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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Its only bad design if you assume the PCs should be able to overcome every obstacle put in their way. Personally, in most of my worlds, I just design things in a way that seems reasonable to me and its the PCs problem to overcome.

Thats all well and good if you, the DM, have provided them the necessary tools to overcome the obstacles they present.

If you've designed an adventure that requires Spell X to complete, but you've never given the party access to Spell X or (Magic Item Z that grants the benefits of that spell), you can hardly blame the party for failing to complete the mission.

After all, would Cap. Kirk be alive if the aliens hadn't given him sulphur to make gunpowder to shoot diamonds at the Gorn?

You could validly argue that "Arcanist #1 should have taken Spell X at level 6." However, the counter to that is that if Spell X was so important, your duty as DM is to inform the players know that someone would have to learn that spell.

If I was a vampire I jolly well would have a hard to get to coffin, especially if I was clever and intelligent and had hundreds of years to prepare it.

That makes perfect sense, but if the coffin is impossible for the party to get to, it makes the adventure pretty much unfun.

 

[Umbran]

That makes perfect sense, but if the coffin is impossible for the party to get to, it makes the adventure pretty much unfun.

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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep.

I mean, how many perfectly fun movies, TV shows, novels or short stories would have been ruined if the BBEG actually followed Peter's Evil Overlord List?

Peter's Evil Overlord List

 

[Celtavian]

re

Hopefully you support Pathfinder. I like it alot better than 4E. They did a nice job building on the 3e ruleset.

 

[lrsach01]

I'm confused. Was this before or after he shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll?

OK.. do you realize how PAINFUL snorting hot coffee out of your nose IS?

 

[El Mahdi]

OK.. do you realize how PAINFUL snorting hot coffee out of your nose IS?

If it's McDonalds coffee you can sue!

 

[Dausuul]

Which, FWIW, is why I consider any adventure that depends on a particular spell or sequence of spells being cast to be poorly designed unless it has at least 2 backups to the PCs resource pools. IOW, if the adventure requires that kind of specificity, it should provide 2 ways other than the resources the PCs control- treasures or goods such as wands, rings, scrolls, the help of NPCs or even an alternative path or sequence of spells.

This. A module should never assume the party has a given spell or set of spells; in fact, it should never assume the party has spells at all. I have known parties made up entirely of noncasters. I have known other parties where the only caster was a spontaneous caster, who would not necessarily know the utility spell in question.

As for the vampire and the crypt that can only be reached via gaseous form, okay, you can put that in if you like, but then don't build an adventure around killing the vampire.

 

[AllisterH]

This. A module should never assume the party has a given spell or set of spells; in fact, it should never assume the party has spells at all. I have known parties made up entirely of noncasters. I have known other parties where the only caster was a spontaneous caster, who would not necessarily know the utility spell in question.

Ok, this one I disagree with.

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

I think any 3e adventure writer can safely assume that spells like Fly and Waterbreathing are available at the least 3 spell levels above where they first get them. Thus, a 3rd level spell means that it can be assumed to be had in an adventure written for 11th adventurers.

This of course doesn't apply for 1e/2e due to spell/item acquisition rules

 

[Azgulor]

Well, Clark (if I can call you Clark). It’s a start. But you are not done admitting you were wrong, I think.

So. You held back 3X product, hoping to go 4e. And you were wrong.

So. You thought the GSL could be “fixed.” And you were wrong.

Congrats for starting your public confession tour (honestly). But your biggest mistake you continue to defend.

You advocated for 4e and continue to carry a torch for the edition. You are wrong, again, and will eventually admit it. You have been a leading cheerleader for the most damaging (hence worst) edition of D&D, bar none, a fact that will be widely admitted, I think, once 4e is no longer the “current edition.” You have aided and abetted the tulip speculation edition of D&D. You will eventually have to admit and apologize for that to have any shred of credibility as a publisher/public figure.

No. You are not done admitting you were wrong by a long shot.

But its good to see you making a start.

Um, I'm curious...

Did you think, even for a single microsecond, that writing that post could portray you in a positive light?

Note: I'm not a 4e fan.

 

[Azgulor]

Clark,

While I think it was a classy move on your part, I don't think you really needed to apologize. You were up front from the very beginning as to the personal and business-related reasons why you were lining up to support 4e. Although I thought you were viewing the 4e announcement & launch through extra-thick rose colored glasses and giving WotC waaaay too much credit, I can hardly claim I was right and you were wrong.

If anything, the reality NecroG came to realize is Exhibit A for the case of "WotC did screw up" (in part). Whether a WotC customer & D&D fan felt betrayed, slighted, or dismissed is purely subjective. When the biggest non-WotC cheerleader & popular 3rd-party publisher says supporting 4e isn't viable (under the original GSL)... well, that's as close to tangible data as I've seen in the RPG industry.

Note: While not a fan of 4e, I'm not saying anything about the game itself. If you like it, booya for you!

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?

Perhaps it's nothing more than expressing a desire for a "nice to have". My own ancedotal speculation is that 3rd-party support is a big deal for many gamers. I also suspect that while 4e has been successful for WotC, it would have seen greater success if it had encouraged the 3rd-party publishers the way it did under 3.x.