LordEntrails
Hero
So I suggest you (@ovinomancer) start by re-reading post #10. Here [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION] disagrees with my statements made earlier by stating to the effect;
'Moronic hill giants are an illogical decision for the author(s) to have put in the adventure.'
Yet myself and many others gave numerous examples of why such a design decision is logical (see post #68 as another example). I never said such was a good decision, and it is certainly a debatable decision. But that does not make it illogical.
Yet Robus & Ovinomancer continue to insist in future posts that such a decision is illogical (example posts #69 & 71).
Continuing to state that such design decisions are illogical belittles those that have shown logical reasons for said decisions. One can continue to believe such decisions are bad, but that is not the same as illogical. These "logical" assessments (which are never actually supported with a deduction of the logic used) appear to be based on personal preference for gaming styles, interpretation of how a fantasy world works, and the motivations for those characters (NPCs) that would have made such decisions in the fantasy world.
For example (as was pointed out by a poster), perhaps the bumbling guards were a conscious decision of the guard captain because he wanted the nobles executed. Maybe it was a political appeasement to honor the hill giants because of some diplomatic gesture. Who knows? Why such decisions may or may not have been made behind the scenes in the fantasy are impossible to tell. To ignore logical possibilities and continue to claim such a decision is illogical is dismissive of those that have offered reasonable explanations.
This, differing views of the fantasy, is what I was trying to point out in post #82.
Also of note, several times Robus (and maybe others) bring up other missing information in the adventure only to be quoted by others as to where to find the "missing information" (see post #41 & 77 as examples).
Then as a perfect example of what I've been trying to get across in that several people are too interested in proving their points or in arguing, that they don't actually read the module (and therefore probably the posts too.) See post #42 for Robus admitting as much (kudos to him).
And then when I point out that we should take some responsibility for our own purchase decisions, Robus' response is to say that I'm claiming people shouldn't question the value/quality of a product (post #89). When I read that I went "Huh? What is he talking about?" Because quite simple, the response seemed completely unrelated to what I said. It seemed to be a response simple for the sake of arguing, not for understanding or questioning. Again, another post that tried to belittle any opinion that did not support the original premise (that WotC adventures have numerous illogical or bad elements).
This behavior becomes even more apparent in post #92, where the response to me stating that "Questioning the quality of a product is an acceptable position" is belittled by saying that criticism is healthy and that I think the adventures are perfectly fine.
Which is simply refusing to acknowledge that I said questioning/criticizing is a good thing (acceptable), then claiming the idea as his own, and making a statement claiming I said something that I never said. This is why in post #108 I stated that I was convinced that several people, specifically Robus, was simple blind to what I was saying and was refusing to read, consider, or think about what I have said.
Then, Robus, and eventually Ovinomancer continue to post their summaries of my views that are in direct contradiction to what I said a few posts before (and often in the posts they quote).
And you wonder why I thought I should stop trying to bother explaining?
Now, answer this question honestly, when did you start composing (in your mind or otherwise) your response to this post? Did you start before you read this sentence? If so, I just made my point, that several people are more interested in arguing or proving their view is correct, then actually reading what I write, considering it, and then thinking about responding to it.
'Moronic hill giants are an illogical decision for the author(s) to have put in the adventure.'
Yet myself and many others gave numerous examples of why such a design decision is logical (see post #68 as another example). I never said such was a good decision, and it is certainly a debatable decision. But that does not make it illogical.
Yet Robus & Ovinomancer continue to insist in future posts that such a decision is illogical (example posts #69 & 71).
Continuing to state that such design decisions are illogical belittles those that have shown logical reasons for said decisions. One can continue to believe such decisions are bad, but that is not the same as illogical. These "logical" assessments (which are never actually supported with a deduction of the logic used) appear to be based on personal preference for gaming styles, interpretation of how a fantasy world works, and the motivations for those characters (NPCs) that would have made such decisions in the fantasy world.
For example (as was pointed out by a poster), perhaps the bumbling guards were a conscious decision of the guard captain because he wanted the nobles executed. Maybe it was a political appeasement to honor the hill giants because of some diplomatic gesture. Who knows? Why such decisions may or may not have been made behind the scenes in the fantasy are impossible to tell. To ignore logical possibilities and continue to claim such a decision is illogical is dismissive of those that have offered reasonable explanations.
This, differing views of the fantasy, is what I was trying to point out in post #82.
Also of note, several times Robus (and maybe others) bring up other missing information in the adventure only to be quoted by others as to where to find the "missing information" (see post #41 & 77 as examples).
Then as a perfect example of what I've been trying to get across in that several people are too interested in proving their points or in arguing, that they don't actually read the module (and therefore probably the posts too.) See post #42 for Robus admitting as much (kudos to him).
And then when I point out that we should take some responsibility for our own purchase decisions, Robus' response is to say that I'm claiming people shouldn't question the value/quality of a product (post #89). When I read that I went "Huh? What is he talking about?" Because quite simple, the response seemed completely unrelated to what I said. It seemed to be a response simple for the sake of arguing, not for understanding or questioning. Again, another post that tried to belittle any opinion that did not support the original premise (that WotC adventures have numerous illogical or bad elements).
This behavior becomes even more apparent in post #92, where the response to me stating that "Questioning the quality of a product is an acceptable position" is belittled by saying that criticism is healthy and that I think the adventures are perfectly fine.
Which is simply refusing to acknowledge that I said questioning/criticizing is a good thing (acceptable), then claiming the idea as his own, and making a statement claiming I said something that I never said. This is why in post #108 I stated that I was convinced that several people, specifically Robus, was simple blind to what I was saying and was refusing to read, consider, or think about what I have said.
Then, Robus, and eventually Ovinomancer continue to post their summaries of my views that are in direct contradiction to what I said a few posts before (and often in the posts they quote).
And you wonder why I thought I should stop trying to bother explaining?
Now, answer this question honestly, when did you start composing (in your mind or otherwise) your response to this post? Did you start before you read this sentence? If so, I just made my point, that several people are more interested in arguing or proving their view is correct, then actually reading what I write, considering it, and then thinking about responding to it.
