TOPIC: So is the SRoEC worth it?

In the end, these MacGyver solutions just don't work very well from a DM consistency point of view. In the past, DMs had a lot more leeway to allow these sort of token-constructed bypasses and I'm not sure it lead to a better experience. People who discovered the bypass would often pass it on to others, who then expect it to work and are disapointed if not downright angry when they don't get the same DM and it doesn't. There's no way that the GM guide writers can come up with every possible contingency that inventive players could potentially come up with and jot down an 'official result' for each. Really, it's probably better to just shut down MacGyver solutions like TD has.

The one exception is perhaps with certain rare consumables. I know that in the past the effects of the fly potion has been written in as a possible bypass. That makes sense of sort since the ability to fly would often negate many ground-based puzzles. It also wouldn't get out of hand since it's a consumable and would require a great sacrifice to use it, not to mention there aren't many out there to begin with. If someone really wanted to burn a UR to get past a puzzle, you almost feel like an exception should be made for it.

I agree that softballs (free passes without real effort) should be avoided but I am going to argue for rewarding innovation even if the token that is required is trivial.


Regardless of the difficulty level, it adds significant flavor to the game to be able to actually use gear like ropes, hooks, ink, whatever other simple stuff to make a situation easier or to solve it. The essence of D&D and it should be TD as well, is the experience and the immersion, not a competitive conflict between the DM and the players. I want to feel and think like I am immersed and engaged in the adventure, not locked in intellectual combat with the DM about nuances of the rules or why something should work, with stubborn principle or maturity level being the final arbiter. This is paid entertainment after all, and the primary goal should be to show the players a good time, not brutalize them, make them frustrated, or give them a softball yawn-through either. In D&D, the fear of death should always be there, sometime somebody has to die to keep that close to the surface, but TPKs and evil DMs should be avoided.

Incognito,

i would agree with you here. there would most certainly be an issue with consistency.

Druegar,

I was fairly certain that was the case, but like you said, no harm in asking =)

Ideally, that would be the way it is, but I'm still not sure that the joy of discovering a workaround the DM would expect would outweigh the rage other groups experience when the same workaround was shot down with another DM. I ran into a bit of the latter this year when a new person who had never played TD before ran through with our group a few times. She had gotten the hammer/anvil puzzle to work right on one of her group runs and grew incensed after doing the exact same thing in a latter run, was told it didn't work and took multiple damage. In this case, it was probably the result of some DMs being more strict than others in their reading of what was _right_. I heard some DMs would deal damage if there was too much time in between some hammers or if the rhythm got disrupted too badly.

i think the best analogy here is that the dungeon is like what McDonalds was trying to accomplish when they first started up. The key is consistency...meaning that despite when you run, where you run, or with who, the same actions always yield the same result. This may kill some of the creativity to be found out there but you can always try to add some of it back once you manage a consistent framework.

It goes to DM training, which, with the complexities that make some of the rooms so lovable, training level just can't match it given the confines of time available for training.

Also, no insult to the player who wanted to use the two elven ropes but do you have any idea how difficult it would be to actually gross a gorge with two ropes??? We have no actual way to make dexterity based checks in TD, and half of you would have fallen off in real life. Sounds to me like the DM made the right call as this really isn't a solution that would work. It was an interesting solution but it just wouldn't have worked.

The freer-form MacGyver solutions seemed more acceptable in the earlier days of dungeoneering, though I get the need for consistency.

I suspect the real issue comes from the expectations generated from the tokens. What is the point of carrying rope if it can't be used to traverse the chasm (the word block puzzle just begged for a three rope simple suspension bridge)?

(My thought was to use Hammer and Spikes to tie affix ropes on each pedestal for hand-holds, and then one tied to the ground to walk across)

This becomes even more of an issue with the cost associated at UR levels. For example, I'll be honest; I acquired Lens of Clear Sight specifically hoping to break puzzles. And I hope it will occasionally work!

So getting back to the SRoEC for a minute, and based on the conversation about creative room solutions, I would like to submit a hypothetical situation.

Let's say, in some future year, one of the rooms involves contact with an elemental (for the purposes of this, we'll assume its either a fire/water/earth/air). Let's say that if this were a puzzle run, you would solve a puzzle for the elemental, or you would fight the elemental in the combat run.

If you had the SRoEC, or the specific Ring of Elemental Command (i.e. Fire for Fire Elemental, Earth for Earth etc.), could you use it to command the elemental to tell you the solution to the puzzle/to return to its native plane (i.e. defeat it without fighting it). It seems like the ring could function this way based on the name. Granted this might make the token way too powerful, but at the same time, fit with how the ring would work in normal D&D.

(I've only played this year, and last year, so I don't know if an Elemental has appeared at any other time, and had a situation like this come up, so this might be a moot question)

archmage78 wrote: Also, no insult to the player who wanted to use the two elven ropes but do you have any idea how difficult it would be to actually gross a gorge with two ropes??? We have no actual way to make dexterity based checks in TD, and half of you would have fallen off in real life. Sounds to me like the DM made the right call as this really isn't a solution that would work. It was an interesting solution but it just wouldn't have worked.

Honestly it doesn't really matter the DM made the call so its done but for the record. Throw a rope to your friends on the other side, have them tie one end off, tie the other end to yourself swing over then have them pull you up, repeat. No dex check required just a good knot. Or use the ropes you have to fix the bridge. This issue was more around the fact that we used a rope to move tiles from one side of the chasm to the other and were told we could not do the same with people because the rope would break despite the elven rope token clearly saying it could support 1000 pounds. Either way though the room was fun so lets just let it go.

agreed, the room was fun regardless =)

Christopher Nieporte wrote: If you had the SRoEC, or the specific Ring of Elemental Command (i.e. Fire for Fire Elemental, Earth for Earth etc.), could you use it to command the elemental to tell you the solution to the puzzle/to return to its native plane (i.e. defeat it without fighting it). It seems like the ring could function this way based on the name.

That question can only be answered by Jeff because he's the one who writes the modules.

However, it's my personal (read: totally UNofficial) opinion/prediction that in spite of the reasonable conclusion one might draw from their names, the various rings of elemental command will not allow you to control an elemental.