When Adventure Designers Cheat

[Shadeydm]

Nothing creative about saying, “fly, levitate, jump, dimension door, blink and teleport spells will not work in this room.” Or the slippery stuff on the floor, “cannot be affected by any force, magical or otherwise.” Or the copper plates forming the trap, “cannot be damaged or removed.” Or the door will close even if spiked open, and *nothing* will open the door other than the special key held in one of the globes. Or the doors to the room cannot be affected in anyway, magical or mundane. Or that “NOTHING CAN STOP THE DOORS FROM CLOSING IN 5 ROUNDS” (caps in the original text).

Quasqueton

Yes just imagine the sheer horror of being forced to think outside the box as a player and being unable to quote your rule book it must be terrifying lol.

 

[Quasqueton]

All you rules lawyer players really crack me up lol.

I'm a DM, thank you very much. A DM who dislikes designers who rule out or overrule options and abilities because they can't (or refuse to) design an good adventure/encounter.

Quasqueton

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Nothing creative about saying, “fly, levitate, jump, dimension door, blink and teleport spells will not work in this room.” Or the slippery stuff on the floor, “cannot be affected by any force, magical or otherwise.” Or the copper plates forming the trap, “cannot be damaged or removed.” Or the door will close even if spiked open, and *nothing* will open the door other than the special key held in one of the globes. Or the doors to the room cannot be affected in anyway, magical or mundane. Or that “NOTHING CAN STOP THE DOORS FROM CLOSING IN 5 ROUNDS” (caps in the original text). Or a ring is coated in contact poison “die, no save.”

I don’t find these creative or fun. I find them designer fiat and “cheating”.

“The character is dead, and cannot be brought back to life, including through the use of a wish.”

The permadeath/instadeath stuff (which still continues into 3E, let's not forget) is weak, IMO, but I don't find anything wrong with, once in a while, saying "OK, you're not teleporting or flying. Try and remember how you accomplished things before you had them."

There were certainly 1E adventures that went over the top with this stuff, but just because it was done to excess then doesn't mean it's wrong to ever do it.

 

[Psion]

All you rules lawyer players really crack me up lol.

You crack me up. Rules Lawyer players? I think most of the people you are leveling accusations at (BTW, not considered good form around here) are DMs. DMs who recognize sloppy, lazy design when they see it.

 

[Mallus]

What does plot have to do with this? Aren't we talking essentially about what constitutes legitimate puzzle/challenge design? It might be helpful to break this down into a couple of basic questions...

"By what methods can (or maybe 'should') an adventure designer control the possible solutions to the challenges they create?"

"Is there anything to be gained by taking certain solutions 'off the table'?

"Should all in-game challenges be resolvable through the mechanics presented in the RAW?"

"If so, what are the drawbacks, if any?"

"Does that place too much emphasis on resource management, at the expense of other forms of problem-solving?"

I don't think there's a right answer to any of the these questions, just differing implications.

 

[Quasqueton]

which still continues into 3E, let's not forget

For the record, I'm not suggesting that this "designer cheating" or laziness is only found in previous editions. It's just that I have much more knowledge of the classic adventure than I do of current adventures.

My current adventure knowledge is limited to just the first D&D3 adventure path (Sunless Citadel through Bastion of Broken Souls) and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Off hand, I don't remember any egregious offenses in those modules.

But the classics, that I've read many times, and run or played a few times, I remember those offenses. So I just talk about what I know best -- stuff in the older modules.

Quasqueton

 

[Shadeydm]

In my opinion forcing players to think outside the box from time to time is a good thing. Many of the abilities that were negated in those old adventures can become a crutch and are much easier than actually having to actually think of another way to cope with adverse conditions.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Yes just imagine the sheer horror of being forced to think outside the box as a player and being unable to quote your rule book it must be terrifying lol.

What has this to do with "Rules Book"?

Simply put: Fudging existing rules is bad, because it usually forces player to avoid thinking outside the box. Why? Because there is only one solution, all others are denied through the sloppy rules - Sloppy rules in adventures are just the same as a railroading DM, who dislikes thinking outside the box.

 

[Shadeydm]

Despite that there might not be a rule in the book that can be quoted to explain it I see absolutly nothing wrong with having a room or dungeon or castle in which one cannot Teleport, Dimension Door, Planeshift etc. Why does it have to be listed in the DMG or PHB to be ok?

 

[lukelightning]

Yes just imagine the sheer horror of being forced to think outside the box as a player and being unable to quote your rule book it must be terrifying lol.

It's just the opposite. These situations make it impossible for players to "think outside the box." They mandate one and only on possible solution.