How often does your GG "break" modules?

[gizmo33]

Here is a list of things that should not be considered the height of tactical genius in DnD:
1. using invisibility, fly, scrying, teleport
2. killing monsters in a pit that can't climb, fly, use missle weapons, or take cover
3. bypassing a portcullis when you can cast 5th level spells
4. turning undead
5. not getting hurt by a trap that you found (even if you have to waste a spell like stoneshape to do it because you forgot to bring a 10 ft pole into the dungeon with you)
6. not falling into a pit that you've found (I'm not even an adventurer and I can usually avoid falling into pits that I'm aware of - even without using a 5th level spell!)

I'm sure there's more to the list, but I'd have to read the rest of this thread to think of them.

Basically, I think a passing familiarity with DnD is enough to solve the problem that I see here. Even if a published module doesn't consider these things, it's easy enough for a DM to make a few adjustments to the module in a few minutes. Or just accept that the PCs will get the poorly guarded McGuffin and start planning for the next encounter area rather than fret too much about the poor monsters in the pit that were doomed from the start.

If the Lord of Blades has never heard of scrying and isn't protecting himself against it then I don't know how he got to be lord of anything. He should talk to some spell casters and find out what kinds of stuff they can do before he starts calling himself "Lord of Blades" and attracting unwanted attention.

If the DM wasn't expected the PCs to use magic to destroy the bridge then what in the world was he thinking? IMO the DM in the examples above got the expected result. If a PC turning undead somehow breaks a module, then something's really wrong but I don't think it takes a lot of thinking to solve the problem. DMs should read the players handbook and see what kinds of stuff PCs can do.

 

[Eridanis]

The example that springs to mind is from the Wulf Ratbane campaign, run by Dinkeldog. They started QUEEN OF LIES as a sort of side-trek on thier way through the Adventure Path, and the module starts with a daring drow raid for kidnapping, or some such. They're meant to be in & out and on thier way back to the Underdark.

Except that Wulf, et al., completely annihilate the raiding party. Bye-bye, plot hook.

Dinkeldog closed the module, put it back on the shelf at the end of the game, and pulled out the next module in the AP.

Edit: Found the exact quote. Man, it was good to go back & reread some of that...

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

So when adding fleshy bits... do you routinely drop in decoy stuff, so that players don't always think the things they encounter have significance in the storyline?

When you add in fleshy bits, how do you handle time management in running the module to fit the time that your group has available to play?

Heh. I find that my players create their own decoy stuff. Last session, they came to a point where the antagonists had used a wagon to haul some rock out of mine and dump it over a cliff and it landed on a small ledge they happen to be crossing. They encountered the rock pile days after this had occurred. The party spent several hours combing through the rock pit, scaling the cliff (when the path they were on led right to the top), digging below the rock pile, examing the rocks, etc It was mind boggling....capping with the discovery that, after having scaled the cliff, a path existed leading down to the same ledge. They could have simply walked. The rockpile was an extraneous detail, but they diligently followed it up.

So, no I don't purposely put red herrings or decoys into modules, but the players seize on the little things and dwell.

Time management isn't really an issue for the players...we meet every Monday night and play until we're tired or we reach a suitable break point/dramatic point.

In this circumstance, time management for the PCs isn't an issue either...they are pretty sure they have found the source of the attacks they were investigating...now, it's just a matter of killing the enemy and discovering their secrets.

 

[hammerlily]

Heh. I find that my players create their own decoy stuff.....
(rockpile example)... So, no I don't purposely put red herrings or decoys into modules, but the players seize on the little things and dwell.

Time management isn't really an issue for the players...we meet every Monday night and play until we're tired or we reach a suitable break point/dramatic point.

In this circumstance, time management for the PCs isn't an issue either...they are pretty sure they have found the source of the attacks they were investigating...now, it's just a matter of killing the enemy and discovering their secrets.

Maybe its just my style, but half the stuff some PCs wind up investigating is unneccessary - and we should just walk on by. But does this happen??? Nope. Some folks can't seem to avoid fixating on piddly details, eating up game time, which results in a subsequent rush through the good parts.

I wouldn't lay this pacing problem on the back of the GM though. There are only so many times and ways a GM can say - "that is not relevantl" - or "there is nothing in this room".

I like it better when GM's routinely put clutter in the PCs path just to mess with their minds. It can train their players not to expect combat/plot hooks every time something is found.

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

Maybe its just my style, but half the stuff some PCs wind up investigating is unneccessary - and we should just walk on by. But does this happen??? Nope. Some folks can't seem to avoid fixating on piddly details, eating up game time, which results in a subsequent rush through the good parts.

I wouldn't lay this pacing problem on the back of the GM though. There are only so many times and ways a GM can say - "that is not relevantl" - or "there is nothing in this room".

I like it better when GM's routinely put clutter in the PCs path just to mess with their minds. It can train their players not to expect combat/plot hooks every time something is found.

I never thought of pacing as problematic. I am willing to DM at the speed the players play their characters at. I don't push or prod really...I let the players set the pace. As I said, the group meets every Monday evening and will for the forseeable future so the campaign isn't any kind of rush. If the players want to spend two whole sessions investigating false leads, I'll let them. It smacks more of real life that way....and the eventual victory is sweeter since they have worked that hard to achieve it.

But the players have to learn to distingush between leads, plot hooks, red herrings, and legitimate clues, all of which are useful, depending on the circumstances.

Now, in a larger sense, pacing is important to the campaign. The PCs have to learn and grow, as does the world around them. PC don't have to shape/change the world, indeed in most good campaigns they won't. But they can enact change on a very small scale and watch how these changes are influenced by the larger world.
It doesn't mean the world has to change every second and there can't be any stability, but pacing in a campaign sense is important.

 

[megamania]

The reasons for failure are-

Unexpected plans that work (no matter how unlikely it should have)

Misbalanced numbers of players or levels (most games set for 4 players)

Just incredible day of rolls

DM allows something not knowing what the player has in mind (bending of rules)

Misjudging of players strengths / weaknesses (Beholders against a group of fighters OUCH)

Down time to replace HP / Spells

Imbalance of magic / treasure


Many reasons / things can happen.

 

[hammerlily]

I never thought of pacing as problematic.

Its really only problematic when one or two players have a different perspective on pacing than others in the group.

 

[Justin Bacon]

1: Dunguen supposed to be inescapaible once entered due to locking portacellus.....
Stone shape, stone breaker acid (old treasure), soulborn with improved sunder.......party free to come and go as it pleases, starts leaving after each fight to reload on high level spells.
2: Every spotted trap or puzzle stoneshapped over
3: every bottomless pit or water puzzle WallOfStoned into safe walkways

Stone Shape and Wall of Stone are truly the dungeon-killers. Personally, I love watching players get clever with them. (DMs who get frustrated because their players are succeeding in unusual ways always leave me scratching my head.)

My gaming group just got done "breaking" the TOMB OF HORRORS wide open with Locate Object and Stone Shape: They went through the misty arch in area 10 and had all their possessions teleported to the Crypt. They walked outside, grabbed some clay, came back inside and cast Locate Object on a piece of their gear, stone shaped a tunnel straight to the Crypt, grabbed their gear and the loot, left the "creepy skull" alone, and left.

Designers seldom take into account lassos,

Are there any rules for lassos? I've come up with some houserules using the the Use Rope skill, but I've always thought this was a huge oversight for the core rules.

 

[Justin Bacon]

Number one question asked by my group that is often not in the module "Do the doors open inwards or outwards?". Always. Without fail. Every room.

(When I write my own adventures, I make sure that each and evey door is noted with which way it opens).

Nice point.

The other thing I'd like to see more of is:

(1) If I find a trap, what exactly have I found?

(2) If I disable a trap, what exactly have I done (by default)?