NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EpicureanDM" data-source="post: 8915778" data-attributes="member: 6996003">It's funny that my analysis of this encounter from Radiant Citadel is characterized as a desire for a Platonic ideal (no small comparison from an Action Philosopher) or an overdeveloped need for optimization. All I did was read the environment that Justice Arman asked me to imagine and refer to the rules he told me to use. Right away, I saw problems with what he proposed and the instructions he gave me to run this encounter.If the designers of the game don't want me to use the rules they're telling me to use in their published products, then they shouldn't make specific references to those specific rules. As I said earlier, just tell me that everyone's using a "flying carpet" rather than a carpet of flying. If I were a game designer, though, I'd want my professional reputation to rest on the ability to create fun using the rules of the game. Isn't that the point of being a game designer? If some DMs out there want to use my published design loosely, ignoring the parts they don't like, there's nothing I can do to stop that. But I wouldn't be trying to design with those DMs in mind. Why not write for the people that do use the rules? You're serving more of the audience that way.You may not have understood what I wrote. Maybe you don't have Radiant Citadel.I know that the wizards have misty step and fly because WotC tells me they do. There's a CR6 Mage stat block published in the Basic Rules that is being referenced by the designer in this encounter. When I go to the published stat block to run these mages, I see those spells listed as their standard memorized spells.As for the carpet of flying, the wizards didn't arrive with it. Part of the text of the adventure reads:"These two [wizards] have squeezed through a window in the [backroom] that's disguised from the outside. They've riffled through the space and found not just the samovar they've been searching for but also a carpet of flying [the merchant] has been trying to sell for months. The rug merchant foolishly scribed the rug's command word , 'baalaa', on the carpet's tag."They only have the carpet because they conveniently found it in the shop. Of course, for this bit of narrative to work, the wizards would have had to cast detect magic to notice the magical carpet. Fortunately, detect magic is one of the spells listed in the Mage stat block and it would make sense for them to cast it, since the samovar/McGuffin they're looking for is magical.What's frustrating is that Arman could have made this point without wasting much space. He might have written:"These two [wizards] have squeezed through a window in the [backroom] that's disguised from the outside. They cast detect magic and found not just the samovar they've been searching for but also a carpet of flying [the merchant] has been trying to sell for months. The rug merchant foolishly scribed the rug's command word , 'baalaa', on the carpet's tag."It's a small change, but it signals that the game designer knows they're designing an encounter to be used with the rules of D&D. EDIT: What I mean is that it would signal that the designers understand the rules they're telling the DM to use.Agreed, but "let's use locate object" is the right mindset to design for. An earlier comment suggested that D&D's design team shouldn't be expected to design scenarios or encounters that function as puzzles that need to be solved. I agree that some scenarios don't need that sort of design, but heists seem like a bit of an exception. The heists we love from TV and movies do present a sort of puzzle that the protagonists have to defeat in a clever way. Remember how elaborate the plan is in Ocean's Eleven? It requires that an acrobat with an oxygen supply be smuggled into the vault to work it from the inside. They detonate a small EMP device, for Pete's sake.I certainly don't think that the Golden Vault designers need to have a specific, particular sequence of actions for success in mind when designing their heists. But they need to have tried their best to account for the spells and resources that a D&D party might bring to bear. EDIT: The best designs would those where the designers do understand that the PCs might want to use a particular spell or ability and call that out to the DM. In other words, understand what tactics the players might use and explicitly build paths to success based on those tactics (and be sure to tell the DM about it so that they can be on the lookout for opportunities to reward the PCs).They have to give me the sense that they tried, a feeling that I absolutely didn't get in this encounter from Justice Arman. Show me that you thought of some (most?) of the ways the players might throw a wrench into my plans. Well, they've not even my plans, are they? They're the plans that the designer has given to me! That's what I need as the DM behind the screen when I'm actually running the scenario.Unfortunately for them, D&D's design makes this a difficult thing to do! So they get some leeway. But if I'm going to leave it to the professionals, I want a professional job.</blockquote>

Verification