Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Master_Bushido_Mark 03-22-07, 01:21 AM	Plain and simple, there have been some modules approved and released by both my local Triad and some Core missions where APLs are being miscalculated and players are dying left and right. I just played an APL 4 mission that nearly killed my level 6 spiked chain wielding Fighter/Cleric. This mission outright disabled four of five of us, and in the end killed three. My character fought as valiantly as she could to save them, and in the end had to run away with 5 hp of 51 total because she could not solo a heavily armored Fighter, Cleric, and a mildly spell-diminished 5th level Wizard. This encounter, mind you, was immediately following an encounter with four soldier-type enemies. This encounter is also the third encounter within the same day, in-game. So, spellcaster players are going into this fight dimished too. So, the APL should be at a +2 above the combined APL of the enemies. But, it wasn't, the judge showed me the encounter data after we failed the mission. Circle reviewers, playtesters, and Triad needs to be checking these writers' math throughout their review of the mission before approving it for release. Who else here felt that a mission they played was way overpowered for what it should have been at the APL you were playing? Mark
Eric Anondson 03-22-07, 01:52 AM	I'm confused. A lot didn't make sense there. Are you saying there is a rule that a module with three encounters in a single in-game day requires the last encounter to be +2 above the normal EL of the enemies?
Jay_Ibero_911 03-22-07, 02:04 AM	Plain and simple, there have been some modules approved and released by both my local Triad and some Core missions where APLs are being miscalculated and players are dying left and right. I just played an APL 4 mission that nearly killed my level 6 spiked chain wielding Fighter/Cleric. This mission outright disabled four of five of us, and in the end killed three. My character fought as valiantly as she could to save them, and in the end had to run away with 5 hp of 51 total because she could not solo a heavily armored Fighter, Cleric, and a mildly spell-diminished 5th level Wizard. This encounter, mind you, was immediately following an encounter with four soldier-type enemies. This encounter is also the third encounter within the same day, in-game. So, spellcaster players are going into this fight dimished too. So, the APL should be at a +2 above the combined APL of the enemies. But, it wasn't, the judge showed me the encounter data after we failed the mission. Circle reviewers, playtesters, and Triad needs to be checking these writers' math throughout their review of the mission before approving it for release. Who else here felt that a mission they played was way overpowered for what it should have been at the APL you were playing? Mark What was the rest of the table's class and levels? It sounds like that last fight should have been much easier, unless it was a weak party to begin with...
MatteBlack 03-22-07, 03:01 AM	I have seen and heard of a few adventures that seem to be scaled with powergamed characters in mind. I am not sure if this is one such adventure but, the trend concerns me. I have no problem with people playing powergamed characters. They should jsut need to play over the standard APl to find their challenges. Some of mine could be categorized as such but, optimizing should not be a requirement to being appropriately scaled. I am of the opinion that a well-rounded non-optemized non-cookiecutter build should be viable to play. Unless you want everyone to build powergamed characters the scaling against 'standard' characters needs to be kept in mind. One could argue that this would make powergamed characters unlikely to die but, if the alternative is slaughtering regularly built characters, I can live with long lived characters who optimize.
Morgen 03-22-07, 03:11 AM	One must aslo remember that the CR system in D&D3e+ is not a completely accurate messure of a lot of monster's abilities. Some times encounters are just too difficult unless you've got exactly the right solution to the problem. Not to say the players shouldn't be punished for being stupid (not saying you were) and the encounters shouldn't be challenging, but there have been a few cases of absolute rediculiousness. I, as are many other, get tired of mods being written for the aboslute powermongers and twinks seemingly (not saying they are) all the time. If we had open access to everything WotC made or something like that, sure go to town. Heck, have Basic LG and then Advanced LG or something....hmmm.. That could be fun, a version of LG that focuses more on mass armies and the like. Heroes of Battle territory.
cycloptic_squirrel 03-22-07, 03:15 AM	Circle reviewers, playtesters, and Triad needs to be checking these writers' math throughout their review of the mission before approving it for release. Who else here felt that a mission they played was way overpowered for what it should have been at the APL you were playing? First off, email the POC on your triad. Forums are a great place for venting, but if you want to get something accomplished, going through official channels is much more effective. For the table, playing 2 levels down doesn't make your character superman (er, superwoman). There are encounters that should take her down. It sounds like you were the only one left standing when you sounded the retreat; you might have had a better luck a round or two earlier. Success is not gaurunteed. Failing a mission is often preferable to death. I'm not sure that a combat immediatly following another is worth a +2 EL bump. +1 maybe. Either way, I've also noticed modifiers not being taken into account on several encounter in seveal missions. If you want to throw me up against an EL of APL +5 OK, but call it APL+5 so you have to justify it to your editors, reviewers, DMs, and players. If the EL cap of the adventure is hindering you, work to change it (I personally think it should be more of a guideline than a rule). But nothing irks me more when modifiers are ignored or abused. I've only been in for about a year, but I hear it was worse in years 3-4.
copper_wyrmling 03-22-07, 03:53 AM	I've only been in for about a year, but I hear it was worse in years 3-4. I do find it odd to hear people complaining of power creep - if you're new to LG, maybe it's just that the mods seem harder as you get higher in APL? That can happen just because your character's best tactics change as you go up in level - what worked well at APL 2-4 may not be such a good idea at APL 6-8. I've played Core mods in Years 3 through 7, now, and I think they're getting better in the sense that the encounters are more consistent and the mods are better edited. They also generally feel easier to me, but that may be a consequence of learning the rules and getting better at tactics (it's not a matter of building more powerful characters: when my currently-L12 sorc was L4, she had fairly similar spells and tactics to my currently-L4 sorc). The only mod I've played recently that really challenged one of my PCs was a Year 5 Bissel regional - and I was playing a L6 fighter, playing down to APL 4. The problem was that the rest of the party went cleric / paladin 4 (I think - he might've been L3, he only had one cleric level), monk grappler 4, and archer-type 2. That is - no arcane, and virtually all of the healing was the wand of cure light wounds that my character owned. We fought three bearded devils, and the best Heal check in the party was +3. That was awfully nasty - but it wasn't a problem with the mod, the problem was the party. Mostly what I remember from Year 3 Cores was how much I hated Improved Grab :weep: The ankheg encounter in Lerara (four ankhegs at APL 4, six at APL 6 iirc), the bears in By Cunning and Forced Cause (multiple brown bears at APL 4), the remorhaz in Endgame (at APL 6)...
Haro 03-22-07, 03:54 AM	As I have been saying for some time, I believe 95% of the difficulty of any given scenario is determined by party composition. 5% comes from author/editor oversight and/or creature CR being too low for their relative power. This is assuming the GM understands creature abilities and their tactics of course. Recently, a thread about overpowered monsters was partially hijacked by a discussion about a retired Perrenland module featuring an Assassin Vine. Some of the horror stories about the creature were quite simply caused because the GM did not run it properly. Joe
Mommy was an Orc 03-22-07, 06:17 AM	There is some problems with how some writers use CR though. 28 point buy isn't a legal option for zero CR adjustment - 18 Int or 18 Str base is a lot more powerful than 15...especially when the NPC probably doesn't really need more than 3 stats to do what he/she does in combat. Neither is giving NPCs treasure appropriate to an NPC 4 levels higher than they are. Even if it is spent badly or the PCs get to use it in another combat. There's been a couple of recent mods where the CR of encounter would have been at least EL+4 if not +5 due to that, when the writer calculated it at +3. And when you're talking about APL 4, there's a problem...
Madfox11 03-22-07, 08:48 AM	Like others have said, venting on these boards might feel good, it doesn't solve the problem. Talk with the triad in case of regionals, your local circle member for meta-regionals and for cores with Creighton. When you send in a complaint, try to be very specific and polite. Think hard about the situation, and what made the encounter so difficult. Try to read the adventure beforehand as well, and don't just look at the statblocks, but also at the whole encounter description. All too often I get complaints about an encounter where the DM forgot to apply circumstances favoring the PCs. For example, DMs missing the fact that a NPC travelling with the PC fought the monster before *and* tells the PCs exactly what it can do, or the PCs being charged in the surprise round because the DM overlooked the DC 12 Spot check as a surprise check already included distance penalties and what is more terrain made charging impossible so the monster would at least take 1.5 rounds to get at the PCs. Finally, sometimes encounters are made challenging on purpose either because of the type of adventures (Core specials, battle interactives, last part of a series) or to bring home a point. Not all apparently incorrectly calculated ELs are the result of rules ignorance or mistakes. Now I am not saying something similar happened in this particular case. It is just something you need to be alert about before complaining. I will not deny true errors have been made in the past by authors and reviewers and since we are just humans, they are going to be made in the future. Funnily enough, people have been complaining about a powercreep since year 1. At the same time though people that have been playing since year 1 are saying we have broken away from that creep since year 5. I wonder whether the observation by Copper Wyrmling is correct: players at a specific point of experience get into trouble more often than players with more LG experience behind the belt....
Lupo 03-22-07, 09:12 AM	Plain and simple, there have been some modules approved and released by both my local Triad and some Core missions where APLs are being miscalculated and players are dying left and right. I just played an APL 4 mission that nearly killed my level 6 spiked chain wielding Fighter/Cleric. This mission outright disabled four of five of us, and in the end killed three. My character fought as valiantly as she could to save them, and in the end had to run away with 5 hp of 51 total because she could not solo a heavily armored Fighter, Cleric, and a mildly spell-diminished 5th level Wizard. This encounter, mind you, was immediately following an encounter with four soldier-type enemies. This encounter is also the third encounter within the same day, in-game. So, spellcaster players are going into this fight dimished too. So, the APL should be at a +2 above the combined APL of the enemies. But, it wasn't, the judge showed me the encounter data after we failed the mission. Circle reviewers, playtesters, and Triad needs to be checking these writers' math throughout their review of the mission before approving it for release. Who else here felt that a mission they played was way overpowered for what it should have been at the APL you were playing? Mark it is near to impossible to give an accurate comment on any outcome of a module without having the module text AND the party composition WITH annotations about the players :rolleyes:. last weekend con had a module that nearly stomped an APL 6 table that was considered strong (five players, good mix of classes and a cohort) - the table was partly saved by time-out :eek:. the reasons were: two of the players were not very experienced, one has to improve her strategic battlefield perception - not to bad with some characters, but for a summoner druid that hurts ;) a NPC nerfed the bard's songs with countersong specialist wizard with just the wrong spells for the foes and low on spells due to first two encounters were very spell consuming gross lucky rolls by the DM, critts a lot, rolling nothing but 18 whenever asked for a save (ok, slightly exaggerating, but near to it) me was playing an APL 4 table with the same module, table composition was also a good mix and moderately strong. our table was the first to complete the adventure, we had one tough moment, the paladin went down by a crit and had to use his "second wind" card. but luckily just AFTER he critted the foe with smite and maxed power attack. and we too had a player that tried some tricks without success. he tried to make his war mastiff attacking for several rounds without having some ranks in "handle animal" instead of just stepping forward attack by himself - and the character is a drizzt clone :rant:. so the same module, no over the edge EL, both tables moderately strong, both DMs fair and not the me-vs.-the-players-types, totally different outcome. ciao martin m.
Timlagor 03-22-07, 09:44 AM	Well Cycloptic Squirrel said he'd heard it used to be worse so I'm not quite sure what CW was replying to... This sort of thing has definitely improved considerably. I know Seeds got a fair bit of attention in this part of the world. It also made it painfully clear to us how important it is to include maps for encounters if you want tables to face the same challenge.
Mattastrophic 03-22-07, 09:51 AM	Mark, Check your personal messages. -Matt
amnuxoll 03-22-07, 09:52 AM	Plain and simple, there have been some modules approved and released by both my local Triad and some Core missions where APLs are being miscalculated and players are dying left and right. I hear complaints like this all the time. Most of the time, the complainer can't back it up with a solid argument. I have never heard such a complaint from someone who has actually written for LG. I would be surprised if Mark was an exception to this. As a player, if you don't like the way a mod is written I encourage you to fix the problem constructively by writing for your region rather than offering non-constructive criticism. Don't be surprised, however, if the problem fixes itself in a manner you did not expect. :AMN:
Lupo 03-22-07, 10:45 AM	I hear complaints like this all the time. Most of the time, the complainer can't back it up with a solid argument. I have never heard such a complaint from someone who has actually written for LG. I would be surprised if Mark was an exception to this. As a player, if you don't like the way a mod is written I encourage you to fix the problem constructively by writing for your region rather than offering non-constructive criticism. Don't be surprised, however, if the problem fixes itself in a manner you did not expect. :AMN: there are few adventures where i am really sure the encounter calculations should have been adjusted in favor of the players: the infamous "seeds" module had some borderline calculations, made excessive use of templated creatures and sometimes the encounter description/placing/mapping wasn't explicitly enough to prevent unfavorable circumstances IF the DM wasn't careful about it :( . another case was a regional module that included a fully buffed druid that was near to guaranteed to ambush the PCs, while the numbers were right, the authors had no idea how horrific a fully buffed prepared druid can be :P. the dreamstealers will'o'wisp were another case of nasty templating monsters :rolleyes: . and the retired "war of the dust" encounter with the "lets include the griffons into the calculation on the players side" nonsense :rant:. there might be some more, these were the ones that just popped up first and most prominent in my mind when asked for "broken" encounters and modules. most other terrible situations/outcomes of modules were a combination of weak party (not necessarily from paper calculation, sometimes from unexperienced players etc.), foes or obstacles that were just a tick apart from the things the party could handle or really bad luck with rolling dice. ciao martin m.
bitznarf 03-22-07, 10:49 AM	I hear complaints like this all the time. Most of the time, the complainer can't back it up with a solid argument. I have never heard such a complaint from someone who has actually written for LG. I would be surprised if Mark was an exception to this. As a player, if you don't like the way a mod is written I encourage you to fix the problem constructively by writing for your region rather than offering non-constructive criticism. Don't be surprised, however, if the problem fixes itself in a manner you did not expect. :AMN: Step 1: Send in your constructive criticism. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit.
Redfist 03-22-07, 11:46 AM	So, the APL should be at a +2 above the combined APL of the enemies. I'm not sure where you are getting this. Could you elaborate? I agree that sometimes some authors have pushed the edge too far (like having 35 point buy NPCs without adjusting the EL), but it's been my experience that the vast majority of complaints of mods being overpowered are made by people who haven't thoroughly read the stat blocks + encounter description nor understand EL math and appropriate situational modifiers. I'm not saying YOU fall into this group, but your post is phrased in a way of trying to gather anecdotcal evidence from the masses. --Gordon
Rerednaw 03-22-07, 12:12 PM	]...I agree that sometimes some authors have pushed the edge too far (like having 35 point buy NPCs without adjusting the EL),...--Gordon[/SIZE] I can speak to that. Year 5 Core Mod. First encounter of the day at APL2. Level 4 Caster, 37 point buy, with 4 hirelings each with elite array, value of magic gear alone on caster 28k gp. EL4. The DM had us go through the combat, and we won. Then he got shocked at all the loot and promptly said, nope none of the stuff you find is magical. So only the NPC got to use the gear. Another mod (APL2) had a 35 point buy templated caster and a 42 point buy level 5 fighter minion/guard and was listed as two separate EL3 and EL5. Never mind that they share the same house and are 20 feet from each other. Oh yeah, 4 more guard/minions too. We still managed to win barely via some very clever thinking.
Howie23 03-22-07, 12:18 PM	Plain and simple, there have been some modules approved and released by both my local Triad and some Core missions where APLs are being miscalculated and players are dying left and right. I just played an APL 4 mission that nearly killed my level 6 spiked chain wielding Fighter/Cleric. This mission outright disabled four of five of us, and in the end killed three. Summary: 3/5 characters died in an encounter, and it provided a challenge for my spiked cheese guy, too. Comments: The 6th level character was playing down. No information is provided on the rest of the party, which could have ranged from 2-3rd level to all 5th, leading to very different conclusions. What was the party composition? My character fought as valiantly as she could to save them, and in the end had to run away with 5 hp of 51 total because she could not solo a heavily armored Fighter, Cleric, and a mildly spell-diminished 5th level Wizard. Summary: When the others were disabled (how?) I found that a single 6th level character cannot solo what may have been an EL6 or EL7 encounter. Comments: That's reasonable. A 6th level character should not defeat 3 5th level characters. There is an implied statement in here somewhere that a combat encounter that harms the PCs, even most of them, is inherently overpowered. It sounds like there was an early widespread negative effect (sleep/color spray against low levels playing up, a statistically unlikely big damage fireball, etc.) This encounter, mind you, was immediately following an encounter with four soldier-type enemies. This encounter is also the third encounter within the same day, in-game. So, spellcaster players are going into this fight dimished too. Summary: This was an atypical mod, in that all the encounters were the same day instead of nicely spread out. This resulted on resource pressure on our spellcasters. Comments: The reason why fighters are useful and why spellcasters shouldn't lead with the big stuff as a matter of course. DMG standard is that 4 encounters in a given day, with EL=APL, and a four character party is the maximum that a party can handle. With EL=APL+2, is says that it should be about two encounters maximum (again, with 4 PCs) A third encounter in the same day should then, indeed, be resource stressing, and potentially fatal. So, the APL should be at a +2 above the combined APL of the enemies. But, it wasn't, the judge showed me the encounter data after we failed the mission. Summary: Not only were the combats challenging to the point of being overwhelming, they were mis-EL'd as well. Comments: I think you mean that the EL should be adjusted +2 for one encounter or another. It isn't clear which one you are referring to. Could you please reference the statement that the EL should be adjusted based upon the number of encounters per day? I can't find it. ******************Comments************** ***** LG typically uses challenging encounters as the norm. There are occasional mods that use walk over type encounters. While the DMG talks about EL=APL encounters (party of four) as being challenging, such encounters are generally not found to be challenging in LG, due to the combination of 5-6 PCs, optimized combat builds, and generally experienced players. The DMG also observes that the chance of fatality is highly increased when EL>APL. Every LG encounter should have the risk of fatality. This starts to become obscene when the encounters are stacked against a single resource, and same day. Multiple undead encounters (even two) can strain consumables and turn attempts. We don't play the low level encounters usually...they can be plot advancing sometimes, but LG generally uses different ways of doing such things due to the episodic and time limited nature of the mods. I've always just abstracted it to the idea that we play the interesting parts of the campaign, and the mundane travel, deal with the inept bandits parts are off-screen. I don't see anything that has suggested rules ignorance. Rather, I'm seeing a mod that, by design is highly challenging and possibly fatal. It is appropriate that we occasionally see encounters that are designed to be fatal. If the argument is that no mod should ever be potentially fatal, I wouldn't have any interest in playing that campaign. That all said, I have seen encounters miscalculated technically, and ones that I would not agree with the EL adjustments that are made as well. David
Howie23 03-22-07, 12:24 PM	I agree that sometimes some authors have pushed the edge too far (like having 35 point buy NPCs without adjusting the EL), <snip> Also, the big point buy approach, which seemed to have become commonplace in year 5, has been corrected. There may still be some uses that flow through, but I think this one has been reigned in. When I wrote my first mod (Jan 2005), I was told by Triad to use whatever stats I wanted. I wouldn't consider that anymore. Also, note that the final result of templates is not the buy (seems to be implied in a different post, not Gordon's). That's what part of the template cost gets: the racial modifiers that the template delivers. David
solbergb 03-22-07, 12:35 PM	1. I have a sample size of about 50 modules prepped, from year 2 to year 7. There is no change in lethality. There is no arms race between authors and players. 2. Some modules scale badly at some APL's. Not all APL's get playtested unless they have someone like me on the playtest staff who will run simulations of every APL 3 times with randomized parties. That's rare, so when a monster advances or decrements in a way that doesn't really raise or lower lethality by only +/- 2 CR, things sometimes get bad. 3. Modules are designed for either 4 people each slightly more powerful than APL, 5 people at roughly at APL or 6 people each roughly less powerful than APL, and what I mean by "normal power" at APL is an iconic, single classed PHB character with uninspired feat and equipment selections played by an averagely competent player. Some parties are much weaker than this, but that is not the fault of the authors. My playtest simulations show that parties along these lines succeed at just about any encounter at any APL no matter how "unbalanced" with respect to role, but they'll have risk of one character dying in a tougher encounter. I gauge unusually tough encounters by whether a TPK ever happens or more usually, when an encounter almost always causes a death. I can count the "tough" encounters on one hand, and every single one was bad APL scaling. 4. #3 and #1 assume legal statblocks and judges that play by the tactics and the rules. I've seen wildly illegal statblocks that make things worse or easier, and I've seen judge decisions that make encounters much tougher than the author intended (usually ignoring terrain, party abilities to detect the monsters and/or not playing dumb monsters as dumb as they actually are - mindless constructs reacting to party tactics and adjusting, for example) 5. Actually, I've seen a few things as a player that may add to the statistics of "Bad encounters' but as I didn't prep those mods, I can't comment. The war of dust gryphon encounter, for example.
Timlagor 03-22-07, 12:39 PM	LG typically uses challenging encounters as the norm. There are occasional mods that use walk over type encounters. While the DMG talks about EL=APL encounters (party of four) as being challenging, such encounters are generally not found to be challenging in LG, due to the combination of 5-6 PCs, optimized combat builds, and generally experienced players. The DMG also assumes Elite Array or 25pb PCs ...and a balanced party
copper_wyrmling 03-22-07, 01:12 PM	Well Cycloptic Squirrel said he'd heard it used to be worse so I'm not quite sure what CW was replying to... I was agreeing with CS - I was also typing at 3am after finishing my QFT homework which is probably why it wasn't clear ;) I have seen mods where the NPCs had bizarrely high point buys (in a Year 4 mod there was a cleric who iirc came out to about 42-point buy). The worst mod that I've seen in that regard is actually a Year 6 Core (where all the NPCs in one encounter have better than 28-point buys and one is 35+) - but one data point does not make a trend. That encounter in the Year 6 Core was also notable for the fact that two of these evidently elite opponents had Warrior levels (and not taken at L1, either) to give them more BAB + saves + HP without bumping their CR. Apparently the point-buy issue has been fixed in the Year 7 writers' guidelines, though.
bitznarf 03-22-07, 01:46 PM	That encounter in the Year 6 Core was also notable for the fact that two of these evidently elite opponents had Warrior levels (and not taken at L1, either) to give them more BAB + saves + HP without bumping their CR. This wasn't a mod written by Stephen Baker was it? EDIT: nevermind, answering that could give spoilers for a mod that is still in play.
UMiskatonic 03-22-07, 01:56 PM	I like the way LG mods are written. I think they are bang-on 90% of the time. The group I play with does well almost all of the time. We cooperate as players, we have good teamwork, and we make sure that we cover our tactical bases (have a bludgeoning weapon, have a escape route, etc). I simply do not see any evidence of widespread overpowered writing. I -do- see one or two mods, every year, that are really hard. Frozen Spire comes to mind as an example. That's been true all along, since year one. I also see mods that are easy for some groups, and hard for others. The War of the Dust encounter referred to above ended in the surprise round for our group, after the bad guy failed a save for massive damage. On the other hand, a fight with three dreadwraiths had our group teleport back to Greyhawk City TWICE in retreat. We beat them on day three, after buring through a LOT of valuable charges, scrolls, etc. The hardest mods, for me, have been the ones that were judged poorly. The table where the judge took away my Shadowdancer's hide in plain sight, or where our party was in the middle of a featureless plain, and were somehow surprised by four large creatures that were 40 feet away that we just hadn't noticed. No amount of writing will help that.
Bold 03-22-07, 02:00 PM	This encounter is also the third encounter within the same day, in-game. So, spellcaster players are going into this fight dimished too. So, the [EL] should be at a +2 above the combined [EL] of the enemies. Mark I dunno, I guess I always assume that there will be three combat encounters in a single day. That's why my fighter/barbarian has extra rage. That's why my spellcasters don't blow all their spells in the first encounter. That's why I don't use "once-per-day" magic items early on unless absolutely necessary. Now, three encounters in one day with no break between (i.e. no chance to heal) would be far more challenging, and should affect the EL of the later encounters. But if there's some time between each? Nah, that seems pretty normal to me.
Samwise 03-22-07, 03:34 PM	Apparently the point-buy issue has been fixed in the Year 7 writers' guidelines, though. It has. There is a very clear section on using the elite array, and the stat blocks include hidden text so they can be checked to see if people go over.
jstorrie 03-22-07, 05:09 PM	That encounter in the Year 6 Core was also notable for the fact that two of these evidently elite opponents had Warrior levels (and not taken at L1, either) to give them more BAB + saves + HP without bumping their CR. This galls me. Warrior levels are for undisciplined thugs and small-town guards. Elite combatants should have elite (ie, PC) class levels. The 'non-associated-warrior dip' is just plain malicious and authors shouldn't do it.
Eric Anondson 03-22-07, 05:22 PM	Warrior levels are for undisciplined thugs and small-town guards. Elite combatants should have elite (ie, PC) class levels. The 'non-associated-warrior dip' is just plain malicious and authors shouldn't do it.I'm very sympathetic to this sentiment. But this begs the question, why have all 20 levels of undisciplined thug or small-town guard available if not to have them there to be used? Or is it the matter of associated dips versus non-associated dips?
Howie23 03-22-07, 05:31 PM	This galls me. Warrior levels are for undisciplined thugs and small-town guards. Elite combatants should have elite (ie, PC) class levels. The 'non-associated-warrior dip' is just plain malicious and authors shouldn't do it. I have written in multi-classed characters with PC and NPC levels. It was fully within the flavor of the creatures and the background story. I feel comfortable in saying that it was justified within the story line. Yes, it does provide some umph to the encounter. I would see this as being different if it is already a maxed out APL+3 encounter that is then cheesed out even more. If it is a legitimate or weak APL+2 encounter that is then beefed up a little, there is a lot more room for error; it is more a case of possibly awarding a bit less experience than it is of eeking out every inch of threat for the maximum challenge level. Is that the circumstance you are referring to with a blanket statement of malicious? David
Haro 03-22-07, 08:04 PM	I ask this only because I've been guilty of the same mistake. Are the people complaing about 35 & 42 point buy NPCs taking into account racial and level adjustments? An 8th level half-orc with 18 strength and 18 constitution on paper looks like he's used 32 build points just on those two stats, until you take into account the racial adjustments and two stat bumps. You find out that only 20 points were spent after all... That doesn't include confusion over statboost items adjusting the NPC's statblock as well. Joe Edit: A better example is an 8th level wood elf with 18 str, 18 dex & 16 con. Looks at first like a 42 point buy, really is a 28 point buy. Again, that ignores likely statboosters.
copper_wyrmling 03-22-07, 08:20 PM	I ask this only because I've been guilty of the same mistake. Are the people complaing about 35 & 42 point buy NPCs taking into account racial and level adjustments? An 8th level half-orc fighter with 18 strength and 18 constitution on paper looks like he's used 32 build points just on those two stats, until you take into account the racial adjustments and two stat bumps. You find out that only 20 points were spent after all... That doesn't include confusion over statboost items adjusting the NPC's statblock as well. Joe Yeah, we factored that in (by "we" I mean me and the players in my APL 6 run of the module, including two Triad members and a couple of other authors - we all went over the encounter in detail afterwards, since I'd killed a PC and we wanted to make sure the death was legitimate). I'm looking at the module now: I see a L7 cleric with no stat-boosting items in his possession and base stats (after removing racial modifiers) of Str 14 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 18 Cha 12 There's no possible way you can get those numbers at L7 with a 28-point buy: best case is that the L4 bump went into Wisdom, in which case it's a 35-point buy (if the L4 bump went to anything else, it's a 38-point buy). By a similar analysis, his two buddies have (at best) 32-pt and 30-pt buys. They're both 6HD fighter types with no level adjustment, CR'ed at 5 each due to their warrior levels. Total EL is given as 9 (7 + 5 + 5 => 9), at APL 6. I'm really glad the writers' guidelines got changed. EDIT: Haro, incidentally, I think your second example is off - Str 18 Dex 18 Con 14 costs 30 points for a wood elf.
Haro 03-22-07, 08:50 PM	Yeah, we factored that in . No probs, I've just done it myself so I know it easy to overlook. EDIT: Haro, incidentally, I think your second example is off - Str 18 Dex 18 Con 14 costs 30 points for a wood elf. Sorry, the 16 should have been Int or Wis. My bad.
Redfist 03-22-07, 10:48 PM	I ask this only because I've been guilty of the same mistake. Are the people complaing about 35 & 42 point buy NPCs taking into account racial and level adjustments? No. Backing out level adjustments and racial adjustments, I've still found 35 point builds used in modules without an EL bump to justify it.
Redfist 03-22-07, 10:50 PM	Yeah, we factored that in (by "we" I mean me and the players in my APL 6 run of the module, including two Triad members and a couple of other authors - we all went over the encounter in detail afterwards, since I'd killed a PC and we wanted to make sure the death was legitimate). I'm looking at the module now: I see a L7 cleric with no stat-boosting items in his possession and base stats (after removing racial modifiers) of Str 14 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 18 Cha 12 There's no possible way you can get those numbers at L7 with a 28-point buy: best case is that the L4 bump went into Wisdom, in which case it's a 35-point buy (if the L4 bump went to anything else, it's a 38-point buy). By a similar analysis, his two buddies have (at best) 32-pt and 30-pt buys. They're both 6HD fighter types with no level adjustment, CR'ed at 5 each due to their warrior levels. Total EL is given as 9 (7 + 5 + 5 => 9), at APL 6. I'm really glad the writers' guidelines got changed. EDIT: Haro, incidentally, I think your second example is off - Str 18 Dex 18 Con 14 costs 30 points for a wood elf. hehe - I know *EXACTLY* which mod you're referring to. That's the one that was in my head also. I went over it very carefully to make sure I wasn't on crack.
bitznarf 03-23-07, 12:05 AM	Hopefully problems of this sort (high point buy without a CR increase) will not be a problem in CY 597 mods. As Samwise has said, it is covered in the writters guidelines.
Howie23 03-23-07, 12:22 AM	Hopefully problems of this sort (high point buy without a CR increase) will not be a problem in CY 597 mods. As Samwise has said, it is covered in the writters guidelines. Partially. It's covered in the CY 597 Core Writers' Guidelines. That document is not being used universally in the regions. David
GreatSiron 03-23-07, 01:06 AM	Partially. It's covered in the CY 597 Core Writers' Guidelines. That document is not being used universally in the regions. David I just read the guidelines for the Yeomanry, and in it it's not a suggestion. Its a rule.
Howie23 03-23-07, 01:14 AM	I just read the guidelines for the Yeomanry, and in it it's not a suggestion. Its a rule. Nyrond isn't using the 597 Core Guidelines. It may be using some of them on a de facto basis. I know the HP rules aren't being used. David
jstorrie 03-23-07, 03:29 AM	Or is it the matter of associated dips versus non-associated dips? It's the matter of certain authors nearly always giving their NPCs single levels of Warrior for a 'free' hit die and point of attack without raising the CR.
Madfox11 03-23-07, 06:58 AM	The elite array use is something I keep a strict eye on*, but we do allow point-buy use in case of unique NPCs and the whole system is out when dealing with canon material. It is not up to us to reduce the attributes of notables like Melf and Mordekainen ;) One thing to keep in mind, is that I do allow increase stats and at the same time reduce treasure. I really dislike adventures with treasure values way over the treasure cap, and it is one of the methods to limit this from happening. I know this is slightly more powerful than an item, but how often do PCs sunder belts or target them with a dispel magic? And if it is in a anti-magic area I would refrain from doing so as well. * I did make a mistake once, but the new template does make this much less likely to happen. I personally utterly dislike the warrior dip, and strongly discourage my triads to use them. I have less problems with expert and aristocrats, but even there I want a pretty good reason for doing so and it better not be something to create monsters that should not be used at a specific APL. Note though that they are possible within the core and LG rules, so all I can do is discourage.
Sieylianna 03-23-07, 07:42 AM	Hopefully problems of this sort (high point buy without a CR increase) will not be a problem in CY 597 mods. As Samwise has said, it is covered in the writters guidelines. Considering your sig, I had to point out that you misspelled writer's. Ed
Southernskies 03-23-07, 07:42 AM	It's the matter of certain authors nearly always giving their NPCs single levels of Warrior for a 'free' hit die and point of attack without raising the CR. Umm... 1 level of warrior adds CR+1. You would need at least 2 warrior levels to give a "free" HD to a creature. DMG pg38, Table 2-6 (with Errata). Ogre = CR3 Ogre War1 = CR4 Ogre War2 = CR4 Ogre War10 = CR12 Ogre Ftr1 = CR4 Ogre Ftr2 = CR5 Ogre Ftr10 = CR13 Also, if the base creature did not have Base Class levels, giving them an elite array adds another +1 CR (which often gets overlooked). This makes a human War2 with elite array a CR2 creature.
Potato Weasel 03-23-07, 08:47 AM	I've run into a fair amount of overpowered encounters, but I would say that a lot of encounters can -seem- overpowered if the person running the mod runs things differently, ghosts always attack from inside walls or floors with no misschance on you, flying creatures always have perfect maneuverability, you know how it goes. Basically, when someone gets cute with the rules, cr's go out the window.
Lupo 03-23-07, 09:10 AM	I've run into a fair amount of overpowered encounters, but I would say that a lot of encounters can -seem- overpowered if the person running the mod runs things differently, ghosts always attack from inside walls or floors with no misschance on you, flying creatures always have perfect maneuverability, you know how it goes. Basically, when someone gets cute with the rules, cr's go out the window. not to forget DMs who IGNORE stated tactics and behavior of NPCs. for instance: written in the module: a sissy wizard, despite being APL +3 DimDos away after he takes ANY damage. DM runs: the wizard blasts the party, DimDo when in single digit hit points. written in the module: the guards are hired neutral NPCs, will NOT kill downed PCs. DM runs: guards take dangerous actions, that get them self killed just to coup de grace a downed PC. anything like this can turn a nice little encounter into a nightmare. ciao martin m.
jhorred 03-23-07, 07:08 PM	not to forget DMs who IGNORE stated tactics and behavior of NPCs. for instance: written in the module: a sissy wizard, despite being APL +3 DimDos away after he takes ANY damage. DM runs: the wizard blasts the party, DimDo when in single digit hit points. written in the module: the guards are hired neutral NPCs, will NOT kill downed PCs. DM runs: guards take dangerous actions, that get them self killed just to coup de grace a downed PC. anything like this can turn a nice little encounter into a nightmare. ciao martin m. GMs like that I'd report to the triad....
solbergb 03-23-07, 07:28 PM	GMs like that I'd report to the triad.... More important, report them to convention organizers, so they don't get invited back.
jhorred 03-23-07, 07:41 PM	More important, report them to convention organizers, so they don't get invited back. Them too... ;)
Lupo 03-23-07, 09:26 PM	More important, report them to convention organizers, so they don't get invited back. GMs like that I'd report to the triad.... one often finds out a long time after playing the module in question, sometimes only after a thorough reading . . . yes, IF a death occurs i politely ask the DM to check whether he might have gotten a tactic or effect wrong, but even then, i am still a player, i can't read the whole scenario right then. and sometimes authors just omit some "obvious" tactical features. take me, i always assume that hired guard/thugs are NOT fanatics, they might use deadly force "because it's their job" but would accept and try to surrender and wouldn't coup-de-grace and expect the other side to don't do it as well. normal animals will ALWAYS try to flee if reduced to a dangerous fraction of their hit points if possible - dire animals and the frenzy types being an exception. as an author i WRITE it into the adventure in BOLD letters, just to make it sure ;) ciao martin m.
Haro 03-23-07, 09:43 PM	It seems to me that the overwhelming problem is that GMs run combats poorly. That's not to say authors are blameless or that editors don't make mistakes, however I believe that the majority of complaints I hear regionally and on the boards are ultimately a result of GM error on some level.
Lupo 03-23-07, 10:06 PM	It seems to me that the overwhelming problem is that GMs run combats poorly. That's not to say authors are blameless or that editors don't make mistakes, however I believe that the majority of complaints I hear regionally and on the boards are ultimately a result of GM error on some level. i just have a module in front of me where a seventh level wizard has THREE 4th level spells - and one spell to much at every tier, and nowhere it states that he is a specialist, he has "spell focus" and "spell focus, greater" but not in the school he obviously specialized in ;) yes it IS obvious after looking up all spells and checking, but what are his banned schools?????? no info :confused:. ciao martin m.
Puggle Halfwine 03-24-07, 12:20 AM	There is a current Iuz Border States game where the EL is reduced by one because if the PCs ask an NPC if there are monsters out in the horrible wilderness, he will answer "yes". As a writer I was offended by this. That's like saying that if the PCs are journeying into any dangerous area at all there should be a reduction to the EL. If the PCs go hunting orcs, should the EL be reduced because they know they're fighting orcs? That's far more information than this mod gives out... it just says "yes". Why, knowing that, I will pack my "yes" killing spells then... *sigh* Further, ALL of the monsters the PCs fight at ALL APLs are explicitly built and tacticed to permanently kill at least PC (including ganging up on the weakest member, then risking all kinds of danger to drag her away and eat her, making a permanent death). I ran it once and I refuse to run it again. This is a shame, because the combat aside it's one of my favorite mods. :(
cycloptic_squirrel 03-24-07, 01:02 AM	This is a shame, because the combat aside it's one of my favorite mods. :( Agreed. One of the best mods I have ever had the privilege to run was grossly overpowered at the lower APLs. It was a beautifully written mod that didn't quite flow like an average LG mod did, and more along the lines of a regular adventure, yet the combats were deadly enough that I heavily warn about it.
Master_Bushido_Mark 03-24-07, 04:11 AM	I hear complaints like this all the time. Most of the time, the complainer can't back it up with a solid argument. I have never heard such a complaint from someone who has actually written for LG. I would be surprised if Mark was an exception to this. As a player, if you don't like the way a mod is written I encourage you to fix the problem constructively by writing for your region rather than offering non-constructive criticism. Don't be surprised, however, if the problem fixes itself in a manner you did not expect. :AMN: Actually, I am currently working with my Triad to become a writer, and have been doing so for two months. I started a training exercise of designing a module from scratch just to see how it works. It is arduous, but rewarding.
Simpi 03-24-07, 08:56 AM	take me, i always assume that hired guard/thugs are NOT fanatics, they might use deadly force "because it's their job" but would accept and try to surrender and wouldn't coup-de-grace and expect the other side to don't do it as well. However, how many adventurers would actually surrender? Most likely those guards have heard that "Frankie & Jack once accepted surrender from an adventurer and tied him up. Next thing Jack saw was that guy had come loose and stabbed Frankie with a concealed dagger. Ol' Jack was lucky enough to escape with his life" Correct me if I am wrong but in all cases I have witnessed, the adventurers have always tried to use "we surrender tactic" to buy time with full intention to kill the opposition at first opportunity (which is why most NPCs should be expected to beat all prisoners into negatives with subdual at first opportunity). Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Necrochaos 03-24-07, 11:21 AM	Isn't there something to say that sometimes, just sometimes, the PC's are mean to be successful? For the most part, PC's always win. When they get it handed to them, have to turn back and fight the bad guy in another mod to finish him off, doesn't it set the stage for an epic battle? Sometimes, you are supposed to run. You are just overmatched.
thorinXXX 03-24-07, 01:28 PM	Isn't there something to say that sometimes, just sometimes, the PC's are mean to be successful? For the most part, PC's always win. When they get it handed to them, have to turn back and fight the bad guy in another mod to finish him off, doesn't it set the stage for an epic battle? Sometimes, you are supposed to run. You are just overmatched. The problem is that the players never know when they are supposed to take a fall. And some characters simply will not, no matter what. The only time I have seen this none moderately effectively was year 1 when everybody was low level. The party is on a raft and gets surprised at point blank range. Four Color Sprays and three Sleep spells a round will put most parties down fast. One of the traps of the APL system is that everyone knows that the challenges are supposed to be ones that the heroes can overcome. This mindset is deeply ingrained in every player. It is not even metagaming because it usually occurs below conscious thought. To make the characters run the threat has to be absolutely overwhelming, and seen to be that before they get too heavily engaged.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-24-07, 01:56 PM	The problem is that the players never know when they are supposed to take a fall. And some characters simply will not, no matter what. The only time I have seen this none moderately effectively was year 1 when everybody was low level. The party is on a raft and gets surprised at point blank range. Four Color Sprays and three Sleep spells a round will put most parties down fast. One of the traps of the APL system is that everyone knows that the challenges are supposed to be ones that the heroes can overcome. This mindset is deeply ingrained in every player. It is not even metagaming because it usually occurs below conscious thought. To make the characters run the threat has to be absolutely overwhelming, and seen to be that before they get too heavily engaged. You mean like when the combat starts and the bad guy gates in a pit fiend? My Druid actually damaged it once with an arc of lightning before running like hell...
King Kashue 03-24-07, 03:26 PM	yes, IF a death occurs i politely ask the DM to check whether he might have gotten a tactic or effect wrong, but even then, i am still a player, i can't read the whole scenario right then. I automatically do that when I DM. If a player drops, we run an M&M (Morbidity & Mortality) review to make sure all the math is right, that I didn't bollocks anything up, etc... I'm not afraid to kill PCs (though I don't revel in it or anything), but if I'm wasting someone, I want to make sure it's legit, and not just because I can't add properly in my head :D
King Kashue 03-24-07, 03:29 PM	You mean like when the combat starts and the bad guy gates in a pit fiend? My Druid actually damaged it once with an arc of lightning before running like hell... There's an IUZ mod (now retired) where the badguy uses a Gate scroll at the beginning of the combat, and since it's treasure, that's how the author's cheesed the EL... Except, the damn scroll is used in BOX TEXT and there is absolutely no way to prevent it, and more importantly, no way for the PCs to actually gain said "treasure", which means it's not "treasure" at all, but inherently part of the combat that the author's deliberately manipulated to fudge the EL... After having the DM explain it (and he was great in how he ran the encounter, as a note), both their names went on my very short list of authors whose modules I will not play...
The_Jester 03-24-07, 06:55 PM	Umm... 1 level of warrior adds CR+1. You would need at least 2 warrior levels to give a "free" HD to a creature. DMG pg38, Table 2-6 (with Errata). Ogre = CR3 Ogre War1 = CR4 Ogre War2 = CR4 Ogre War10 = CR12 Ogre Ftr1 = CR4 Ogre Ftr2 = CR5 Ogre Ftr10 = CR13 Also, if the base creature did not have Base Class levels, giving them an elite array adds another +1 CR (which often gets overlooked). This makes a human War2 with elite array a CR2 creature. That's for monsters but, IIRC, NPC classes count as half for CR of 1HD creatures. So a human Ftr1 is CR1 but the same human has to be War2 to be CR1. So he can be Ftr1/War1 and still be CR1 (rounded down). He won't be as powerful as a Ftr2 and lacking a feat but still have extra HD, BAB and Fort. But if he's Ftr2/War1 he's pretty much equal to a Ft3 save 1hp and some ref/will saves but still CR2.
Sieylianna 03-25-07, 12:51 PM	Sometimes, you are supposed to run. You are just overmatched. Unfortunately, authors have a tendency to try to want to show this, but the opponents and environment are such that you can't run. Well. you can run, but you can't outrun the bad guys and they'll just kill you one at a time, unless the DM is feeling generous. Ed
thorinXXX 03-26-07, 01:14 PM	The first non-assaciated class level should be a CR increase as it includes the elite array.
solbergb 03-26-07, 01:23 PM	It seems to me that the overwhelming problem is that GMs run combats poorly. That's not to say authors are blameless or that editors don't make mistakes, however I believe that the majority of complaints I hear regionally and on the boards are ultimately a result of GM error on some level. This is something I agree with, however this is a problem that responds to community efforts to improve the local GM pool. If the problem is person is just new to Judging and/or you've got a good enough relationship with him or her to give constructive criticism or even teasing, a lot can be done to rapidly improve this kind of behavior just by advice and/or peer pressure to improve. If the problem is the person is running "cold" the solution is to as convention oganizers, not put the judge into that position, and as a judge, not tolerate being put into that position (bully the organizer to get draft copies out early if it is a premier, or real copies out early if it isn't. Help organize zeros, don't depend on the organizer, etc). Only if the judge is actually hostile, not just "not adapted to running in LG convention settings" should he be blackballed/shunned. Most LG judges have a few rough spots early in, and get better. (as an example, I had been gaming for 20 years when I started LG and did reasonably well at adapting to the strictures of LG mods, but I had issues with boxtext reading (boring, monotone) and issues with pacing, getting the mod done in 4 hours, during my first year at LG. I got feedback, I worked to improve, within my own style, which mostly meant "prep until I know whether th mod is running ahead or behind instinctively, and prep well enough to not need the boxtext...to paraphrase and roleplay it without leaving out vital clues)". I'm sure I still have some style issues as a DM that annoy some players, but in general the feedback these days is pretty positive)
KShaver 03-26-07, 01:23 PM	Except, the damn scroll is used in BOX TEXT and there is absolutely no way to prevent it, and more importantly, no way for the PCs to actually gain said "treasure", which means it's not "treasure" at all, but inherently part of the combat that the author's deliberately manipulated to fudge the EL... Any decent GM realizes that long box events can't occur with the players sitting in stasis. That evil torturer may not have time to slowly kill those last 5 slaves when a group of adventurers smash there way into the room with swords drawn, arrows and spells already being lobbed into the room. The GM has to decide whether the event already occured, is in mid action, or has not yet (and may not) occur at all, then adjust the description accordingly. Now, thats not to say that all box text should be interuptable. If it is a simple room description then by all means give a complete description of whats in the room (but please don't tell me how many strpies are on the wallpaper unless its absolutely vital) before moving on to the main event.
King Kashue 03-26-07, 02:00 PM	Any decent GM realizes that long box events can't occur with the players sitting in stasis. That evil torturer may not have time to slowly kill those last 5 slaves when a group of adventurers smash there way into the room with swords drawn, arrows and spells already being lobbed into the room. The GM has to decide whether the event already occured, is in mid action, or has not yet (and may not) occur at all, then adjust the description accordingly. Now, thats not to say that all box text should be interuptable. If it is a simple room description then by all means give a complete description of whats in the room (but please don't tell me how many strpies are on the wallpaper unless its absolutely vital) before moving on to the main event. There are a lot of people who disagree with you. The idea that GMs can readily change box text just because they don't think it works is not something you'll find widely held, simply because it changes game experience significantly... Anyhoo, it doesn't matter either way. The "Treasure" wasn't on the AR, and wasn't considered in gold. There was no way for the characters to get the item, so it wasn't a "treasure item" and should have been considered in the EL. That's the point.
Samwise 03-26-07, 02:03 PM	The problem with boxed text is authors who think it exists for them to indulge in exposition, and who refuse to either trim it down or allow a reviewer or editor to trim it down for them. It gets particularly annoying when they decide to dictate player reactions to the situation (You are shocked, shocked I say!, to discover excessive boxed text in Rick's Adventure.), or use it to include role-playing by making players listen to an extended exchange between two NPCs. Length and content of boxed text is included in the Core writer's guide. It is on authors to control themselves and leave the play of the adventure to the players.
Reylance 03-26-07, 02:51 PM	The problem with boxed text is authors who think it exists for them to indulge in exposition, and who refuse to either trim it down or allow a reviewer or editor to trim it down for them. It gets particularly annoying when they decide to dictate player reactions to the situation (You are shocked, shocked I say!, to discover excessive boxed text in Rick's Adventure.), or use it to include role-playing by making players listen to an extended exchange between two NPCs. Length and content of boxed text is included in the Core writer's guide. It is on authors to control themselves and leave the play of the adventure to the players. The one problem with long boxed text that can't be fixed is when the scene is very detailed. You can spend several paragraphs describing a large room, even though you're describing what the PCs see in an instant.
Samwise 03-26-07, 02:57 PM	The one problem with long boxed text that can't be fixed is when the scene is very detailed. You can spend several paragraphs describing a large room, even though you're describing what the PCs see in an instant. If they see it in an instant, it shouldn't be that detailed. And there is often a lot of flavor text in such descriptions that can be safely cut. (If the wall decorations do not conceal something or contain a clue for a combat occuring immediately, you don't need to describe them in detail in the boxed text.)
GreatSiron 03-26-07, 02:57 PM	I'm surprised no one has mentioned a certain year 6 core finale. BAD MOD, VERY BAD MOD!
Reylance 03-26-07, 02:59 PM	A few years ago, I was told that monsters with NPC levels could be built with a 25 point buy, and monsters with PC levels could be built with a 28 point buy. It sounds like that's not the current rules.
King Kashue 03-26-07, 05:06 PM	I'm surprised no one has mentioned a certain year 6 core finale. BAD MOD, VERY BAD MOD! It's likely that no one mentioned it because most people don't talk about active mods (as is the rule)...
solbergb 03-26-07, 05:50 PM	There are a lot of people who disagree with you. The idea that GMs can readily change box text just because they don't think it works is not something you'll find widely held, simply because it changes game experience significantly... The idea is more widely held if as part of your "Educate/train your local judges" you draw their attention to the boilerplate text that encourages judges to modify boxtext to fit the party's actions, and also to the first like of EVERY boxtext which says "read or PARAPHRASE" the following. In my games there is no such thing as uninterruptable box text. The bad guys have capabilities and motivations. The PC's have motivations and capabilities. If the PC's want to interrupt any described actions and/or dialog, they can if they are capable of doing so. (descriptions of static things like locations, or what the idol looks like or etc, players can't interrupt because there is no action TO interrupt...it's just a description) same goes for surprise. The bad guys may ATTEMPT to suprise the PC's, but they have no plot-driven right to any more consideration than PC's attempting to scout out and ambush the bad guys. Their relative capabilities will determine the success or failure of the attempt.
JohnduBois 03-26-07, 10:53 PM	For those of you discussing "writing rules", note that there are such rules in place. They're called your friendly local Editing Triad member. In particular, I encourage any player in my region who sees a rules violation in an available mod to e-mail me, and I'll see what I can do about it. (Note that I probably won't fix little things, but it never hurts to ask and get an answer...)
just_be_glad_now 03-27-07, 01:51 AM	Samwise Wrote: there is often a lot of flavor text in such descriptions that can be safely cut. (If the wall decorations do not conceal something or contain a clue for a combat occuring immediately, you don't need to describe them in detail in the boxed text.) That's an legitimate opinion, but I believe it is also reasonable to say that without objects in box text that have no mod-advancing purpose, it becomes immediately obvious which objects do (all of those that appear detailed), so that the objects' existance implies a course of action that is effectively unavoidable metagaming: People can't have their characters make in character decisions as to what objects to investigate or utilize when it is obvious that all of the available possibilities are essential. That is a difficult problem to resolve. If one does not need to be in character it is fine, as we see in games like Myst, where this logic forms the backbone of the mechanism to solve the game. It is observed in those games that: 1. Most objects need to be utilized to finish the game, 2. The number of irreversable bad choices is minimal (or otherwise the game would be extremely difficult and require numerous restarts of the whole game rather than simply resetting the puzzle). These observations led to the Myst Rule, which simply requires one to interact with everything he encounters. Likely #2 can be said to exist in LG (how many irreversable deaths does one see? Not many at all. How many irreversable bad things that don't come as a result of mod success does one see? Not many at all.) so the addition of number 1 implies that course of action. I think we can agree that the Myst rule doesn't seem to have much of a place in a roleplaying game. Parenthetically, I recall the Cyan (Worlds) staff indicating that the most questions they received from fans looking for game help was concerning the few objects in Myst without a purpose. jbgn
MerricB 03-27-07, 02:05 AM	Actually, I am currently working with my Triad to become a writer, and have been doing so for two months. I started a training exercise of designing a module from scratch just to see how it works. It is arduous, but rewarding. Good luck, Mark. :) Cheers!
King Kashue 03-27-07, 02:26 AM	For those of you discussing "writing rules", note that there are such rules in place. They're called your friendly local Editing Triad member. In particular, I encourage any player in my region who sees a rules violation in an available mod to e-mail me, and I'll see what I can do about it. (Note that I probably won't fix little things, but it never hurts to ask and get an answer...) Of course, some of the worst writing I have ever seen has been from triad members (the first two names to make it on my "never again...gorramit, never again" author list were triad :D)
Samwise 03-27-07, 02:56 AM	That's an legitimate opinion, but I believe it is also reasonable to say that without objects in box text that have no mod-advancing purpose, it becomes immediately obvious which objects do (all of those that appear detailed), so that the objects' existance implies a course of action that is effectively unavoidable metagaming: People can't have their characters make in character decisions as to what objects to investigate or utilize when it is obvious that all of the available possibilities are essential. That is a difficult problem to resolve. . . . I think we can agree that the Myst rule doesn't seem to have much of a place in a roleplaying game. jbgn Which is why is isn't that difficult a problem to resolve. A CRPG isn't. Isn't an RPG that is. It is just a widely divergent tactical game, with a very peculiar rules structure. D&D is an RPG, and specific interaction matters. The real question is, what sort of interaction do you want to promote? From general experience, sitting around while every possible object is exhaustively investigated for potential relevance tends to be something you don't want to promote. (Role-playing the initial equipment purchase shopping trip, including the coin by coin haggling over every item anyone?) No, the converse is not always the best option. The apocryphal Q&A: Q: How did you know what door to open? A: It was the only one with flavor text! can be a problem. But if the choice is between exhaustive flavor text for every door and no flavor text for any door, let us go with the latter. That is not to say that the heavily warded door should not be blatantly obvious. It should, and that is typically worthy of boxed text. And that should bring us back to how much. If we care about player interaction, the boxed text should merely highlight the door as atypical, and leave closer examination to the player. Just because the boxed text is minimal does not mean the follow-up interactive text must be minimal. The two are supposed to serve two very different puporses. When you focus on that, you realize there is no problem at all, and boxed text is easily reduced to a simple description.
JohnduBois 03-27-07, 06:08 AM	Of course, some of the worst writing I have ever seen has been from triad members (the first two names to make it on my "never again...gorramit, never again" author list were triad :D) Isn't that all the better reason to e-mail them and tell them about the rules errors? :) It's like I tell my players - if you don't like something in one of my mods and don't tell me about it, I can more or less guarantee you'll see it again in some way, shape, or form.
Southernskies 03-27-07, 10:44 AM	Of course, some of the worst writing I have ever seen has been from triad members (the first two names to make it on my "never again...gorramit, never again" author list were triad :D) Oddly enough, I have the same issues. When an encounter has more equipment than the entire party combined, the BBEG is just a *little* over-equipped. And don't get me started on the epic level un-statted NPCs travelling with a party...:rolleyes:
KShaver 03-27-07, 11:13 AM	Samwise Wrote: That's an legitimate opinion, but I believe it is also reasonable to say that without objects in box text that have no mod-advancing purpose, it becomes immediately obvious which objects do (all of those that appear detailed), so that the objects' existance implies a course of action that is effectively unavoidable metagaming: People can't have their characters make in character decisions as to what objects to investigate or utilize when it is obvious that all of the available possibilities are essential. That is a difficult problem to resolve.... Actually it is a fairly simple item to resolve. Include a brief description of the obvious items in the box text and a more detailed description for the GM in the encounter text. As the PCs investigate each item the GM is then able to give them more information on it. For example the box text might read about an item "You see barrels neatly stacked in the northeast corner". While the encounter text might tell the gm: There are barrels carefully stacked in the corner, 3 high by 3 wide by 3 deep, the curator is a bit obsesive and would be quite upset if they weren't stacked perfectly, but other than at all they contain are various grains. As the encounter runs: GM:You see barrels neatly stacked in the northeast corner. PC: I take a closer look at the barrels, searching them for traps first. GM: They appear to be very neatly stacked 3 high, 3 wide, and 3 deep. Roll your search check. PC: 26 GM: No traps that you can find. PC: I open them up and look through them. GM: You find various grains in the first couple, there are quite a few, and they are heavy, it would take some time to search through them all. PC: Bah, I don't have time for this, mage get over here and detect magic on these. Since there are probably a number of other items of importance in the room, there is no reason to give the 100 word description of each item as soon as the PCs enter a room. Particularly if there are NPCs in the room as well. Fortunately the super detailed room desciptions are not the primary problem. The problem is as Samwise said, many mod writers decide this is where they are going to include a nice little short story of events, and the poor players have to listen to the whole thing. I was just in a mod over the weekend where the players of some kick in the door style characters had to, in several encounters, sit through a short series of events before they could finally act.
King Kashue 03-27-07, 12:37 PM	Isn't that all the better reason to e-mail them and tell them about the rules errors? :) It's like I tell my players - if you don't like something in one of my mods and don't tell me about it, I can more or less guarantee you'll see it again in some way, shape, or form. It's not just rules errors I'm talking about though...I'm talking about horrible writing. NPC Deus ex Machina, where the "Cool NPC" does all the important stuff in box text, "Random circumstances" that assist only the bad guys, etc... And I know multiple people who have complained about both of the authors on the top of my list. Hasn't changed their style.
Eric Anondson 03-27-07, 12:50 PM	And I know multiple people who have complained about both of the authors on the top of my list. Hasn't changed their style.Have the authors been complained to? It is difficult to alter what one writes if on one tells you it is bad in some way. I know that every complaint that has been told to me I internalize and make every effort to never do it again.
Redfist 03-27-07, 01:06 PM	It also helps if the feedback is actually constructive and not just destructive. Bad feedback: Your mod sucks. The last fight was too hard. Good feedback: I thought the last fight was thematically appropriate to the mod however was unbalanced. Giving them an auto-surprise round, a 35 point build and letting them fully prebuff makes the encounter harder and when I calculated the EL, it doesn't seem as though it was accounted for. Perhaps you could consider having situational modifiers to the EL and downgrade the NPCs abilities to come out to the target EL and list in the encounter what steps the NPCs are taking to surprise the party and have opposed checks rather than embed the surprise round in boxed text. --Gordon
King Kashue 03-27-07, 01:08 PM	Have the authors been complained to? It is difficult to alter what one writes if on one tells you it is bad in some way. They were triad. All complaints about them came to them. One in particular formulated a half-assed defense of his/her writing.
Redfist 03-27-07, 01:37 PM	They were triad. All complaints about them came to them. One in particular formulated a half-assed defense of his/her writing. Some people don't receive feedback about their work very well - that's just a fact of life. Also, some people receive feedback yet still don't agree with it. That isn't necessarily wrong. The triad member in question could have carefully considered your feedback yet STILL DISAGREED with it. I'm not saying this is the case here since I have no clue what module you're talking about, but please allow for the idea that you might be wrong. Perhaps his "half-assed defense" was actually spot on but you didn't receive HIS feedback well? *shrug*
King Kashue 03-27-07, 01:42 PM	Some people don't receive feedback about their work very well - that's just a fact of life. Also, some people receive feedback yet still don't agree with it. That isn't necessarily wrong. The triad member in question could have carefully considered your feedback yet STILL DISAGREED with it. I'm not saying this is the case here since I have no clue what module you're talking about, but please allow for the idea that you might be wrong. Perhaps his "half-assed defense" was actually spot on but you didn't receive HIS feedback well? *shrug* It would be me and the dozen folks who decided never to play a module ever written by him/her again. And some of the issues were not matters of opinion. The crucial events all happened in box text, and his/her NPC did all of them. The editing was sloppy as hell, and certain parts contradicted others (in multiple modules). When four different tables with four different judges all have the exact same complaints, it's likely not a isolated matter.
Redfist 03-27-07, 01:55 PM	True... You're most likely in the first camp - some people don't take feedback well. I assume when you gave feedback, it was constructive? Tone helps delivery quite a bit when it comes to feedback.
King Kashue 03-27-07, 02:33 PM	True... You're most likely in the first camp - some people don't take feedback well. I assume when you gave feedback, it was constructive? Tone helps delivery quite a bit when it comes to feedback. It was certainly constructive, particularly early on. It got a little less friendly (though no less constructive) after seeing the same thing in six straight mods. :(
Redfist 03-27-07, 02:36 PM	:rofl:
Jay_Ibero_911 03-27-07, 03:46 PM	Ogre/Fighter1/Barbarian1=CR5 Feats:Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Sugliin), Monkey Grip, Weapon Focus, Short Haft. Attack with huge sugliin while raging: +11, 4d8+10. 20ft Reach, and the ability to take a swift action to be able to attack adjacent. The ability to put this in an APL 2? Priceless...
gomeztoo 03-27-07, 04:02 PM	Length and content of boxed text is included in the Core writer's guide. It is on authors to control themselves and leave the play of the adventure to the players. Possibly, but it is also on the authors to convey a scene. Boxed text describes, but also conveys atmosphere. I have been told that all boxed text has to be one paragraph max, and sorry, but there are plenty of cases where that is unrealistic. When you set a scene, when you introduce a NPC, when you describe a location that has several elements of import, or an imporatnt event, or when a number of things happen, you have to describe it. And yes, a part of boxed text IS showing off a bit. I also have to enjoy writing a scenario. Nobody needs long boxed texts, but let's not eliminate all flavor.
KShaver 03-27-07, 04:31 PM	Possibly, but it is also on the authors to convey a scene. Boxed text describes, but also conveys atmosphere. I have been told that all boxed text has to be one paragraph max, and sorry, but there are plenty of cases where that is unrealistic. When you set a scene, when you introduce a NPC, when you describe a location that has several elements of import, or an imporatnt event, or when a number of things happen, you have to describe it. And yes, a part of boxed text IS showing off a bit. I also have to enjoy writing a scenario. Nobody needs long boxed texts, but let's not eliminate all flavor. I respectfully disagree, because the event is run by the GM. The GM conveys the scene not the module writer. If properly written it will pan out as you wanted it too, but the box text is not a place for 'cut scenes'. Give the GM enough info to run the encounter as you'd like to see it occur, maybe a few phrases the NPCs use, perhaps a couple rounds of tactics and trust the DM to do it right...then you don't need to fill up the box text with all that garbage.
Redfist 03-27-07, 04:36 PM	I respectfully disagree, the event is run by the GM. If properly written it will pan out as you wanted it too, but the boxt text is not a place for 'cut scenes'. Give the GM enough info to run the encounter as you'd like to see it occur, maybe a few phrases the NPCs use, perhaps a couple rounds of tactics and trust the DM to do it right...then you don't need to fill up the box text with all that garbage. This is a point where you might not get universal agreement. I can see both sides. I personally like hearing the flair that authors tend to be able to generate better than 90% of DMs out there. I don't want too much, but I definitely want some. Boxed text also helps tremendously when DMs run cold. Yeah yeah - I know, DMs aren't supposed to run cold but let's face it, it often happens (due to a DM filling in last minute, etc). If the flavor is right there on the page in bold, the DM won't miss as much of it.
JamesMaissen 03-27-07, 06:24 PM	Possibly, but it is also on the authors to convey a scene. Boxed text describes, but also conveys atmosphere. I have been told that all boxed text has to be one paragraph max, and sorry, but there are plenty of cases where that is unrealistic. When you set a scene, when you introduce a NPC, when you describe a location that has several elements of import, or an imporatnt event, or when a number of things happen, you have to describe it. And yes, a part of boxed text IS showing off a bit. I also have to enjoy writing a scenario. Nobody needs long boxed texts, but let's not eliminate all flavor. The problem with long boxed texts is that things get lost in the shuffle. It's not interactive and as such tends to loose many players as it gets progressively longer. This is separate from avoiding actions and reactions being scripted into boxed text. That is it's own problem as much as events 'triggering' by a PC observing them assuming it is the entire party rather than a scout. Perhaps there are scenes that need longer explainations to convey. But the problem is shifting the norm of what is expected. I would rather that longer scenes find themselves broken into multple parts or be encompassed into a handout if it means removing 'story time' as I call it from module writing. -James
cycloptic_squirrel 03-27-07, 06:57 PM	Ogre/Fighter1/Barbarian1=CR5 Feats:Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Sugliin), Monkey Grip, Weapon Focus, Short Haft. Attack with huge sugliin while raging: +11, 4d8+10. 20ft Reach, and the ability to take a swift action to be able to attack adjacent. The ability to put this in an APL 2? Priceless... Um. I conceed. You 'win'. Go home and we'll continue for second place. We'll let you know when the next campaign starts up.
Madfox11 03-28-07, 04:56 AM	The problem with long boxed texts is that things get lost in the shuffle. It's not interactive and as such tends to loose many players as it gets progressively longer. The problem is that DMs treat it as something they have to read aloud verbatim regardless of the situation. It should be used as a tool by the DM to help him find mood and important scenery quickly. Short boxed texts I do read verbatim, especially when pacing is important and when I am running the adventure with all Dutch players (translating texts on the spot is more time consuming). Long boxed texts though are always changed into interactive parts. In fact, I have on occasion reminded my players that they can interupt boxed text if it includes anything more than a description of the current scene. Just because the boxed text describes a conversation between 2 NPCs so printed because of the innuendo (which is really hard for many DMs to come up with on the fly) doesn't mean the PCs can act during some point of the conversation ;) Personally I prefer to stick to short boxed texts, with providing additional information in the rest of the text to prevent DMs falling into the trap of a monotome reading of boxed texts, but I never have problems with long boxed texts.
Newpaintbrush 03-28-07, 01:26 PM	As I have been saying for some time, I believe 95% of the difficulty of any given scenario is determined by party composition. 5% comes from author/editor oversight and/or creature CR being too low for their relative power. Joe How about repeated DC 25 Survival checks for an APL2 table? Oh yeah, if you get lost, there goes the last two-thirds of the encounter and all the treasure.
Samwise 03-28-07, 04:25 PM	How about repeated DC 25 Survival checks for an APL2 table? Oh yeah, if you get lost, there goes the last two-thirds of the encounter and all the treasure. And so why the core guidelines advise alternative methods of completing tasks, particularly if they rely on a specific class ability or skill. Even at an APL 10 table, that sort of task can be impossible without a ranger or similar character available.