Quote from: AsenRG;1008812Seconded:).


If the designer has a goal in how the adventure should end, I call the whole adventure "lacking".

Well, the designer came on this thread and admitted that the trap is meant to be sprung, so...

QuotePundit, are your players sorry if they leave a single living monster in the dungeon?

Are your players paranoid fucks that are terrified of every corner of the dungeon because they keep getting tricked? Or are they just meta-gamers?

 
 

QuoteWhere are the undead? Can the players find the crypt? (If so, they really should check the area better).
Also, see above.

You haven't read the adventure, so...

QuoteNo.
Any time you start violence against a creature with non-hostile intentions, however, it might have disastrous results. Experience should have taught any players as much. If not, I wonder what their Referee was running!

I get how, because of how some people have somewhat-dishonestly phrased things, you might understand the situation wrong. The plant is not just in some random place where the PCs have no need to attack it.  It is blocking the way to a significant part of the dungeon. Unless you have a magical way to get past it, you have to either turn back or cut your way through.  
So, are your players the sort who would just say "well, we haven't found the main tombs yet, and there's this plant in the way, I guess we'll just give up here and go home"?

Because in my experience, that's not what players usually do.  And for that matter, it's clearly (by his own admission) not what Raggi assumes most players would do either.

QuoteThere's no "should" in my dungeons.

Well, there's "should" in DFD. Take Raggi's word for it if you don't take mine.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009090Well, the designer came on this thread and admitted that the trap is meant to be sprung, so...

Every trap is meant to be sprung, comrade. And the job of every dagger-armed kobold fucking a dead pony when you find it in the dungeon, is to kill you all.
The job of players is to avoid those negative consequences:).

QuoteAre your players paranoid fucks that are terrified of every corner of the dungeon because they keep getting tricked? Or are they just meta-gamers?

Neither, they're good enough to act with premeditation, so they don't get tricked...often;).
 

QuoteYou haven't read the adventure, so...

So I'm discussing just the description of a single monster/trap, not the whole adventure. It was described by more than one person, including you, IIRC.

QuoteI get how, because of how some people have somewhat-dishonestly phrased things, you might understand the situation wrong. The plant is not just in some random place where the PCs have no need to attack it.  It is blocking the way to a significant part of the dungeon. Unless you have a magical way to get past it, you have to either turn back or cut your way through.

Can you dig through the wall next to it? Push it gently aside?
Is it obvious it's singing, and might be sentient/sapient, and thus worth talking to?
(It's a magical monster).

QuoteSo, are your players the sort who would just say "well, we haven't found the main tombs yet, and there's this plant in the way, I guess we'll just give up here and go home"?

No, they're the sort that makes sure to think out of the box - my questions above are what I'd expect of them if they didn't have the spells. And they might well go back to load up on scrolls/hirelings. Especially if their characters think IC that the plant has been there for many years, and there's a reason why other adventurers haven't made short work of it.

QuoteBecause in my experience, that's not what players usually do.

In my experience, good players think as per the above.

QuoteAnd for that matter, it's clearly (by his own admission) not what Raggi assumes most players would do either.

Pundit, seriously, how many times do I have to repeat that I go by "death of the author" school of thought:D? If the author has just described the situation and didn't instruct the GM to make sure the trap gets triggered (as I have seen in other games), I'm good with it.

QuoteWell, there's "should" in DFD. Take Raggi's word for it if you don't take mine.

See above, especially the first paragraph of my post about "meant to be triggered".

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009087if you don't have dungeons that are always meant to screw around with you

I was about to go out the door when I saw the notification here, so more probably tomorrow, but for now, I'll respond to this bit.

Why would you ever have a dungeon (or other environment) that doesn't screw with the PCs? That's what the entire game is.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1009110I was about to go out the door when I saw the notification here, so more probably tomorrow, but for now, I'll respond to this bit.

Why would you ever have a dungeon (or other environment) that doesn't screw with the PCs? That's what the entire game is.

Are there any kinds of dungeon-screwery that cross the line, in your opinion?

No matter how the designer of a game or module expects the game or module will run, once it gets to a table of players it will become it's own thing. (I've already addressed this.)

There's no need to go to "Ye Olde Scroll Shop" using the Lamentation of the Flame Princess rules, as the Player Characters can research spells, create scrolls, and create potions on their own. (I've already addressed this.)

Players might have their characters trigger dangers within dungeons or they might get around them. Having the potential of catastrophic supernatural disaster always a possibility means sometimes these things will happen. And my players have had such things happen. And other times they get around such disasters. The risk of and effort to avoid such dangers is part of the thrill my players are having in the game. (I've already addressed this.)

The fear the characters bring into the dungeons and the caution the characters bring to bear in their choices and actions should make perfect sense in that they are traversing dangerous environments in search of treasure in uncanny places no one else would enter. (I've already addressed this.)

We're at that point where you are simply ignoring points I've already made, making unfounded attacks on my character, imagining you know how my players are behaving (spoilers: you don't), and denying the reality of my actual play experience I've had at the table.

Part of this is clearly based on your narrow expectations of play. You assume there is one right way to play, with those expectations being met or not met in a very narrow band of play experiences. I, on the other hand, am fully aware that there are dozens upon dozens of ways of creating tone and playstyle for RPGs and dungeon delving.

To wit: The sense of danger, threat, risk, and potential fallout I'm looking for in my game is inspired by Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser tales, and Clark Ashton Smith's sword-and-sorcery weird fantasy.

In those stories, when a character chooses to enter a strange place and encounter the unknown the risk of really terrible things happening is quite oppressive, with all sorts horrific, overwhelming, and mind-blowing dangers rising up from the dead/the deep/other dimensions when crypts are opened, levers pulled, treasures touched. When Conan or other characters in the tales traverse such places the characters experience a palpable sense of dread. I wish to conjure such dread for the experience of my players. They seem to eat it up, so it's all going well.

Here's the thing: The difference between you and I is that I know different people and different groups want different things, and I can appreciate that you want a certain kind of experience at your table and am content that you are getting it. Meanwhile, you are driven by some quality (that I do not understand) that if someone is playing differently than you would want to play they are wrong and you must constantly complain about it online.

At this point your complaints are going in circles. You're accusing me of being dishonest (I'm not.) And the conversation has nowhere to go except for you to keep repeating claims of dishonesty on my part. Whereas I could keep talk about the techniques and tools that are allowing my players to have a great time in the campaign I'm running.

I hope you keep having a good time with your gaming. It's a hobby. People do it for fun. If you're having fun with how you run your game then as far as I'm concerned it's all good.

Quote from: AsenRG;1009106Every trap is meant to be sprung, comrade.

Not every trap is absolutely vital to the entire rest of the adventure.

QuoteSo I'm discussing just the description of a single monster/trap, not the whole adventure. It was described by more than one person, including you, IIRC.

Well, you haven't gotten the significance of how the trap/monster is the lynchpin of the entire dungeon.  Case in point, you're asking a bunch of questions that you wouldn't be bothering to ask if you'd read the adventure. Seriously, this is like if you were trying to defend the quality of a movie you never watched, dude. It's just lame.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1009110I was about to go out the door when I saw the notification here, so more probably tomorrow, but for now, I'll respond to this bit.

Why would you ever have a dungeon (or other environment) that doesn't screw with the PCs? That's what the entire game is.

No, it really isn't. The game is about exploring the dungeon and facing its challenges. It's not about the oh-so-clever designer pulling cheap tricks meant to fuck with the PCs.
I mean, unless that designer is 14, and sort of a dick.


Now don't get me wrong, again, as an individual product, DFD was fairly creative.  In much the same way that an early gore-horror movie could be considered sort of creative. But the genre it spawned was largely repetitive derivative junk depending on producing ever-increasing grotesquerie just to keep the attention of an increasingly adolescent audience looking for cheap thrills.
And the suggestion that gore-horror would be the best, much less the only way, to make a horror movie is just as ludicrous as suggesting that the negadungeon is the best, much less the only way, to make a D&D adventure.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1009125There's no need to go to "Ye Olde Scroll Shop" using the Lamentation of the Flame Princess rules, as the Player Characters can research spells, create scrolls, and create potions on their own. (I've already addressed this.)

In your game worlds, does time not go by? Are the PCs the only ones who do stuff?

Because in my game, no player in their right mind would consider doing that. First of all, it's a mountain presumably in the  middle of nowhere. Researching a spell and making a scroll of it would require days or weeks of travel to somewhere in civilization where the materials and knowledge necessary for spell-research was available (which in my game worlds would typically not be the first shit-hole village along the way, it would need to at least be a major city). Second, they'd have to spend days or weeks researching the spell and making the scroll, and then days or weeks getting back to DFD. In the intervening time, I'd be considering/checking if the dungeon was found by some other hapless group, leading to either someone else getting all the glory and treasure, or the dawn of a zombie apocalypse. All this, mind you, on a HUNCH that MAYBE a plant has something interesting to say, when there's ABSOLUTELY NO HINT that just cutting through the plant will trigger the awakening of thousands of undead.

It's just staggeringly stupid to think that any group that wasn't engaging in blatant meta-gaming... shit, that any group that hadn't had someone secretly cheat by reading about the adventure ahead of time... would do something like this.

QuotePart of this is clearly based on your narrow expectations of play. You assume there is one right way to play, with those expectations being met or not met in a very narrow band of play experiences. I, on the other hand, am fully aware that there are dozens upon dozens of ways of creating tone and playstyle for RPGs and dungeon delving.

You're shitting me, right? You're the assholes who are all about "grognard uber alles", "fantasy fucking vietnam", "ur-D&D" and "if you're not playing negadungeons you're not REAL old-school". You're so determined to defend this notion, and to belittle anyone who thinks negadungeons are shit, that you made up the absurd "there's a plant here so let's spend weeks researching a spell" scenario as the one true right answer to how to play through DFD and how that somehow proves it's actually 'fair', and players who didn't act that way would be shitty D&D players who don't know what they're doing.

Like seriously, if you owned it that's one thing, but having the gall to then pretend that YOU are the champion of diversity-of-playstyles? Go fuck yourself with a spoon.
 

QuoteTo wit: The sense of danger, threat, risk, and potential fallout I'm looking for in my game is inspired by Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser tales, and Clark Ashton Smith's sword-and-sorcery weird fantasy.

In those stories, when a character chooses to enter a strange place and encounter the unknown the risk of really terrible things happening is quite oppressive, with all sorts horrific, overwhelming, and mind-blowing dangers rising up from the dead/the deep/other dimensions when crypts are opened, levers pulled, treasures touched. When Conan or other characters in the tales traverse such places the characters experience a palpable sense of dread. I wish to conjure such dread for the experience of my players. They seem to eat it up, so it's all going well.

In those stories, the characters are literature. They don't actually exist. They have script immunity. They're not real people, and Conan won't die.
If you're basing your whole deal on that, you're one step away from being a storygamer.

QuoteI hope you keep having a good time with your gaming. It's a hobby. People do it for fun. If you're having fun with how you run your game then as far as I'm concerned it's all good.

Ah.. "its all fun, you're taking it too seriously and thinking too much about it"... the refuge of the rpg-forum scoundrel who's losing an argument he was taking seriously until it went south for him.

I think that "negadungeon" is a viable way to play especially if you are going for a horror/nihilistic feel, which ,maybe I am wrong, but Raggi does seem to enjoy. Obviously it can't be everyones cup of tea, but as long as the group has agreed to this kind of playstyle its great.
On wether its typical dnd, to me a nega dungeon is simply a dungeon that has too low risk-reward ratio. So it CAN be very rewarding to pull through even for typical dnd groups. On the other hand other groups might decide to nope out of the situation, since they have no incentive to interact with the environment (due to the risk reward ration being too low).
Personally I prefer for modules to have rewards in accordance to their risks, but at the same time I wouldn't like it if this always was dogmaticaly the case.
Another matter is the hints traps and obstacles should give to bypass them. I run sailors in the starless sea and the portal under the stars and my players complained about the lack hints in those adventures too. The thing is player actions are very unpredictable and some times they will get wind of the most absurd of hints while others missing the obvious ones. I try to do this in my own adventures with varying results.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009403In your game worlds, does time not go by?

Yes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009403Are the PCs the only ones who do stuff?

No.

The consequences of how to use resources like time or equipment or spells are part of the pleasure of the game. The consequences of deciding to go to one thing or another, to leave things unexplored or unattended for a period of time for one reason or another (safety, research, supplies) is what allows the Players to have the choices their PCs be choices.

Through my LotFP campaign the PCs have made one choice or another and this has had ramifications through the rest of the campaign. Happens all the time.

But to reiterate: I do not believe that the only thing the PCs could do solve the problem of the vine-creature with this one solution of going off to make a scroll. The only reason I brought this up is that you said the the PCs would probably not have Speak to Plants (good point!) and that the rules of LotFP allow the PCs to go off and make the very spell and return with it if they wished. That there are consequent to the decision is fine by me. This means the PCs can make a choice and say, "It's going to take too long. We'll find another way." And if that way triggers the hundreds of dead to come to life, so be it.

But let's talk about this for a moment:

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009403You're the assholes who are all about "grognard uber alles", "fantasy fucking vietnam", "ur-D&D" and "if you're not playing negadungeons you're not REAL old-school". You're so determined to defend this notion, and to belittle anyone who thinks negadungeons are shit, that you made up the absurd "there's a plant here so let's spend weeks researching a spell" scenario as the one true right answer to how to play through DFD and how that somehow proves it's actually 'fair', and players who didn't act that way would be shitty D&D players who don't know what they're doing.

Like seriously, if you owned it that's one thing, but having the gall to then pretend that YOU are the champion of diversity-of-playstyles? Go fuck yourself with a spoon.

I have no idea what group of people you're lumping me in with. As usual Pundit, as you've been doing for nearly two decades, you're creating legions of enemies marching under one banner that exist only in your imagination.

I've made no claims about how one is supposed to play D&D -- "ur" or otherwise. What I did was to read up on what many people thought about OSR play, made some decisions about how I wanted to run the campaign I am running right now, and have ended up having a blast with it.

I've made no claims about how other people are supposed to play, should play, or are playing wrong. At all. Ever. If you can take the time to provide any sort of quote rather than putting words in my mouth that would be great.

My point is, and always is, that there are countless ways to play these games and that people should be playing as they wish. As far as I can tell you are the one who is constantly declaring there's some "normal" way to play, which is how you play, and any variance from it is some sort of tragedy.

There really weird part is this:

   

QuotePUNDIT: My RPG play is PCs...
-Fighting aggressive monsters
-Recognizing patterns of monster lore/behavior
-searching for traps and disabling them
-wanting to obtain treasure, and obtaining it

QuoteME: Mine too. That's what the PCs in my campaign have been doing for dozens of sessions.

QuotePUNDIT: You're lying!

QuoteME: Um...

You didn't ask for specifics from me about how we played. You simply jumped to me being dishonest.

This is now the fourth post where you've either tried to read my mind or simply made up words I've never said. It's not as if I don't expect this sort of behavior from you. Having a conversation with you is quicksand. You keep making the person you're talking to go down weird digressions to clean up nonsense you keep spouting that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.(I am now expected to somehow prove that that the things you've said I've said I've never said? I think not.)

I'll pass on engaging with your bullshit, I think.

Again, all I can say to anyone else reading this thread:

I've been running a LotFP campaign using the rules and many of the modules. I'm having a blast. The players are having a blast.

Just a question for clarification:

Kubasik, have you read, played or ran either version of Death Frost Doom?  Just asking because you (and Asen) seem to be arguing more the general, and Pundit the specific, which is one of the various reasons this isn't going well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009398Not every trap is absolutely vital to the entire rest of the adventure.

No, not every trap is. But a dungeon based on a trap being sprung isn't really any weirder than a dungeon depending on a painting being stolen and put in a specific place:p. And the latter is a well-known OSR adventure;).

QuoteWell, you haven't gotten the significance of how the trap/monster is the lynchpin of the entire dungeon.  Case in point, you're asking a bunch of questions that you wouldn't be bothering to ask if you'd read the adventure. Seriously, this is like if you were trying to defend the quality of a movie you never watched, dude. It's just lame.

Seriously, dude, are you  telling me there's a way to bypass the monster/trap in the text of the adventure, but that everything else depends on it being murderhoboed/triggered:D? What happens differently if you use Speak With Plants?

Don't bother explaining. Like many, many other adventures, DFD is part of my library at Drivethru due to a Bundle of Holding, I just hadn't bothered reading it:).
I'll just check what the hell releases those zombies and how things change if they're not released, and get back to you;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009456Just a question for clarification:

Kubasik, have you read, played or ran either version of Death Frost Doom?  Just asking because you (and Asen) seem to be arguing more the general, and Pundit the specific, which is one of the various reasons this isn't going well.

This is a long thread, with a lot of posts, so I'm not assuming everyone is keeping track of every post. But the answer to your question is "Yes."

As I've stated upthread a few time, I have read both editions of DFD, and I have run the 2nd edition for my campaign. I've linked the play reports above as well. Here they are again.

The player characters reached the "midpoint" of the DFD module, circumvented the creature in the spot where the vine-thing was in the 1st edition (after almost waking all the dead), retrieved the item they came for, and decided that whatever was waiting for them beyond the creature was more than they wanted to deal with. They buggered out.

For some people this might seem as if the back-half of the module was "wasted" or the PCs did not finish "the adventure." I can completely empathize with this point of view. However, it is not mine. For me "The Adventure" is what happens -- not what could happen or anything that I planned would happen. They PCs made a choice... an awesome one, for it suggested they were, in fact, terrified. (Months of game time later they would return to the temple, realizing that sorcerers from Carcosa were looking for something the Duvan'Ku had stolen from them. They found a bloodbath of undead and the Duvan'Ku priests and priestesses who had battled it out with Carcosa sorcerers and warriors in Jack Kirby-like battle armor. They had missed the fight. But they had also failed to prevent the Carcosans from finding a method of bridging the void between Carcosa and Earth. And invasion of Earth by the Yellow King has begun.)

If the PCs can't choose to retreat or give up on a creature or pressing forward, then there is no choice to go into battle or to press forward. And I don't want that. In my game the PCs have full choice as to how to proceed... and the world keeps turning, and we see what happens next.

Others have noted upthread that there are more "handholds" for the Players/PCs in the second edition to avoid triggering the raising of the dead. Whenever anyone has suggested this I have always agreed.

Finally, I don't see it as a matter of the Pundit being more "specific" (though I can see how some might see it this way). I see him arguing in terms of absolutes: "There is one way to stop the vine-creature"... "It is only there to be triggered..." and on My view is not coming from a place of generalities but possibilities. My point is, and has been, that there is no way for us to know what might happen when PCs encounter a given situation. All of us who have played RPGs know this (especially those who Referee), and yet for some reason in this case it is assumed that the only thing that can happen is for the PCs to trigger the dead. I have no idea why or how this one situation is being treated as its own special case. But in my experience with my players I'll stand by what I've already said: I have every reason to believe that the the dead might not be triggered -- even in the first edition of DFD.

But, like I said, this conversation has become more of an annoyance than anything productive for me at this point.

Reading...

Ok, so they picked up on some of the clues that Zak added that the Raggi version didn't have, managed to get past the parasite before any of the real nasty undead woke up, grabbed the MacGuffin they came for and got the hell out of Dodge without hanging around to find out the WHY of anything.

This is what I think Raggi meant to have happen.  

• The PCs came here for a reason.
  
• The reason is behind the Plant/Parasite.
• You may be able to get past it if lucky or very clever.

The end result will be...
1. You fulfill the reason and get the hell out, ignoring a whole lot of the place.
2. You fulfill the reason, explore the rest of the place and either die or take part in a Zombipocalypse, possibly as adjutants in an Army of the Undead lead by Undead Evil Alexander (in the Zak version).

I think Raggi's design is fair game, and I think the charge of metagaming can be laid on both sides, for if you get what you came for, why explore a place of unrelenting vile, necromantic horror except "because the game is about exploration"?

However, I can also see the charge of Negadungeon as valid, because I think that's exactly how he designed it.  You bring with you the standard dungeoneering assumptions to this place, it will hand your PCs and possibly your campaign and world its ass in a hat.

I don't play D&D with D&D genre assumptions, so I don't necessarily call "foul" on DFD.  It does seem a little bit though, like if Tomb of Horrors had the fight with Acererak first, then as you explored the rest of the place, you found all the death traps, but they weren't guarding anything, and they were Acererak's joke against those who had finally ended him.

For me, it's a different charge in that the thing is so damn weird, it alters your campaign by its very inclusion.  For one thing, you now have to deal with the concept of the Duvan'Ku and "liquid time".  The concept of the Undead Alexander leading an army though is so awesome I may have to tweak this for my Conan Mythras campaign.

As an adventure, it's cool.  As a genre of adventure, a bit much.  It's kind of like the new DCC adventures.  Nearly every one of them is so off the chain gonzo, there's no setting that could conceivably hold them all and not turn into the "Heavy Metal Mescaline Trip" World.  You could put maybe one in with major modifications and that's it.

Those are solid points about the peculiar nature of reality the modules posit. I loved the modules so much that I leaned into the weirdness.

The liquid time; the alternate realities; strange death cults, alien worlds with Jack Kirby battle armor, men transformed into immortal gods.... all of it. I had to shift things around and put my own spin on it; tweaking elements to build a setting that I wanted to run. But I used the specifics of the modules for the tone and feel and logic of the campaign.

17th century Europe is the battlefield for alien worlds and dangerous cults -- and it seems to be working.