Adventure hooks vs. encounter design

[roguerouge]

In the interests of being an effective net complainer, I'd like to ask that future module authors pay attention to this:

Your encounter design HAS to change if your adventure hook puts the party on the clock.

As an example, with spoilers, from Paizo's Kobold King adventure, which I think has neat encounters, a good hook, playable NPCs for the DM. It also looks like a death trap when you take into account the following:

If the party's supposed to rescue kidnapped kids in a dangerous monster infested mine, please don't assume that they're going to rest after 4-5 level appropriate encounters. They're ESPECIALLY not going to rest and regain health and spells once they rescue a few of them and realize what's going on and what the stakes are. On the first level alone there's 4 EL 5 encounters, 2 EL 4s, 7 EL 3s, and 3 low level encounters after that. On the next level, where the last kids are, there's 3 EL 7s, an EL 6, 4 more EL 5s, and more encounters on top of that. For 4 2nd level characters?! Yes, there's help, but there's the ever present possibility of betrayal too to cancel that bonus out.

Look, I love it when dungeon crawls get all cinematic too. It feels heroic. But perhaps you should consider making the party level a bit higher or making the encounters easier, or having hoards of scrolls and potions.

And it's not just you. DMs who adapt these modules for their campaigns need to think about this too.

 

[Hussar]

I've noticed this in Paizo adventures. Looking at the Adventure Path adventures, there are several points where the designers assume that the party will rest, even though the adventure shouldn't go on "pause" when the party does it.

It really is an issue that should be examined in light of the realities of 3e play.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why should the party keep going in the Kobold King adventure? They're not doing anyone any good if they're dead.

 

[Asmor]

Why should the party keep going in the Kobold King adventure? They're not doing anyone any good if they're dead.

Agreed. Discretion is the better part of valor...

What's worse, kicking back a few hours and having a few kids sacrificed, or pressing on, dying, and having all the kids sacrificed?

It certainly raises an interesting moral question... And it might encourage the party to fight smarter and more efficiently so that they don't have to make so many pit stops.

"Remember, every time you waste a spell, Vecna kills a child. Won't somebody please think of the children?"

 

[Hussar]

I think that penalizing PC's for actually playing in character is bad design. I mean, really, heroes shouldn't be kicking back for 18 hours so the cleric can get his cure light wounds back.

 

[Phlebas]

In my homebrew i normally have reinforcements showing up if the party take too long doing stuff - and often i'll give them clues (empty barrack rooms, messengers running back and forth etc).
That means i can adjust the adventure so that its still a challenge if the party want to take their time and have frequent rest stops, and It also give a benefit to the party that wants to press on and take risks.
I don't think its as easy to do this in published books, but its not impossible and gives challenging game play with a believable mechanic.
its not a new idea, even in keep on the borderlands / caves of chaos (B1) there were rules about what happened if the party went away and then came back a day later.
(btw, i'm playing in Shackled city so i haven't actually read one of their adventures in detail)