When Adventure Designers Cheat

[Random Axe]

I call that an annoyance, but not smashably so. I agree with you about the nonsense factor that only this robe or that torch will work against the cold or darkness, but when I am faced with something like that in a module I am about to run, I will usually adapt the intended effect to a higher DC or some other mechanic that they can deal with, other than by just saying "NO" to the players. Doing that is most likely to get the DM lynched.

On the other hand, if the designer comes up with a NEW mechanic, such as a new way to run a chase scene, or a new way to roll damage for getting smothered by a burning drunken Hill Giant, or a new kind of feat granted to the orc shaman tribe leader, then more power to them. Anything to help the DM flow with the action is a bonus, as long as it doesn't simply become arbitrary and without precedent or model.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

This basically what I think as well. If there is some reason for it, I have no problem with certain things not working. I have a problem when it's obviously metagaming shorthand for 'Well, I need to limit certain things because I suddenly remembered that if the PC's do X then play time for this module I'm a week away from deadline on will be measured in minutes'. Kind of like the old 'teleportation doesn't work in the underdark, forcing us to move through all the tons of caves and caverns on foot' - the suggestion that it's some magnetic interference just rang hollow with me. Magnetism never interferred with teleport before or after that.

 

[mmu1]

As far as I'm concerned, unless the designer actually came up with something for the adventure that's not covered adequately by the rules, he's got no business of inventing his own. And if he did come up with something new, he should still try to frame the new rules in such a way that they'd be consistent with the core.

The kind of BS you describe in the original post - "special" cold, etc. - I wouldn't touch with a stick.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Heh. I'm not fond of it myself, even though I kind of understand the reasoning behind it.

 

[Wik]

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.)

Yeah, it's detailed in Frostburn (is that it's name?). You know, the one that came before Sandstorm?

"it's like Speed 2, only with a bus instead of a boat!"

As for the topic at hand... yeah, it can be annoying. Luckily, these things are pretty easy to change. I've bypassed a few of them in my time GMing. I can't think of any right now, except for maybe a few minor "he'll get away no matter whats" that are found in Savage Tide, buy beyond that...

 

[lukelightning]

Heck, my old DM used to do that all the time, spur of the moment. All of a sudden he decides stoneshape doesn't work. Or remove paralysis. Stuff like that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

When speaking of magical effects, not only is it possible to mock up a "cheating" spell pretty easily (which shouldn't really make anyone feel better if the DM says "yeah, it's got the spell statted out here, but it's not on a scroll anywhere in the module, sorry"), but as has been pointed out, it's already been done, for the most part. There are spells statted out that are darkness that no one can see through (although, for the record, silent image can do that just fine) and there are feats that allow the creation of super-fire and super-cold.

Objecting against "cheating" is pointless, because it takes no effort to make it not "cheating."

Object against the cheesiness, which goes far beyond super darkness spells.

 

[The_Gneech]

It's definitely better design to come up with a RAW way to achieve what they want. Figure out how, if you were a player, you'd break a scenario, and find a solution for that.

Generally speaking, as the GM, I'm more inclined to let a player's idea work if it's reasonable and within the rules. If the adventure designer really wanted the PCs to use those cloaks -so- badly, he should come up with something that will make the players want to. Why not make them cloaks of cold resistance and just include their monetary value in the treasure award for the scenario?

-The Gneech

 

[Quasqueton]

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.

White Plume Mountain is the poster child for this kind of thing. Nearly every single encounter in that module had such a designer “cheat”. Tomb of Horrors is another such offender.

Designers should make challenges that force the PCs to use their resources, or challenges that allow them to use their resources, not challenges that prevent them from using their resources.

Quasqueton

 

[MatthewJHanson]

For me it depends on how they are cheating. The examples you cite would bother me, but something like "these monsters have special powers because the have drunken special alchemical mixtures" I'm okay with, even if there are no game stats for the alchemical mixtures.