Orcus of Necromancer Games says "You were right, I was wrong"

[Dausuul]

I think any module should assume that the 4 "classic" classes are covered, namely cleric, wizard, fighter and thief.

Ugh, no. This expectation that you have to cover all four classes is one of the things I've always hated about D&D. I can't count the number of times I sighed and chose not to play the character I wanted to play, so the group would have a healer, or a front-line fighter, or whatever. 4E has reduced that dependency and I hope 5E eliminates it.

Even if a party has both a divine caster and an arcane caster, there's no guarantee that they have access to a given spell. They might be a favored soul and a sorceror who spent their limited slots on other things. Or the wizard might be a specialist who's barred from learning that spell. Or the wizard simply might never have gotten around to learning it.

Bad enough that the combat system expects a party to cover the "classic roles,"
but you can usually muddle through combat without one. But an adventure written on the assumption that the party will include [caster type X] with [spell type Y], and that cannot be completed if you don't, is a badly written adventure IMO.

 

[Wicht]

Bad enough that the combat system expects a party to cover the "classic roles,"
but you can usually muddle through combat without one. But an adventure written on the assumption that the party will include [caster type X] with [spell type Y], and that cannot be completed if you don't, is a badly written adventure IMO.

I think it depends on what you mean by "complete."

If by complete you mean defeat the bad guy then most class mixes are going to be okay for most modules, though every bad guy will be more vulnerable to certain classes. If this is your meaning I guess I agree with you.

If by complete you mean solve every puzzle, open every door and discover all the treasure then no, I would have to disagree. I think a good module is going to play different for every class. That is, a good writer will remember to include something that only a bard can really discover, or a spot where the rogue is going to be the only one who can open a certain door, or a fountain that will only reveal its secrets to a good aligned cleric, etc.

 

[hexgrid]

Obviously a thread this long will start to wander off-topic. However I do find it ironic that after so many posts about "WotC provides everything I need", "3rd-party support isn't important to my game", etc. we've got 9 pages (currently) of 4e fans expressing disappointment, or clamoring for NecroG 4e modules. If 3rd-party support is really than unimportant to the 4e crowd, why did Clark's post get anything more than a passing glance?

My guess is that not everyone who plays 4e feels the same way about 3rd party support.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it might be a good idea to fork this topic.

I believe modules should have SOLVABLE solutions, but not by anyone at any time. Otherwise, you end up with modules full of 10x10 rooms and orcs. I think by 9th level, a PC should be able to come across SOME way of flying, swimming, or short-term teleporting via spells, magic items, or such. I REALLY don't believe modules should try to account for EVERY possible party composition (such as a group of 5 bards) so it falls on the DM to ADAPT THE MODULE to make sure his group can succeed. He can place low-charged items (wand of fly, potions of waterbreathing) in adventures before that one (you DID review the module long before the day of running it, right?) to aid the PCs (assuming they're not idiots and sell it off to by another +1 on their armor...)

So I really believe somewhat in the middle: a good module has primary objectives that any class can complete, but I believe in side-quests and alternate goals certain classes are better suited for (or they alone can do) spices up the game and makes the players feel good about their "role." Everything I mentioned in the module either was a side-trek (chasm), an encounter doable-but-harder (swimming) or involved finding some resources in the module to aid you (crypt/vampire). Spells certainly made it easier, but a crafty group of PCs could find alternate methods (even if alternate means leaving, resting, and re-prioritizing spells) of accomplishing goals.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Voadam]

Any word on the follow up two tsar modules?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Orcus limited interaction with this thread reinforces my 'fire and forget' theory.

It also showcases one of the reasons why EN World isn't 'hip' anymore.

Orcus, unless I'm misreading this, isn't a community supporter and doesn't 'hang' around here.

He doesn't have to. The Necromancer forum is great even if the Necromancer website is terrible.

Those companies that were able to carve niches out for themselves were able to bring the fans to them. En World is awesome but it is not the heaven for the publishers, especially the little guys who grew into the big guys, that it once was. It's almost a PDF only crowd outside of a few notable exceptions but that's how the 4e market itself it.

And the big player in the 4e market also has it's own forum.

 

[pawsplay]

There is that - while there are some types of metagame information that we don't want players to use, a DM really should design with the note that there is a game here, with people (friends, even!) trying to have a good time. Making players work for their successes is good, as then the success is all the more sweet. But take that to an extreme, and the undertaking becomes frustrating.

This reminds me of the Celestial Bee Incident. There's more than one way to locate a coffin.

 

[Dausuul]

I think it depends on what you mean by "complete."

If by complete you mean defeat the bad guy then most class mixes are going to be okay for most modules, though every bad guy will be more vulnerable to certain classes. If this is your meaning I guess I agree with you.

Yes, that is my meaning. I'm fine with "Easter eggs" thrown in for PCs who happen to have the right spell or skill or piece of gear for the situation. In fact, such Easter eggs are a good thing; it gives the player who prepared for that situation a chance to show off, without derailing the story.

But the core plotline of the adventure should never be dependent on PCs having access to a certain ability set.

 

[Betote]

Yes, that is my meaning. I'm fine with "Easter eggs" thrown in for PCs who happen to have the right spell or skill or piece of gear for the situation. In fact, such Easter eggs are a good thing; it gives the player who prepared for that situation a chance to show off, without derailing the story.

But the core plotline of the adventure should never be dependent on PCs having access to a certain ability set.

Ah, but then you risk the opposite scenario, which IIRC was one of the big complains about 3.x: When the whole adventure is solved by a sole character's power/ability/spell/trait.

A published module should always take into account the most common abilities available to the PCs, and that would be covering Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue capabilities.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A published module should always take into account the most common abilities available to the PCs, and that would be covering Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue capabilities.

There is a huge difference between designing an adventure assuming the 4 roles are covered and designing an adventure assuming that one particular spell or ability is available at the max or even half competence.

IOW, its alright to assume the party has an arcane caster. Its not alright to assume that the party has a 15th level Wizard with Fly and Fireball prepped.