Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 4318581" data-attributes="member: 13892">That was a bad example on my part, though it is true in some cases and, frankly, I've found that there are a lot of DMs who need this kind of instruction (primarily new DMs). Assuming that the DM running the module is familiar enough to 'wing' tactical aspects of an adventure without any advice whatsoever is absolutely a failure of the module unless it expliclitly says something like &quot;Not for novice DMs&quot; in big, bold, letters on the cover someplace. A better example is that a great many adventure modules don't describe any kind of attack plan or organization for monsters that are supposed to be intelligent and (often) tactical, according to the module text. Again, this is absolutely a failure of the module unless it expliclitly says something like &quot;Actual tactics of adversaries not described herein!&quot; in big, bold, letters on the cover someplace. Assuming that a reader is either a tactical genius or somebody with multiple years of D&amp;D play under their belt is a bad assumption. Designing a module around that assumption makes it a complete failure for anybody whom that assumption does not apply to. Only if the module has some very obvious disclaimer about being designed for a specific level of player skill does the fault transfer to the consumer who fails to meet that requirement. There are modules that don't make these fallacious assumptions and that do attempt to provide notes on tactics and such for novice DMs or non-tactical thinkers. For me, the better module is the one that attempts to cover all aspects of play thoroughly, rather than the one that tries to half-ass it based on assumptions that are unlikely to apply to all consumers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jdrakeh, post: 4318581, member: 13892"] That was a bad example on my part, though it is true in some cases and, frankly, I've found that there are a lot of DMs who need this kind of instruction (primarily [I]new[/I] DMs). Assuming that the DM running the module is familiar enough to 'wing' tactical aspects of an adventure without any advice whatsoever is [I]absolutely[/I] a failure of the module unless it expliclitly says something like "Not for novice DMs" in big, bold, letters on the cover someplace. A better example is that a great many adventure modules don't describe any kind of attack plan or organization for monsters that are supposed to be intelligent and (often) tactical, according to the module text. Again, this is [I]absolutely[/I] a failure of the module unless it expliclitly says something like "Actual tactics of adversaries not described herein!" in big, bold, letters on the cover someplace. Assuming that a reader is either a tactical genius or somebody with multiple years of D&D play under their belt is a bad assumption. Designing a module around that assumption makes it a [I]complete[/I] failure for anybody whom that assumption does not apply to. Only if the module has some very obvious disclaimer about being designed for a specific level of [I]player[/I] skill does the fault transfer to the consumer who fails to meet that requirement. There are modules that [I]don't[/I] make these fallacious assumptions and that [I]do[/I] attempt to provide notes on tactics and such for novice DMs or non-tactical thinkers. For me, the better module is the one that attempts to cover all aspects of play thoroughly, rather than the one that tries to half-ass it based on assumptions that are unlikely to apply to all consumers. [/QUOTE]

Verification