Post/Author/DateTime	Post
wooti 05-28-07, 09:07 PM	I just played two adventures last weekend, and they were two of the best written ones I've played in a while and I enjoyed them greatly. They were great in allowing multiple solutions however both of them punished smart play and players. The first was an investigation mod and because we were smart and solved the case quickly we ended up fighting the big bad in an environment that favoured the big bad. Yes we could have been smarter and lured the big bad away and then attacked but the default situation would have been favourable. The second allowed us to talk our way out of a fight (with evil people, but evil people we had no reason to fight). Thus at the end we discovered we were significantly below cap for treasure. While in character this perfectly understandable, but I feel bad if other people on the table lose out not because someone did something dumb but because they did smart and in character things. I got satisfaction the role playing and play but I feel bad from people at the same table who look at there ARs or character death (no one died but one character got to -9) and didn’t get the satisfaction I got. I general try to reward smart actions but at the very least avoid disadvantaging them. Some actions can not be predicted by all module writers and a prepared GM can often improvise (eg party decides to teleport to destination and there is meant to be a random encounter along the way, a well prepare GM can move encounter and alter it to make sense) So in summary thanks for a couple of well written non linear adventure that great fun to role play but please don't punish players or character for being smart and in character.
Prof. Pacali 05-28-07, 09:41 PM	One possibility would be to give an AR item to players who decide not to fight everything that moves, either because they detect as evil, or even worse due to metagaming decisions (ie we are way below the gp cap, let's kill something). For example, maybe the evil NPCs are influential politically and give access to a PrC or magic item, and maybe there might be a negative AR item for fighting them to discourage metagaming. (The PCs will still get XP, gold and the evil guys' items, but may get a curse, feel political repercussions, or even offend a good NPC who needs to placate the evil guys, and won't hire the PCs in future mods).
Morgen 05-28-07, 11:25 PM	With the wealth of players, characters and game mechanics at our disposal here in Living Greyhawk, it's understandable hard for people to write a module where these kinds of situation can't happen. I've had a few mods where things just didn't pan out, we didn't have a party set up to handle the challenge presented as it was set up in the mod, etc. You should always play smart and enjoy the experiance. That's the reward for playing the game. Not AR's and access to items and the like, but the sheer joy of getting to play D&D.
_metz_ 05-28-07, 11:29 PM	I just played two adventures last weekend, and they were two of the best written ones I've played in a while and I enjoyed them greatly. They were great in allowing multiple solutions however both of them punished smart play and players. The first was an investigation mod and because we were smart and solved the case quickly we ended up fighting the big bad in an environment that favoured the big bad. Yes we could have been smarter and lured the big bad away and then attacked but the default situation would have been favourable. The second allowed us to talk our way out of a fight (with evil people, but evil people we had no reason to fight). Thus at the end we discovered we were significantly below cap for treasure. While in character this perfectly understandable, but I feel bad if other people on the table lose out not because someone did something dumb but because they did smart and in character things. I got satisfaction the role playing and play but I feel bad from people at the same table who look at there ARs or character death (no one died but one character got to -9) and didn’t get the satisfaction I got. I general try to reward smart actions but at the very least avoid disadvantaging them. Some actions can not be predicted by all module writers and a prepared GM can often improvise (eg party decides to teleport to destination and there is meant to be a random encounter along the way, a well prepare GM can move encounter and alter it to make sense) So in summary thanks for a couple of well written non linear adventure that great fun to role play but please don't punish players or character for being smart and in character. I think I know this module - its a current core. I have the exact same opinion of it, and the same thing happened to us. Avoided first combat (which was unnecessary with a diplo roll (hence not much treasure) and then a fight with a ludicrous encounter by working out all the problems and getting straight to the end, with the bad guys in ridiculously favorable conditions, with an under CR encounter, which didn't even make sense. (deliberately tweaked monsters with each other so as to complement their abilities, increasing EL without actually increasing it). Our DM (an experienced senior GM too I might add) was utterly shellshocked and saw the encounter as just unwinnable without the perfect party for the situation. I get annoyed when mod writers do this.
wooti 05-29-07, 12:24 AM	With the wealth of players, characters and game mechanics at our disposal here in Living Greyhawk, it's understandable hard for people to write a module where these kinds of situation can't happen. I've had a few mods where things just didn't pan out, we didn't have a party set up to handle the challenge presented as it was set up in the mod, etc. You should always play smart and enjoy the experiance. That's the reward for playing the game. Not AR's and access to items and the like, but the sheer joy of getting to play D&D. Like I said I enjoyed the games they were two of the best written games I have played resently, but it makes other players resentful and in future they'll hit things rather than talking or say "there is no point working out the plot it'll just make it harder". These two atitudes annoy me and reduce my fun in games, I'm just hoping I can encourage gms and writters to support or atleast not disadvantage smart players. Yes there is no way to predict anything a player can do, but in both or the games we did things that were predicted (this being one of the things that impressed me with the games). The problem I had was that we did the smart thing and got punished for it. As far as dealling with total unpredictible actions, I'd like to see adventures come with short trouble shooting section giving the gm some ideas. Like if party misses encounter A occur here or insert x monster from mm to replace it (hopefully at a slightly lower el) or if part avoid encounter B then have npc y give bonus reward for z. I know some adventures already include this but would be good as not every GM has time to prep a mod enough to know how it could be altered to around the players craziness.
Lupo 05-29-07, 02:38 AM	I just played two adventures last weekend, and they were two of the best written ones I've played in a while and I enjoyed them greatly. They were great in allowing multiple solutions however both of them punished smart play and players. some modules don't favor "smart play" ;), be it in or out of character smartness that just happens. The first was an investigation mod and because we were smart and solved the case quickly we ended up fighting the big bad in an environment that favoured the big bad. Yes we could have been smarter and lured the big bad away and then attacked but the default situation would have been favourable. The second allowed us to talk our way out of a fight (with evil people, but evil people we had no reason to fight). Thus at the end we discovered we were significantly below cap for treasure. "CAP" is a meta gaming concept and therefore shouldn't be an issue for characters. i know that the LG rules makes it hard to end way below cap as there is hardly any way to end above cap. diplomacy and sundering are two options that tend to cause trouble with the "CAP". While in character this perfectly understandable, but I feel bad if other people on the table lose out not because someone did something dumb but because they did smart and in character things. I got satisfaction the role playing and play but I feel bad from people at the same table who look at there ARs or character death (no one died but one character got to -9) and didn’t get the satisfaction I got. I general try to reward smart actions but at the very least avoid disadvantaging them. Some actions can not be predicted by all module writers and a prepared GM can often improvise (eg party decides to teleport to destination and there is meant to be a random encounter along the way, a well prepare GM can move encounter and alter it to make sense) "altering" a module isn't an option, as harsh as this is for some situations, it is just forbidden. if a module has no precautions or tips provided for "unusual party activities", they are just out of luck. everyone knows - ok, metagaming knowledge - that sometimes there are random encounters - and sometimes they are not even "random" but essential. and from APL 6 on a module writer should think about flying/teleporting parties or the like. think about the infamous "witch hunt" 593 adventure, it just starts with a detour on the road because a bridge is collapsed, if the characters find a way to continue without taking the detour, the adventure is over. and it features APL 4 to APL 12. So in summary thanks for a couple of well written non linear adventure that great fun to role play but please don't punish players or character for being smart and in character. i agree that especially "investigative" modules should have enough DM helps and troubleshooting tips or explicitly allow DMs to modify to a certain extend to make the module versatile enough to "reward" good role playing. on the other hand i am no fan of modules that are only solvable with loads of out-of-character or meta-knowledge. ciao martin m.
_metz_ 05-29-07, 03:36 AM	some modules don't favor "smart play" ;), be it in or out of character smartness that just happens. "CAP" is a meta gaming concept and therefore shouldn't be an issue for characters. i know that the LG rules makes it hard to end way below cap as there is hardly any way to end above cap. diplomacy and sundering are two options that tend to cause trouble with the "CAP". ciao martin m. The issue Martin, is that the module DID favour smart play, and encouraged it, even labeling itself in many ways as an investigative module. Its just that as a result for following the plot hooks, identifying the problem, and essentially NOT stuffing up, you were smacked with a much harder encounter and less gold. That does grind my gears a little bit, if players do the smart and correct thing laid out in the module it should not be a disadvantage. If we had a character that started a fight for NO reason, and also ignored all the plot hooks and failed to solve the 'mystery' we would have had more gold and done better. How is that a good module? It was actually very well written and a great mod, it just PAINED me to see it fall down like that at the end, aside form that issue it was one of the most fun modules I have played in a while - t just s#@ts me off when after doing everything right you get burnt for it. Like I said, this module wasn't a "if you took a way differing from A then you miss the encounter' issue, it was a 'solve the mystery and you cop it much worse' issue. - Dave
Bogjob 05-29-07, 12:19 PM	I think I know this module - its a current core. Aww crap, thats one to look forward to, I've just got over being beaten up by Angels and being stiffed for a year for living costs in a place I've pulled out of the fire on numerous occasions. :(
_metz_ 05-29-07, 12:42 PM	Aww crap, thats one to look forward to, I've just got over being beaten up by Angels and being stiffed for a year for living costs in a place I've pulled out of the fire on numerous occasions. :( Its a great mod, its just got a crazy hard encounter for doing things right :)
Nutation 05-29-07, 02:55 PM	Also in a current module, you are advised that you can get to the main action by Route A or Route B. Route A results in a better AR result, but there is no way to know that. Much better is the fairly common situation when you have a choice of investigating X, Y, or Z, each of which has a different reward (ideally of equivalent value).
Madfox11 05-30-07, 03:55 AM	Much better is the fairly common situation when you have a choice of investigating X, Y, or Z, each of which has a different reward (ideally of equivalent value). Why? Sometimes it just does not make sense to do so, and as long as the xp and gp caps are the same, the favor rewards really do not have to be. I don't even mind the once in a blue moon difference in gp and xp, although I do prefer to be a good reason for his. I know that some Splintered Sun meta-regionals gave an equal amount of gold and xp for x, y and z, but not an equally usefull favor. The PCs could choose between supporting the United Kingdom of Ahlissa with the full back-up of its government or a small faction of rebels from a country that does not even exist anymore. The funny thing is that most people I played with realized which favor would be better, but they still picked the underdog. There also has been a Sunndi regional were you would get a pretty nasty disfavor for PCs wanting to make a military carreer. Choices become so meaningless if the end result is the same...
Lomiat 05-30-07, 02:44 PM	Yes there is no way to predict anything a player can do, but in both or the games we did things that were predicted (this being one of the things that impressed me with the games). The problem I had was that we did the smart thing and got punished for it. As far as dealling with total unpredictible actions, I'd like to see adventures come with short trouble shooting section giving the gm some ideas. Like if party misses encounter A occur here or insert x monster from mm to replace it (hopefully at a slightly lower el) or if part avoid encounter B then have npc y give bonus reward for z. I know some adventures already include this but would be good as not every GM has time to prep a mod enough to know how it could be altered to around the players craziness. It's worth noting, here, that authors can help players circumvent this dilemma if they do a couple things in their modules: 1) key the vast majority of the mod's wealth and access to encounters that are impossible to miss -- the "final bad guy" encounters or the "you get ambushed at the beginning of the mod" encounters; 2) give out a good share of the mod's wealth and access through favors if the adventure features a situation where players are likely to try to diplomacize some combats -- and wealth -- out of existence; and 3) establish that the XP in most encounters is earned for finding a way to complete a task -- despite the monster -- rather than expect every adventurer in existence to want to gain XP for "Killing Monster X." I was, after playing one module, rather disappointed that my PC wouldn't level at the end of the year because he didn't gain XP for bypassing an arcane ooze. We were a party of 5 arcane casters and one guy stuck in the middle of the arcane ooze, and our goal was to take a maguffin to a place (still an active mod). Of course, the arcane ooze made the task difficult, but since we had 5 arcanists, as soon as we got our fighter out of the ooze, we just went into the astral plane for a split second and then continued on our merry way. The problem for our XP was that the reward wasn't contingent upon taking the maguffin to the place -- even though that was the task to which our characters had been assigned; the XP was contingent upon "defeating the arcane ooze." That, of course, had me wondering, "Why?" It wasn't really endangering anyone, and it wasn't able to catch us. Since then, I've made a point of trying to write my adventures and XP summaries to reward players for completing tasks rather than defeating monsters. Of course, many of the tasks will require PCs to defeat monsters, but that's how it goes...
Nutation 05-30-07, 02:58 PM	Why? Sometimes it just does not make sense to do so, and as long as the xp and gp caps are the same, the favor rewards really do not have to be. ... Choices become so meaningless if the end result is the same... "Equivalent value" doesn't imply "the end result is the same". Do you want to bribe the PCs to make one choice over another? In some cases, certainly. Oftentimes, one choice is more heroic or good, and the contrary decision should be punished. I'm not sure I like the design of your Ahlissa vs. rebels setup, but I concede the writer has a reason. There's also a current core that provides a hefty bribe for the PCs to drop the whole thing. I mainly object to the blind choices and arbitrarily different rewards. Outcomes should be a result of informed player decisions (modulated by the fall of the dice). When the left fork just happens to be better than the right fork, that's not good story design.
Timlagor 05-30-07, 03:12 PM	"Defeat" does not mean "kill". If you get past a creature that is trying to stop you then you have "defeated" it ...I think this may even be spelled out in the DMG.
Madfox11 05-31-07, 03:58 AM	"Defeat" does not mean "kill". If you get past a creature that is trying to stop you then you have "defeated" it ...I think this may even be spelled out in the DMG. Timlagor is right here. I can see how completely avoiding an encounter you don't even know is there (e.g. cloud walking to the location and avoiding the random encounter) don't get you any xp. Avoiding a monster after having having fought for a few rounds should at least get you some xp (even if you are defeated you get xp) unless the goal of the adventure is of course to disable the thing. Mind you, situations like this have caused me to spell this out in the xp section of my adventures as well.
wooti 05-31-07, 09:12 PM	I can see how completely avoiding an encounter you don't even know is there (e.g. cloud walking to the location and avoiding the random encounter) don't get you any xp. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. If a party cloud walked past a location they have been smart. They foresaw potential fights that do not lead to there goal and avoided them and they have used up resources in doing so. At my table that would count as a defeat, or at the very least I would look for a way to slide the random encounter some where else.
LGMoses 06-01-07, 01:55 AM	as much as I would like to see smart play rewarded, in real life I notice that morons do tend to come out ahead a lot :D
Madfox11 06-01-07, 03:50 AM	This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. If a party cloud walked past a location they have been smart. They foresaw potential fights that do not lead to there goal and avoided them and they have used up resources in doing so. At my table that would count as a defeat, or at the very least I would look for a way to slide the random encounter some where else. One can argue that there is absolutely nothing to learn from completely avoiding an encounter simply because you were never there. Otherwise players could start to argue that their characters can become level 15 by sitting in the rocking chair before the fire because of all the dangerous monsters they are avoiding. Avoiding an encounter simply by taking a different route is not playing smart, although at high APLs it means the author was not paying attention. I usually try to keep the likely modes of travel in mind when writing my adventures to avoid encounters like these that are likely to be avoided completely at higher APLs. As always though I am human and can not keep all things into account ;)
LGMoses 06-01-07, 09:55 PM	You're reward for bypassing unnecessary encounters is having more resources for later. Also, somewhere in the DM's guide (near where it talks about defeating monsters/challenges not necessarily meaning killing) its says that you only defeated an encounter if it was necessary. So bypassing some wandering monster on the way to the Cairn Hills totally not related to your objective of finding the lost cave would earn you nothing save having better resources when you get to the lost cave. There you could find a band of ogres guarding the door. If you managed to cast invisibility on yourself and sneak through you would earn the xp from that encounter. Once to the back of the Lost Cave you have a boss fight with a dragon and earn his treasure. You only managed to kill him because of a wand/scroll/etc item you probably would have wasted on the stupid ogres! Understand?
wooti 06-03-07, 11:00 PM	One can argue that there is absolutely nothing to learn from completely avoiding an encounter simply because you were never there. Otherwise players could start to argue that their characters can become level 15 by sitting in the rocking chair before the fire because of all the dangerous monsters they are avoiding. Avoiding an encounter simply by taking a different route is not playing smart, although at high APLs it means the author was not paying attention. I usually try to keep the likely modes of travel in mind when writing my adventures to avoid encounters like these that are likely to be avoided completely at higher APLs. As always though I am human and can not keep all things into account ;) I understand the logic. I think if you foresee the possible encounter and use resources to avoid that possibility then that is smart and GMs should reward that or at least not penalise it. I personally would like to see all the experience tied up in reaching the objective (or getting some of the way) and role playing and none for killing things.
Madfox11 06-04-07, 04:09 AM	I understand the logic. I think if you foresee the possible encounter and use resources to avoid that possibility then that is smart and GMs should reward that or at least not penalise it. I personally would like to see all the experience tied up in reaching the objective (or getting some of the way) and role playing and none for killing things. Which is why I personally dislike random encounters, but there are situations where a random encounter do serve a purpose: showcasing how dangerous an area is or to showcase regional events and plots from other adventures. Of course, you can always simply tell the adventurers that one of their tasks is to scout the area and look for dangers, and suddenly teleporting, flying and avoiding weird looking things is not an option anymore ;)