TOPIC: So is the SRoEC worth it?

I wonder what they would have done if someone tried to use a scroll of Fly in that room? Hey, look, no walking on the cavern floor!

speaking of! i actually asked the dm about using a potion of leaping attack in that room. i was fairly certain that it would get turned down (and it did), as the potion mentions nothing of flying and only being able to attack a flying monster, but i thought it was worth a shot.

however, had i actually had a scroll of fly, i think it would have been a much better argument on my side.

Keith Brice wrote: I just wanted to throw in a concern that has been brought up in the post. The damage issue, there was multiple times where the DM would just yell out to a person take X amount of damage and not explain where it came from. They should be taught to say take 5 pts of Physical Dmg, 5 pts of Fire Dmg etc etc etc. We had a lot of dmg reducing gear and didn't know if it applied half the time.

When I was DM'ing Grind, X damage was by default physical melee damage. If there was an energy type or other relevant I would specify as well.

"The zombie hits you for 6 points of damage" (by default physical melee)
"You take 14 points of fire damage from a Flame Arrow spell"
"The Ice Storm spell does 12 points of damage to you, of which 6 is physical and 6 is cold."
"The bodak uses its death gaze on you."

Similarly, when I had people make saving throws I would usually tell people the relevant traits for token purposes:

"Make a save against undead touch attack"
"Make a save against disease - oh wait you are a Paladin so you are immune"
"The Wizard casts a spell on you. Make a saving throw to try and disbelieve the illusion."

However, there were cases where you might not be able to figure out the spell if you succeeded on the saving throw (if you succeed you might not know that the Greater Mummy was trying to Curse you).

There were many cases when I asked a player to roll a die (for which there was no existing token that would help) but then he significantly delayed things but insisting on being told what it was for. To streamline the flow, if the DM asks you to roll something just do it (and then work out the details afterwards).

Picc wrote: Also sounding off on not being a fan of GMs not allowing token based solutions. This year in the bridge room I was very excited since I had 2 elven ropes with me. I asked the GM if we could use them to get the second half of the party across the gap and and everyone was very excited to have the bypass. The GM said no, first because we had no way to get the rope across (I also had a few grappling hooks but why quibble) when I pointed that out I was told the rope would not hold despite the token explicitly stating it will hold 1000 pounds. We then proceed to use the rope to get a belt pouch across and solve the puzzle as intended. Minor example I know but having creative solutions shot down for reasons that make no sense really makes me feel like were on rails (which I know we are but its still not fun being reminded).

Well, I guess maybe they should have described it as:

Half the party gets teleported to the other side. A wall of force blocks most physical access except for a small slot where there is a mechanical pulley system that can be used if you insert a rope.

Does that sound better?

No, it doesn't sound better because that is not how the room was written or described. The room was described as the bridge collapsed when half the players were across. If the room writer or DM wanted to be a bear, they could have asked a few people for saving rolls to avoid falling to their death, or for a softball perhaps a roll for noticing that the bridge supports were close to fraying. Nevertheless, there was no preparatory statement that the elven rope or something like that wouldn't work. It seems like the best fix, and probably in retrospect the best answer as to why it wouldn't work seems to be that it wouldn't reach or something like that. It is the essence of D&D and it should be for TD as well to reward ingenuity and resourcefulness. Especially a token like rope or elven rope, which is a token manufactured and sold to players, and is unlikely to ever have a TD use, when it does, it should be championed. I know you know that Incognito because I saw you let a player use the ink in True Grind. That was good DMing on your part.

Oddly specific but yes from a logical stand point I'd be much more ok with it. End of the day I dont mind being told no if that's what the GM needs to happen but as others have said it seems a little cheap to sell us tokens that bypass problems then come up with ways to invalidate their use. Odds are good if someone is carrying ropes and grappling hooks its because they expected them to make the adventure easier at some point. If that's never going to be allowed to happen eventually that person will stop carrying the items and likely wont buy them the next time they come around. I would much rather that GMs allowed clever solutions (maybe even with a little warning that the players wont have anything to do for 12 minutes but stand around) and just make a note of their rulings for the next GM on the rooms script or something. End of the day the room was fun and while ropes aren't a big deal for TD people questioning the worth of creating the supreme ring is and its the same problem.

i agree with picc here. allowing creativity seems like it will only make things more fun for the players. at least for the players who come up with the creative solution.

i guess the worry is that someone will find a way to "break" a room and then that solution will get out to the other parties who can then bypass it as easily without having the creativity to come up with the solution.

however, the dissemination of knowledge as the con goes on is always going to be an issue (e.g., reading the banners in the wrangling/practice rooms, the hand grenades in the final combat room, the charmed giant, etc.) so i think worrying about people learning about ways to "break" rooms with tokens is probably less of an issue than it may at first appear.

I'm able to do that (allow flexibility with the Vial of Ink) since I DM all the Grinds (consistency is not an issue) and because I designed the Grind adventure (so I know designer's intent).

It's a lot more challenging for DM's in the main dungeon since they are unlikely to know Jeff's intent. With common/uncommon tokens that will let you completely sidestep the puzzle it would seem quite obvious that Jeff would not want those (though if someone wants to burn a consumable UR like a Fly scroll I would personally let it work).

Because of the need for consistency, a lot of DM's simply don't have the leeway to allow for many of these situations. And unfortunately, Jeff isn't always able to anticipate many unconventional solutions (using the Otter potion to get through the small Rogue tunnel a few years back is another example).

So it's basically a tradeoff between giving the DM's the capability to change things on the fly for creative parties and maintaining consistency (especially when Group A complains that their DM didn't let them do this when Group B's DM ruled otherwise).

People are going to complain either way.

travis wrote: i agree with picc here. allowing creativity seems like it will only make things more fun for the players. at least for the players who come up with the creative solution.

i guess the worry is that someone will find a way to "break" a room and then that solution will get out to the other parties who can then bypass it as easily without having the creativity to come up with the solution.

however, the dissemination of knowledge as the con goes on is always going to be an issue (e.g., reading the banners in the wrangling/practice rooms, the hand grenades in the final combat room, the charmed giant, etc.) so i think worrying about people learning about ways to "break" rooms with tokens is probably less of an issue than it may at first appear.

The problem is disseminating that knowledge to all of the DM's that DM that room (as well as any temps who might cover a shift).

I think creativity is great but it quickly gets murky with the consistency issue.

IMO the rarity of the token used to be clever shouldn't matter.

Putting that aside for a moment though it doesn't seem like it should create that much of a consistency issue if GMs just make a note for the next shift and leave it in the room. You could give them all a small pad on which they could write stuff like polymorph otter to bypass tunnel ruled yes/no, rope to bypass gorge ruled yes/no etc and just ask the GMs to check it first if anyone makes a clever suggestion.

and

travis wrote: i actually asked the dm about using a potion of leaping attack in that room. i was fairly certain that it would get turned down (and it did), as the potion mentions nothing of flying and only being able to attack a flying monster, but i thought it was worth a shot.

Indeed, there's no harm in asking. That said, the DM was correct in that decision.

from the TDb entry for Potion Leaping Attack

The imbiber may attack flying or levitating (not just at range, the monster must be in the air) monsters with melee weapons. Like most potions, this takes one round to drink, so the character would not be able to attack a flying monster until the round after this potion is quaffed. (a Belt of Retrieval could bypass that restriction)

It does not confer the ability to fly or levitate. It allows a character to leap up, attack, and land safely back in the same spot from which it took off.

Picc wrote: IMO the rarity of the token used to be clever shouldn't matter.

I think it (rarity of a token) can be a relevant factor. Other important details are the difficulty level (Normal/Nightmare) and the degree to which it will bypass the puzzle.

On Nightmare, a common token really should not allow you to completely sidestep the room's puzzle.

On Grind, the assumption is that players on difficulty X will have access to all tokens of rarity Y or less. So the adventure is specifically designed so that some tokens won't be able to bypass major elements of the adventure. (They might give you a bonus or advantage but since it's possible that everyone will be using one, it can't be that easy!).

Putting that aside for a moment though it doesn't seem like it should create that much of a consistency issue if GMs just make a note for the next shift and leave it in the room. You could give them all a small pad on which they could write stuff like polymorph otter to bypass tunnel ruled yes/no, rope to bypass gorge ruled yes/no etc and just ask the GMs to check it first if anyone makes a clever suggestion.

Draco-Lich has two separate dungeons, of which 5 rooms are identical. You would also have to coordinate between the Puzzle and Combat sides. The notes might be inconveniently placed, they can get lost, or maybe you can't read the other person's handwriting.

I'm not saying it can't be done (it certainly can). But it's a lot harder than what one might initially think.

Incognito wrote: Draco-Lich has two separate dungeons, of which 5 rooms are identical. You would also have to coordinate between the Puzzle and Combat sides. The notes might be inconveniently placed, they can get lost, or maybe you can't read the other person's handwriting.

I'll freely admit that is a point I hadn't considered and dont have a good answer for.