Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[LostSoul]

This is something to discuss over pints at the pub, if you really can't find any examples of "these monsters never aid those monsters, no matter what."

I expected there to be the examples of illogical monster behaviour contrived to protect the PCs and further the story, but I didn't find anything on a quick scan through. (I've played through it - finished last night - but I didn't always follow what the module said.) Let's go over things closer:

[sblock=Spoilers for KotS]

• On the Road: Kobold Brigands: Not really possible here; the monsters are not acting illogically because there's no one else to ask for help.
• A1: Kobold Ambush: It might be a little forced, the kobolds always finding the evidence of the PCs and ambushing them; but if you assume the module writers know the movements of the kobolds they will come across evidence of the PC's battle with the brigands.
• A2: Kobold Lair, Outside: Here's the first example of some crap. "The first and second wave do not leave the cave except to pursue fleeing characters." (Talking about kobolds in the lair coming out to fight. I had them come out in my game.) Hey, if the kobolds are winning, Irontooth comes to clean up. If the kobolds are losing, they shore up their defenses. Makes sense. Maybe it's not the best tactical choice for them, but Irontooth only has Int 8.
• A3: Kobold Lair, Inside: Irontooth needs 3 rounds to get ready. Maybe he needs to put on his armour or wake up or something. If they were warned by A2, he is ready.
• A4: Burial Site: All good.
• Area 1: Goblin Guard Room: "Once a third goblin falls, the survivor runs to Area 2 or 3 (whichever is closer) for help."
• Area 2: Torture Chamber: Doesn't say either way. (It's not explicit that they run for help, but it's not explicit that they don't, either.)
• Area 3: Excavation Site: Doesn't say either way.
• Area 4: Cheiftan's Lair: Balgron flees and will rally any survivors to ambush the PCs. Otherwise it doesn't say.
• Area 5: Crypt of Shadows: The zombies remain inanimate until a rune is triggered. They're zombies!
• Area 6: Hidden Armoury: -
• Area 7: Skeletal Legion: This is a stupid encounter, though it could be fun to fight it out. The best explanation is that they crumble to dust if they leave the room, Orcus' power drained from them.
• Area 8: Sir Keegan's Tomb: - If I were to play this again, I'd run the Skill Challenge side-by-side the combat encounter.
• Area 9: The Maze of Caves: The dumb thing is that the ooze and rats fight together. It doesn't say they fight together, but it doesn't explicitly say they fight each other (as it does elsewhere in the module).
• Area 10: Kuthrik Lair: It makes sense that these guys would not help anyone out.
• Area 11: The Water Cave: Why would he want to leave his home?
• Interlude Three: The Dead Attack: It talks about responding to this encounter based on what the PCs do/have done.
• Area 12: Doesn't say either way.
• Area 13: "...the creatures wait for 5 minutes and then follow the PCs, attacking the adventurers in the middle of another encounter when they are unprepared to deal with more enemies."
• Area 14: "If the alarm sounds, they watch to see if intruders enter the area... then leap forth in ambush."
• Area 15: This is where it explicitly says the monsters will eat each other. Which is kinda stupid I guess, but then, so is a gelatinous cube. Nothing here has the brains or desire to help other monsters out - it would be stupid if it did.
• Area 16: -
• Area 17: "The clay scout flees to warn Kalarel of the situation." "The creatures of this area, if not disposed of, pursue the PCs..." Huh. It even talks about how they interact with the traps in Area 16, and how the mindless zombies will ignore the danger but the ghoul will run around them.
• Area 18: These guys are holding back the PCs until Kalarel can finish his ritual. That's either stupid or not depending on how things have turned out.
• Area 19: There's no description of what happens when Kalarel finishes the ritual, or what holding the PCs back will mean. So that's kinda stupid.

[/sblock]

There are a few bad spots, but aside from the Irontooth encounter (and that's not illogical, not any more than Irontooth is) there aren't any examples of "these monsters never aid those monsters, no matter what."

 

[ExploderWizard]

What elements of the 4e modules are you talking about, by the way?

This is a question that I may be able to answer because a situation (from such a module) came up during our last session.

Our party was on the way to investigate a bandits camp and we found ourselves near a river. There were light woods and rough terrain all around a clearing next to the river. A short way upstream was a waterfall. We detected some movement through the trees and moved up to ivestigate.

The clearing, in front of the waterfall was populated with a bunch of bad guys. They heard us moving closer and a battle began. The battle raged for quite awhile before one of the bandits fled toward the waterfall. My cleric chased him down and managed to finish him off a few feetin front of that waterfall.

After finishing off my opponent I noticed that I could see clearly through the waterfall to a chamber beyond. There were, of course, more bandits inside able to see me quite as clearly as I saw them. As a matter of fact, the whole clearing and the battle taking place there was quite visible from that vantage point.

I hurried back to my companions who were mopping up the last bad guys to tell them to hurry up so we could run. I quickly relayed the threat I detected (that had certainly seen us all) and suggested we vacate the area quickly.

We took a captive and retreated a few miles, made camp, and waited for the pursuit. It didn't come. We rested and interrogated the captive who had little of value to share other than the name of his leader.

I talked, out of game to the DM after the session ended and asked what was up with that setup. He said the encounter was structured that way as written. The 2nd group will not aid the first group even if they see them getting butchered right outside Had the fleeing bandit made it through the waterfall the others would have been "triggered".

.................W T F

Thats a prime example of game world events being dictated (as written) for the sake of game mechanics, in this case the "encounter" format. The consequences of what would (and should) logically happen are suspended in an artificial manner (and VERY visible to the character as well as the player) for the sake of gamist convention.

Had the other group come out it would have been a TPK most likely if we were not able to outrun them but that would have been preferable to what happened.

 

[LostSoul]

After finishing off my opponent I noticed that I could see clearly through the waterfall to a chamber beyond.

In the module, you cannot see through the waterfall. (Otherwise Stealth would not be an option in A3.)

If your DM decided to make it transparent, that's cool, but it's not a failing of the module.

edit: It also says that they will pursue fleeing characters. So they should have chased after you, if the DM was running the encounter as written.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thats a prime example of game world events being dictated (as written) for the sake of game mechanics, in this case the "encounter" format. The consequences of what would (and should) logically happen are suspended in an artificial manner (and VERY visible to the character as well as the player) for the sake of gamist convention.

Had the other group come out it would have been a TPK most likely if we were not able to outrun them but that would have been preferable to what happened.

I hate the encounter format.

 

[Fenes]

I hate the encounter format.

I dislike the "and we split the enemy up in several groups, so the players can have several battles" way of running adventures.
If the PCs would not defend a keep, dungeon or town like this, then the NPCs shouldn't do it either.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In the module, you cannot see through the waterfall. (Otherwise Stealth would not be an option in A3.)

If your DM decided to make it transparent, that's cool, but it's not a failing of the module.

edit: It also says that they will pursue fleeing characters. So they should have chased after you, if the DM was running the encounter as written.

I can't say with certainty what was written because I have not read it, and since it seems that you have I shall take your word for it. A perception roll was made to see beyond the water.

 

[LostSoul]

Given

The only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?​

I have to assume that Bob took no other action. If you intentionally avoid including anything that could look like a decision from your example, it isn't nitpicky at all to say either (1) Bob did make meaningful decisions that got him to that point, or (2) Bob wasn't allowed to make meaningful decisions because the DM sucks.

DM: So what's Bob up to today?
Bob: Heading to Glaverston to find out what the hell this strange rock is I picked up.
DM: Okay, cool. It's a few days away. You travel blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Around noon on the third day, you come over the crest of a gently sloping hill and spot an orc guarding a bridge.
Bob: How far away is he?
DM: <checks map> About 100 feet.
Bob: I get my axe ready.
DM: Yeah, he's in no mood for tea and small talk; let's roll init.
Bob: 19.
DM: He charges at you, screaming and yelling. Critical hit! You take... 42 damage.
Bob: I die. I guess I should have stayed in bed.

edit: I'm assuming that Bob's part of a party of PCs, and that the DM is using a random encounter (with a map).

 

[Hypersmurf]

DM: Yeah, he's in no mood for tea and small talk; let's roll init.

Hell, most of the best DMs I know are very fond of starting a game with "Here are two sentences that describe where the PCs are... roll initiative!"

It's hard to go wrong opening a game with a fun combat. But there is always the possibility for that accidental PC death in round 1, especially in 3E. The only decision made was for the player to sit down at the table... if the DM is a "Let the dice fall" proponent, it's not really his fault that he rolled a 20 and a 19, followed by near-maxed damage...

-Hyp.

 

[tomBitonti]

DM: He charges at you, screaming and yelling. Critical hit! You take... 42 damage.
Bob: I die. I guess I should have stayed in bed.

If that was a one shot-kill, I'd say that the encounter was badly tuned.

This is a problem with 3E, though, with 3x (and even 4x crits), and very large possible bonuses to damage.

On the other hand, this is partly a problem of players not really thinking through the possibilties of an encounter. If you are facing off with a strong looking dude with a x3 critical damage weapon, you should be afraid, and should be ready to run away.

This brings up yet another problem with 3E (and I don't think that 4E has really fixed it; I don't consider the damage nerf to be a proper fix). That is, that the encounter format pushes players to engage, and has them rely on the game master to ensure that the encounter is balanced. There's isn't much in the encounter format where each side sizes each other up, nor are there easy spots to disengage.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hell, most of the best DMs I know are very fond of starting a game with "Here are two sentences that describe where the PCs are... roll initiative!"

It's hard to go wrong opening a game with a fun combat. But there is always the possibility for that accidental PC death in round 1, especially in 3E. The only decision made was for the player to sit down at the table... if the DM is a "Let the dice fall" proponent, it's not really his fault that he rolled a 20 and a 19, followed by near-maxed damage...

-Hyp.

If you can't accept PC death as a consequence of starting this way, you shouldn't do it. Or, conversely, you should ensure that the combat is such that the PCs cannot die.

Or, put it another way: If you sat down at the table, knowing the DM likes to start campaigns that way, and you know that there is a chance your character will die in that first scene, then you've made your decision when you sat down. If fate hands you the opportunity to make a new character, whining about it won't help the game, nor is it a particularly mature thing to do.

In LostSoul's account, let's for a moment ignore the idea that a gently sloping hill yields an initial encounter distance of 100 feet. Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game. You can go to jail in Monopoly, too, through no fault of your own. If the Monopoly player starts whining about how unfair it is that he drew a Community Chest card that makes him pay the banker, I'd have no sympathy for him, either -- and I doubt I would want to play Monopoly with him again. As the man said, "You knew the risks when you sat at the table."

If Bob doesn't like the type of game he's playing, he should find (or make) a new one. If no at the table (DM included) likes the idea that a PC dies under these circumstances, they should find a new game or houserule to prevent that consequence.

That seems pretty bloody obvious to me.


YMMV.


RC