Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gallaway 01-06-08, 06:38 PM	We are all familiar with games where characters are faced with dubious moral decisions (usually based on a fairly uninteresting conventional view of right and wrong) where players face making compromises or not completing mods. I faced recently a new version of this dilemna, a mod where the party had to raise nearly 30,000 gp to continue past the first encounter. (there were options to maybe reduce that if you had particular skills but no character at the table did). The particular group had characters with as little as 300 gp available to them and simply could not continue. This was particulary an issue for me as i had travelled 5 hours to the games day and spent a lot of money to get their. Only to play for a little over an hour. If there are any more of these mods I will be revising the viability of travelling to play at all. Deliberately desingning mods to prevent people playing seems very counterproductive.
Surgebuster 01-06-08, 07:42 PM	We are all familiar with games where characters are faced with dubious moral decisions (usually based on a fairly uninteresting conventional view of right and wrong) where players face making compromises or not completing mods. I faced recently a new version of this dilemna, a mod where the party had to raise nearly 30,000 gp to continue past the first encounter. (there were options to maybe reduce that if you had particular skills but no character at the table did). The particular group had characters with as little as 300 gp available to them and simply could not continue. This was particulary an issue for me as i had travelled 5 hours to the games day and spent a lot of money to get their. Only to play for a little over an hour. If there are any more of these mods I will be revising the viability of travelling to play at all. Deliberately desingning mods to prevent people playing seems very counterproductive. The adventure in question can only be played by PCs who have enough gross wealth that a few thousand gp isn't crippling. There are more than a few ways to reduce that cost, including actually having players look through their certs (Shock! Horror!) to see if they can reduce that cost. There was much gnashing of teeth at my table when we played it, until we took a moment to check favours etc. and then all of a sudden it wasn't the worst thing to ever happen. It still cost but given the task, it was certainly a realistic one... As always before airing a greivance, I would recommend perusing the module to make sure the GM didn't gloss over or misrepresent any aspect of it. I'm not saying you didn't but my experience was a little different. Even at the highest cost, it was not 30,000gp to do what was requested. :) Joe
garyjohnson 01-06-08, 08:24 PM	Hi, Gallaway. That's a lot of money - are you sure that was the correct amount? My home group played an adventure a while ago where the PCs had to play several thousand GP to continue the adventure - I'm wondering if your DM interpreted it as a cost per PC, and not a one-off cost for the whole party. What made it a particularly frustrating situation for my group was we had to spend the money before we obtained any treasure, so we couldn't use the copious amounts of over the cap GP at the end of the adventure to meet the cost; and we had to purchase an item using that money but didn't get access to the item on the AR. Cheers, Gary Johnson
Gallaway 01-06-08, 10:22 PM	The entire table checked favors and the only applicable ones the PCS held were regional and could not be used in a Core game. The actual quoted cost in the game was 28000 gc being two lots of $7000 and 7 lots of $2000. Dropping a cohort and animal companion from the party would have resulted in a cost of 24000 gc and an unviable party. Just to clarify the issue of this thread was not the cost .. most of the players agreed that they were happy to have played and even lost money and got no XP or favors (thats part of the risk you take) .. the issue is the time and effort the GMs, organisers and players put in to get to a games day only to have a game last a little over an hour at the most. You do not expect to always make money or gain XP or get facors and access ... sometimes you may even die. That makes the game interesting. But you do expect to get to play a game.
bitznarf 01-07-08, 12:21 AM	/me grumbles about this mod in general... one of the worse parts being this situation here.
Redfist 01-07-08, 01:54 AM	I liked the mod personally - but yeah... the up front costs (before treasure earned) were way out of whack. Luckily, my group was wealthy going into it so we could all afford to continue.
amysrevenge 01-07-08, 02:45 AM	Could someone please send me a Private Message with the module title, so I can avoid it? I don't want to know any other spoiler-type details, just the name of the module. I have very limited play time available to me these days (I might not get everything in before the end) and I would rather play fun mods. :P Big MIke Calgary
Surgebuster 01-07-08, 03:50 AM	Could someone please send me a Private Message with the module title, so I can avoid it? I don't want to know any other spoiler-type details, just the name of the module. I have very limited play time available to me these days (I might not get everything in before the end) and I would rather play fun mods. :P Big MIke Calgary I thought the adventure was actually quite enjoyable. The shock came from the home game-style gold commitment to the adventure. It would be a shame if you skipped it on account of *potentially* not getting full gp from an adventure.
_metz_ 01-07-08, 06:46 AM	I thought the adventure was actually quite enjoyable. The shock came from the home game-style gold commitment to the adventure. It would be a shame if you skipped it on account of *potentially* not getting full gp from an adventure. Thats really not the problem with the module. Having played it and DMed it twice, some parties ignore the cost, becuase they just have the right stuff/favours. Others are absolutely smashed by it. And actually you CANNOT get full gold from that mod, if you read it correctly and do what you are told. Incidently. My biggest gripe is the fact you have to spend 7,000 gold on an item and then not get access. My second gripe is the complete lack of in character ability to 'return'. Most PCs in character wouold not go for it. By ANY reasonable assumption its a dumb idea. Wasn't a problem for my PC as he already had the item from another mod, but it was ludicrous in the module itself. Such things should not happen from an author perspective. Surgebuster, sometimes its important to protect the authors, they do a lot of work. Other times its important to recognise bad module writing. Many of the recent cores have been absolutely shocking to say the least and I am frankly surprised that other authors don't get the oppurtunity to do better. Modules with good premises are falling down in several distinct areas: 1. Appropriate plot hooks that can cater to a range of PCs (not everyone is a paladin or a rogue) 2. APL appropriate plot hooks - I've seen some APL 10 plot hooks that have been downright stupid 3. Reasonable assumptions that a party is NOT going to have an on APL wizard or cleric (this is very common at games days). 4. Properly scaled encounters (some mods are ludicrously deadly at say, APL 8 but walkthroughs at 14) 5. NOT ASSUME FAVOUR ACCESS. Joe, you have already shown the flawed assumption that PCs have the right favours at the right time, just like the flawed assumption that every APL 10 fighter has had adamantine access. A module which has the underlying premise at a table of 4 players of: 'fork out 4700 gold each to continue with the module' AND you have no garuntee whatsover of a way to get back/you can assume similar costs back (thats after the initial 800 gold earnt has been subtracted from costs) Is downright stupid, and frankly the reawards/game was not good enough to justify it. My table smashed it. We ended up down 200 gold each. But having actually run the mod and seen whats wrong with it, instead of basing it on personal experience, I can see some big issues.
Surgebuster 01-07-08, 09:17 AM	Thats really not the problem with the module. Having played it and DMed it twice, some parties ignore the cost, becuase they just have the right stuff/favours. 5. NOT ASSUME FAVOUR ACCESS. Joe, you have already shown the flawed assumption that PCs have the right favours at the right time, just like the flawed assumption that every APL 10 fighter has had adamantine access.. I don't recall ever assuming anything about the adventure. I did say my table was frustrated until we took the time to look through our ARs. Incidentally we were playing the bottom APL and still had room to move with additional helpful favours but I digress. To go into more detail is to venture into spoiler territoty, however, there are many, many favours out there which can substantially ease this burden. Surgebuster, sometimes its important to protect the authors, they do a lot of work. Other times its important to recognise bad module writing. I certainly agree with this sentiment. Over-the-top generalisations and sensational statements in praise or criticism of authors isn't really constructive at all. Many of the recent cores have been absolutely shocking to say the least and I am frankly surprised that other authors don't get the oppurtunity to do better. Modules with good premises are falling down in several distinct areas: 1. Appropriate plot hooks that can cater to a range of PCs (not everyone is a paladin or a rogue) 2. APL appropriate plot hooks - I've seen some APL 10 plot hooks that have been downright stupid 3. Reasonable assumptions that a party is NOT going to have an on APL wizard or cleric (this is very common at games days). 4. Properly scaled encounters (some mods are ludicrously deadly at say, APL 8 but walkthroughs at 14) Oh dear. :( My table smashed it. We ended up down 200 gold each. But having actually run the mod and seen whats wrong with it, instead of basing it on personal experience, I can see some big issues. The adventure is not without flaw, of course, and access at the very least would be expected. Basing my opinion on the personal experience of having played and run it as well... Joe
MwaO 01-07-08, 01:51 PM	My table smashed it. We ended up down 200 gold each. But having actually run the mod and seen whats wrong with it, instead of basing it on personal experience, I can see some big issues. I don't think we had any special favors/powers, we ended up down 517 gold each at the lowest APL and we play with a really by the book DM. The OP appears to have figured out the most expensive way of doing things at each step. The only thing I can say is you need to think it through. Fun mod, though unfortunately, we roleplayed rather than metagamed at one point and that cost us.
Shieldhart91 01-07-08, 03:28 PM	Please tell me the blurb in question warns PCs about this. And can we just get a module title in open chat, or likewise- can someone PM this to me? Enjoyable or not, I don't want to arrive at a table (being that I can't even drive myself) and then find the module ending in an hour. Big waste of my time.
chesspiece 01-07-08, 04:34 PM	If I prepped a module like this (with an obvious possibility of aborting early on), I would be sure to bring a couple back-up modules. Or a boardgame. Or _something_. To date, I've only seen this type of problem in a couple modules - and I brought spares when I ran them. My Home Game group once failed a LG module after 20 minutes. Our DM did a quick segue and pulled a spare mod out of his bag. The evening was saved. That being said, I remember an old Circle post saying that Judges should make accomodations in the module to keep the adventure from going off the rails. If the PCs get obsessed with a red herring or don't bite at the hook, it's better to nudge them back into the story. OTOH, if they trigger an "auto-fail" condition... too bad! :P
Ferol, Debtor of Torm 01-07-08, 04:53 PM	I ran this for a group last night and I was quite shocked myself. When I played it a month ago my group and I had all the proper skills and favors to minimize the financial losses from the mod. When I ran it last night it was a nightmare. Several characters had to sell important items just to make it to the next encounter. I triple checked to see if I was doing something wrong. I guess my group wasn't the only one to have trouble.
garyjohnson 01-07-08, 06:25 PM	I thought the adventure was actually quite enjoyable. The shock came from the home game-style gold commitment to the adventure. I found the tone of the adventure very frustrating - it seemed to me consistent with a story-telling philosophy that's appeared in previous Core adventures, namely "every choice you make has negative consequences". To each their own, but personally I don't enjoy getting to choose which evil is the lesser evil - it doesn't leave me feeling very heroic at the end at the game. I also found having to spend so much gold not very home game-style - but no doubt that's because my home games are different to your home games. :) In a home game, I would have expected that the PCs have to do a series of mini-quests for various people to be able to do the big quest, like in those traditional stories where the hero has to get a macguffin for X who'll give her the macguffin that Y wants so that Y will give her the macguffin that Z wants so that Z will give her the macguffin she wants so that she can start the real quest. Having the PCs throw a big chunk of disposable wealth at the problem to make it go away doesn't do it for me at a story level. Cheers, Gary Johnson
Surgebuster 01-07-08, 07:24 PM	I found the tone of the adventure very frustrating - it seemed to me consistent with a story-telling philosophy that's appeared in previous Core adventures, namely "every choice you make has negative consequences". To each their own, but personally I don't enjoy getting to choose which evil is the lesser evil - it doesn't leave me feeling very heroic at the end at the game. We've discussed our preferences in a regional adventure of similar tone as well. Which is funny because we always seem to enjoy gaming together! :) Admittedly, there has been a shift in overall tone toward negativity in recent Core adventures. Despite this, Heart's Desire is one of my favourite all time LG adventures, both as a player and GM. I also found having to spend so much gold not very home game-style - but no doubt that's because my home games are different to your home games. :) In a home game, I would have expected that the PCs have to do a series of mini-quests for various people to be able to do the big quest, like in those traditional stories where the hero has to get a macguffin for X who'll give her the macguffin that Y wants so that Y will give her the macguffin that Z wants so that Z will give her the macguffin she wants so that she can start the real quest. Having the PCs throw a big chunk of disposable wealth at the problem to make it go away doesn't do it for me at a story level. I've had much of my desire for the above plot hook beaten out of me through years of computer games such as Neverwinter Nights. Perhaps that is because I am one of those people who insist on completing every side quest on the way, perhaps not. As always, each to their own. Joe
clannagh 01-07-08, 08:24 PM	Several characters had to sell important items just to make it to the next encounter. When we played that was an option for several members of my group but was ruled out on the basis of it requiring blantant metagaming. I was actually pleased to see the other players in the party stating that whilst (from a metagaming point of view) a mod with such high expenses would have favors well worth selling gear for, the PCs themselves (no paladins) would not know this and would not do it. There was also an "in character" chance of incurring a similar cost at the end of the mod (though - metagaming again - the players knew, because of LGCS rulings, it wouldnt be necessary, the PCs had no such knowledge).
_metz_ 01-07-08, 10:25 PM	I don't think we had any special favors/powers, we ended up down 517 gold each at the lowest APL and we play with a really by the book DM. The OP appears to have figured out the most expensive way of doing things at each step. The only thing I can say is you need to think it through. Fun mod, though unfortunately, we roleplayed rather than metagamed at one point and that cost us. Well my costing of 5,500 each less 800 (earnt gold till that point per person) of 4,700 gold assumes only 1 thing. No Diplobot in the party. That is a VERY common thing at games days. Seeing as the mod 'in character' assumed similar costs back and didn't actually offer major awards/access IN CHARACTER (PCs had nothing to go off) it was quite shocking. I actually thought the PREMISE of the module was quite good. But there were significant flaws to me, it seemed either rushed or just not properly thought through. Hearts Desire Spoiler! As to Heart's desire, there are numerous issues with that module. 1. It assumes Paladins/overly heroic PCs who go and find some lowly thug for free. 2. The same overly heroic PCs are expected to make a deal with a Demon, which contravenes the whole assumption of their morality that would have led them on the mission in the first place... I enjoyed it, but can see many parties that would NOT enjoy it so much...
MwaO 01-08-08, 08:04 AM	Hearts Desire Spoiler! As to Heart's desire, there are numerous issues with that module. 1. It assumes Paladins/overly heroic PCs who go and find some lowly thug for free. 2. The same overly heroic PCs are expected to make a deal with a Demon, which contravenes the whole assumption of their morality that would have led them on the mission in the first place... I enjoyed it, but can see many parties that would NOT enjoy it so much... Hearts Desire is actually my favorite LG mod, both to play and run. When run well, I haven't seen a party not have a blast. I actually ran it at GenCon right after they cancelled LG and my table still got twisted up. spoilers The hook isn't that bad - she's talking about a phenomenally expensive piece of jewelry - you don't just have to return it to her. I've tied players up in knots with that demon. He's got a phenomenal bluff check, he can make some obvious(if potentially false) observations without changing the mod and give the players no chance of sense motiving it. i.e. I start talking about that nearby town, how his presence is corrupting it - okay that's in the mod, but then I start talking about how he senses people about to murder one another, how it wouldn't happen if only the PCs would release him. He of course, wouldn't mind the murder, but he'd rather be free than see some insignificant mortals kill each other. Then he promises to go home. At one point in the mod, a paladin character put wax into his ears, because the player was worried that I, the DM, would convince him(the player) that doing what the demon was talking about would be the 'good' thing to do. At another table, a Paladin didn't even blink and released him because I had convinced him of it, which drove a wizard at the table nuts, but the entire party wanted to do it. Fun mod
_metz_ 01-08-08, 05:55 PM	Hearts Desire is actually my favorite LG mod, both to play and run. When run well, I haven't seen a party not have a blast. I actually ran it at GenCon right after they cancelled LG and my table still got twisted up. spoilers The hook isn't that bad - she's talking about a phenomenally expensive piece of jewelry - you don't just have to return it to her. I've tied players up in knots with that demon. He's got a phenomenal bluff check, he can make some obvious(if potentially false) observations without changing the mod and give the players no chance of sense motiving it. i.e. I start talking about that nearby town, how his presence is corrupting it - okay that's in the mod, but then I start talking about how he senses people about to murder one another, how it wouldn't happen if only the PCs would release him. He of course, wouldn't mind the murder, but he'd rather be free than see some insignificant mortals kill each other. Then he promises to go home. At one point in the mod, a paladin character put wax into his ears, because the player was worried that I, the DM, would convince him(the player) that doing what the demon was talking about would be the 'good' thing to do. At another table, a Paladin didn't even blink and released him because I had convinced him of it, which drove a wizard at the table nuts, but the entire party wanted to do it. Fun mod I had fun in Hearts desire also, but it was so party based. What I will say is there are a lot of mods that have strong black and white decisions recently... It would be nice to approach things from a more philosphical viewpoint and I will give heart's desire credit for that in terms of how the antagonist acts once met. I Dmed it for a party that had a PC that had completed Demonweb pits. (was level 10) You can imagine that identification problems weren't an issue, he noticed it as an aspect of Grazzt straight away. No dealing. At all. Wasn't going to happen. Secondly, we had another party just go and tell the nightwatch and that was it. Adventure over in a flash. No amount of roleplaying budged them. (Cuthbertians) And on the afformentioned moral issue thing, it was a bit tired to me because it was a 'release the demon' or 'not release the demon' situation. It was too black and white. Admittedly you *could* roleplay it out further, but only if the party is willing. These morality mods have a far too simplistic view in my opinion. Maybe it is because I am spoilt with much darker more gritty mods than say, the sheldomar valley, (just a region chosen at random) and as such am used to more intricate moral dilemmas ;)
garyjohnson 01-08-08, 06:18 PM	We've discussed our preferences in a regional adventure of similar tone as well. Which is funny because we always seem to enjoy gaming together! :) Indeed. :) Thinking aloud, I find games memorable for the interplay between the PCs, not for the content of the adventures themselves. When I go through my mental list of "most fun LG experiences", they're all to do with interplay between the PCs, not the author's plot. Clearly you're a fun person to interact with. ;) Cheers, Gary
_metz_ 01-08-08, 07:19 PM	Indeed. :) Thinking aloud, I find games memorable for the interplay between the PCs, not for the content of the adventures themselves. I'll agree with that ;) My gripe is not from a players perspective here but a DMs perspective. Sometimes your players just aren't that well prepared or able to justify things roleplay wise, and you can't go against the strict ruling in the mod. (Well I don't like to) And I like to think I am one of the less draconian judges out there... As I said <<REMOVED>> was fantastic for me, loved it. But we had the perfect party, right down to some extremely unlikely access that came in handy.
Gallaway 01-08-08, 08:34 PM	I'll agree with that ;) Sometimes your players just aren't that well prepared or able to justify things roleplay wise, and you can't go against the strict ruling in the mod. . . . ... was fantastic for me, loved it. But we had the perfect party, right down to some extremely unlikely access that came in handy. I suppose my annoyance is at spending several hundred real dollars and a days travel to play for about an hour (an hour 40 minutes if you count the 40 minutes spent searching for favors and trying to find a way around the restrictions) and if it had been a home game i wouldnt have got so put off by the sillyness of it and taken it on teh chin. It seems to me the authors/play testers must have made several assumptions about the parties playing the mod in question, in particular they seemed to have assumed several of the following: 1) Assumes the party is a typical home game with a balanced party ... rather than a mix forced on you by random games day attendances (we had 3 archers no cleric, the primary melee an animal companian and the only arcane a mid level cohort). 2) Assumes the party does not contain large numbers of PCs reaching level 10 for the first time (who are usually very strapped for cash) but is made up of higher level PCs saving large amounts of cash for a rainy day. 3) The party contains at least one PC that played a lot of cores and hence will have (and be prepared to burn) certian core favors. 4) Most significantly the assumption the players will metagame/powergame using some logic along the lines of: "Given the way LG works, if this mod forces me to sell my armor to continue it must have some huge favor or access at the end .. so therefore I am in."
JohnduBois 01-08-08, 10:00 PM	It seems to me the authors/play testers must have made several assumptions about the parties playing the mod in question, in particular they seemed to have assumed several of the following: 1) Assumes the party is a typical home game with a balanced party ... rather than a mix forced on you by random games day attendances (we had 3 archers no cleric, the primary melee an animal companian and the only arcane a mid level cohort). 2) Assumes the party does not contain large numbers of PCs reaching level 10 for the first time (who are usually very strapped for cash) but is made up of higher level PCs saving large amounts of cash for a rainy day. 3) The party contains at least one PC that played a lot of cores and hence will have (and be prepared to burn) certian core favors. 4) Most significantly the assumption the players will metagame/powergame using some logic along the lines of: "Given the way LG works, if this mod forces me to sell my armor to continue it must have some huge favor or access at the end .. so therefore I am in." As somebody whose role in LG has gone from playtester to author to editor, I'm going to point out that when building playtest tables, some assumptions must be made, because you can't playtest every contingency. What assumptions do you think we should make? A table with one divine, one arcane, and one fighter doesn't seem too odd to me... That said, I don't think that charging lots of money up front without an in-game promise of greater gains is reasonable (although I haven't read this mod to verify the claims made).
Samwise 01-09-08, 02:06 AM	Having run this Thursday and tonight, I am missing exactly where all this gold is a requirement. I see a hefty requirement, possibly over what has been recovered, but no absolutely block. And indeed, if an APL 10 group can not muster the 3,800 gp which is the minimum worst case out of pocket expense (4 PCs, one way trip), something is a bit wrong. As for not getting max gp, again I am missing how that is impossible. One result probably seems a tad gauche, and another is likely more than slightly tacky, but it should be nowhere near impossible. Yes, it is certainly quite easy to come out of this thing down a few thousand gp. But 3,800 gp among 4 PCs should hardly be considered a catastrophe. As for Heart's Desire, it definitely was not rushed. There was extensive thought given to just how to set it up to allow the PCs complete freedom of choice in how to resolve the adventure. A party can resolve it any way they like, and hopefully have fun doing so.
Maesto 01-09-08, 03:02 AM	I had great fun playing Heart's Desire. My table was somewhat stuck at the crux point, but we ended up being good little Cuthbertites. I've ran the game twice online, and both times managed to persuade the PCs to be nice to poor little <removed>. The mod has some great roleplay in it, and some beautiful descriptions. I put it as one of the best mods I've ever run. Not so sure on the ever played front, but it's certainly up there.
JohnduBois 01-09-08, 06:45 AM	Oh yeah, I forgot to stand up for Heart's Desire as well. This is quite possibly one of the most well-written Core adventures I've ever run. There is clear evidence that Eric thought about a significant number of possibilities and PC choices in social, combat, and cognitive challenges in the adventure, and went out of his way to accommodate all reasonable PC actions I've encountered in the three tables I've run and my one time playing the mod (with a paladin, mind you). If you haven't played it, make sure you do before the campaign goes away. If you played it and didn't like it, get a copy and read it ot make sure it's the mod and not the DM. If you've read it and didn't like it... Well, then I guess we just have different tastes :P
bitznarf 01-09-08, 09:20 AM	Having run this Thursday and tonight, I am missing exactly where all this gold is a requirement. I see a hefty requirement, possibly over what has been recovered, but no absolutely block. And indeed, if an APL 10 group can not muster the 3,800 gp which is the minimum worst case out of pocket expense (4 PCs, one way trip), something is a bit wrong. They way information is presented *to the players* in the mod, this does not appear to be an option. And as the majority of mods out there tend to be inflexible about these sorts of things, the onus is on this mod to in some way show other options.
MwaO 01-09-08, 10:12 AM	They way information is presented *to the players* in the mod, this does not appear to be an option. And as the majority of mods out there tend to be inflexible about these sorts of things, the onus is on this mod to in some way show other options. There is a huge difference between does not appear and is not, especially in the context of failing a mod. If the only apparent way to get into a castle is guarded by a 10-headed Hydra and you're APL 4, do you just go home? Or do you look around to see if there's another way in? If something is so onerous that the table is going to decide to fail the mod rather than continue, the players have to think about whether or not the option in front of them is the only one. And if they don't do that, they should fail the mod.
Mattastrophic 01-09-08, 12:20 PM	If something is so onerous that the table is going to decide to fail the mod rather than continue, the players have to think about whether or not the option in front of them is the only one. And if they don't do that, they should fail the mod. *e-pplause* Seriously, nothing worth whining about. My view has historically been a bit more extreme, believing that there should be a hard minimum on being able to play high-level adventures. (Ex: You have to be L10 to play adventures that start at 10) The rest of the Cores are so newbie-focused, not to mention Greyhawk Ruins, and it's sad that the high-level ones have become so nerfed these days, down to the level of the rest of the Cores. Ex: An EL 15 for APL 14? That's a joke. But unfortunately, that's how LG evolved to be. Oh, and another point for the OP: don't complain about the mod actually asking for non-combat skills. Just like not having combat ability in a combat will screw you, not having non-combat ability in a non-combat situation should screw you too. (Which this module doesn't end up doing, so there's really no reason to complain) Enough ranting, though... -Matt
copperwyrmling 01-09-08, 02:05 PM	Ex: An EL 15 for APL 14? That's a joke. If it's the big climactic encounter, sure. I don't have much of a problem with the random "your ship gets attacked by sea monsters" encounter being relatively low EL. Oh, and another point for the OP: don't complain about the mod actually asking for non-combat skills. Just like not having combat ability in a combat will screw you, not having non-combat ability in a non-combat situation should screw you too. The problem with the naive combat/non-combat comparison is that every class, by design, has combat ability that scales with level, and the EL system describes (sometimes accurately, sometimes not) what sort of combat is appropriate for a group of that level. NO class has ability in every skill that scales with level, and consequently skill checks are not associated with an EL, except tangentially (higher-level monsters can be better at opposed checks). That's not an issue with mod authors preferring combat to non-combat encounters, it's an issue with the design of 3.5. To put it another way, saying "If you can't fight an EL-appropriate combat, you're in trouble" is not the same as saying "If you don't have a PC who can make a DC 30 Gather Information check, you're in trouble" or "If any of you can't make a DC 20 Jump check, you're in trouble" - the former requires that your PC be competent at adventuring, the latter requires that you guessed correctly what skills to max out when you were building your PC.
amysrevenge 01-09-08, 02:16 PM	Hmm. I did play this one - now that a name and spoilers have been mentioned I even remember it. However, I remember the adventure and not the setup. Either my DM was merciful and/or unprepared, or there is more to it than the OP stated - I am frequently enraged by things like the OP mentioned, and I don't remember being enraged by this one (and if I had been enraged, I would surely remember). I actually really liked this module. Big Mike Calgary
Samwise 01-09-08, 02:36 PM	They way information is presented *to the players* in the mod, this does not appear to be an option. And as the majority of mods out there tend to be inflexible about these sorts of things, the onus is on this mod to in some way show other options. The way the information is presented is that something is critical. One way to do that something is to pay a lot of gold. For the one mandatory expense, barring some player insight, the cost is 3,800 gp for a group of four PCs, down to 2,200 gp for a group of six PCs. With the player insight, it can all come out of gold already found. As regards inflexibility, I am just confused. The adventure should have a warning that it is not a cheap railroad that forces you to anticipate the author's preferences?
bitznarf 01-09-08, 03:52 PM	As regards inflexibility, I am just confused. The adventure should have a warning that it is not a cheap railroad that forces you to anticipate the author's preferences? Not quite what I am getting at. Moreso that there should be some way *in mod* of discovering alternate means of achieving that particular goal (getting to XYZ location). Some way that doesn't just end up being 'make a guess and try it' or 'the DM tells you'. Not really sure where/how you are getting your numbers in that their post though Sam. Assuming that the PCs believe what the mod tells the PCs, and that the PCs are not fortunate to have their own means of travel, and that the PCs even become aware of the option, and ... I see a minimum cost of 2950 *per PC* that *cannot* come out of cap gold. Never mind the fact that the costs listed in the mod seem *way* out of whack with the normal costs for such things (planar forks, spellcasting costs, etc.).
Samwise 01-09-08, 04:10 PM	Not quite what I am getting at. Moreso that there should be some way *in mod* of discovering alternate means of achieving that particular goal (getting to XYZ location). Some way that doesn't just end up being 'make a guess and try it' or 'the DM tells you'. Right. That is why I allow that a minimum "fee" to play does exist, despite the fact that it can be gotten around. Not really sure where/how you are getting your numbers in that their post though Sam. Assuming that the PCs believe what the mod tells the PCs, and that the PCs are not fortunate to have their own means of travel, and that the PCs even become aware of the option, and ... I see a minimum cost of 2950 *per PC* that *cannot* come out of cap gold. Never mind the fact that the costs listed in the mod seem *way* out of whack with the normal costs for such things (planar forks, spellcasting costs, etc.). You are assuming that a certain cost is mandatory to continue. It is not. I know more than a few groups that would have simply laughed at me had I told them what bad things could happen to them if they did not meet the other costs and demanded I bring it on, and several other groups that would have have a list of ways they could avoid any such bad things without even trying hard. That is not a required cost, and should not be counted as such.
bitznarf 01-09-08, 05:17 PM	You are assuming that a certain cost is mandatory to continue. It is not. No, I'm not. The mod simply presents it as mandatory. Too often there are mandatory parts of mods that simply cannot be changed. This obstacle is simply presented as yet another one. Only this time the cost is prohibitive and out of line with previous costs for similar things. Hence the problem.
Samwise 01-09-08, 06:03 PM	No, I'm not. The mod simply presents it as mandatory. Too often there are mandatory parts of mods that simply cannot be changed. This obstacle is simply presented as yet another one. Only this time the cost is prohibitive and out of line with previous costs for similar things. Hence the problem. Provided we are talking about the same adventure, and the same element, I have been reading and re-reading the relevant sections throughout this discussion. The DM text directly states that the PCs may continue without paying that cost. It addresses two methods of doing so. The mandatory cost is, as I stated only 3,800 gp at most, going down to 3,200 for a party of five, and 2,600 for a party of six. While that might be a bit annoying, it should not be prohibitive at those APLs. If the PCs must sell stuff, that is a pair of +2 stat boost items, or a handful of 1st level pearls of power if they can spread the costs out. And that is only if the PCs have not finagled some random favor to get around it completely.
bitznarf 01-09-08, 06:16 PM	Provided we are talking about the same adventure, and the same element, I have been reading and re-reading the relevant sections throughout this discussion. The DM text directly states that the PCs may continue without paying that cost. It addresses two methods of doing so. I think we may be talking about 2 different costs here. The first cost would be the getting to Avernus, minimum cost there for 4 PCs w/o their own resources is 7000gp - 3200gp already earned. Never mind the fact that the cheapest method of travel is the one that wouldn't tend to come to mind - normally that sort of option is presented to the PCs, they don't have to look for it themselves. The 2000gp per creature cost is also there however, and is presented to the PCs as mandatory. The DM is aware of the details of that, but PCs who have never been to Avernus before are not. Total, that gets you 2000gp + 3800gp/4 = 2950gp per PC. Assuming no animal companions/familiars or the like.
MwaO 01-09-08, 06:40 PM	I think we may be talking about 2 different costs here. The first cost would be the getting to Avernus, minimum cost there for 4 PCs w/o their own resources is 7000gp - 3200gp already earned. Never mind the fact that the cheapest method of travel is the one that wouldn't tend to come to mind - normally that sort of option is presented to the PCs, they don't have to look for it themselves. The 2000gp per creature cost is also there however, and is presented to the PCs as mandatory. The DM is aware of the details of that, but PCs who have never been to Avernus before are not. Total, that gets you 2000gp + 3800gp/4 = 2950gp per PC. Assuming no animal companions/familiars or the like. spoilers The 2000gp per creature is presented to the PCs as mandatory by a creature who has demons and shadowdark dragons under his command. He chuckles when he meets you and mocks you. He is almost certainly evil and has no respect for the PCs in his actions. The kobold Paladin gives you his wealth to make sure that the kobold sorcerer won't misuse it in some way. If the Paladin had told us to do it, then it makes sense, but the information is coming from a source that has no reason to be trusted other than how to better make you able to defeat the serpent. The party not succeeding because it tripped one too many encounters with devils is not that big of a deal for the party, but it is for him.
bitznarf 01-09-08, 07:24 PM	spoilers It is also presented through other sources in the mods as well.
Samwise 01-09-08, 07:28 PM	I think we may be talking about 2 different costs here. OK, then we are on the same page. No. That cost is in no way made mandatory on the PCs. That is a very big leap to make, in-character or not, and goes against several rather clear elements of the adventure. The very first paragraph of the encounter with the 2,000 gp per PC costs says that the PCs may simply skip the entire encounter. That is one way to avoid the cost. The fourth paragraph makes it clear the PCs can never actually succeed at the task any way, they can only come close. The fifth paragraph says the PCs can cover the cost by making the skill checks themselves. That is the second way to avoid the cost. The person the PCs hire never says the PCs must buy from her, only that she is the best source. That is a third way to avoid the cost, although it does mean ignoring possibly suspect advice as MwaO noted. A group that makes high rolls can wind up attacking the person they hire, ending the encounter completely. That is the fourth way to avoid the cost, although this time by resorting to too much violence. Four ways, all within the content and structure of the adventure. Players will have to make a very significant and active choice to interpret that as mandatory, deliberately ignoring any possible alternatives. A DM has to actively go out of his way to make that cost absolutely mandatory. Given that even paying the cost is highly likely to be meaningless unless the PCs also throw even more gold or magic away and they are really good as talking through an encounter, a DM should really know better than to let the players talk themselves out of the adventure because of a presumption of that cost being mandatory.
bitznarf 01-09-08, 07:32 PM	OK, then we are on the same page. No. That cost is in no way made mandatory on the PCs. That is a very big leap to make, in-character or not, and goes against several rather clear elements of the adventure. The very first paragraph of the encounter with the 2,000 gp per PC costs says that the PCs may simply skip the entire encounter. That is one way to avoid the cost. The fourth paragraph makes it clear the PCs can never actually succeed at the task any way, they can only come close. The fifth paragraph says the PCs can cover the cost by making the skill checks themselves. That is the second way to avoid the cost. The person the PCs hire never says the PCs must buy from her, only that she is the best source. That is a third way to avoid the cost, although it does mean ignoring possibly suspect advice as MwaO noted. A group that makes high rolls can wind up attacking the person they hire, ending the encounter completely. That is the fourth way to avoid the cost, although this time by resorting to too much violence. Four ways, all within the content and structure of the adventure. Players will have to make a very significant and active choice to interpret that as mandatory, deliberately ignoring any possible alternatives. A DM has to actively go out of his way to make that cost absolutely mandatory. Given that even paying the cost is highly likely to be meaningless unless the PCs also throw even more gold or magic away and they are really good as talking through an encounter, a DM should really know better than to let the players talk themselves out of the adventure because of a presumption of that cost being mandatory. Let me say this again. I am aware that they are not mandatory. And so should any DM be aware. But that is absolutely *not* the way it is presented in mod *to the PCs*. What is presented to the PCs and what is presented to the DM is wildly different.
Samwise 01-09-08, 07:38 PM	Let me say this again. I am aware that they are not mandatory. And so should any DM be aware. But that is absolutely *not* the way it is presented in mod *to the PCs*. What is presented to the PCs and what is presented to the DM is wildly different. I disagree. For reasons already stated. That is a player decision, not a PC decision.
_metz_ 01-09-08, 08:35 PM	The way the information is presented is that something is critical. One way to do that something is to pay a lot of gold. For the one mandatory expense, barring some player insight, the cost is 3,800 gp for a group of four PCs, down to 2,200 gp for a group of six PCs. With the player insight, it can all come out of gold already found. As regards inflexibility, I am just confused. The adventure should have a warning that it is not a cheap railroad that forces you to anticipate the author's preferences? How are you getting to that cost? Ok lets asuume that the party in Question doesn't have a cleric, but rather a Druid/Healer etc. (quite common really) 4 PCs: 7,000+7,000 (Planar Fork + Plane Shift) +8,000 (4 licences, there are no diplomonkeys) = 22,000 divide by 4 = 5,500 less 800 gold earnt PER PC = 4,700 per PC. NOT 3,800 for the group. I have no idea what you are getting at Sam ;) My math is different to yours NOW lets throw in the fact that IN CHARACTER they can assume similar costs back. So a Table of: A BDF (cha 6) A Wizard WITHOUT plane Shift (hey its very common) (cha 8) A Druid (cha 8) An Archer/Trapfinder (cha 8) That is quite a decent party that is ALL at APL is completely screwed over and MUST pay 4,700 gold. EACH. With no garuntee for a return trip. AND THEY DON'T GET ACCESS TO THE FORK. no sure how that isn't mandatory Samwise. The PCs have a choice - pay up or end the mod. Thats how its presented. As to Hearts Desire: I can see how it be a fantastic mod elsewhere, I guess I just had stubborn Perrenders who wanted to smite Grazzt. They did not enjoy the module. THe module itself was well written - I'll give it that, in terms of editing, and the actual level of english. (Don't get me started on the 30 odd times crystal is mentioned in another mod's box text) The demon decision just really aggravated a bunch of PCs who were sick of these black and white moral decisions in modules that were just so cliche. Its always 'do a dela with the demon' or 'kill the babies/don't kill the babies' I much prefer the dubious philosophical decisions like 'rescue the monster who claims they have converted' or 'Fight out against the lawful evil regime on the chaos/law axis'
Samwise 01-09-08, 09:21 PM	How are you getting to that cost? 7,000+7,000 (Planar Fork + Plane Shift) They can just pay for the location of a gate to Avernus. 7,000 gp, one time cost, they will figure out how to get home later. +8,000 (4 licences, there are no diplomonkeys) They do not need the licenses. I am not really sure how to make that more clear than the simple first paragraph of that encounter that says the PCs can simply skip the entire encounter. Add in that the PC's can try making them personally, and I can not see how the cost can be considered anything more than one overpriced option among many. So 7,000 - 800 x (# of PCs) = 3,800/3,000/2,200 As to Hearts Desire: "The module itself was well written - I'll give it that, in terms of editing, and the actual level of english." I hope so! I spent more than a few hours working on it with Eric. As for the demon, if it were that black and white, there would only have been one "right" way to end the adventure. If people want to just smite, they can. The DM does not get to indulge himself trying to subvert them, but that is a perfectly valid choice for the players.
_metz_ 01-09-08, 09:40 PM	Sam: I don't really have any gripe with hearst desire, Ive just had some parties who didn't go for it. I enjoyed it when I played it, but then again I have a pirate who is all for doing naughty things. As I said, one of the much better written core mods I have seen, ESPECIALLY pertaining to the quality of the english used. I don't really want to argue over it, as it seems to be an issue of how players like their moral decisions rather than the actual quality of the module that is being questioned, and that comes down to personal preferences. Back on topic: good point on the costing: However most PCs don't go looking for a gate on first impulse, they go looking for a planar fork. not many folk expect to find a gate to Avernus. Its hard as a DM to lead them to that when they are actively looking for the more obvious and costly option, and the mod says they can easily find it. As to the license, the mod definitely implies that purchasing it is the smart thing to do, and in character and metagame wise it is silly to not get it. Few characters are cocky enough to take on a layer in hell. I do know one 15th level spymaster who just bought one and forged the rest however... But that would be the exception rather than the rule.
Swiftbrook 01-12-08, 12:17 PM	I just received my new cards and was wondering ..... Would the Unsavory Contacts card help in bypassing the some or all of the costs in this adventure? One "Pass" or skeleton key gaining you access to one area that the adventure intents to be accessible. -Swiftbrook
Hariman 01-13-08, 11:16 AM	Oh yeah, I forgot to stand up for Heart's Desire as well. This is quite possibly one of the most well-written Core adventures I've ever run. There is clear evidence that Eric thought about a significant number of possibilities and PC choices in social, combat, and cognitive challenges in the adventure, and went out of his way to accommodate all reasonable PC actions I've encountered in the three tables I've run and my one time playing the mod (with a paladin, mind you). If you haven't played it, make sure you do before the campaign goes away. If you played it and didn't like it, get a copy and read it ot make sure it's the mod and not the DM. If you've read it and didn't like it... Well, then I guess we just have different tastes :P It's definitely a fun mod to play. (I just played it yesterday.) The setting really did have great descriptions. And I had even more fun because I'd played two loosely connected mods prior to playing Heart's Desire.
Maesto 01-14-08, 03:47 PM	I played the game in question of this thread yesterday (not heart's desire, the other one). Playing at APL 14, we had the resources to bypass all costs (except for one, but that one isn't the gripe of this thread). However, I can easily see an APL 8 table having an incredibly difficult time of things, if they don't have the right skills to contribute to the table, or the right access from previous mods.
amysrevenge 01-14-08, 04:37 PM	For crying out loud. You mean we're talking about TWO different modules in this thread? Please please please, someone say the name of the other mod, the one that's not Heart's Desire. Wrap it is spoiler tags if you like, but I gotta know. Mike
bitznarf 01-14-08, 05:34 PM	Well, the thread started about only one mod, and then morphed into 2 different mods.
Swiftbrook 01-14-08, 06:57 PM	For crying out loud. You mean we're talking about TWO different modules in this thread? Please please please, someone say the name of the other mod, the one that's not Heart's Desire. Wrap it is spoiler tags if you like, but I gotta know. Mike Understand, I don't know the name of the mod. I haven't played it. I've read the thread, then searched the mod descriptions for key words from this thread and the general APL level so I have a good idea what the mod is. Still wondering about your opinions about the Unsavory Contacts card. -Swiftbrook
bitznarf 01-14-08, 07:01 PM	I think that level of detail would be too much to say Swift, even with Spoiler tags.
Swiftbrook 01-14-08, 07:16 PM	I think that level of detail would be too much to say Swift, even with Spoiler tags. OK. Thanks for the insight.