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

[LordEntrails]

So does it matter if the authors of the module said they based it on King Lear/Leir? Maybe they got the story wrong, maybe they didn't stick close to Shakespeare's version, but if the authors claimed it was based on something, then doesn't that hold a little weight? (Again, even if they got it wrong or took questionable artistic license.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

So does it matter if the authors of the module said they based it on King Lear/Leir? Maybe they got the story wrong, maybe they didn't stick close to Shakespeare's version, but if the authors claimed it was based on something, then doesn't that hold a little weight? (Again, even if they got it wrong or took questionable artistic license.)

No, it doesn't hold weight. Looking at what actually made into the module holds weight. And nothing about Lear or Leir except a king with three daughters is in SKT. Lear is fundamentally about the folly of Lear and the greed of his eldest daughters. SKT is fundamentally about a divine social structure being upended, and a dragon taking advantage to prevent the storm giants from quelling the strife among giants. I broke it out above, and haven't seen anyone actually dispute the plotting comparison. So, if they based it on Lear, but all they took was that a king, not even the one that kicks events off, but a king has three daughters that are important for 2 of the last 3 chapters of a 12 chapter adventure, it's super hard to actually say that they based it on Lear. It has almost, but not quite, entirely nothing to do with Lear -- or Leir, and I'm pretty sure WotC didn't dust of some pseudohistory book to find that and rip out a king with three daughters.

Now, if you want to say that Hekaton and his daughters are based on Lear, loosely, that narrow detail has some weight. That the eldest daughters are scheming for power in the absence of their father works, but the youngest never sat the throne at any point while this scheming went on. And the scheming is pretty garden variety opportunism, with none of the depth of depravity and lack of scruple present in the play. So, family structure of Hekaton based loosely on Lear? Sure, but that's the end of it. No plot points hinge on anything from Lear, and the actual setup is very different from anything in Lear. In fact, the adventure states flat out that Hekaton saw his eldest as unfit to the throne and so cut them out -- a far cry from the foolish Lear that gave away his kingdom for flattery.

Claims of actually basing SKT on King Lear turn out to be less than expected. In fact, attempting to do so is like saying Harry Potter is based on Tarzan, because they're both orphans.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'd forgotten about that flattery contest, been a few too many years since I read King Lear I guess.


I know I'm jumping into this really late, but, I have to say that I agree with inconsistent parts of an adventure annoying me. The difference I think though is that the ease of fixing things makes it worse.


I like the idea that the hill giants are the diplomatic envoy who were given guard duty, that's clever and I think I could work with that. Heck, given the political nature of the adventure, that gives lots of opportunities for the players to muck things up.

So why didn't they add that detail? It wouldn't be hard, it'd take adding in four words at least, maybe an extra sentence or two at most. "Tug and Cog, the hill giant diplomats, are guarding the door."

Done. We know Hill giants are looked down upon by the other giants, it makes sense for this menial duty to be the "high honor" bestowed upon the diplomats, and if the players can figure out that these two are the diplomats they can be clever in causing an uproar to distract from their own antics.

Four words, and the possibilities are opened, but if we just have dumb guards for no reason other than "dumb guards are easy to fool so the players don't have to fight" then... that doesn't work for me.

And I think another problem is that these giants are described as "exceedingly stupid" which, for hill giants, means they are incredibly easy to fool. Any half-way decent lie is going to be enough to get past them. For a late arc challenge, I'd expect to have to do a bit more than say "The Princess ordered us to get something, but it's a surprise so she didn't tell you"

I mean this is the big build up point, shouldn't it be more difficult than that even with the adventure design mind-set as opposed to the story-line mindset?

 

[Hriston]

Wait, which it is you're contending, was SKT based on Lear or Leir?

It isn't in contention. Official sources have said the adventure was inspired by Shakespeare's play. The play itself is a retelling of the story of Leir. It doesn't matter how you spell it. Both forms of the name refer to a single literary figure.

As I point out above, and you so neatly ignored, there are no other similarities in plot.

I ignored it because I think it's missing the point. You don't need one-to-one correspondence between plot points for one piece of narrative fiction to be inspired by another. The type of inspiration I have in mind is evidenced more by the appearance of certain thematic elements that may or may not retain their original meaning. The inadequate protection afforded Leir by the successive reduction of his retinue is one such theme of the original tale. This shows up in "Lear the Giant-King" (Dungeon #78) in an encounter with Lear's former retinue of 100 Hill Giants who have now taken up brigandage. Through this lens, the Hill Giant guards in SKT can be seen to extend this theme for anyone familiar with the earlier adventure, perhaps representing a remnant of the king's former bodyguard that have remained faithful to the royal family. Of course, this is all pure speculation on my part. I have no idea what was in the minds of the adventure writers, but I can only assume they did their homework and were familiar with the material said to have inspired the adventure as well as its various sources, and that those sources were influential over their decision making in some way.

So in answer to the OP, who seems to disagree with me, I believe WotC has put some of these seemingly nonsensical elements into the adventure because the writers are working from and adapting source material, some of which has its origin in fairy tale, of which there is a long legacy at WotC inherited from TSR.

 

[robus]

I think the simplest answer is probably correct. They needed a low-level encounter (for some reason - they don't let us into the design side of these adventures sadly) and bunged in the first thing that came into their head regardless of consistency with the larger events.

And it seems most groups either don't care, are willing to grant reasons, or embrace the random.

Those of us wanting a bit more consistency (and let us agree - at least - that there are such things as logical and illogical encounters even if this isn't the best example ) are in the extreme minority!

 

[Ovinomancer]

It isn't in contention. Official sources have said the adventure was inspired by Shakespeare's play. The play itself is a retelling of the story of Leir. It doesn't matter how you spell it. Both forms of the name refer to a single literary figure.



I ignored it because I think it's missing the point. You don't need one-to-one correspondence between plot points for one piece of narrative fiction to be inspired by another. The type of inspiration I have in mind is evidenced more by the appearance of certain thematic elements that may or may not retain their original meaning. The inadequate protection afforded Leir by the successive reduction of his retinue is one such theme of the original tale. This shows up in "Lear the Giant-King" (Dungeon #78) in an encounter with Lear's former retinue of 100 Hill Giants who have now taken up brigandage. Through this lens, the Hill Giant guards in SKT can be seen to extend this theme for anyone familiar with the earlier adventure, perhaps representing a remnant of the king's former bodyguard that have remained faithful to the royal family. Of course, this is all pure speculation on my part. I have no idea what was in the minds of the adventure writers, but I can only assume they did their homework and were familiar with the material said to have inspired the adventure as well as its various sources, and that those sources were influential over their decision making in some way.

So in answer to the OP, who seems to disagree with me, I believe WotC has put some of these seemingly nonsensical elements into the adventure because the writers are working from and adapting source material, some of which has its origin in fairy tale, of which there is a long legacy at WotC inherited from TSR.

You admitted you were completely unfamiliar with SKT, so the fact that your conjecture about the hill giant guards being analogous to the reduction of Lear's vassals being absolutely incorrect for SKT isn't surprising. Sarissa rules, and has can command the guards of the entire household. Her trusted advisor (the one that isn't a dragon) is the commander of the house guard, and he is fiercely loyal to Sarissa. The sisters have to play their power games with smallfolk visitors to the Maelstrom (which no one really trusts smallfolk, so it's easy to manipulate the guards against the PCs) and with visiting nobles of other giant clans. They have no special authority over the house guards, and have nothing to do at all with the placement of the hill giants. So, again, your attempt to draw parallels is, at best a D+, and that's just for effort.

And, no, there doesn't need to be a plot point by plot point comparison. Rather, that exercise was to show that there are zero plot point comparisons at all -- the plots are completely different. Again, the only comparison is that there is a king, and he has three daughters, and the eldest two are manipulative (to varying degrees of competence), and the king's favorite is the youngest. But that last is in question as well, as Lear clearly favors his eldest daughters up until the point they betray him enough times, and only comes to love his youngest after reuniting with her whereas Hekaton starts with Sarissa as his favorite and not trusting his eldest daughters.

It's a dog's breakfast trying to actually make a case that SKT is anything like Lear. Sure, they may have been initially inspired by it, but the end result is so different that you cannot compare. And, if the point of the hill giant guards is to, weirdly and in contrast with all of the other power Sarissa wields, evoke the reducing of Lear's retinue, a single sentence would have sufficed. But, then again, neither of Lear's final retinue could be called 'extremely stupid,' so, there's that problem still.

 

[Hriston]

You admitted you were completely unfamiliar with SKT, so the fact that your conjecture about the hill giant guards being analogous to the reduction of Lear's vassals being absolutely incorrect for SKT isn't surprising. Sarissa rules, and has can command the guards of the entire household. Her trusted advisor (the one that isn't a dragon) is the commander of the house guard, and he is fiercely loyal to Sarissa. The sisters have to play their power games with smallfolk visitors to the Maelstrom (which no one really trusts smallfolk, so it's easy to manipulate the guards against the PCs) and with visiting nobles of other giant clans. They have no special authority over the house guards, and have nothing to do at all with the placement of the hill giants.

None of that rules out the possibility that the Hill Giants are a remnant of a larger contingent that was once in the service of the missing king.

And, no, there doesn't need to be a plot point by plot point comparison. Rather, that exercise was to show that there are zero plot point comparisons at all -- the plots are completely different.

Why does that matter? No argument I've made depends on the plots of the two works having any similarity at all. It's as if you can't conceive of a work of narrative fiction being inspired by another without imitating its plot in some way.

Again, the only comparison is that there is a king, and he has three daughters, and the eldest two are manipulative (to varying degrees of competence), and the king's favorite is the youngest. But that last is in question as well, as Lear clearly favors his eldest daughters up until the point they betray him enough times, and only comes to love his youngest after reuniting with her whereas Hekaton starts with Sarissa as his favorite and not trusting his eldest daughters.

No, Lear always favored Cordelia. That's why he went off the rails when she wouldn't fawn over him like her sisters. In his own words:

I lov'd her most, and thought to set my rest
On her kind nursery.​

This is after he disinherits her.

It's a dog's breakfast trying to actually make a case that SKT is anything like Lear. Sure, they may have been initially inspired by it, but the end result is so different that you cannot compare.

I don't think my argument rests on any kind of comparison. My point is if we assume the adventure is inspired by Lear (because it is), then the possibility opens up that some of the writing decisions are informed by the source material in ways that aren't readily apparent from the adventure itself.

And, if the point of the hill giant guards is to, weirdly and in contrast with all of the other power Sarissa wields, evoke the reducing of Lear's retinue, a single sentence would have sufficed.

I don't think it would be a good use of word count for the writers to explain their decisions in the body of the text. That approach would be best reserved for some footnoted version marketed to readers interested in such things. Standard adventure presentation is to let such decisions speak for themselves and to let the reader draw his or her own conclusions about why they were made.

But, then again, neither of Lear's final retinue could be called 'extremely stupid,' so, there's that problem still.

No, but at least one of them could be described as 'foolish'.

 

[Ovinomancer]

None of that rules out the possibility that the Hill Giants are a remnant of a larger contingent that was once in the service of the missing king.

Well, it also doesn't rule out that they Hill Giants are the remnant of the honor guard sent by the Princess Ponies of Rainbow-Unicorn land, either. You lack evidence to prove your point; insisting I find evidence to prove the negative is ridiculous.

Why does that matter? No argument I've made depends on the plots of the two works having any similarity at all. It's as if you can't conceive of a work of narrative fiction being inspired by another without imitating its plot in some way.

I disagree -- there needs to be some point of comparison to the plot, if a similarity of events in parts or a similarity of character or a similarity of continuity (in the case of a follow-on story). None of that is evident outside of a 1) King, who doesn't divide his kingdom and doesn't hold a flattery contest and so is nothing like Lear except for his kinginess, 2) two elder daughters that are not-nice(tm), but who don't conspire against their father and are not granted lands and power by him and do not engage in any betrayals at all in the story and so are nothing like Goneril and Regan; and 3) a youngest daughter, who ascends the throne as part of the established succession when her father is kidnapped by an evil dragon and who rules both in name and truth but is being deceived by the same evil dragon, and so is really nothing like Cordelia.

Again, hanging your assertion on scant comparisons of familial relations is very, very weak. But, then, you're unfamiliar with one of the works you're trying to compare, so this is a patently ridiculous conversation to begin with.

No, Lear always favored Cordelia. That's why he went off the rails when she wouldn't fawn over him like her sisters. In his own words:

I lov'd her most, and thought to set my rest
On her kind nursery.​

This is after he disinherits her.

Yes, the point where he banishes here because he's decided he doesn't like her anymore, and favors his eldest with his kingdom because he believes they love him more?

I don't think my argument rests on any kind of comparison. My point is if we assume the adventure is inspired by Lear (because it is), then the possibility opens up that some of the writing decisions are informed by the source material in ways that aren't readily apparent from the adventure itself.

Wait, are you now saying that you cannot tell if one thing is inspired by another in any way because the inspiration may just be well hidden? Huh, I guess then Harry Potter really is inspired by Tarzan, and there's no argument that can defeat this because no evidence of such inspiration in the work is necessary.

Again, a patently ridiculous claim.

I don't think it would be a good use of word count for the writers to explain their decisions in the body of the text. That approach would be best reserved for some footnoted version marketed to readers interested in such things. Standard adventure presentation is to let such decisions speak for themselves and to let the reader draw his or her own conclusions about why they were made.

Who said anything about explanation of writing decisions? I'm talking about a single sentence to explain the reason the hill giants are there as part of the plot of the story. They spend lots and lots of words on the story plot all over the place, so it's hard to claim they suddenly became parsimonious about this one detail for reasons.

No, but at least one of them could be described as 'foolish'.

Which has an entirely different meaning in that context. And 'foolish' is not in the description of the hill giants.

Again, ridiculousness. I'd perchance to take you seriously if you even made an effort to know the material you're attempting to compare. As it is, I figure you're only in it for the XP.

 

[Hriston]

Well, it also doesn't rule out that they Hill Giants are the remnant of the honor guard sent by the Princess Ponies of Rainbow-Unicorn land, either. You lack evidence to prove your point; insisting I find evidence to prove the negative is ridiculous.

My point was never that the Hill Giant guards were put into the adventure for the reasons I've given. I've been clear from the beginning that I'm merely speculating on some possible reasons to help the OP understand how that particular decision may have been made. You, on the other hand, have made the assertion that it couldn't possibly be the case, unless I've misunderstood you.

Again, hanging your assertion on scant comparisons of familial relations is very, very weak. But, then, you're unfamiliar with one of the works you're trying to compare, so this is a patently ridiculous conversation to begin with.

I agree that this conversation has gotten ridiculous and am happy to end it after addressing your points below. Have a nice day!

Yes, the point where he banishes here because he's decided he doesn't like her anymore, and favors his eldest with his kingdom because he believes they love him more?

Yes. At that point, before that, and afterwards Lear favors Cordelia and no other as the joy of his life.

Wait, are you now saying that you cannot tell if one thing is inspired by another in any way because the inspiration may just be well hidden? Huh, I guess then Harry Potter really is inspired by Tarzan, and there's no argument that can defeat this because no evidence of such inspiration in the work is necessary.

There is ample evidence that SKT is inspired by King Lear and "Lear the Giant-King" from statements by the people who worked on and promoted it. If J. K. Rowling made a public statement about the works that inspired her to write Harry Potter, there would be no reason to doubt her honesty barring some glaring inconsistency with reality. I don't believe you've demonstrated any such inconsistency between SKT and the statements of its authors.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My point was never that the Hill Giant guards were put into the adventure for the reasons I've given. I've been clear from the beginning that I'm merely speculating on some possible reasons to help the OP understand how that particular decision may have been made. You, on the other hand, have made the assertion that it couldn't possibly be the case, unless I've misunderstood you.



I agree that this conversation has gotten ridiculous and am happy to end it after addressing your points below. Have a nice day!



Yes. At that point, before that, and afterwards Lear favors Cordelia and no other as the joy of his life.



There is ample evidence that SKT is inspired by King Lear and "Lear the Giant-King" from statements by the people who worked on and promoted it. If J. K. Rowling made a public statement about the works that inspired her to write Harry Potter, there would be no reason to doubt her honesty barring some glaring inconsistency with reality. I don't believe you've demonstrated any such inconsistency between SKT and the statements of its authors.

Nice move of the goalposts! You went from 'the hill giants are inspired by the reduction of Lear's retinue by his daughters', which has no evidence, to 'the authors said the were inspired and you haven't proven they weren't!' Touche, I have failed to prove a negative. Still, your initial assertion appears not only bunk, but abandoned.