Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4455155" data-attributes="member: 72317">Honestly, was offering an overview before ever a problem? I didn't think it posed an issue back then, and doubt that it will now. And that alone is more than enough justification to want to include an overview, IMO.Good individual adventures are always a plus factor, but it is far from being the only thing which matters in dnd. Unless your party happens to enjoy running what basically amounts to little more than a series of 1-shot adventures loosely linked together by the most tenuous of plots, you will still want a deep and immersive plot to tie everything together. The overview lets me know how well (or poorly) the entire module will accomplish this. Why not decide for yourself right at the start whether the adventure path is worth running or not? This path is going to last at least 2 years. Do you want scenarios where the DM invests 6 months to a year of their time in it, only to find it taking an unexpected twist he does not like for whatever reason? The solution then would be to either continue running a now unpopular module, start a new campaign arc all over again from scratch, or try to adapt it. Neither sounds like a palatable option to me.Trust has nothing to do with it, IMO. What people are simply asking for is a summary informing them as to what the adventure will entail, so that they can then make an informed decision about whether they want to run it or not. It is like asking me to buy a random splatbook without first knowing what it is about or what material it contains. It doesn't matter how useful the book is, I will still only buy it if I have use for it. For example, draconomicon may be one of the best 3.5 books ever printed (hypothetically). But I still may opt not to get one since I know that dragons are unlikely to factor into my campaign, and so, the book is of minimal benefit to me.Whether something is good or bad really boils down to a judgement call made by the individual player, IMO, not wotc. Wotc is in effect creating a 1-size-fits-all campaign and attempting to cater to the entire dnd population, irrespective of their own unique tastes/preferences. It cannot possibly be good for suitable for everyone.You say there is no reason to have to include an overview. I say there is not enough justification to not to want to include one. Imagine if your players discover in the middlle of the campaign that the BBEG is orcus himself, and orcus happens to be a reformed paragon of virtue in your setting...</blockquote>

Verification