When Adventure Designers Cheat

[AuraSeer]

How much does it bother you when an adventure designer makes up his own rules, that don't necessarily have anything to do with the RAW? We're running into a lot of this in our current campaign, and it's really driving me nuts.

For example, last night we ran into an area that is cold enough to do environmental damage. Of course the first thing we did was cast mass resist energy against cold. However, according to the module, it's so cold here that no protective spell of any kind works. It's a special kind of cold that does automatic, unresistable damage. The only thing that protects are a specific kind of robe that we found-- nonmagical ones, just to increase the nonsense factor.

Another one I've seen a lot, in this and other adventures, is the absolutely impenetrable magical darkness where no light source of any kind works. It's special darkness, you can't light it no matter what, so there. (Or sometimes, the only light that works is the specific, special, unique magical torch that you were supposed to have found behind the secret door in Area #4q, six months ago.) There's no precedence for this in the rules; even if you create a spell called even more deeperer darkness that can suppress daylight, something like a miracle or disjunction should be able to light it up.

Other common offenders are special illusions that don't show up under true seeing, special traps and secret doors that are invisible to detect spells, and of course the special antimagic field that nullifies all the PCs' powers and abilities yet does not stop anything that the author put in.

A lot of this stuff gets explained by the power of artifacts, but in too many cases, "artifact" is just code for "here's a way to cheat and screw the party over, since the author is a hack who can't design a fair challenge for high-level PCs."

Anyway. Clearly I'm getting a bit grumpy about this. Is it just me?

 

[Rhun]

Honestly, this sort of thing never bothers me. If I'm the DM, and I don't like something, I change it. If I am a player, I just assume whatever is happening is some sort of new effect and I deal with it.

 

[spunky_mutters]

That reminds me of the cyst in WG4, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. Of course, that type of thing was par for the course back then.

I agree, though. The framework is there to create versimilitude that helps in suspension of disbelief. The cold should be described in terms that allow you to act on it with a variety of spells or items. If they want to make it divine damage that feels like cold and only someone wearing robes of the priests is immune, at least call out the DC to recognize what the effect is.

 

[buzz]

Would you be willing to name the adventures you're talking about? You're talking about published ones, correct?

A few years back, I attended a d20 design seminar at GenCon done by The Game Mechanics. They made specific comment about designers doing stuff like this and rightfully called it out as B.S.

It's one thing to come up with new rule elements in a product; it's another to negate established parts of the system because you couldn't think of a more creative way to ram your plot down the user's throat.

 

[Crothian]

Doesn't bother me at all. Sometimes the rules don't cover everything. And in a magical fantasy place I don't mind things being done differently. However, it should not be done that often and writers should stick to the raw as much as possible.

 

[jollyninja]

It's a cop out but i can deal with it, just a bit annoying.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have no objection to designers violating the rules if there's a solid reason for it.

A major plot point or creating a truly interesting challenge is a solid reason.

"It was easier than following the rules" is not.

(And BTW, there is sort of a rules precedent for "cold that's so cold it penetrates cold resistance." Sandstorm offers a feat that makes your fire spells hot enough to penetrate fire resistance and even immunity. If it exists for fire, it could certainly exist for cold. That said, the notion of it being stopped by a non-magical cloak is definitely wonky.)

 

[Psion]

It depends. Are you extending the rules or defying them? The latter usually annoys me. The former I have no problem with.

I find instances of defying the rules usually symptomatic of lacking mastery with them, and just skirting around them strikes me as lazy design. Further, I find that adventures that draw interesting and logical conclusions from the way things work in the game world usually end up being much better adventures than those that just try to "do what the author wants, the rules be damned."

 

[Dykstrav]

I've had many experiences where a DM tells me, "I didn't think you guys would try that. Would it be cool if you didn't do that, and instead did it the hard way? because otherwise we have no adventure for the rest of the night."

I have an especially big problem with unbreakable/unhackable doors. I hate being forced to check every corner of a dungeon for a key when a dwarf with a hefty battleaxe should be able to make short work of a door. or all those miraculous impenetrable stone doors. I actually have many characters carry stoneworking tools exactly for this reason. Thank 3.5 for adamantine picks.

 

[Psion]

(And BTW, there is sort of a rules precedent for "cold that's so cold it penetrates cold resistance." Sandstorm offers a feat that makes your fire spells hot enough to penetrate fire resistance and even immunity. If it exists for fire, it could certainly exist for cold.

I'll note that there was some ranting on this issue, some from established game designers.

One game designer I often disagree with, but there you go.

I think the convention of "converting some damage to untyped damage" sits better with me.