Necromancer Games: Tough Adventures
- Thread starter Morpheus
- Start date
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
What would happen to "Lost City of Barakus," where they suggest halving the XP rewards?Maliki said:
I've been working on converting NG's free module The Wizard's Amulet into Fantasy Grounds (almost done!). It definatly has me hooked on their stuff as its one of the best modules I've seen. Everything is layed out with different options the dm can take. It will actually say something like 'if the party does this they are stupid and will probably die'. The bad guys intent is given as well as a battle plan with 3 different versions: difficult, average and easy. Very, very nice.
I'm hoping they didn't just make this one nice to suck me in and the rest of the stuff is... not so good.
I'm sure its not.
rv
I'm hoping they didn't just make this one nice to suck me in and the rest of the stuff is... not so good.
I'm sure its not.rv
Whizbang Dustyboots said:
Barakus' encounters average about 2-3 ELs over party level at the suggested play levels, so if you had a 4 person party of average PCs (25 PB or similar, not too min-maxed) with averagely skilled players you could certainly start them at 3rd instead of 1st, give them around 1/2 XP, & it'd stay challenging to the end. I'm fortunate in that my current group (hi, Dave!)
so far all seem pretty bright players, and they rolled well in stat generation, and there are six of them (plus, now, an NPC) - the previous groups I've GM'd 3e for would not, I think, have coped too well.
Orcus
First Post
I try to shy away from these discussion because it always seems when a designer drops in it quashes the free discussion of the product, and the designer seems defensive. But I really love talking about this stuff, so I hope those things dont happen.
Our adventures are challenging. But that is how we like them. Bill and I started Necro to be the company we wish existed when we were young gamers. And certain things come with that. I want to talk about that.
I dont see our modules as "meatgrinders." Tomb of Horrors is a meatgrinder. Necropolis is the closest thing to that (and may be worse) but that was a 3E update of something that was already a meatgrinder. RA has some "meatgrinder" aspects, but only when approached incorrectly. What do I mean by that? Here goes...
Are our modules designed to be difficult? Yes.
In all honesty, we dont desing for a party of 4. We design for a party of 6. That makes a big difference. But we usually put that on the cover.
We also design for parties that are combat oriented. You need front line fighters, clerics and wizards that have offensive fire power. We presume your party will have that. If you bring in diviners and sorcerers with no real offensive power (or frankly sorcerers in general, since they are below the spells they should have access to) then you just arent bringing to the table the type of party that we presume. That isnt your fault. That isnt our fault. It is just a design thing for us. Its how we do things. If that is the case for you, then bring PCs (6, not 4) of about 2 levels above.
Your party pretty much needs to be:
1. hard core tank fighter.
2. barbarian/paladin/other butt kicking bad boy
3. cleric that can also lay the smack down
4. wizard with serious firepower
5. rogue that isnt a wuss and can do something in combat
6. extra guy (ranger/fighter-mage/druid/bard/whatever)
If your party is a bunch of monks and thief-acrobats and rapier-wielding bards with non-fighting clerics and illusionists, your guys are going to get smoked. Plain and simple. If all your guys can't contribute something substantial to a combat encounter, you will have a hard time with our modules.
That's how Bill and I play and it is what we like. We are not by any means saying you have to play that way. We are not denigrating people who want rapier-wielding dandys or non-combat wizards. Just know that if they come in a Necro mod, the DM should have the sense to power down the monsters or wait until the PCs are a few levels above our suggestion.
Some call this power gaming. I dont use that term. I call it playing D&D. Let me set the record straight, you dont need "munchkin" characters to survive Necro mods, but you do need a party that is able to handle combat. Those are two different things.
The other problem is the "video game" mentality. Again, I am not blaming DMs or players. It has been beaten into their skull by video games. It is basically this: the video game premise is that if it exists, it must be attacked; if it is in front of me, I must be able to handle it; if the room is there, it must be cleared because it most likely has a lever I need to pull or key I need to find or vital item to solve the "boss" monster.
None of those things are true in our mods, ever.
We have plenty of rooms and encounters and even whole levels that are there for your use. They are not there for a room by room kick in the door fest. That is a sure way to death. Read my intro in Tomb of Abysthor about how to use a dungeon.
No, wait, here it is for those that dont have it:
Let me give you an example.
Let's say we were going to make a module called "The Death Star." We would detail all 100 levels of the death star. Stat out the guards. The monster in the trash compacter. Vader. The main gun. Etc. And we put all this in a product called "The Death Star."
Now, it isnt our fault if all a DM uses that for is to say "hey you land on the death star" and the players all say "lets kick doors in level by level." No one would survive. That would be a meat grinder.
It is up to you, the DM and players, to come up with the story. The dungeon is just the setting. Rappan Athuk is a great example. Just like the death star, you cant go in that thing and go room by room kicking in doors and killing occupants. The DM has to send you there for a reason--rescuing a princess, finding a specific artifact or item, killing a specific monster, whatever. Part of first edition feel is to not force a story on you. We cant force you to tell the story of the young paladin rescuing the captured pricess from the evil cleric (basically, the Star Wars plot). That is for you to decide. But we give you the floor plans and the bad guys for you to tell your stories.
Plus, we dont design things to necessarily be handled right in a row, one after the other. We presume you will be smart and retreat and rest and not attack something that seems to bad. Again, this goes to the video game mentality that "if it is in front of me, I should be able to defeat it." We dont design like that. Some things you just need to run from. The world isnt nicely parsed into 1st level sections and 2nd level sections and 3rd level sections, waiting for you to access an ability to "open" that area up to you so that the DM can be assured you have the appropriate powers to take on the level. That isnt "real." We prefer a world with a little more versimilitude. There might be a manticore over that hill, or 3 goblins. Lets hope you find the goblins. Of course, DM judgment has to rule the day. This is still supposed to be fun. If the key says they enoer the manticore, and the PCs are nearly dead and not capable of handling him, then maybe he is off hunting for dinner.
So, to sum up...
Part of the problem is that, yes, we do design modules that are challenging. We also presume you will have a party that can handle combat. BUT much of the problem comes from the video game mentality of how our products are to be used. And that is no one's fault. In fact, we should probably do a better job explaining that. And remember, PC death is not the end of the line. Too many players these days hate the idea of PC death.
As a final note, I want to point out one thing: I like challenging modules because the players always feel they have accomplished something at the end. Believe me, players who have gone into Rappan Athuk and barely dragged themselves to the surface just had a big dose of epic gaming and they will remember that session. The harder the challenge the greater the reward of accomplishment.
Clark
Our adventures are challenging. But that is how we like them. Bill and I started Necro to be the company we wish existed when we were young gamers. And certain things come with that. I want to talk about that.
I dont see our modules as "meatgrinders." Tomb of Horrors is a meatgrinder. Necropolis is the closest thing to that (and may be worse) but that was a 3E update of something that was already a meatgrinder. RA has some "meatgrinder" aspects, but only when approached incorrectly. What do I mean by that? Here goes...
Are our modules designed to be difficult? Yes.
In all honesty, we dont desing for a party of 4. We design for a party of 6. That makes a big difference. But we usually put that on the cover.
We also design for parties that are combat oriented. You need front line fighters, clerics and wizards that have offensive fire power. We presume your party will have that. If you bring in diviners and sorcerers with no real offensive power (or frankly sorcerers in general, since they are below the spells they should have access to) then you just arent bringing to the table the type of party that we presume. That isnt your fault. That isnt our fault. It is just a design thing for us. Its how we do things. If that is the case for you, then bring PCs (6, not 4) of about 2 levels above.
Your party pretty much needs to be:
1. hard core tank fighter.
2. barbarian/paladin/other butt kicking bad boy
3. cleric that can also lay the smack down
4. wizard with serious firepower
5. rogue that isnt a wuss and can do something in combat
6. extra guy (ranger/fighter-mage/druid/bard/whatever)
If your party is a bunch of monks and thief-acrobats and rapier-wielding bards with non-fighting clerics and illusionists, your guys are going to get smoked. Plain and simple. If all your guys can't contribute something substantial to a combat encounter, you will have a hard time with our modules.
That's how Bill and I play and it is what we like. We are not by any means saying you have to play that way. We are not denigrating people who want rapier-wielding dandys or non-combat wizards. Just know that if they come in a Necro mod, the DM should have the sense to power down the monsters or wait until the PCs are a few levels above our suggestion.
Some call this power gaming. I dont use that term. I call it playing D&D. Let me set the record straight, you dont need "munchkin" characters to survive Necro mods, but you do need a party that is able to handle combat. Those are two different things.
The other problem is the "video game" mentality. Again, I am not blaming DMs or players. It has been beaten into their skull by video games. It is basically this: the video game premise is that if it exists, it must be attacked; if it is in front of me, I must be able to handle it; if the room is there, it must be cleared because it most likely has a lever I need to pull or key I need to find or vital item to solve the "boss" monster.
None of those things are true in our mods, ever.
We have plenty of rooms and encounters and even whole levels that are there for your use. They are not there for a room by room kick in the door fest. That is a sure way to death. Read my intro in Tomb of Abysthor about how to use a dungeon.
No, wait, here it is for those that dont have it:
Let me give you an example.
Let's say we were going to make a module called "The Death Star." We would detail all 100 levels of the death star. Stat out the guards. The monster in the trash compacter. Vader. The main gun. Etc. And we put all this in a product called "The Death Star."
Now, it isnt our fault if all a DM uses that for is to say "hey you land on the death star" and the players all say "lets kick doors in level by level." No one would survive. That would be a meat grinder.
It is up to you, the DM and players, to come up with the story. The dungeon is just the setting. Rappan Athuk is a great example. Just like the death star, you cant go in that thing and go room by room kicking in doors and killing occupants. The DM has to send you there for a reason--rescuing a princess, finding a specific artifact or item, killing a specific monster, whatever. Part of first edition feel is to not force a story on you. We cant force you to tell the story of the young paladin rescuing the captured pricess from the evil cleric (basically, the Star Wars plot). That is for you to decide. But we give you the floor plans and the bad guys for you to tell your stories.
Plus, we dont design things to necessarily be handled right in a row, one after the other. We presume you will be smart and retreat and rest and not attack something that seems to bad. Again, this goes to the video game mentality that "if it is in front of me, I should be able to defeat it." We dont design like that. Some things you just need to run from. The world isnt nicely parsed into 1st level sections and 2nd level sections and 3rd level sections, waiting for you to access an ability to "open" that area up to you so that the DM can be assured you have the appropriate powers to take on the level. That isnt "real." We prefer a world with a little more versimilitude. There might be a manticore over that hill, or 3 goblins. Lets hope you find the goblins. Of course, DM judgment has to rule the day. This is still supposed to be fun. If the key says they eno
er the manticore, and the PCs are nearly dead and not capable of handling him, then maybe he is off hunting for dinner.So, to sum up...
Part of the problem is that, yes, we do design modules that are challenging. We also presume you will have a party that can handle combat. BUT much of the problem comes from the video game mentality of how our products are to be used. And that is no one's fault. In fact, we should probably do a better job explaining that. And remember, PC death is not the end of the line. Too many players these days hate the idea of PC death.
As a final note, I want to point out one thing: I like challenging modules because the players always feel they have accomplished something at the end. Believe me, players who have gone into Rappan Athuk and barely dragged themselves to the surface just had a big dose of epic gaming and they will remember that session. The harder the challenge the greater the reward of accomplishment.
Clark
Very helpful post Clark, thanks. BTW I think you left an 'o' out of "encounter" 
This was particularly useful info for me with my Barakus campaign 2 sessions in:
>>Your party pretty much needs to be:
1. hard core tank fighter.
2. barbarian/paladin/other butt kicking bad boy
3. cleric that can also lay the smack down
4. wizard with serious firepower
5. rogue that isnt a wuss and can do something in combat
6. extra guy (ranger/fighter-mage/druid/bard/whatever)<<
The party started at 1st, they have the tank fighter & wizard sorted, plus a mental-stats-focussed Cleric, 2 Rogues (1 w STR 7 though), and a Monk. This means they were really good at Spotting things & scouting, but maybe dangerously low on meat-shield types. Fortunately in session 2 the Wizard player took the chance to buy a hearty young slave, Gren (War-1 with good STR & CON) who he freed and equipped to fight, who's now performing the "back-up Fighter" role. Looking at your list I think they have it covered now - they have #1 & #4, NPC covers #2, party Cleric isn't much of a smackdown guy, but the 2 Rogues & Monk cover that plus #5 & #6. Sorted.
This was particularly useful info for me with my Barakus campaign 2 sessions in:
>>Your party pretty much needs to be:
1. hard core tank fighter.
2. barbarian/paladin/other butt kicking bad boy
3. cleric that can also lay the smack down
4. wizard with serious firepower
5. rogue that isnt a wuss and can do something in combat
6. extra guy (ranger/fighter-mage/druid/bard/whatever)<<
The party started at 1st, they have the tank fighter & wizard sorted, plus a mental-stats-focussed Cleric, 2 Rogues (1 w STR 7 though), and a Monk. This means they were really good at Spotting things & scouting, but maybe dangerously low on meat-shield types. Fortunately in session 2 the Wizard player took the chance to buy a hearty young slave, Gren (War-1 with good STR & CON) who he freed and equipped to fight, who's now performing the "back-up Fighter" role. Looking at your list I think they have it covered now - they have #1 & #4, NPC covers #2, party Cleric isn't much of a smackdown guy, but the 2 Rogues & Monk cover that plus #5 & #6. Sorted.
JoeBlank
Explorer
Thank you, Patrick and Clark, for your informative replies. I am already a Necromancer fan, but seeing how much thought you guys put into the theme and theory behind your entire line of products impresses me even more.
My players don't visit EN World, so I will probably copy your posts to our group site for them to read. They are finishing up Morrick Mansion and the first half of Hall of the Rainbow Mage (just the house and below, I made the Rainbow Mage the prime suspect for creating the curse at MM). Our group has 3-4 players per session, and they are far from optimized. I actually have to go with Necro modules about 4 levels below average party level, or adjust heavily.
My players don't visit EN World, so I will probably copy your posts to our group site for them to read. They are finishing up Morrick Mansion and the first half of Hall of the Rainbow Mage (just the house and below, I made the Rainbow Mage the prime suspect for creating the curse at MM). Our group has 3-4 players per session, and they are far from optimized. I actually have to go with Necro modules about 4 levels below average party level, or adjust heavily.
DarrenGMiller
First Post
JoeBlank said:
I aggree wholeheartedly and have already posted their comments to my group site. We have finished Crucible of Freya (with a totally different plot - there is not even a crucible involved and no Freya) and am planning several more, including ToA, Chaos Rising, VoLK and a few others.
DM
DM
MonsterMash
First Post
S'mon said:Very helpful post Clark, thanks. BTW I think you left an 'o' out of "encounter"
This was particularly useful info for me with my Barakus campaign 2 sessions in:
>>Your party pretty much needs to be:
1. hard core tank fighter.
2. barbarian/paladin/other butt kicking bad boy
3. cleric that can also lay the smack down
4. wizard with serious firepower
5. rogue that isnt a wuss and can do something in combat
6. extra guy (ranger/fighter-mage/druid/bard/whatever)<<
The party started at 1st, they have the tank fighter & wizard sorted, plus a mental-stats-focussed Cleric, 2 Rogues (1 w STR 7 though), and a Monk. This means they were really good at Spotting things & scouting, but maybe dangerously low on meat-shield types. Fortunately in session 2 the Wizard player took the chance to buy a hearty young slave, Gren (War-1 with good STR & CON) who he freed and equipped to fight, who's now performing the "back-up Fighter" role. Looking at your list I think they have it covered now - they have #1 & #4, NPC covers #2, party Cleric isn't much of a smackdown guy, but the 2 Rogues & Monk cover that plus #5 & #6. Sorted.
Of course at 1st and 2nd level sheer bad luck can really knock back a party as we found with an encounter with one Orc barbarian and two wardogs. So RIP Gren and we find ourselves having to look for another meat shield. Just a pity I didn't do just a little better with the dice as if Cam (the cleric) had something like a high enough strength to get positive to hit and damage modifiers it'd help speed up melee combat a bit and make him more suitable as a front rank fighter.
Similar Threads
