Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> In article <1169084267.166563.265750@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >I was commenting on the module, not on your running it. I assumed that
> >you knew that I read the earlier post. I realized you had modified
> >nothing. It still seems that the designers had some of the solutions
> >your player found in mind and that is why it wasn't as hard, although
> >still very hard, as you expected.
>
> Okay, that's clearer, thanks.
>
> I am sure they anticipated grimlocks+Silence. I would be shocked
> if they anticipated warlock+Darkness; warlock is a splatbook
(supplement)
> class, and that is not generally one of its more popular powers, so
> it's very, very unlikely that a party could do it. Seeing in magical
> darkness is otherwise excruciatingly rare in the system, limited to
> devils and a few monsters with sonar. And a warlock of Athas' level
> can't actually have both Darkness and See in Magical Darkness; it
> just happened that an NPC provided the missing link for her.
Can Trolls see in magical darkness anymore? They could at one time, in
original D&D and in RuneQuest. Of course, a Troll player-character
would be impossible in any form of D&D that I know of, not so in
RuneQuest or in our local rules. If you had a PC who could naturally
see in magical darkness, all you would need is the NPC who provided the
Darkness spell. Even if they provided the NPC and the spell, it looks
unlikely that they expected that you could do this. If, however, they
anticipated that the PCs would use Silence versus the Grimlocks,
wouldn't that have reduced the threat-level a great deal from what one
would think at first look?
> The author didn't say how he expected the grimlocks to go, but he did
> say how he expected easy wins over the Hextorites to go: PCs get
> ahead of the Hextorite response and defeat them in detail. I was
> surprised that it was still easy even after the player allowed the
> Hextorites to mostly get together (though he did *not* let them loose
> the giant boar, and a good thing, too).
Oh, that reminds me of a Hobbit character whose favorite phrase was
"Cry havoc and let loose the hamsters of war." Eventually, he MET the
hamsters of war. It was fun, although not really life-threatening. I
just figured the player had asked for it.
As a player, taking foes out piecemeal over time never seems completely
reasonable to most of my characters. Whatever keeps them from getting
together to hunt us down better be really convincing. Otherwise, I want
to move faster.
> I didn't mind the surprise solutions, though the Darkness thing needs to
> be fixed (a bad rules call on our part)
If it is still _fairly_ powerful under the new rules, it is still going
to make this adventure easier than expected If the characters have
someone who can see in it among them.
I minded the player's griping
> a lot more. He has clarified that the real stickler for him was the
> mis-rating of the grimlocks. They break many system design rules about
> what a monster of their type should be like, but offer no EXP bonus for
> their nonconformity, and this made him feel cheated. "If the system
> wants me to treat this like a video game, at least it should be a
> *fair* video game."
Wouldn't you feel within your rights giving him more EXP for them than
the rules provide? I might not _do_ it myself, as they had the Silence
"antidote" to the Grimlocks, but I used to do so in other situations.
For that matter, I still modify EXP awards at times and I wrote the
rules we play.I would probably have REALLY angered him because I would
probably give lots of EXP to the character that did the Silence and
less for the others.
> I think I personally was the most offended by descriptions which
repeatedly
> described how the PCs would see a grimlock and notice the tattoos and
> ritual scars on its chest. Then you'd look down at the equipment list
> and notice that the grimlock is in full plate armor. Unless you check
> every single description before reading it, this produces a strong
> impression in the player's mind that the GM is lying deliberately about
> the monster's armor; and if the player assumes from the description
> that it's unarmored, he can get screwed for no reason. Plate armor is
> not exactly a subtle visual detail!
Right. Of course, a player MIGHT claiim that this combination meant
that his character had developed X-Ray vision. The GM who reads the
description aloud without checking it against the stat blocks is going
to have a problem and checking the written description against the stat
block, time after time, is much more like drudgery and almost as
time-consuming as writing ones own adventures.
Will in New Haven
--
"Never try to outstubborn a cat." - Robert Heinlein
"I am not stubborn, Mr. Heinlein, I am just in charge." - Feather
|
