DM advice: Is this fair?

[blargney the second]

Except there is a way around the problem - go back to town and get a plucky young lad to come along and be your potion pourer. In fact that's almost too good, you could get the entire local population to do the water/gold thing, with the PCs taking a 50% cut each time.

Nice exploit!

I think the OP's idea is really nifty. Btw you could get around Doug's exploit by making the statue a charged magic item like a wand with 1d50 charges remaining. Diminishing returns could also be your friend.
-blarg

 

[carmachu]

Hey all,

Here is the scenario:

A party is travelling through a dungeon. In the 5th room, they come across a statue holding a goblet. There is a small rhyming riddle inscription that suggests if they put water into the goblet, the statue will produce some gold and if they put wine into the goblet, it will produce the key they need to continue into the next room.

The 1st party member tests this by putting water in the cup and gets some gold. They immediately try again but nothing happens. The 2nd party member tries with water and gets gold but again, nothing happens when they try again.

Correctly surmising that it only works once per person, the 3rd party member pours in wine to get the key and the remaining party members each pour in water to get more gold.

Later on, in Room 16 of this dungeon, they come across a locked chest that is inscribed with a continuation of the above rhyming riddle. This part suggests that if they pour something magical into the goblet (ie a potion) the statue will produce the key they need for the chest.

Note 1: The chest contains nothing that is crucial for the party to complete their current adventure/quest. It is only filled with bonus treasures.
Note 2: Although the chest is trapped, the party can attempt to open it another way such as picking the lock or breaking it open.

Question: Is it fair for the DM to rule that since the goblet only works once per person and all party members used it, they cannot get the key from the statue? Or do you think that it is unreasonable to expect that level of foresight from the party and the DM should rule that the potion in the goblet is an exception - allowing it to work.

Thanks for your insight.

The only problem I have is(without seeing the map) there is no indication its needed till later. The goblet/statue is in room 5, while the chest and riddle is in room 16. How would they even know to save the one person until then?

Its not that its fair or unfair. It just seems there;s no hint of something greater till long afterwards.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Nice puzzle.

If I dmed it, I'd have both puzzles be "complete", but the first one clearly have a broken off area.

That is, give the hint that there is more, but the "more" is missing for the first one.

The second time they read the whole thing.

 

[jonesy]

Except there is a way around the problem - go back to town and get a plucky young lad to come along and be your potion pourer. In fact that's almost too good, you could get the entire local population to do the water/gold thing, with the PCs taking a 50% cut each time.

I might actually allow that. And if they let the villagers keep the gold, award more exp. But it does need a limit.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not only fair but kind of cool.

I enjoy environments that are places to explore, when there is more to them than simply being a set for a particular encounter and then forgotten. Any type of setting that has the players actually thinking about it, and thus engaged with it beyond being a backdrop is a good thing IMHO.

 

[IronWolf]

I like the puzzle/encounter! I think it is fair and reasonable to not let them do it with a potion if they have each already used the statue.

 

[Haltherrion]

Question: Is it fair for the DM to rule that since the goblet only works once per person and all party members used it, they cannot get the key from the statue? Or do you think that it is unreasonable to expect that level of foresight from the party and the DM should rule that the potion in the goblet is an exception - allowing it to work.

Thanks for your insight.

Since it isn't critical and there are other ways into the chest, sure, seems fine to me. Teaches them a fine lesson. Maybe you can have critical puzzle rely on that principle later on.

If it was critical, if the initial riddle does not have some clue, however cryptic, it would seem to me to be annoying as a player. Is it fair? Sure they were greedy to grab all the gold but unless you have somehow previously established or hinted they shouldn't do such a thing (perhaps by an earlier puzzle that required the players to 'save' a PC to do something), then it would seem, as a player, that the ref was being spiteful for the players taking more gold than he had planned to give out at the first puzzle when they probably thought they were being clever . That said, while it would be annoying, it would not necessarily be unfair. They did overuse the fountain of gold after all.

 

[Cor_Malek]

IMO they'll all blow all chances before getting to the chest as would most other players. Is that wrong? Hell no!
Because in the unlikely scenario that some player chooses to wait with his turn, he will be rewarded for thinking about it. And your average adventurer will be still able to open the chest - just with a little more work.

Besides, even after solving the second puzzle I'd probably give a go (or 10) at opening it in other ways than the key. That way I could have the cake - and eat it too!

 

[Stormonu]

I think it's an interesting riddle, though I also think that putting a hint that there's more to the riddle would be a good idea (even if the 1st riddle ends with "But he ...")

Also, I think I would have added a second bit to this; the gold that appears in the cup is coming from another chest (perhaps one set next to the chest in room 16), and when that chest is empty, it's out of gold - just to put some sort of cap on the amount of gold the characters can get, as well as an alternate way to "raid the piggy bank".

 

[DumbPaladin]

Perfectly fair, and not unreasonable at all. Getting the key to the chest from the statue is the best (read: easiest, least-risk) method, but it's not the only method, so to my mind there's nothing unfair about it at all.

And it will get the players thinking about other ways to approach puzzles in the future.

I like it.

I completely agree: if this is the sort of puzzle you would like to get your players used to, or at least get them to understand they have to put some thought into their actions BEFORE they take their actions ... you do eventually have to show that there are consequences for rash behavior.

Different parties react differently. Fortunately for our party, I play the character would have not poured water into the cup, and when we got to goblet #2, I would have been able to help the party.