D&D 5E Why does WotC put obviously bad or illogical elements in their adventures?

[Lost Soul]

Obviously you will believe what you want and try to justify your behavior with long drawn out justifications that have nothing to do with my complaint about your behavior. I think you called people dishonest with no basis in fact. To say such behavior is lacking class is being polite.

Wow, resorting to personal eh Lord? Are you the actual writer for the module? Talk about no class. Your responses really fall into that line. Any writer can be brought to task for using worn out tropes and weak writing to fill pages in a module. Here are other examples of worn out tropes that I find annoying in D&D that I would also call into question if I felt they were used poorly in D&D.

1)Helpless princess locked away in a tower or dungeon.
2)Greedy and/or drunken dwarves
3)One dimensional/mustache twirling villains
4) Suppossedly in-experienced npc having major combat or D&D class related abilities
5) Every NPC you meet in the module has character levels (whether they are shopkeepers, guards, king, baroness, fisherman or farmer)
6) Stupid guards guarding an important villain or relic
7) Non-combat encounters that are narrowly tailored to a skill set or group action that seems implausible
8) Am sure there are others that I can't think of right now but it is early in the morning.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Obviously you will believe what you want and try to justify your behavior with long drawn out justifications that have nothing to do with my complaint about your behavior. I think you called people dishonest with no basis in fact. To say such behavior is lacking class is being polite.

Uh...

Welcome to the discussion [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]

Hope you enjoy it, don't expect logical reposes to your posts, though you will find many highly emotional ones. You may find that many people use words in this discussion that don't actually mean what they actually mean. So don't get caught up in worrying too much about what is written, just try to figure out what people mean.

... physician, heal thyself.

 

[LordEntrails]

Wow, resorting to personal eh Lord? Are you the actual writer for the module? Talk about no class. Your responses really fall into that line. Any writer can be brought to task for using worn out tropes and weak writing to fill pages in a module. ...

Uh...

... physician, heal thyself.

Uh, ??? You guys have no clue what I'm annoyed about.

No I'm not the writer of the module. Nor do I know who wrote it. And given that I don't think I personally know anyone who has written an WotC module I am pretty sure I have no relationship to the author.

In this quote (emphasis mine);

Wow, so many people defending usage of inept guards for VIP in a D&D game but would be hard pressed to find parallel examples in real life. It makes me wonder if many of SKT's defenders are the writers or their family members LOL!

Lost Soul has basically stated that anyone who defends the SKT module is doing so for dishonest reasons. That is basically saying that anyone who disagrees with him is lacking in integrity.

I find challenging someone's integrity without merit to be offensive and inappropriate. Doing so to belittle or demean someone with differing viewpoint is, as I said should be considered at the politeness level to be behavior that is lacking in class.

It has NOTHING to do with the critique of the module. It has everything to do with a personal attack by Lost Souls on a group of people who disagree with him/her.

As for Ovinomancer's quote of my earlier post, I simple stated that people were using words to mean things they did not mean. I proved that way earlier in this thread with quotes and links to online dictionary definitions. Perhaps that post could have been written in a more political tone. But it was/is factual at it's roots (or at least I believe it to be factual).

 

[robus]

As for Ovinomancer's quote of my earlier post, I simple stated that people were using words to mean things they did not mean. I proved that way earlier in this thread with quotes and links to online dictionary definitions. Perhaps that post could have been written in a more political tone. But it was/is factual at it's roots (or at least I believe it to be factual).

I dunno - I found it pretty rude and basically claiming that some of us are too stupid to actually have an intelligent debate. So I stopped responding to you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Uh, ??? You guys have no clue what I'm annoyed about.

No I'm not the writer of the module. Nor do I know who wrote it. And given that I don't think I personally know anyone who has written an WotC module I am pretty sure I have no relationship to the author.

In this quote (emphasis mine);



Lost Soul has basically stated that anyone who defends the SKT module is doing so for dishonest reasons. That is basically saying that anyone who disagrees with him is lacking in integrity.

I find challenging someone's integrity without merit to be offensive and inappropriate. Doing so to belittle or demean someone with differing viewpoint is, as I said should be considered at the politeness level to be behavior that is lacking in class.

It has NOTHING to do with the critique of the module. It has everything to do with a personal attack by Lost Souls on a group of people who disagree with him/her.

As for Ovinomancer's quote of my earlier post, I simple stated that people were using words to mean things they did not mean. I proved that way earlier in this thread with quotes and links to online dictionary definitions. Perhaps that post could have been written in a more political tone. But it was/is factual at it's roots (or at least I believe it to be factual).

Wait, the convoluted thing? That's why you felt it okay to tell the new poster that there are people in the thread that are using emotion to argue and not using words right (that usage was fine, btw)? But you feel it okay to chastise another poster for making denigrating comments?

Again, heal thyself. Or, alternatively, stop throwing stones.

For the record, I agree Lost Soul is coming on pretty strong and using a dismissive tone, but I have to comment on the irony of you taking him to task for it.

 

[LordEntrails]

@robus,
Well, as I just said, I probably didn't phrase that post well and I apologize for that.

@Ovinomancer,
As mentioned, I apologize if you felt that post was denigrating to people.

Given that you are so ready to take me to task for rudeness, it is interesting to note that only now do you address Lost Soul's behavior. Maybe you don't think implying someone is a liar is a big deal and is only "coming on strong".

 

[Tony Vargas]

But you can't deny that the creators of the hottest fantasy property at the current moment

Appeal to authority is an informal logical fallacy.

Looked like an appeal to popularity, to me.
I suppose it could be both.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@robus,
Well, as I just said, I probably didn't phrase that post well and I apologize for that.

@Ovinomancer,
As mentioned, I apologize if you felt that post was denigrating to people.

Given that you are so ready to take me to task for rudeness, it is interesting to note that only now do you address Lost Soul's behavior. Maybe you don't think implying someone is a liar is a big deal and is only "coming on strong".

I generally don't bother; it has little impact. If it bothers you, report it. I have a weakness for irony, though. So far, LS has been somewhat uncivil, but not ironically so.

 

[Hriston]

So I was prepping for tonight's SKT session which occurs in the Maelstrom. Great setting - looking forward to presenting it to my players and hoping they get the right feel.

However, I then read that the two guards of the throne room are stupid Hill Giants??!! And you can easily fool them into letting you pass?? WTF? The giant world is in turmoil and the Storm Giants are relying on a couple of idiots to guard their leader?

I haven't read (or played) the adventure, but wasn't it supposed to be based in part on the story of King Leir? Part of that story is that, through the machinations of two of his daughters, Leir's bodyguard is diminished until he's left with only a single knight to protect him. In Shakespeare's version, Lear has only two companions at this point in the story, the Earl of Kent (the knight) and a Fool. Perhaps the adventure writers intended the appearance of the foolish Hill Giants as a sort of homage to the source material. When that source material is a fairy tale, I think it's reasonable to expect the tone of an adventure to be somewhat nonsensical, and when that doesn't suit your group's play-style, to expect to make adjustments accordingly.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I haven't read (or played) the adventure, but wasn't it supposed to be based in part on the story of King Leir? Part of that story is that, through the machinations of two of his daughters, Leir's bodyguard is diminished until he's left with only a single knight to protect him. In Shakespeare's version, Lear has only two companions at this point in the story, the Earl of Kent (the knight) and a Fool. Perhaps the adventure writers intended the appearance of the foolish Hill Giants as a sort of homage to the source material. When that source material is a fairy tale, I think it's reasonable to expect the tone of an adventure to be somewhat nonsensical, and when that doesn't suit your group's play-style, to expect to make adjustments accordingly.

I'd have to say there's just about nothing in SKT that resembles King Lear.