DM advice: Is this fair?

[Dausuul]

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable. The important thing is that "Note 2"--the chest can be opened by other means if the party has access to them and is willing to use them. (That would be important even if the goblet did reset.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I believe it is reasonable even if that were the only way to open the chest. Obviously, getting a new PC or an NPC would also work. It also indicates that free gold isn't always free gold, so if they never opened the chest, I would still think it fair (if frustrating).

BTW, consider the idea yoinked.


RC

 

[Umbran]

Given that whoever created the statue in the first place seems to have been a bit kooky in the head*, I'm not sure "fair" enters into it.



* Or brain-case equivalent.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Given that whoever created the statue in the first place seems to have been a bit kooky in the head*, I'm not sure "fair" enters into it.

Often the case with these dungeon architects. Thoroughly bonkers. The bigger the dungeon the more bonkers the architect, usually. Must be vitamin D deficiency or something.

 

[Dausuul]

I believe it is reasonable even if that were the only way to open the chest.

Well, I'd say having only one way to open a chest is generally lame adventure design. Chests can have their locks picked, their hinges disassembled, their planking hacked up with an axe, acid poured into their mechanisms, or the entire chest hit by a disintegrate spell. A chest might be reinforced against these modes of assault, making it harder to open, and there's no guarantee that the contents of the chest will survive the level of force required to open it, but the Utterly Impervious Chest tends to break suspension of disbelief for me.

However, if one grants the Utterly Impervious Chest in the first place, I agree that it's not a problem to have this particular puzzle be the one way to open it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't disagree with you, Dausuul. However, given the nature of the goblet in the first place, it would not be untoward to have a chest that is similarly magical.

That said, I always assume that "Only way" is GM-speak for "The only way that the designer of the scenario could think of" and reward imaginative means to do anything.

YMMV.

What I meant to convey is that the scenario as presented is fair, without any qualifiers. Heck, at the very worst it was good for some free gold!


RC

 

[Dausuul]

I don't disagree with you, Dausuul. However, given the nature of the goblet in the first place, it would not be untoward to have a chest that is similarly magical.

Oh, certainly. And even if it wasn't magical, there's no obligation to make it something that this particular party has the means to open. A 1st-level party faced with an adamantine chest, with a DC 40 lock and no special tools handy, is probably not going to be able to get the thing open, and that's okay--as long as there's a credible reason within the game world, and if the party does think of something that would logically work, it does in fact work.

That said, I always assume that "Only way" is GM-speak for "The only way that the designer of the scenario could think of" and reward imaginative means to do anything.

You have a more optimistic view of GMs than I do.

But yes, that's what it should mean.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's fine, because

a) There's still multiple ways around it, both getting someone else to fill the goblet, and breaking into the chest.

b) It's not a progress-blocker.

If the puzzle had been both a progress blocker AND there had been no other way around the riddle, then the puzzle isn't going to be good for the game. As is, it encourages tinkering, thinking and doesn't stop the game even if the players are unwilling to tinker or think.