When Adventure Designers Cheat

[Nightfall]

Celebrim,

Well it didn't bore me but it keeps making wish I'd get more players so I could send in a 7 party team (at 5th level) and see how that goes. Especially if I can get a paladin and drop a nice holy avenger sword in there too.

Plus Orcus. I love Orcus. In a strictly platonic sense!

 

[Charke]

Touchy Subject - cool.

As a module designer, I thought I'd drop my 2 cents.

I love the core rules. In the last few years I have convinced the other DM's in my group (and myself when DMing) to drop a lot of our house rules and stick with the core rules. You take away the crutch and starting learning how effective crawling is. The core rules really do work and they are very effective and satisfying. Both the player and DM know how things work and can double check if they want.

For example, walls have hundreds of hit points and a hardness ranging around 8. If you want to take a weapon and cut through a wall - go for it. I'll get back to you in about six hours and I am going to rule that you destroy that weapon eventually. Weapons have hit points and at some point I would start applying damage - but you CAN get through that wall if you are serriously determined enough. That is how I write modules.

Permanency, Antimagic Field and Dispel Magic are classics and work nicely to "screw" the party without bending the rules. You need to be higher level than the caster to get rid of the antimagic field. Antimagic fields mixed with Darkness, or multiple sources of darkness can really blind a party... ...but so does smoke, or plants, or just about anything else.

There should always be a way for the players to overcome an obstacle. It is something both writers and DM's must understand. They shouldn't let their frustation with certain Player tactics ruin the module - especially the writers.

Well thats my 1 cent. I'd say 2 but I could rant about this subject for some time.

Mark Charke

 

[Nightfall]

Mark,

Anything in 2007 that you wrote we should look for?

 

[spunky_mutters]

For all those who say that the DM can't cheat, I agree. I do think that he/she can be lazy and unfair, though. 3e provides a framework, and if you work within that framework it will help you to maintain consistency and answer your questions about what should and shouldn't work. If you want something to work a certain way, build it with the framework provided by 3e and allow the players to use that to solve it.

If you decide that only one thing can defeat your cunning trap, then you should be able to explain why that is the case (even if just to yourself). The 3e framework allows you to do this mechanically so that you don't have to make absolute cosmological decisions to explain it (but you can!).

You like, you can make the robes be the blessed robes of the faithful, but explain that they have a permanent Energy Resistance (Cold) 20 on them. You can explain that this is granted by proximity to Tharizdun (or that the cyst contains a spell of you own devising which is based on Forbiddance with the robes as the entry key and the damage manifesting itself as cold).

If you choose to handwave it, then I hope that you are keeping notes and allowing the players to benefit from their own ingenuity, because you shouldn't allow your laziness to interfere with the fun of the group.

 

[Nightfall]

There's a difference between Lazy DM and trying to work a plot idea into an existing rule set. Some times you have to cheat/tweak to make it work.

Lazy DM is one that doesn't care about the rules. The tweakers do but know some times we have to move things around to make them work.

Plus tweakers also save PCs.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, Nightfall, I most certainly am not going to say RA is a bad module for fiddling with mechanics. I was simply replying to the idea that current modules always follow the rules, which is just wrong. There are far too many examples of modules which tweak rules.

Now, Lanefan's example trap above is something I truly, truly loathe. Why would I even possibly think to jump into fire to escape the falling roof? I'd be far more likely to try to jam the roof from coming down. A couple of daggers should slow it down at the very least. There's a reason my PC's always carry spikes. Sure, they'll get crushed eventually, but it should by me a round or two. Which means that the entire party escapes out the bashed door.

Just tossing in instant death effects just for the heck of it bugs me to no end.

 

[Graf]

[The following email has been edited to avoid language that, upon reflection, I consider to have been inappropriate.]

The examples in the game you're playing sound stupid unfun and boring like the do not extend the story in any meaningfully interesting way.
And I agree with the points people raised above about 'extending' vs 'nullifying'.
And I really agree with the "designer requires you to discover their own prefered solution" thing as being a sign of extremely weak design.

If a PC has some lame power ability-that-is-not-generally-considered-to-be-very-useful like "resist elements" making it not work is dumb unfair to the character (and the player) and further punishes them for not taking a standard power (like lots of magic missiles). Forcing people to play a very limited sort of character, for fear the DM will nerf any interesting non-traditional powers they try to take anyway, stifles creativity.

For the rules vs. gods thing....
Dumping a god in your game so you can ignore the rules is a bit tedious.
If a god has "blessed" these robes so that they do something that even high level magic spells availible to casters couldn't do...
That's magic.
The robes glow, the caster gets a spellcraft check to see that they're something weird, primal, whatever about the robes. Play on.

Playing "Hide the magic items/effects" is just weak design.
I think it’s really only acceptable in a circumstance where the PC is given reason to beleive that they are in an area where their normal powers are going to work differently.
i.e. where, for example, a high spellcraft or know (arcana) or bardic lore skill (also possessed by the PC already) allows them to "figure out something that normal wizards could not".
This would encourage people to take abilities that are not directly combat related and validate the creation and play of a wider variety of characters, which, IMHO, leads to a more interesting game.

 

[Celebrim]

The examples in the game you're playing sound stupid and boring.

Allow me to point out that the designers in the two adventures where these come up are Gary Gygax and Monte Cook (Forgotten Temple of Tharzidun and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, respectively)

So in other words, you are saying that the two most celebrated adventure designers in history are 'stupid' and 'boring'.

For the rules vs. gods thing....
Dumping a god in your game so you can ignore the rules is a bit tedious.
If a god has "blessed" these robes so that they do something that even high level magic spells availible to casters couldn't do...
That's magic.
The robes glow, the caster gets a spellcraft check to see that they're something weird, primal, whatever about the robes. Play on.

I don't agree. In the case of the supernatural cold radiating from the diety, the cold itself maybe sentient or semi-sentient. In that case, its not a magical effect that negates the soul sucking supernatural cold, but the recognition on the part of the cold that the life forms here are in its service. The robes are a pass - not magical protection.

But in any event, even if they were magical, having them not radiate magic is not outside the rules. Everyone knows that one of the signs of powerful divine artifact level magic is that it is not detected by ordinary means. That's been true in D&D since the very beginning. If the robes are the magical creation of a deity, there is no reason why they have to radiate magic even if they were magical (which I've no reason to believe that they are).

Playing "Hide the magic items/effects" is just weak design.

Where as complaining that you couldn't solve the DM's puzzles when they as perfectly reasonable as, "We need to wear the evil dieties profane robes in order to pass safely into his unholy of unholies", is weak minded and childish. What, you want everything solved for you by a dice roll? Why not just program up a bot and have it play your character for you?

I think its really only acceptable in a circumstance where the PC is given reason to beleive that they are in an area where their normal powers are going to work differently.

Like, for example, the unholy fane were lies the sleeping primal diety of the void, the nihilistic anti-thesis of the creator, the very incarnation of annihiliation itself?

i.e. where, for example, a high spellcraft or know (arcana) or bardic lore skill (also possessed by the PC already) allows them to "figure out something that normal wizards could not".

If you need a spellcraft check to know that the unholy fane where lies the sleeping primal diety of the void, the nihilistic anti-thesis of the creator, the very incarnation of annihiliation itself is possibly not subject to the normal rules, then may I suggest you try a new game - like I don't know, Go Fish or Candyland.

Sheesh. The kids these days. Back in my day we fought monsters uphill in both directions, in the snow, without healing magic, and if we got killed for sneezing in the wrong room or picking up the wrong bauble, we liked it and were grateful for the chance to play. And we knew the game was for adults because there were naughty pictures in the back of it. Back in my day, we had a saying, "The DM is god. He can't cheat. The rules are whatever he says they are." If you didn't like it, you found a new DM. Complaining and rules lawyering was for munchkins, not for real men ™.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Yes, WPM is the worst one I'm aware of for this stuff. The frictionless room with super-tetanus pits is one of those that will make your players want to kill you (and playing through it with a magic-user in one of my earliest module experiences was very frustrating).

Mmmm...Gygaxian super-tetanus.

I'd say this was when I stopped listening to my DM's suggestions, but then I forgot.

Brad

 

[Graf]

Allow me to point out that the designers in the two adventures where these come up are Gary Gygax and Monte Cook (Forgotten Temple of Tharzidun and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, respectively)

Good of you to point that out.
Gygax, inventor of DnD, often violated his own rules for a sort of effect that I call Nener-nener. I.e. You think your cool power should stop this, but I've written something even more super cool that makes your cool power lame and stupid.
Now jump through this hoop, or your character dies.

When DnD came out this was normal.
i don't really think that the sort of game play passes muster anymore.

As for RttoEE... I've heard mixed reviews about it and never played it.
MC's a very creative person, but, he does love to periodically nuke PCs powers and/or write impossible dungeons a bit too frequently. (I think one of his published adventures in 2nd ed. wasn’t solvable without errata; parts of the Banewarrens also did this).

He's also posted a lot of articles saying it's a bad thing to negate character’s powers.

Which does he mean? The articles are more recent than the adventures but only he knows.

So in other words, you are saying that the two most celebrated adventure designers in history are 'stupid' and 'boring'.

Inappropriate language to use on this board or any other.
You are correct to call me out and I apologize.
(Not that I think either worthies loose sleep over fan rants on the internet but it's the principal of the thing).
[/quote]

I don't agree. In the case of the supernatural cold radiating from the diety, the cold itself maybe sentient or semi-sentient. In that case, its not a magical effect that negates the soul sucking supernatural cold, but the recognition on the part of the cold that the life forms here are in its service.

Where does this special, non-magical, non-corporeal, cold creature live?
Not, one assumes on the ethereal plane, nor is it invisible or intangible…
Maybe it lives in a new plane that is tangential to the material? And project’s it’s non-magical effect across this plane.

I do think that this sort of if-I-say-something-random-that-totally-violates-the-game-rules-it’s-ok-because-I’m-the-design-writer-and-I-want-to-do-it is an example of weak design.

But in any event, even if they were magical, having them not radiate magic is not outside the rules. Everyone knows that one of the signs of powerful divine artifact level magic is that it is not detected by ordinary means.

Actually, everyone who’s read the PhB knows that looking at divine magic with detect magic blinds and stuns you for a turn.
Maybe you could give me a page number for this dieties’ undetectable magic?
Was it in legends and lore?
(I don’t have the book, so I could have missed it)

Where as complaining … is weak minded and childish.

As the fellow who deployed stupid on an otherwise civil thread I suppose I deserve this.

I’ll leave the other justifications alone. I see them as “turning the dial to 11” type stuff instead of interesting story, but it’s in the eye of the beholder.