Tissue-Paper Dungeons?

[ProfessorCirno]

Could someone fill me in on when it suddenly became ok for 4e to be "simulationist" so long as we're talking about something that we don't like?

 

[silentounce]

Knock isn't for doors. Thieves picks and axes are for doors. Knock is for vaults.

Fort Knocks?

And as for the would-be realtors of wizard towers. One of the best campaigns I ever played in had us turn the emptied out goblinoid caverns we cleared into a thieves guild for us. I even carved a mural at the entrance of our party, complete with comical jabs at the other party members. Heh, so glad that I gave that character the stonecutting and art proficiencies.

 

[Staffan]

Also, are there really adamantine doors in the DMG? What's the price of adamantite these days? In 3.5, at least, it really wasn't a good idea to make doors out of something worth tens of times its weight in gold. You'd be hard pressed to come up with anything valuable enough to put behind them...

Reminds me of a Swedish adventure in the 80s (Marsklandet) where the main dungeon had its walls covered in sheet mithril.

 

[Nightson]

Magic Weapons could presumably handle the stress of breaking through rock. Any such tunneling would make enough noise to attract extra monsters in any game I was running though.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Could someone fill me in on when it suddenly became ok for 4e to be "simulationist" so long as we're talking about something that we don't like?

We always go simulationist if the results of the rules fail to make something interesting or fun that could be interesting in the real world. ("How can I get out of this prison cell?")
We always go gamist if we find the results of the real world are boring or uninteresting or become tedious. ("A 20 ft high Giant hits you with his sword - you're dead!" "But I have 30 hp left!")
We always become narrativist when the game rules and the real world get in the way of telling a more interesting story. ("Wait, this last hit dropped you to -11? Let's ignore that. You can't afford the Raise Dead spell yet, but you've still got a destiny. You see a skeleton in dark robes coming toward you. 'I can bring you back, young man. But there is a price to pay...', he says.")

Obviously, "interesting", "fun" and "tedious" are subjective.

 

[Stogoe]

We always go simulationist if the results of the rules fail to make something interesting or fun that could be interesting in the real world. ("How can I get out of this prison cell?")
We always go gamist if we find the results of the real world are boring or uninteresting or become tedious. ("A 20 ft high Giant hits you with his sword - you're dead!" "But I have 30 hp left!")
We always become narrativist when the game rules and the real world get in the way of telling a more interesting story. ("Wait, this last hit dropped you to -11? Let's ignore that. You can't afford the Raise Dead spell yet, but you've still got a destiny. You see a skeleton in dark robes coming toward you. 'I can bring you back, young man. But there is a price to pay...', he says.")

Obviously, "interesting", "fun" and "tedious" are subjective.

There is much wisdom in this post. Carving through solid stone with an adamantine spoon so you can bypass all the work the DM put into the adventure is boring and annoying, so we throw that result out.

 

[pogminky]

We always go simulationist - *snip*

Darn tootin'!

You adopt the style appropriate for max fun, max enjoyment for your group.

 

[mmu1]

There is much wisdom in this post. Carving through solid stone with an adamantine spoon so you can bypass all the work the DM put into the adventure is boring and annoying, so we throw that result out.

Of course, most normal players don't start to carve their way through solid stone unless the adventure itself is "boring and annoying".

While the "adamantine spoon" bunch just sound like lunatics, I have yet to see a group of players decide to sit around rolling for damage to inanimate objects unless a)they got bored with some tedious and over-elaborate dungeon that clearly had no purpose other than being a rat maze or b)they felt they were being railroaded and got a little passive-aggressive.

If your players try things like that, your first question shouldn't be "how do I make sure the players don't waste all the time I spent prepping" but rather "Are my dungeons boring?"

 

[LostSoul]

What with the rather apathetic performance of the Knock ritual, I was faced with the question: "Well, how long would it take just to smash down the door instead? Less than 10 minutes?".

Here is how the game says to handle this:

• Describe the environment. "You face a heavy steel door."
• Ask the players, "What do you do?"
  They respond: "We bash down the door."
• "Your job here is to listen to what the players want to do and identify how to resolve their actions."
  "Some tasks involve a skill check or an ability check, [...] a Strength check to force open a door"

So, playing the game the way it was written, the DM decides how to resolve bashing open this door. It suggests using Skill Checks when you're not in an encounter, so you can do that, but if you feel like letting them make attack rolls that do damage against the door, feel free.

Combine that with the "Yes, but..." advice, so if you don't want them to carve through a dungeon wall, say, "Yes, but... if you do, you'll bring the monsters down on your head!" or "Yes, but... if you don't make a difficult Dungeoneering check, the tunnel will collapse on you!"

The key point is that the DM can resolve it however he wants to at the time, and it's his responsibility to make sure how he chooses to resolve it is fun and exciting for everyone.