D&D General Orcs on Stairs (When Adventures Are Incomplete)

[Paul Farquhar]

In both Baldur's Gate 3 and Crown of Solasta one of the most effective tactics is pushing enemies into "bottomless" pits, which results in automatic death for both PCs and monsters. This is clearly the author's intent here. You might feel that it is unfair or unduly harsh, but it isn't incomplete.

Everyone has their own style of DMing. Whenever you run an adventure written by someone else you are going to come across places where they do things differently to you. In a simple situation such as the one described by the OP, most DMs can rule on the fly. In my game I tend to ask for a dexterity saving throw in that kind of situation. Or I might allow another character to use a reaction to grab the falling character. Which is definitely not in the rules, but suits the action movie tone I aim for. Someone who is more old school might well prefer "time to roll up a new character".

 

[Li Shenron]

I understand that you don't want to tell what the problem with Rime of the Frostmaiden is, otherwise it would be a spoiler. But frankly the "orc on stairs" is a poor example on what you want to discuss, because knowing the height of the fall is completely irrelevant to the outcome, once the text says it likely means death. Maybe it should say that it certainly means death, that would be clearer for sure. But it is definitely not a case of missing plot information.

Otherwise, the problem you bring up is very real... adventure designers understandably have only limited room to make explicit indications on how the plot can evolve or branch off in every possible way, but it is definitely possible that some adventures have glaring omissions of ramifications that are very possible.

 

[James Gasik]

I had a moment like this when I was running Forge of Fury (the Tales from the Yawning Portal version). The players had decided, against my warnings, to take the fight to the dragon.

In an attempt to replicate the dragon's tactics from the 3e module, the black dragon's lair is an underwater lake, with only two routes to the island it's put it's treasure on. You can swim (with a fully aquatic dragon running amok) or take a path of rocks sticking out of the water, forcing the party to basically move single file (with a dragon with a line of acid running amok). The dragon is stated to be able to lift only it's head out of the water to breath, giving it partial cover.

I carefully looked at the 5e rules and asked the other DM's if this was right, that mere water could provide cover. Everyone said "do what the module says".

What was left silent was how to treat the dragon when it was completely submerged. Left with no guidance, I decided that would give it total cover.

Needless to say, the encounter was an actual 5e TPK and everyone had to use their "free AL resurrection". When I posted about this on this very forum (since I was still curious about the fight's mechanics), I got lambasted for my ruling, since I had "added mechanics to the fight that weren't present or intended".

Which, I'll grant, but I mean, if the module says "3/4th of a dragon in water grants partial cover", is it really so strange to think "4/4th of a dragon in water is total cover"? Why not just say "if the dragon is in water, it gets partial cover" to avoid any rookie mistakes?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

5e does not handle water well! I had similar trouble running the fight with the nereid in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. This is one where the original author expected a non-combat solution, but "we steel her clothes" doesn't wash well in the 21st century.

 

[Lyxen]

Honestly, I know that some people feel that when buying a module, it should take every little contingency into account, but that is a really unreasonable attitude to have in an open ended game. One needs a minimum of preparation and unless an adventure is really simple and marketed as for beginners, DMs should be expected to have enough experience to make simple calls. And players should have enough empathy and understanding for their beginner DMs.

That being said, we've have a very bad experience a long time ago, in S4 the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, mostly because of a translation problem. The DM could not translate "a faint splintering noise" into French, so quite a few players were crushed to death by the following "encounter": "Avalanche: The party will hear a faint splintering sound followed by a rocky clattering and rumbling. They must immediately (before the DM counts to 10) move or else be crushed by the avalanche. The falling rocks will kill each party member who fails a saving throw versus Spells (although the avalanche is not magic, of course; the save simply indicates the relative danger)."

But then we discussed about it, did the necessary backtracks and all was well again. It's only a game, to be enjoyed, and it was the case for us even in old school gaming.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sorry, shouldn't laugh.

 

[Lyxen]

Sorry, shouldn't laugh.

We did laugh, especially after seeing the DM's confused look trying to decide what "faint splintering noise" could be, then asking for saves because everyone was confused and did not react... It was a long while ago, but I seem to recall ONE guy surviving because, for some reason, he panicked and kicked his horse in a galop.

So it's perfectly OK to laugh.

 

[Yora]

The real issue is that adventure writers want to write scenes, and even sequences with scenes. But in RPGs, the characters have agency and can do what the players want and what makes sense to them. As the writer of an adventure, you can't just assume that the players will be doing something in an encounter because it seems like the obvious thing to do. If there's one obvious thing to do, then there's no actual meaningful decision for the players to make.
Making good adventures is not writing stories. Writing stories is writing stories. Making good adventures is designing interesting environments and conflicts that players can freely interact with and that will respond to the players' decisions.

This is why 99% of adventures are junk. Good adventures can be made, but D&D has had no interest in making these for the last 38 years. Novels with irrelevant dice rolls seems to be selling well enough. And why wouldn't they of people have no examples of what proper adventures look like?

 

[MarkB]

One I remember from Red Hand of Doom, which wasn't really the module's fault. I guess you could call it the Party of Theseus.

You start off in Town #1, do some heroic stuff to help people flee the invading horde, then go off and do half a dozen other things before eventually reaching Town #2, where you become embroiled in events based upon your reputation as established by the refugees who've fled there from Town #1.

The trouble was, it had been a rather deadly adventure up to that point, plus we'd had a couple of players leave and a couple of others come in, and the upshot was that, when we did the math, we realised that none of the characters who had saved the good folks in Town #1 had actually survived to reach Town #2.

 

[pukunui]

Honestly, I know that some people feel that when buying a module, it should take every little contingency into account, but that is a really unreasonable attitude to have in an open ended game.

I don't think that's the issue here. @Retreater isn't complaining about not having every contingency covered. He's not complaining about having to spend time preparing an adventure and adjusting it for his players. He's complaining about having to spend too much of that prep time fixing all the glaringly obvious plot holes and flaws just to be able to make the adventure playable, never mind adjusting it to suit the tastes of his own players. Those are different issues.

One I remember from Red Hand of Doom, which wasn't really the module's fault. I guess you could call it the Party of Theseus.

You start off in Town #1, do some heroic stuff to help people flee the invading horde, then go off and do half a dozen other things before eventually reaching Town #2, where you become embroiled in events based upon your reputation as established by the refugees who've fled there from Town #1.

The trouble was, it had been a rather deadly adventure up to that point, plus we'd had a couple of players leave and a couple of others come in, and the upshot was that, when we did the math, we realised that none of the characters who had saved the good folks in Town #1 had actually survived to reach Town #2.

Sounds like my Red Hand of Doom campaign! The parties of adventurers who defended the towns of Drellin's Ferry and Brindol were entirely different.