Tucker's Kobolds -- really that tough a challenge?

[Celebrim]

Shark, we usually agree on many things, but here I must disagree.

First off, the players do not know, and generally will never know *exactly* how the Kobold tribe gains the wealth to store/stockpile/utilize all the oil, traps, poisons, and so on. Most don't, and are unlikely to find out the exact details.

But this is irrelevant. Even if the PC's are unlikely to ever know, the DM still needs some notion about the source of any resources. The reason is very simple. Abstract resources tend to be unlimited and invincible. Fighting something that has abstract resources is like fighting a ghost that can materialize and become ethereal at will. Concretely imagined supplies tend to be limited, interdictable, capturable and even subvertable. 'Tucker's Kobolds' tend to not only never suffer in logistical problems - never suffer from the friction of war - but by virtue of having an abstract supply line are also immune to indirect assaults.

Next, while the resources and tactics used may in fact annoy many of you, I think there's some meta-gaming thought going on here.

I'm fairly sure that I indicated that it was not the tactics or the resources that annoyed me. Any of the tactics or any of the resources are in isolation fine. What annoys me about 'Tucker's Kobold's' is the unlimited nature of these resources. In Tucker's Kobold's type encounters, all of these tactics and resources are applied together and there is a tendency for the Kobold's to be perpared to defeat any tactic.

Why is it so pervasive to believe that every group of monsters are somehow encountering *you, your PC group* for the very first time? The player group is quite likely not the first adventuring group the monsters have encountered, and certainly in many campaigns, groups of adventurers making raids into various cavern systems, etc in the local area may be in fact a routine aspect of life, and it could be a fairly common reality for many years up to the present.

Given the number of kills a player character can expect to rack up, if a group of humanoids is encountering hostile adventuring groups on a regular basis the logical assumption is that the humanoids are all long since dead.

Therefore, many such groups and tribes of humanoid monsters would develop tactics over time and make it a priority to gain and gather resources in which to defeat such roving bands of marauding adventurers. That's part of having an intelligent, interactive world, yes?--rather than a static, simplistic world of dumb creatures that--despite some common level of intellectual ability, and capacity for warfare and to learn from their experiences--never seem to respond to maruading bands of adventurers?

Sure, they'll do their best to prepare for adventurers. I'm fully willing to believe that monsterous humanoid's ability to plan goes far beyond even what you suggest here. For example, I assume that the various tribes are engaged in manufacturing, and that they regularly trade surplus goods to neighboring tribes for mutual economic advantage. I further assume that the humanoid tribe tends to be part of a vast rumor network, where invovative ideas are spread by wandering humanoid bards, shamans, itenerent craftsman, mercenaries, and merchants. So I wouldn't even have to assume that a particular tribe had seen a fireball before they'd be able to take some steps to defend against one.

But that's not the problem I have. The problem I have is PC resources are not infinite. Even if the PC's were asked to harden an area against attack, there would be some precautions that they'd simply find too expensive, too laborous, and too troublesome to undertake - and I say that with full respect for player ingenuity and devotion to detail.

I mean, let's look at the specifics for a second. In the original 'Tucker's Kobolds' articles it refers to kobold archers, moving, then firing, then finishing their move. In 1st ed., that's a non-standard rule that allows the kobolds to snipe at the players without recieving return fire. Now, why haven't the PC's archers been allowed to pull this trick since the beginning of the campaign? Surely the high level PC's are more capable archers than the kobolds, and capable of employing whatever tricks relatively unskilled kobolds can? And if they have been able to since the beginning, why weren't they informed that they could? And if they can, why aren't they able to pull the same trick on the kobolds and hense neutralizing the tactic or turning the tables on the kobolds?

Thus, it is certainly refreshing to have them meet up with a group or tribe of monsters that are quite different from what they have smugly been accustomed to dealing with for most of their adventuring careers.

Why not spread the resources around? Instead of having a bunch of dumb demihumans waiting to be killed, and a few tribes of smart humanoids with virtually unlimited resources, why not assume all humanoids are reasonably clever and resourceful? Why not make the reutine reasonably clever, reasonably bright, and reasonably resourceful and save the 'full imagination and cunning of the DM' for monsters that are supposed to be wealthy super-geniouses?

In point of fact, if I'm encountering 'Tucker's Kobolds' in 1e with something like a 12th level mage on hand, I'm going to deal with it something like this:

"I cast Invisible Stalker."
"Invisible Stalker, I command you to kill all the Kobold's on the first level of the dungeon."

I wouldn't expect a tribe of kobolds to last more than a day against a highly intelligent vaporous flying permenently invisible assassin that is utterly lethal to a kobold with every attack. But of course, with true Tucker Kobolds serving the role of DM's pets, this attack would be undoubtably be dodged immediately. The Kobold's would immediately recognize the presence of the invisible stalker, and they'd automatically know the exact instructions the stalker was given, and they'd immediately be able to organize a flight of the entire tribe to some special bolt hole technically on another level of the dungeon, at which point the Invisible Stalker would immediately consider its instructions fulfilled and the kobold's would then immediately resume all their battle stations with a speed comparable to them all possessing unlimited teleportation.

It's that sort of thing that annoys me.

 

[WayneLigon]

I mean, let's look at the specifics for a second. In the original 'Tucker's Kobolds' articles it refers to kobold archers, moving, then firing, then finishing their move. In 1st ed., that's a non-standard rule that allows the kobolds to snipe at the players without recieving return fire.

This is the sort of thing that annoyed a lot of people about D&D up until 3E: monsters in 1E very frequently have mundane-origin (meaning, it's not a magical ability or supernatural effect, bbut something that anyone could reasonably expect to do given some dedication and training) special abilities that PCs can never learn. Ever. I think all elves except PC elves can do the split-move-and-fire thing as well.

And customizing monsters is just a thing that is expected from DMs. I regularly give ghouls the ability to effectively spider-climb at will, because the image of skittering emaciated critters on the walls and ceilings is a horrifying one. It's not in the core rules, but it's just something I do.

 

[Mark]

Some form of this old chestnut can be fun to spring on a group of relatively new players but for experienced players this concept tends to chafe and be tired.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is the sort of thing that annoyed a lot of people about D&D up until 3E: monsters in 1E very frequently have mundane-origin (meaning, it's not a magical ability or supernatural effect, bbut something that anyone could reasonably expect to do given some dedication and training) special abilities that PCs can never learn. Ever. I think all elves except PC elves can do the split-move-and-fire thing as well.

Prior to 3e, why would you ever prevent any character from shooting an arrow during his or her move? If a player said, in bd&d, 1e, or 2e "I cross the room, firing an arrow at midpoint" why would you not let them?


RC

 

[Celebrim]

Prior to 3e, why would you ever prevent any character from shooting an arrow during his or her move? If a player said, in bd&d, 1e, or 2e "I cross the room, firing an arrow at midpoint" why would you not let them?


RC

I think it would have been very much up to the DM.

Older editions frequently had a very clearly defined order of operations. For example, in BD&D it clearly defined that all movement would take place, then all missile fire, then all spells, and finally all melee. There would be absolutely no reason for a player to expect that he could move again following the missile phase. And the DM who wished to allow such things would have to be very careful indeed to not let the character argue that he ought to be able to move after missile fire, but before melee combat because bD&D had no conception of 'attacks of opportunity' or similar rules designed to make linear turns more resemble real time. He'd also almost certainly feel the need to event things like 'readied actions' to counter the tactic.

Thus the kobolds don't merely have an extra ability, they are breaking the rules in a very specific way, and in a way that would have been very unusual in an earlier edition game and which would have made alot of DM's uncomfortable simply because it created such a potentially complex headache. You more or less would have been throwing the whole combat system out of the window and winging it. If the kobolds are doing so in the context of a game where the PC's are comfortable with the DM 'saying yes' to anything remotely reasonable, then fine - it would probably come as no surprise that kobolds can split move and fire and PC's may have even already used this tactic on a monster themselves. If it comes up in the context of a DM who frequently handicaps players with the letter of the law, the first time I see split move fire kobolds, I don't know how anyone else feels but I'm going to lose a great deal of interest in the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it would have been very much up to the DM.

I don't know about you, but I never had any difficulty as DM or player by allowing character -- PC or kobold -- to do what we generally acepted an average person could do.

RC

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know about you, but I never had any difficulty as DM or player by allowing character -- PC or kobold -- to do what we generally acepted an average person could do.

I generally don't have a problem with it either. In general, if it seems to me that you ought to be able to do it, then I come up with a way for you to do it regardless of what the rules say.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure that as a teenage DM 20 odd years ago I would have been perfectly comfortable with allowing a player to move-fire-move. The question then would be not whether an average person wielding say a crossbow would be able to do it, because clearly they could, but whether an average person wielding a crossbow would be able to do it before an opponent would have a chance at replying. I would quite probably have argued that the player was attempting to take advantage of the limitations of the rules to argue for being able to do something that he in fact couldn't do. If we break down what is actually going on, the character wants to move - thereby revealing himself - fire, and then move back. Main difference between that and three rounds of action is that the enemy doesn't get to fire back. And that's what the player is really demanding - not the ability to move and fire, but the ability to attack without getting attacked in reply. If they thought that they could get fired on, they wouldn't attempt it. Perhaps if the character had surprise, I might allow this, but if the character doesn't have surprise then I wouldn't see why this couldn't be broke into 3 rounds of action. I certainly wouldn't allow it repeatedly without some means of repeatedly achieving surprise.

Of course, my tool set is alot bigger now than then, and my answer would probably be alot different now than then regardless of edition.

However, this is all somewhat irrelevant, as the question isn't how would I have handled, but how was it being handled by the DM's who are fond of doing 'Tucker's Kobolds' sorts of scenarios.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

You are talking apples and oranges here, guys.

At *that time*, when Tucker's Kobolds were seen in Dragon Magazine, the gaming culture was much more of an 'anything goes' mentality, and much less of today's 'balanced' mentality.

Look at the article that was printed. That article came from a specific member of a group, upon whose party Tucker's Kobolds the DM had sicced.
That party was either TPKed, or very close to it.

'Anything goes' was THE motto of Tucker's Kobolds.
Things that would be considered unfair, unreasonable, unbalanced, or game-breaking, abusive, were Standard Operating Procedure for these critters.

Even in *that* environment, they only fit *if* the DM was willing to be *extremely* hard on his players, and the players were accustomed (very accustomed) to their DM being extremely hard on them.
Otherwise, it would not have worked, not even back then.

In *today's* environment of balance, balanced encounters, balanced spells, balanced challenges, fight and rest, and so on, Tucker's Kobolds aren't going to fit.
I mean, how many groups today will desire that the DM do everything he *can* to achieve a TPK (short of an outright 'you're dead'), desire the DM do everything he *can* to mess them over, to mess with them, and who can tolerate and deal with the loss of just about everything they possess (magical items included), the loss of hirelings and henchmen, the loss of all acquired treasure, while an army of insane, maniac kobolds runs circles around them?

Tucker's Kobolds were kind of a low level Tomb of Horrors.
They should be treated as such. They are not there to give anyone an even break. They are not easy, fair, or balanced opponents. They are the Kobolds from the Abyss, they want to Party, and you've got an Engraved Invitation You Can't Refuse to the Masquerade Ball.

EDIT: Some of you know I take a lasse faire attitude towards the casting of magical spells. Fortunately, the original Tucker's Kobolds did not have magical spells. In 3E, they *could.* Trust me, if you go there, we're talking about ... well, I think the party might just PREFER the congenial Tomb of Horrors over Tucker's Kobolds, come to think of it. Much safer, and far more reasonable.
But they don't need spells. Even without spells, Tucker's Kobolds have enough firepower, and the ruthless will to use it, to take on a goodly part of the City of Greyhawk.

 

[Celebrim]

You are talking apples and oranges here, guys.

I know what I'm talking about. I played 'back in the day'. I'm one of those old school DM's that newer players think is an unforgiving rat bastard DM who creates dungeons of death, but they only think that because they've been peddled soft cozy little dungeons where survival is the expected result for a team of unskilled novices and have never actually met a true rat bastard DM that will chew up 30 or 40 PC's in a single dungeon.

At *that time*, when Tucker's Kobolds were seen in Dragon Magazine, the gaming culture was much more of an 'anything goes' mentality, and much less of today's 'balanced' mentality.

Balance isn't the issue. 'Tomb of Horrors' is a well balanced module, IMO. I've plenty of times pitted low level characters against monsters that they had no chance against, if only to teach my players that sometimes they have to run. I have no problems with the balance issues involved in ballistic flagons of flaming oil, or anything else of the sort. I have no problem with abusing the rules or coming up with nasty situations. I'm the kind of guy that would force you to fight a troll wearing a ring of fire resistance in a driving rainstorm. I'm generally ok conceptually with 'save or die' or even 'no save and die'.

But I draw the line at 'unfair'. I treat NPC's with the same skepticism I treat the PC's. Their plans don't always work out either. They suffer from confusion and failures of morale and supply shortages and the rest. I don't treat NPC's as some sort of favored pet that the PC's aren't allowed to defeat. I don't vest my ego in my ability to counter any plan that the PC's come up with. I don't give NPC's any edges that I wouldn't give to PC's in the same circumstance.

That's the real issue behind 'Tucker's Kobolds'.

I mean, how many groups today will desire that the DM do everything he *can* to achieve a TPK (short of an outright 'you're dead'), desire the DM do everything he *can* to mess them over, to mess with them, and who can tolerate and deal with the loss of just about everything they possess (magical items included), the loss of hirelings and henchmen, the loss of all acquired treasure, while an army of insane, maniac kobolds runs circles around them?

The way I see it, any DM worth his pizza can _always_ produce a TPK if he wants one. The DM can do anything he wants, so of course he can always stack the die in the NPC's favor. Of course I can TPK a 12th level party with just a kobold, if by 'just a kobold' you mean 'a kobold plus a level that activates a massive death trap' or something like that. But its worse than that, because with the 'Tucker's Kobold' syndome, the problem isn't that the characters are being put in a situation that is grossly unfair, but that the players are. The players aren't being presented with a puzzle to solve so much as an oppurtunity for the DM to treat the players as puppets for his own amusement. In order for 'Tucker's Kobolds' to work against a high level party, the DM has to practice not only 'saying no', but treat all of the NPC's actions in the most favorable terms and all of the PCs in the least favorable terms. In order for the kobolds to really have a chance against a decent party, the DM has to set up the situation so that nothing the PC's can do actually has a chance of working.

Tucker's Kobolds were kind of a low level Tomb of Horrors.

That's completely unfair to Tomb of Horrors as a module. As you point out, the challenges in ToH are for the most part far more reasonable.

 

[Gentlegamer]

At *that time*, when Tucker's Kobolds were seen in Dragon Magazine, the g
Even in *that* environment, they only fit *if* the DM was willing to be *extremely* hard on his players, and the players were accustomed (very accustomed) to their DM being extremely hard on them.
Otherwise, it would not have worked, not even back then.

You're exactly right. This is part of the very social make-up of a role-playing game and why it is both impossible and unnecessary to make universal rules that govern every group of players using the system. The DM makes rulings and so on with the (tacit or explicit) consent of the players. It's all about the common understanding/expectations that the group develops over time.