Lost Throne of Talukeld the Broken

View Comments

• Isn’t complaining how a spell won’t work against a door like complaining about how it takes a +2 magic weapon to hit a monster? Or how monsters can resist certain spells? It’s not bad design, it is just a challenge that must be overcome.

  • The difference is that generally, a monster that requires a +2 weapon to hit doesn't involve tradeoffs. It's not like the fighter wakes up and has to decide "Do I use my +2 sword today, or do I use my longbow?" If they have both, they use both. The fight itself is perhaps interesting ("shit, I can't stay at range - my longbow won't damage it") but you certainly haven't had to gamble with any resources.

    OTOH, as Bryce points out - a wizard who prepares Knock from their spellbook has given up another spell to make room for it, that day. They've taken a bit of risk ("less offensive spells in order to be better at exploration, today"), and while the DM's not in any way obliged to make sure they have to win their gamble (not every dungeon will have a door you need to use Knock on!), if there's never been any hint this dungeon is special in some way ("the mage who built this dungeon was an abjurer and many of his residences were warded against other magic, beware using spells within!") it feels like they made a gamble ("we might run into locked doors the thief can't open - maybe magically locked!"), and the gamble paid off ("hah, a magically locked door, I knew it!"), but then it doesn't work and essentially it turns out you could *never* win that gamble.

    Actually, a serious problem is that it teaches the players "only ever prepare your biggest, blastiest combat spells". Like, it's not *that* common that an occasion comes up to use Knock - not compared to how often you run into "damage this enemy" as the problem. If you don't get many opportunities to use Knock in the first place, and then some of those occasions it just randomly fails, the sensible behaviour is "don't bother with it". Go with fireball/lightning bolt/magic missile - you'll actually get to use them most of the time (and if occasionally an enemy is immune to fire - well, apparently Knock fails randomly too, and a torrent of magical fire solves way more problems than Knock does.)

    • Well said ficedula, and you and Bryce make valid points to consider, but I don’t agree with the solution. So I guess the DM should add an extra door so that the wizard can use their Knock spell to make the wizard player feel good before going to the door that requires a puzzle to open? To me, that is unnecessary and over-designed. So a Knock spell doesn’t work? Use a Wish spell. Characters are too low level, then too bad. Solve the puzzle. (And there should be more enjoyment by players in solving the puzzle than simply bypassing it).

      I think the real problem here is adventures that are too short and linear. There are tradeoffs for having a single session 2to 4 hour game vs. a multi-session campaign-style game. If the party snuck past the guards invisibly, used Knock on the puzzle door, and turned the boss monster to stone in the first round of battle, the party would be overjoyed at their success in a long campaign, but at a single session convention game you’d ask what was the point.

      • No, that double door solution just railroads them into- walk through my story the way I say & no other.

        Sometimes, you have to let the players choice matter- hey we chose Knock & had a win! Great we get to skip that stupid puzzle. PLAYERS then get rewarded for a meaningful choice and the game is fun. Getting the feeling that no matter how smart you play or even when you win, the DM just gimps you anyway is not fun.

        The DM needs to be open to letting the players ruin his best laid plans, skip sections he thinks are cool, provide solutions he never reckoned for and search everywhere except where the treasure is. It's not about your precious riddle, it's about their choices and the story that unfolds, not that you herd them into.

        • If the party are really invested in /enjoying the puzzle then they wouldn't use knock in the first place. They made a choice to solve another way.

        • Reason....aptly named.

        • The adventure is already a railroad. A straight hall connecting rooms. If you don’t want to go down that road, memorize a passwall or dig spell. Or have your dwarf start digging around it with a pick (Did he pack a pick? Oh the choices that must be made!). Be creative as a player. There is no loss of agency.

          By the way, how about the players being open to the Adventure ruining their best laid plans? That’s called a challenge, which also happens in real life. Players need to take adversity in stride. The fun of the game comes in part when stuff you thought would work suddenly doesn’t and you need to think of non-standard ways to overcome it.

      • a) they are unlikely to have rock to mud or passwall at level 2-4.
        b) yes challenge is good, the locked door was a challenge, as carefully explained gimping Knock just leads to blast only spell choices
        c) yes, spending a day digging around the door may be a valid solution. As was Knock in a level 3 adventure.

        But if you like doors behind doors & gimping spells in your game, more power to ya.

        • I think Knock is a perfectly fine spell, but it’s too low level to enter into an arcane treasure vault, and I think most players would agree. Use the Knock to open the locked door the rogue botched the DC check on. (Just like I wouldn’t expect a magic missile to slay a dragon). But honestly, although we play the same RPG, sometimes there are different sets of expectations from players in different games. We just don’t play the game quite the same way, which is okay.

• Piece. Of. Shit.

  And yet...pretty cool cover. Wish I could find art so easily for my stuff.

  And...that is all. Sorry, your ennui is quite contagious. Let's see how the footballers are doing on TV.

• Entrance/Guardian. Puzzle. Trick/Setback. Boss Battle. Reward/Plot Twist.

  It's not even a variation of the 5 Room Dungeon format... I wonder if a computer could be taught to write these and just set to go -- a sort of an Oulipo style project so that one could say "Every Five Room Dungeon has been written, you can stop now." It already looks like a computer did that cover illustration, I bet an algorithm could have it do that as well.

• You can convince the undead to let you have the throne? Can you convince them to aid you against the giants? That would be a good Appendix N callback!

• Why bother with this dreck? Use your experience to pick what you expect to be rough diamonds or at least rough quartz and stay clear of the obvious trash.

  • To OSR, it's important to cover the 'drek' because it's a good example of what not to do, it also gives a greater appreciation of when authors do get it right.

    • Bryce has done that a hundred times - if the lesson isn't learned by now it never will be.

      • I'm glad Bryce doesn't have that opinion.

        I started reading a couple years ago—several years after Bryce had "done that a hundred times."

• Judging by the company name, either a fellow Dutchman, or even worse, a Belgian. Damn.