Question about OSR design philosophy

[pwtucker]

I've begun writing a new module that features some complicated locations, and find myself in a quandary: should I provide mechanics to aid the DM in helping the PCs navigate these locales, or simply describe the locale and let the DM ad hoc it up?

Case in point: there's a colossal behemoth that's walking along at 35 mph, with each of its legs being 4,000 ft tall. Given the weight of the behemoth, there's a shock zone (mechanics provided earlier in the module) within 300 ft of footfall that makes it dangerous to race directly to the foot should the PCs wish to climb the leg.

Thus this first draft:

Levitating Platform: a magically reinforced ironwood boardwalk is attached to this leg’s heel and undulates like a kite's tail some 400 ft behind it. A permanent Levitation spell buoys it a yard above the ground at all times, though it rises hundreds of feet into the air with each stride.

When the Marvel’s foot lands, the last 100 feet of walkway lies safely outside the shock zone - but remains there for only 2 rounds before the platform slithers forward into the dust clouds to rise once more.

Accurate positioning before footfall requires one Int Check for the whole party. Success: PCs start within 30 ft. Failure: start 4d4 x 10 ft away.

Climbing aboard in Round 1 is automatic. In Round 2, it requires a successful Dex Check as the walkway accelerates. If they fail, the PC must choose: drop prone and miss, or catch hold of the boardwalk and be dragged for 1 round for 1d6 damage before climbing on.

Flimsy scaffolding spirals up around the leg in a prodigious feat of engineering. Contained within is a battered and collapsing staircase that winds 300 times around before opening to a tunnel stoneshaped through the mountain on Tile #9. Imperial slogans exhorting greater effort are neatly painted every 100 ft, with cruder commentary at times added below.

Unroped climbers must make 3 checks as they climb:

• Lower scaffold (rickety, wood groans, planks snap): Dex Check
• Knee region (violent swaying, sections missing): Save vs Paralysis
• Upper spiral (scaffolding pulling away from leg): Dex Check

Failure = 1d4 damage as the climber falls down steps or their leg punches through a plank. If reduced to 0 hp, Save vs Death or fall into the void.

Is this the correct approach? Should I just detail the platform and scaffolding, and let the DM come up with whatever system they desire to navigate the PCs approach to climbing? Or is it appropriate to suggest these mechanics to ease the cognitive load and expedite the scene?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I'd still give the mechanics, but I think they need to be more simplified than that. Way too many specific-situation checks as it is right now, and it looks cumbersome to run as a DM. I am personally not a fan of mixing different checks and saving throw types into a single encounter, because it just tends to muddle things more than it excites the players.

A basic DC for any climb/acrobatic/etc checks (regardless of location) should suffice, with a couple modifiers thrown in for some common bonus/obstacles that may apply (is the leg moving, is the player flying, are they using climbing gear, etc.). Maybe identify the window of opportunity to climb on board ("the party has 2 rounds before the leg lifts again"). The penalty for failure is just falling, and D&D has already codified the consequences of falling (1d6 dmg per 10' fallen, minus the first 10'), so there's no need to write up extra consequences for failure. Add a general DEX save to catch yourself if falling, maybe (so you only fall 1d6x10' feet instead of the full drop). If the party is within the "shock zone", they ought to make a save each time the thing stomps down or suffer the consequences (Stunned for 1d4 turns? Injury?).

So to recap, here's how I'd present it:

(Description of the legs/scaffolding, including the window of opportunity to climb on)
(Shock zone description, with DC to avoid and consequences of failure)
(DC for climbing on/up legs, with some common modifiers that might add a flat bonus/penalty)
(Note about fall distance and DEX save to catch if falling)

 

[Beoric]

I agree with DP, that's a lot of situational mechanics for a DM to hold in his head, especially if there are also other things going on. DMing requires a significant cognitive load, and it's good to reduce that whereever possible.

I'm also curious why you went with paralyzation as the check for the knee. I don't know what level the party is, but in the early game that is something the cleric will be best at, with the fighter an MU being the worst at. I don't see how "violent swaying, sections missing" translates to that. I could see strength, if it is hard to hang on, and you want a break from dex checks.

There also aren't a ton of interesting decisions before each check, particularly during the climbing section. It's like, did they decide to rope themselves together? Nope, dex check for damage. Did they think of doing it when they get to the knee? Still nope, saving throw for damage. Do they think of it when the pass the knee? Still no, dex check for damage. If you want to do it, each section needs to be treated as a distinct encounter, with a description that allows the players to assess the situation and make a decision. Otherwise those might be decision points, but they aren't interesting or diverse decision points. And if they didn't think to rope the first time, they probably won't think of it the other two times, so they won't even be aware these are decision points.

Since you make no provision for flight, or even levitation, I'm assuming the PCs are too low level for that. In that case, I'm not seeing a lot of other options other than to jump on the platform and start climbing the scaffolding. That makes the whole climb a linear series of mini-encounters, with a very limited number of interesting decision points.

If you care about math, I also note that, if the thing is traveling at 35 mph, they realistically only have one shot at getting on board. Google tells me that an average galloping horse travels 25-30 mph, so no hope there, although you could slow the constfuct down, or make your horses faster. And with a 4,000 foot inseam, and assuming a more or less human gait, the foot they didn't chase is going to be nearly a mile away when it comes down.

Assuming they are on foot, I don't know what you are using for movement rates, but if the int check results in them falling outside of running range, then that's it, they won't be getting on board. I have three things to say about this: (a) if you don't have a plan for what to do then, you should figure one out; (b) there is a reasonable possibility that this could split the party, so you should think about having something for the slower PC to do; and (c) deciding to try to climb on board isn't a very interesting decision point, because I'm seeing no way for them to improve their odds of successfully climbing on board. And at least as far as you have described it here, I'm not seeing any other possible decisions other than just letting it walk by.

If you can manage all of that, DP's approach is fine, although I might treat the three stages of the leg as separate encounters with their own descriptions. And I would have a plan for if some or all of the PCs fail to board.

 

[Beoric]

Also, welcome to the forum.

 

[The1True]

if the int check results in them falling outside of running range, then that's it, they won't be getting on board.

I was thinking the same thing. This sounds like a seriously gated point of failure. If the majority of the adventure is going to be climbing this thing, I would encourage handwaving the boarding with a 2-3 sentence readaloud. Have the local wizard arm the party with potions of levitation or build a human catapult that will guarantee that first jump.

Either that, or set up a second attempt (like the construct has to go around a mountain or a major body of water. Though, at 4000', it sounds like only an oceanic trench would stop this thing, frankly. Anyhoo, yeah, the PC's find a shortcut that give them another shot, and this time, they're jumping off a cliff rather then attempting to board from the ground). There should be consequences for having to make a second or third attempt, like the enemy forces become more organized/stronger.

Also, consider as an alternative, making failure non-total. Like, the ability checks or saves don't determine success or failure, but good-success or bad-success. So the PC's board the leg no matter what, but if they bomb it, they take damage, or incur more fatigue from climbing, or alert the defenders etc...

 

[pwtucker]

Thank you for the welcome, and the great feedback.

I probably should have provided more context to help explain the situation better, such as this being meant for OSE, there being four legs total (each with their own challenge/way to ascend), and most players probably opting for flight options as provided in the hooks. This is also meant to be a very minor part of the adventure; one half-page column out of possible 150+ pages.

(Also, with four legs and it's dimensions/speed, I worked out that each foot remains stationary on the floor for 15 seconds before lifting again, hence the two rounds. Don't have the math on hand, though.)

I also left out the way station that's halfway up that's been colonized by six giant bats, and a few other details to make the climb more interesting/engaging/rewarding.

Still, you've all made a great point, which is what I was hoping to hear: from a design standpoint, a gauntlet of checks isn't very interesting, and the risk of splitting the party due to failure needs to be carefully considered.

I can adjust failing the Int check so that the distance is 3d4*10 instead, allowing all PCs to reach the walkway within 2 rounds. I can reduce the number of climbing checks to 1, with it being more of a set piece where the scaffolding is telegraphed as particularly weak. And I can emphasize the way station as a point of interest, with the bats fleeing outside if provoked to then make dice bombing attacks on the PCs as they climb, targeting them through the rickety planks with their powerful echolocation.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. I appreciate the calibration, and will rework this section further.

 

[Beoric]

I can adjust failing the Int check so that the distance is 3d4*10 instead, allowing all PCs to reach the walkway within 2 rounds.

Ok, one last point. If the int check has the same result whether they succeed or fail, arguably you can just dispense with it.

 

[pwtucker]

Ok, one last point. If the int check has the same result whether they succeed or fail, arguably you can just dispense with it.

Fair point. But on a practical level, failing the Int check removes the ability to board the walkway automatically the first round. They must run to close the distance, forcing them to make the Dex check, which if they fail causes 1d6 dragging damage, even if they still board.

All of which is meant to reflect the danger and trickiness of using this method to board.