When Adventure Designers Cheat

[Psion]

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.

Exactly.

The sort of thing I think is being referred to is that the author conceives a single preferred solution and then forbids players from overcoming the obstacle by any other method. Allowing only one solution is not my definition of "forcing players to think outside the box." At that point, it stops being a matter of trying to be clever and use your resources and starts being a guessing game.

 

[lukelightning]

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?

This is in the PHB. It's dimensional lock.

A good designer knows of this, and writes, as mentioned in a previous post, that there is a dimensional lock effect of whatever level on the area. Let's call it level 20, and to be extra nasty say that if dispelled it reforms one round later. With effort and luck a PC could defeat it and teleport out, but it's not guaranteed and takes a smart player to figure it out.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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).

I seem to remember that when I was playing through this module my wizards 'tensers floating disc' was our salvation in the frictionless corridor.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't have a big problem with modules changing the groundrules provided it makes sense. Lost Temple of Tharizdun is a great example...I mean, things work normally enough until you go down the shaft to the cyst...where there's a sleeping GOD, for crying out loud; the mere presence of such a being is going to alter the environment! So it's cold. So, at some point in the distant past, he's blessed those robes...and *only* those robes...such that they are resistant to said cold. Deal with it!

And of course once you go off-plane, anything goes. (a case could be made that the LToT cyst *is* somewhat off-plane...)

Lanefan

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

Sometimes. Let's not confuse the worst DMs/designers who do this for ALL DMs and designers who do this.

Myself, I prefer to throw a hard situation at my players and know they'll figure something out. I despise "guess what's in my pocket" design of any sort, and instead prefer to throw hardballs at the players' heads and know that, after one or two get beaned, they'll figure out a way to knock it out of park.

 

[Psion]

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?

Speaking to this particular instance, I don't see anything wrong with it, so long as:
1) the ways you CAN access the room are not, to pull a term in from elsewhere, "pixelbitching".
2) this instance of denying PC abilities is limited to this room. D&D is, at its core, a game of empowerment. Players choose to play wizards or clerics because of the things they can do. You continually strip them of their abilities because you are unable to challenge them otherwise, the wizard becomes a commoner. Not what most players joined up to play for. Keeping them from using the same solution to every problem is good. Stripping them of an ability because the adventure designer is inadequate to deal with it is not good.
3) You explain it in some way that I can credibly swallow, and not just have it look like a handwave. Dimension lock is a good example here, and something that can be work around in some ways... unlike some random cosmic disturbances or a vault made of unobtainium.

 

[Quasqueton]

I seem to remember that when I was playing through this module my wizards 'tensers floating disc' was our salvation in the frictionless corridor.

See this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=164482

Quasqueton

 

[spunky_mutters]

I seem to remember that when I was playing through this module my wizards 'tensers floating disc' was our salvation in the frictionless corridor.

The disk was the answer to getting your armour through the corridor that heated metal, but it wouldn't have been much help in the frictionless room (unless you were allowed to ride it, you would still likely have ended up impaled in one of the pits). I think feather fall was all that saved my bacon there.

 

[Mallus]

At that point, it stops being a matter of trying to be clever and use your resources and starts being a guessing game.

Let's put this another way...

Do you think there's any room in the game for challenges/obstacles that cannot be overcome by the use of the proper spell (or character ability)?

I'm no fan of the kind of design that was commonplace in the old AD&D tournament modules, but neither am I comfortable with the solution becoming a matter of pulling the right magical ability out of your... umm... pointy hat.

 

[Wyrm Pilot]

In Midwood, I currently have a warrior and paladin trying to track two missing children while the ranger, who could actually do it well, is on the other end of the barony, unaware of the tracking mission. I'm not trying to be a dick -- she gets plenty of chances to track, in almost every adventure -- I'm just shaking things up for one adventure.

The OP seems to be objecting to one-time challenges, and I can't feel sympathetic.

Big, large, huge, gargantuan, colossal difference here -- in d20/3.x, the rules specifically include provisions for warriors and paladins trying to track missing children while the nearest ranger is a duchy away. We're not talking about characters having to play against their strengths, we're talking about players trying to deal with situations which actually break the rules. If the environment was created by an epic spellcaster using the Piercing Cold feat, and the robes in question are epic Robes of Resist Cold, I'd think the designer was overdoing it or the DM was taking an adversarial role to the players (as opposed to certain NPCs & monsters to the PCs; it's different). But as written, it's just a sign that the designer is either (a) stupid, (b) lazy, or (c) possessed of a sense of humor not shared by any other sentient lifeform.

OMG GAME DESIGNER FIAT!!11!

Please, give me a break this isn't a court of law it's D&D.

Granted the non magical cloak factor of the scenario does a carry a whiff of cheddar but that could be easily fixed by the DM. But wait that would be DM FIAT NOOO.

All you rules lawyer players really crack me up lol.

It wouldn't be DM Fiat, it would be DM fixing the work of a sub-standard designer. And actually knowing the rules, and expecting them to be followed, doesn't make one a "rules lawyer" any more than driving under the speed limit is the same as passing the state bar exam. An actual DM should know that.

Cheers,
Wyrm Pilot