When Adventure Designers Cheat

[Mallus]

There are so many adventures featuring stripping casters of their spells to make them more challenging it's virtually a cliche.

Yes, that's true. But that doesn't answer my question. Is challenge design of that kind acceptable, at all? And if not, don't you then run the risk of placing too much emphasis on spells/casters as the solution to almost every obstacle?

I agree spell-nerfing puzzles have been done to death, and often badly, but that's a different issue altogether.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Rules are for players.

The DM (and, by extension, a module designer) is not only permitted to insert things into the world that are unavailable to or unknowable by the players, they should be encouraged to do so.

This is independent of whether or not something is a 'good' design. A DC50 poison ring lying on the table in the tavern is bad design, despite the fact that it's "by the rules". An 'no save and die' poison ring on a skeleton in the tomb of the 'Demigod of the Assassins' is fair game. It's all about context.

 

[mmu1]

I think this is really underlining the futility of mapping out a "right" solution to challenges you present the party with. It's much better to simply set the scene, and let things happen, because if you start taking options off the table to steer the players in a particular direction, things usually end in either carnage or slapstick.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I have no problem with a designer coming up with a "cheat" if its cool and well thought out.

That's actually very true... I think there are three classes of rules bending:

1) The Guessing Game or The Way It Was Meant To Play: Classic railroading or nerfing of abilities, because the designer/DM envisions a specific solution or has problems with incorporating the power of high-level characters.
=> Almost universally bad.

2) The Difficult Encounter: The rules are bent to make the encounter/adventure more difficult, or more challenging. Can involve nerfing, but also just strange rules changes.
=> Dangerous and can be abused, but if it is incorporated as plot device (i.e. plot device) it can work out well.

3) The In-Game Challenge: The rules are changed to stress a specific fact, i.e. it's no nerfage, but rather something reflecting a special work of the world/campaign, but it doesn't disallow the PCs to use their full abilities.
=> Usually goes well, as long as it is not overused, or made to difficult.

Most of the discussion may (IMO) result from the fact, that there is so much different rules-bendery/cheating...

 

[el-remmen]

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.

Yeah. I am in agreement with mmu1. I don't mind changing the rules, but always within a framework.

 

[buzz]

This is independent of whether or not something is a 'good' design. A DC50 poison ring lying on the table in the tavern is bad design, despite the fact that it's "by the rules". An 'no save and die' poison ring on a skeleton in the tomb of the 'Demigod of the Assassins' is fair game. It's all about context.

I find both of these examples equally stupid. I also don't see how a DC50 poison of any kind is "by the rules."

A well-designed adventure should not have to nerf ("no save and die" poison) or abuse (DC50 poison, which is almost the same as "no save and die") the ruleset in order to provide a challenge and/or interesting storyline.

 

[Mallus]

Depends upon the scope of what you speak. Does it make sense? Is it just handwaving? Is it a guessing game?

I'm not advocating a guessing game. Just the occasional use of in-game problems who's solutions don't boil down to character resource management.

Things like environmental puzzles, logic puzzles, riddles (yeah, I'm one of those people...), diplomatic encounters that have to be played out in-character. Ways of engaging the players that don't always involve the written resolution mechanics.

I like using magic as much as the next guy and encourage my players to get creative with their resources (like last session when party turned a elixir of swimming and a construct griffon into an improvised submarine mount, but that's besides the point). But I think there's room for other kinds of challenges and the, how shall I put it, 'solution-set management' that make them possible.

 

[Mallus]

.Why? Because second-verse-same-as-the-first gameplay is boring. So letting one gimmick be the solution to all problems is a bad thing.

I heartily support this point and the use of Violent Femmes references...

 

[Squire James]

It's sometimes difficult to present a situation that the PCs must solve by non-violent means (especially violence against the environment with adamantine spoons and such). Just about every one of these situations involves non-destructable environments, a warden way too high for the PCs level, or some silly prohibition against magic. It seems to me many players don't want this sort of situation to exist. I think the game has a place for this sort of thing (not very often, but as a change of pace).

White Plume Mountain and Tomb of Horrors appear to have too many of them. The Lost Temple of Tharizdun, however, was pretty special. The Black Cyst was built to be difficult to reach, and the cold damage there struck me as something like an Imprisoned Overgod's Punishment for Not at Least Looking Like One of his Servants in His Own Bloody Temple/Prison! Frankly, I'd be applying a negative level per round or something like that...

 

[Olaf the Stout]

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.

I imagine that you are talking about Sean K. Reynolds?

Personally, having read his article on Fewer Absolutes, what he says on the subject makes a lot of sense, regardless of whether you agree with a lot of his other opinions.

The concept of having the ability to do cold damage to cold-immune creatures is a good one. The way that they implement that is a bad idea though. Why does the feat make your spells affect cold-immune creatures now, yet it does exactly the same amount of damage that it did before to everyone else.

Getting rid of all the absolutes is one thing that I hope they do in 4th edition.

For those people who don't know what I'm talking about here is a link to the articles from Sean on the subject.

Olaf the Stout