlikely) or written by people who are older (who thus didn't learn from that).

I don't think I've seen any published adventures written by really young people yet, but I have seen RPGs written by them, and a lot of them have been really shockingly impressive (if leaning hard towards rules-light).

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Well, that's the thing. If I paid money for a module, I'd like those details laid out for me beforehand, or at least provide flavor text that conveys key information without the need to use precise measurements. "The Lich's Doom Spire extends into the thin air of the chilly stratosphere" informs me that anyone who falls off is going splat unless they have Feather Fall prepared. Otherwise, why shouldn't I just make my own adventure for free when I'd have to spend the time to fill in the gaps either way?

Well, the module already does that; if they fall, they probably die. Whether they do is up to you I guess. Do you really need the exact falling damage laid out for you?

It's like when someone complained to me about Infinity War, saying it was a "plot hole" that they didn't explain how Thor could magically teleport with his new hammer to Wakanda. And I looked at him and said "It's a magic hammer, why do you need more explanation than that?"

 

[Mannahnin]

Well, the module already does that; if they fall, they probably die. Whether they do is up to you I guess. Do you really need the exact falling damage laid out for you?

Whether I expect the damage to be spelled out kind of depends on the assumptions of the module. If it were a one-page dungeon, for example, or otherwise an adventure written to be generic and scalable, "a fall would probably be fatal" isn't out of place. It tells me the intent is that there is a less than 50% chance of survival if someone falls. And I can set the height/damage appropriately for my group.

It's a bit weird coming from a 4E adventure, though. I'd expect one of those to be designed for a particular level range, and specify appropriate damage.

 

[Retreater]

Well, the module already does that; if they fall, they probably die. Whether they do is up to you I guess. Do you really need the exact falling damage laid out for you?

Well, how far is it? Can the character or the party try to get to them in time? Are they out of range for healing? How about climbing down to recover the body or equipment? When a character is "likely" to die - is that due to the character's HP or DM fiat? Is a fighter more likely to survive than a wizard?
And keep in mind this specific encounter wasn't just a random " there's a pit here" - every character could be subject to falling and the enemies specifically had tactics to push the characters to their supposed deaths.
I think it's an obvious omission.
And my friend, who was a new DM at the time, told me it made him feel "stupid, unprepared, and a bad DM."
Sure, those of us who are experienced DMs can fill in the gaps, but I don't think a gap like this should exist in a professionally produced adventure.

 

[Ancalagon]

DING DING DING winner!

Yeah this has been like, increasingly a phenomenon since the 1990s. The first time I really saw it was with some World of Darkness adventure/campaign books, which really seemed like they were mostly about the writer telling a story, rather than trying to make a playable adventure. Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought this - I forget where I read it (perhaps in an article here, perhaps elsewhere), but one of the main White Wolf guys was continually annoyed by other writers focusing on their NPCs and their stories rather than making playable adventures which made the PCs the centre of things.

Much as I've praised Paizo's Adventure Paths, I think they encouraged the phenomenon even further.

Generally what I've found is the chances of a module being written to read rather than play is directly proportional to the length of the module. Short adventures? Like a few pages? Whilst they may have a showy plot, they're nearly always written to play. Massive campaign-length deals with really prominent NPCs? High odds that's basically written to read.

And certainly it's not wrong to treat the market that way - most of the people I know who own tons of campaign-length adventures don't even actively DM! Some of them don't even actually play RPGs! But they read the adventures for sure.

Ah, this phenomenon has been identified as "meta-roleplaying".

RPG Books as Imagination Training

We are now in the Bronze Age of OSR blogs (the Golden Age being 2008-2009 and the Silver Age being around 2009-2012), and I think Joseph Man...

monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com

And it's not just for adventure material! Basically, any RPG material can be read and lead the reader to imagine using this content, this PC, this spell, whatever. "Wouldn't it be cool if I played a swashbuckler/battlemaster PC? Oh man this monster would be cool in a fight! What if my players found a spaceship and went to space!" etc etc etc.

I have played a LOT of games over the years, but a lot of the gaming material I have I've never used. The setting Dark Matter is one of the best setting I've ever read... and I've never used it. That's a bit unfortunate for that setting, but overall, I think it's normal that we don't use everything we have.

The sad thing is though... most of these adventure paths in 5e are not good reading material. That setting - absolutely buy it and read it, it will be fun. UVG? Hard to use but amazing. The 5e adventures I have? most of them I've not even read half. Tedious.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, the module already does that; if they fall, they probably die. Whether they do is up to you I guess. Do you really need the exact falling damage laid out for you?

It's like when someone complained to me about Infinity War, saying it was a "plot hole" that they didn't explain how Thor could magically teleport with his new hammer to Wakanda. And I looked at him and said "It's a magic hammer, why do you need more explanation than that?"

I think what you're not factoring in is that killing someone's PC, likely at a level and in a way that is permanent and cannot be raised from (given they've fallen an indefinite distance, and their body presumably then rolled down a snowy mountain or w/e), is a serious business for a lot of DMs and players.

Yeah, you can sneer at the plot hole guy (even though he is technically correct, the best kind of correct, that is a genuine plot hole - so rarely the case when people say "plot hole"), because that's just a movie, and it's just about how a character got here. There's zero consequence.

Whereas you're perma-killing someone's PC.

If you're not running some sort of "death-funnel" game like DCC or just some absolutely murderous old-skool game (including 1E, maybe 2E), you need to kill PCs right. You can't just hand-wave it. It's a serious business. You're failing to consider the actual context, and just treating it as a logic issue. That's why you're getting it outright wrong, imho. In 4E particularly, there's an expectation that any death will be done right, because the combat and damage are exceptionally fair.

Also, 4E does not have death from massive damage. So to die from the fall, you need to take not 100% of your HP, but over 150% of your HP in damage (assuming you were on full health - you have to go over negative 50%). If the damage would be anything less than 150% of your HP, you'll be making Death Saves. And if that's the case, you definitely need to know how far you fell, and to where, so people can work out how to get to you, or if you recover, you can work out how to get to them. Particularly this could be the case if you have any way to slow your fall or lessen fall damage - Featherfall being an obvious one.

When I initially read this I thought it might be a non-issue, but in 4E especially, it really is not a non-issue.

Also, talking of 4E, does this push even conform to the rules? When you get pushed off the edge, you're supposed to get a saving throw to end up prone instead of falling - I forget if it's Death or Reflex, but one or the other. So if the text here indicates people being pushed off insta-die that's pretty bad (I don't know the adventure so can't say, but I've seen rules misunderstandings or forgettings much worse than that in official adventures).

 

[James Gasik]

Has WotC ever made a great adventure? I've played and read through a lot of them, and I can't think of one that really impressed me. Some had at least a few neat ideas, but usually it's "bare bones plot and crazy bad guys with strange abilities, plus a memorable NPC or two".

A lot of Sunless Citadel actually builds on the lore for the ancient red wyrm that does not appear in the adventure at all, and really, the only truly memorable part of the adventure is Meepo and the kobolds.

"Weird semi-vampiric Druid with evil tree" as a final boss was like, eh?

 

[James Gasik]

I think what you're not factoring in is that killing someone's PC, likely at a level and in a way that is permanent and cannot be raised from (given they've fallen an indefinite distance, and their body presumably then rolled down a snowy mountain or w/e), is a serious business for a lot of DMs and players.

Yeah, you can sneer at the plot hole guy (even though he is technically correct, the best kind of correct, that is a genuine plot hole - so rarely the case when people say "plot hole"), because that's just a movie, and it's just about how a character got here. There's zero consequence.

Whereas you're perma-killing someone's PC.

If you're not running some sort of "death-funnel" game like DCC or just some absolutely murderous old-skool game (including 1E, maybe 2E), you need to kill PCs right. You can't just hand-wave it. It's a serious business. You're failing to consider the actual context, and just treating it as a logic issue. That's why you're getting it outright wrong, imho. In 4E particularly, there's an expectation that any death will be done right, because the combat and damage are exceptionally fair.

Also, 4E does not have death from massive damage. So to die from the fall, you need to take not 100% of your HP, but over 150% of your HP in damage (assuming you were on full health - you have to go over negative 50%). If the damage would be anything less than 150% of your HP, you'll be making Death Saves. And if that's the case, you definitely need to know how far you fell, and to where, so people can work out how to get to you, or if you recover, you can work out how to get to them.

When I initially read this I thought it might be a non-issue, but in 4E especially, it really is not a non-issue.

Well, I had a character get knocked off a bridge once into a ravine, and the fall knocked me unconscious. While I did make the Death Save, the rest of the party had no way to get to me and the adventure was time sensitive, so they had to abandon me, and I was forced waiting until I could recover hit points and revive on my own, which put me out for the rest of the adventure at least.

Not as bad as character death, I guess, but it wasn't exactly a happy moment.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Whether I expect the damage to be spelled out kind of depends on the assumptions of the module. If it were a one-page dungeon, for example, or otherwise an adventure written to be generic and scalable, "a fall would probably be fatal" isn't out of place. It tells me the intent is that there is a less than 50% chance of survival if someone falls. And I can set the height/damage appropriately for my group.

It's a bit weird coming from a 4E adventure, though. I'd expect one of those to be designed for a particular level range, and specify appropriate damage.

Well, how far is it? Can the character or the party try to get to them in time? Are they out of range for healing? How about climbing down to recover the body or equipment? When a character is "likely" to die - is that due to the character's HP or DM fiat? Is a fighter more likely to survive than a wizard?
And keep in mind this specific encounter wasn't just a random " there's a pit here" - every character could be subject to falling and the enemies specifically had tactics to push the characters to their supposed deaths.
I think it's an obvious omission.
And my friend, who was a new DM at the time, told me it made him feel "stupid, unprepared, and a bad DM."
Sure, those of us who are experienced DMs can fill in the gaps, but I don't think a gap like this should exist in a professionally produced adventure.

I think what you're not factoring in is that killing someone's PC, likely at a level and in a way that is permanent and cannot be raised from (given they've fallen an indefinite distance, and their body presumably then rolled down a snowy mountain or w/e), is a serious business for a lot of DMs and players.

Yeah, you can sneer at the plot hole guy (even though he is technically correct, the best kind of correct, that is a genuine plot hole - so rarely the case when people say "plot hole"), because that's just a movie, and it's just about how a character got here. There's zero consequence.

Whereas you're perma-killing someone's PC.

If you're not running some sort of "death-funnel" game like DCC or just some absolutely murderous old-skool game (including 1E, maybe 2E), you need to kill PCs right. You can't just hand-wave it. It's a serious business. You're failing to consider the actual context, and just treating it as a logic issue. That's why you're getting it outright wrong, imho. In 4E particularly, there's an expectation that any death will be done right, because the combat and damage are exceptionally fair.

Also, 4E does not have death from massive damage. So to die from the fall, you need to take not 100% of your HP, but over 150% of your HP in damage (assuming you were on full health - you have to go over negative 50%). If the damage would be anything less than 150% of your HP, you'll be making Death Saves. And if that's the case, you definitely need to know how far you fell, and to where, so people can work out how to get to you, or if you recover, you can work out how to get to them.

When I initially read this I thought it might be a non-issue, but in 4E especially, it really is not a non-issue.

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. If you want the PCs to die from the fall, then they die. If you don't, they don't and take a lot of falling damage instead. It's really just that easy.

I'll add, if you're clear with your players that "Hey, you're going to be really far up, if you fall you'll die," you're players will prepare for this by prepping feather fall, tying ropes to each other, etc.

 

[James Gasik]

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. If you want the PCs to die from the fall, then they die. If you don't, they don't and take a lot of falling damage instead. It's really just that easy.

I'll add, if you're clear with your players that "Hey, you're going to be really far up, if you fall you'll die," you're players will prepare for this by prepping feather fall, tying ropes to each other, etc.

But then you have to decide what the Orcs are doing while you're taking the extra time to prepare. If you can even spare the time, of course, I've played under a few DM's who get snippy when the players try to be cautious about things.