When Adventure Designers Cheat

[Vegepygmy]

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.

This would be enough for me to never buy another product from that author/publisher again.

HULK SMASH!

 

[Particle_Man]

I remember being peeved when "Last Days of Constantinople" had a 3rd level commoner prostitute with a Charisma of over 25 and the Assassin Death Attack ability. WTF? Great fluff, bad crunch.

 

[Nightfall]

Does it bother me when they cheat? Why? I mean I cheat all the time! I'm the DM! But I let the PCs know I'm cheating. Some times.

 

[pemerton]

If you don't want the PC's using thier resources to overcome the problem, you shouldn't give them to them. It's generally only fun to negate PC resources when they have so many resources that overcoming things by brute force is beginning to get dull for them. If your PC's have thier ability to fly removed by DM fiat (its a epic effect, its an alternate plane, whatever), and there is a certain new excitement and fear mixed into thier play that you haven't seen in a few levels, then you've pulled that trick from your big DM bag of tricks at the right time. If you are doing it because you have an antagonistic relationship with your PC's, and you can't turn PC resources against them with the same creativity that they have, maybe you should step from behind the screen for a while.

I think this raises a very interesting point about whether or not D&D really is (as some people claim, and others deny) a game system capable of being played in any style, from hardcore hack & slash to pseudo-thespian immersion.

Is it nearly always true of a D&D game that stopping the PCs using their resources is spoiling the game - with only odd exceptions like that mentioned by Celebrim? If so, then D&D doesn't support all styles of play equally, but rather leans towards a capability-maximisation/resource-management style of play.

For that style of play, I can see that nerfs that are arbitrary from the point of view of the game rules are a type of cheating, because in the face of such nerfs this sort of play becomes harder, if not impossible, to do well. (One of the best articulations of this approach to both play and DM-ing that I know of is an article by Lewis Pulsipher, that was reprinted in Best of White Dwarf No 1.)

 

[Nightfall]

Pem,

It can be psueo thespians. Just people don't want to be call names.

 

[Nifft]

The one that I hated most was in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, where a pair of specters trained an ooze to attack clerics. Trained. A mindless ooze.

Mindless critters are a challenge for the DM to get right. Heck, appropriately intelligent animals are tough. But that's part of the value of a module -- tactical hints on using critters appropriately.

I could see lots of coolness in combining oozes & incorporeal undead. But geez, respect the critter's basic traits.

HULK SMASH!!! -- N

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, count me in the Hulk Smash camp as well.

That being said, there are just so many ways that you can get a given effect through the rules, that sidestepping them is just bloody lazy.

Take the World's Largest Dungeon, my personal drum to beat. Now, in the WLD, there is no dimensional travel. Makes sense considering it's a prison for demons and devils, all of which can travel in all sorts of interesting ways. Honestly, the writers simply leave it at that - no dimensional travel. I think that was a mistake. Dimensional Lock would certainly work, and, considering the WLD was created by angels and gods, you could certainly tap into some epic level magic to explain things.

 

[schporto]

I'm curious if knowing who designed these things would make people more accepting? I'm 99% sure where the cold and darkness references are from (as in I have the page in front of me). Generally speaking the author is well regarded.
Reading the room description I'll just say that yes there is a reason, yes it does make sense. The damage is minor so at the level characters should be when in that room the damage should be more of a flavor then something the cleric needs to concern himself about.
-cpd

 

[buzz]

Take the World's Largest Dungeon, my personal drum to beat. Now, in the WLD, there is no dimensional travel. Makes sense considering it's a prison for demons and devils, all of which can travel in all sorts of interesting ways. Honestly, the writers simply leave it at that - no dimensional travel. I think that was a mistake. Dimensional Lock would certainly work, and, considering the WLD was created by angels and gods, you could certainly tap into some epic level magic to explain things.

I generally agree, however... I think it is possible to write aspects like these into an adventure as long as they're essentially "plot points" instead of "gotchas".

E.g., take the "no save and die" item mentioned earlier. Springing this on a party to shaft them for fighting their way toward the adventure's MacGuffin (as we've seen in so many classic modules) is total B.S. It's neither creative nor fair.

However... an adventure which revolves around retrieving an item known by legend to kill all who touch it, and the players know this up front, could be very interesting. Merely transporting the item becomes a challenge the players need to overcome in order to complete their mission.

The difference is that the former example negates the players' ability to leverage their resources; it's the designer/DM abusing their "it's my ball so I get to say who can play" power. The latter, otoh, is an interesting wrinkle that ups the challenge; it allows the players to make choices.

And that's the key. D&D is a game, and any game where you always lose (or always win) is no fun at all. A "designer cheat" that puts the players in a no-lose/no-win situation (i.e., removes choice), even if it's just one aspect of an overall challenge, is bad, uncreative design.

 

[lukelightning]

Oh gods, this talk of Tharizdun reminds me of that room with the statues that keep zapping you with magic missiles and there is a sarcophagus that you can't open unless you've dipped yourself in some magic water thingy.

This thing nearly TPK'd us. It may be "obvious" to the designer that you should dip yourself in the water...but considering there are other pools in the dungeon (and all throughout D&D history) that are extremely deadly, most players avoid mysterious water. Especially mysterious water in an evil temple.

Same with the robes. Players know that temples tend to be Bad News, and not to touch things in them. Half the time, if you fiddle around with evil temple items, you get some whacked out curse. "I put on the robes of Big Bad Evil God" DM: "Since you are good you gain a negative level." Then sometimes you're supposed to wear them or fiddle with them. But there is virtually no way of knowing other than second-guessing the DM and designer.

The same with evil temple rituals. RttToEE expects the charcters to perform rituals of this "god so evil that even the evil gods think he's bad news." Hardly intuitive.