quote:

---

(1) We presume some "role-playing" by your PCs. Good god man, if it is a scary blob of poop that you can't hurt, RUN AWAY! Adventurers should want to survive to the next day, or at least want to plan tactically. They should be smart enough to run away. Yes, in video games you can reload a saved game, players need to understand that this is pen and paper gaming. Role-playing can mean negotiating or it can simply mean playing your character in a manner that hints of a small sense of self-preservation.

(2) Do NOT "clear the level." The video game mentality just does not work. Some of the toughest encounters are NOT necessary for "finishing" the adventure and even if they PCs successfully defeat those NPCs/monsters they could severely weaken themselves for later battles. The smart thing to do in those cases is retreat and try a different approach.

(3) Good game design means that sometimes we presume access to certain spells and actually plan encounters forcing you to use them. A huge pool of acid might be almost impossible for a lvl 1 party to bypass, but a lvl 9 party should be able to get past it easily. If your party does not have single-class casters or is low on casters or magic (or hordes it) they could make things much more difficult on themselves than needed. This might mean that if a party is written for 4-6 7th level characters and you decide to start your group at lvl 5 because they have 8 players and some NPCs, well, you'll have problems.

(4) NPCs and higher level intelligent monsters are presumed to be played intelligently. They also run away to slay the PCs another day.

(5) It is a game. In order for a game to be fun there has to be some risk based on the rolling of the dice. There is a thrill in knowing the DM has missed with all of his NPCs 2 rounds in a row and is due for a crit or solid hit any time now ... and you only have 8 hp left. Yes, no matter how well prepared you are, bad rolls can doom a party, that is, for me, part of the thrill.

Basically, we presume PCs are willing to run away and plan thoroughly before returning (meanwhile NPCs are planning as well), we try to force you to use your resources in new ways, and encounters generally demand careful, intelligent, and organized play from a group of characters.

A few random, disorganized thoughts from,
__________________
Patrick Lawinger

---

quote:

---

In all honesty, we dont desing for a party of 4. We design for a party of 6. That makes a big difference.

We also design for parties that are combat oriented. You need front line fighters, clerics and wizards that have offensive fire power. We presume your party will have that. If you bring in diviners and sorcerers with no real offensive power (or frankly sorcerers in general, since they are below the spells they should have access to) then you just arent bringing to the table the type of party that we presume. That isnt your fault. That isnt our fault. It is just a design thing for us. Its how we do things. If that is the case for you, then bring PCs (6, not 4) of about 2 levels above.

Your party pretty much needs to be:
1. hard core tank fighter.
2. barbarian/paladin/other butt kicking bad boy
3. cleric that can also lay the smack down
4. wizard with serious firepower
5. rogue that isnt a wuss and can do something in combat
6. extra guy (ranger/fighter-mage/druid/bard/whatever)

If your party is a bunch of monks and thief-acrobats and rapier-wielding bards with non-fighting clerics and illusionists, your guys are going to get smoked. Plain and simple. If all your guys can't contribute something substantial to a combat encounter, you will have a hard time with our modules.

The other problem is the "video game" mentality. Again, I am not blaming DMs or players. It has been beaten into their skull by video games. It is basically this: the video game premise is that if it exists, it must be attacked; if it is in front of me, I must be able to handle it; if the room is there, it must be cleared because it most likely has a lever I need to pull or key I need to find or vital item to solve the "boss" monster.

None of those things are true in our mods, ever.

We have plenty of rooms and encounters and even whole levels that are there for your use. They are not there for a room by room kick in the door fest. That is a sure way to death.

Using a Dungeon

Dungeons are classic settings for heroic swords and sorcery adventuring. Turning your party loose in a dungeon to explore it and cleanse it of evil (and treasure) is a time-honored tradition. Certainly the Stoneheart Mountain Dungeon is loaded with evil and treasure sufficient to satisfy the lusts of any bold adventurer.

Dungeons, however, do not need to be tied to “hack and slash” adventuring. Instead, the best use of a dungeon is as a dramatic setting for storytelling. Rather than have your players simply bash in door after door looking for monsters and loot, design a purpose for the party to delve into the dungeon. Give them a quest or a goal to give them direction and a sense of accomplishment. It keeps their dungeon adventuring focused and keeps the tension high—there is a risk of failing to accomplish their mission.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say we were going to make a module called "The Death Star." We would detail all 100 levels of the death star. Stat out the guards. The monster in the trash compacter. Vader. The main gun. Etc. And we put all this in a product called "The Death Star."

Now, it isnt our fault if all a DM uses that for is to say "hey you land on the death star" and the players all say "lets kick doors in level by level." No one would survive. That would be a meat grinder.

It is up to you, the DM and players, to come up with the story. The dungeon is just the setting. Rappan Athuk is a great example. Just like the death star, you cant go in that thing and go room by room kicking in doors and killing occupants. The DM has to send you there for a reason--rescuing a princess, finding a specific artifact or item, killing a specific monster, whatever. Part of first edition feel is to not force a story on you. We cant force you to tell the story of the young paladin rescuing the captured pricess from the evil cleric (basically, the Star Wars plot). That is for you to decide. But we give you the floor plans and the bad guys for you to tell your stories.

Part of the problem is that, yes, we do design modules that are challenging. We also presume you will have a party that can handle combat. BUT much of the problem comes from the video game mentality of how our products are to be used. And that is no one's fault. In fact, we should probably do a better job explaining that. And remember, PC death is not the end of the line. Too many players these days hate the idea of PC death.

As a final note, I want to point out one thing: I like challenging modules because the players always feel they have accomplished something at the end. The harder the challenge the greater the reward of accomplishment.

__________________
Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com

---

quote:

---

CSW wrote:

Interesting insights on game design. Also insight into why munchkinism is so rampant.

They assume:
1). larger party than most people I've ever played with prefer.
2). combat-heavy party (just look at their breakdown).

So, you NEED uber-stats. You NEED extra firepower. This leads people to cheat in character creation, so that they won't suck. It leads to people forgetting the rp-ing aspects and playing stereotypical characters.

Solution? DM's that don't rush the party into their little modules. As the first author said, add a couple levels on if you're NOT playing an ideal party.

Question for you then, Wolf old boy: How do YOU generally calculate when is right for us to start a module? Assessment of party capability? Level suggestions written on the product? I'm curious, as you rarely get us in over our heads (barring stupididy, of course, on our part).

---

quote:

---

CSW wrote:

Granted, and further granted that the "conventional" mix is likely the most effective, given unknown challenges.

But it's not as if the BBEG is planning things so that a well-balanced party is needed! To the limit of their wealth, intellect, power, etc., they ARE trying to make themselves unassailable. The PC's simply have to figure out how to circumvent such designs.

Therefore, it should be possible for any group to succeed (potentially). The Sorceror's Squad or Monk Attack Force may progress somewhat and then get screwed, when the anti-magic field kicks-in or their is a challenge only arcane arts could overcome. But that's part of adventuring too, right? Sometimes, people just won't have the right tools for the job.

---

quote:

---

These cases should be uncommon however. An orgre chieftain, even if he has Shamans, is likely to rely upon crude fortifications, ogre guards (with some lesser minions, of course), and possibly a large, crude smash 'em up type trap. A necromancer may have more sophisticated designs, but is likely to rely upon his ghastly minions, a few fiendsih traps where nothing living can survive (but the dead are unharmed), and similar protections.

---

quote:

---

 For example, why have locks? Why not bar a room entirely, have an undead minion within and secure from attack, and only willing to open the door for you? (Sucks if an evil cleric comes by and usurps control, but at least the heroes are screwed, right?) No levers, no locks to pick, no secret/concealed passages to spot...nice and simple. But no...we need Dr. Evilesque complexity just so that every archtype/stereotype has something to do.

---

quote:

---

bah, I say! <g>

---