When Adventure Designers Cheat

[delericho]

If a DM wants to 'cheat' by changing the rules, then that's his prerogative. If he does it too often, or does it badly, his players should call him on it.

However, I want professional module designers to follow the RAW or, where the RAW ends, follow the intentions of the RAW for their extrapolations. So, I expect to not see any areas with unbreakable doors, or no-save-and-die poisons, or the like. I don't mind the adventure including counter-measures to likely PC tactics (such as preventing teleport), provided the nerf makes sense in the context of the known game rules, and represents something within the capabilities of the (implied) builder of the adventure area. (So, a door with break DC 50+ is believable in the domain of a god, but not in the tower of any non-epic wizard.)

My reason for making this distinction is that where the adventure designer breaks the rules, he is essentially imposing his house rules on my game. And, to be honest, I would rather play by my own rules, thanks.

 

[Nightfall]

*is hoping that Hussar isn't suggesting that Rappan Athuk, because it cheats, is a bad module*...

Cause I'd be mighty upset if you did...

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I really can't stand these sorts of elements in an adventure. It really reeks of railroading, IMHO, since it basically counters any imaginitive solution and forces the players to guess the game designer's mind (if you will).

It's particularly annoying when it's a homemade adventure--to a certain degree, there's an element of ego thrown in the mix, and in those cases it feels more like the DM's upset that they've been presented a solution they didn't think of, & still insist that their solution is the only viable one.

There are always counters to spells, & they exist in-game. However, I really believe that there should be more than 1 way to defeat a puzzle/problem, whether using in-game rules or the players' creative thinking.

And, frankly, at times, it takes a spell to save the party's bacon in a situation. Per the RAW, there's no auto-success or auto-failure on skill rolls, so a rogue can't roll a lucky nat. 20 & unlock a lock with a DC way above what he/she could normally get with a 20 + the skill mod. However, if there's a knock spell available, there's another way through the door.

Now, for example, you could have a door that has a high DC that prevents an Open Lock check from working, or is enspelled to prevent knock or more potent magics from working on the door, or even beign made out of adamantine to prevent the party from bashing it down, but there still can be more than 1 solution than the party absolutely finding the "special key" to open the door. The party could gain control of an iron golem (instead of fighting/destroying it) strong enough to bash open the door. The party may find a strong enough acid to damage the door enough to allow for an Open Lock check or a successful bash attempt. There could be a secret door with a high Spot/Search DC that leads around the adamantine door. There could be a rod of negation that can temporarily cancel the protective magics & allow a brief window for knock to work, etc.

Now, there can be consequences for not opening the door in the intended way (such as the "special key" disarming traps past the door as well as unlocking it), but those other challenges should have multiple options as well as the original challenge.

 

[pemerton]

I really can't stand these sorts of elements in an adventure. It really reeks of railroading, IMHO, since it basically counters any imaginitive solution and forces the players to guess the game designer's mind (if you will).

<snip examples>

I like your iron golem example.

You seem to be focussing on puzzles where the characters are precluded from deploying all their resources, apparently by GM fiat, and forced to find a "unique solution". What is your view of puzzles where, rather than a unique in-character solution that the players have to acquire, there may be multiple solutions but the thinking about them (and perhaps even deployment of solutions) is more-or-less metagame.

Examples would be the WPM frictionless room discussed already in the thread, or chess/poker/etc puzzles, or riddles, etc.

 

[Celebrim]

Examples would be the WPM frictionless room discussed already in the thread, or chess/poker/etc puzzles, or riddles, etc.

Ok, I get that. A player of mediocre with a character with a high intelligence should be able to solve a chess puzzle or a riddle with a hand wave.. I mean an intelligence check, rather than relying on the ability of the player. Just because a DM has a more experienced chess player than himself as a player, doesn't mean that every NPC should lose to that PC in a game of chess. But...

You recognize of course that role playing is itself 'meta-game' by such a strict definition? Having a conversation between a PC and an NPC conducted by the player is metagaming for the same reason that solving a riddle or having a game of chess played by the player rather than the character is matagaming - it relies on player ability rather than character ability (here charisma rather than intelligence).

To avoid this, instead of conversations between PC's and NPC's, you would always have to have and only have conversations between players and game masters.

"Player: I attempt to improve the merchant's attitude to my character. *dice clatter*
DM: Ok, the merchant likes you more now. He informs your character that he is now eligible for a 10% discount.
Player: My character informs the merchant that he would like to purchase a longsword."

For that matter, even the above exchange is 'meta-gaming' by the same strict definition and reasoning. The character's goals should depend heavily on the character's wisdom and discernment, not on the player's wisdom and discernment. So maybe the above should be:

"DM: Make my wisdom check to determine if your character knows to try to haggle."
Player: *dice clatter* Alright, a 13. Even with the -2 penalty for low wisdom, that's an 11.
DM: Good enough. You can now enter the negotiation phase and attempt to influence the merchant.
Player: I'll try to use diplomacy.. *dice clatter* ...a 9, with +4, so a 13.
DM: The merchant informs your character that he is now eligible for a 10% discount on the wares.
Player: Great, I'll attempt to purchase something useful. *dice clatter* Ut oh... a 4.
DM: The merchant successfully steers you into buying something frivolous. *dice clatter* You now own a lace hankerchief. Deduct 10 g.p. from your resources.
Player: I try to use good judgment again *dice clatter*... an 8.
DM: Not quite good enough. Your character is satisfied with his useless purchase. You can make another attempt in 24 hours to buy a decent sword, or after you next fail an attack roll in mortal combat which ever comes first. No roll to determine your characters current destination..."

A little bit silly and yes I think there is a kernel of something that might be fun in that if it was kept in proportion, but even that is metagaming by the strict definition because first the player was always positively motivated, and secondly the upper limit on the chacter's wisdom was still how well the player played and made the best use of the rules to obtain the game goals.

But a good roleplaying game session is not necessarily about obtaining any sort of game goal. It's a false assumption to assume that everyone at the table is principally motivated by the acquisition of game resources. For one thing, that's certainly NOT why the DM is playing the game.

 

[Nightfall]

Hussar,

I'm waiting...

 

[Celebrim]

Hussar,

I'm waiting...

Well, if Hussar won't, I will.

I wasn't very unimpressed by what I saw of Rapan Athuk, and would never want to play or run the modules. It was deadly dull reading. The level design was uninspired at best and amateurish at worst (I've achieved just as good of results from the random dungeon generator in the back of the 1st edition DMG). The dungeon itself lacked any sort of internal or external logic I could see. The play seemed like it would be one dimensional and would appeal only to people who really really really liked combat slogs. Even some of the individual fights seem like they'd grind on pointless far longer than was necessary. I didn't see much creative at all except with the monsters. Most of the rooms were dull. Most of the descriptions were dull. There was very little besides monsters separated by locked doors of various sorts.

On the good side though...

... it had alot of imaginative encounter design, and it really showed off what you could do with advanced monsters, monsters with class levels, and the rest of the pallete for customizing monsters in 3rd+ edition.

...I like the flow between encounter areas, which tended to avoid the sterotypical 'stairway to the next level'. This was far and away the best feature of the level design (that and the

Spoiler

cliff covered with endless rats

). On the other hand, I never really got a sense why any of this had been built as it was or that it was actually connected to anything else. Compare with RttToH.

...it had convincing 1st edition feel. Unfortunately, it felt most like Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, a module which bored me to the point I lost interest in playing it.

 

[MerricB]

Now, for example, you could have a door that has a high DC that prevents an Open Lock check from working, or is enspelled to prevent knock or more potent magics from working on the door, or even beign made out of adamantine to prevent the party from bashing it down, but there still can be more than 1 solution than the party absolutely finding the "special key" to open the door. The party could gain control of an iron golem (instead of fighting/destroying it) strong enough to bash open the door. The party may find a strong enough acid to damage the door enough to allow for an Open Lock check or a successful bash attempt. There could be a secret door with a high Spot/Search DC that leads around the adamantine door. There could be a rod of negation that can temporarily cancel the protective magics & allow a brief window for knock to work, etc.

In a recent adventure, I had a door that couldn't be unlocked (no lock!) or broken down (artifact-level magic sustained it).

Of course, it could be opened by knock, or teleported past, etc...

Coming up with situations where a standard approach doesn't work is a huge part of D&D. See undead and constructs (can't be sneak attacked), golems (can't use magic on them), etc.

However, the "only one way" approach to dungeon design can cause huge problems.

Cheers!

 

[IanB]

Put me down for "HULK SMASH". Part of the reason I buy almost no third party material (outside of Paizo) is the tendency to play too fast and loose with the rules for my taste.

 

[billd91]

I find it interesting that, on another recent thread I was attacked left and right for suggesting that the FAQ could be useful for those interested in playing with the RAW, while here I assume that the game will be played with RAW and get told I'm not talking about the true D&D.

Welcome to the difference between the General and Rules forums. The Rules forum is for arguing about RAW and can get very pendantic. This forum is much mellower in general and open to flexibility.

But the fact remains, as recognized by the designers, that D&D's rules are more guidelines than rules and that games based on variations on them are still, by and large, D&D games. People approach the game in many different ways and with many different play styles and yet we're all still playing D&D.