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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8275253" data-attributes="member: 18">I mean, I think that bolded bit is kind of an interesting question. Obviously with third-party products we can rule that out, but with first-party ones? It seems to me that really, scenario design should capture how a game is supposed to function, in an ideal world, particularly with the early scenario/module products that are released as part of the line.I guess the issue is that D&D has only limited examples of this actually happening. I'd argue that it did happen in very early 2E, oddly enough, with Taladas and the associated adventures, which made good use of 2E-specific stuff and were, imho, better-written for 2E than most stuff, but equally you have things like Terrible Trouble at Tragidore, which is packaged with the DM's screen, and likely the first adventure many people see, and it's total trashfire and doesn't feel like it was written with 2E in mind at all.If you go outside D&D, you find examples that are, frankly, all over the road. I'm struggling to name names, but I know I've seen adventures for systems which were a revelation, like without which, I wouldn't have understood why that system was cool (so those did indicate how it was supposed to function), but I've also come across countless adventures which were really broad and barely seemed specific to the system/setting at all, and certainly didn't particularly show it off.As [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] noted though, often the adventures which really "show off" how a game is supposed to play aren't the first ones that come out - they're much later.Whilst I think this still allows for a lot situations which aren't people immediately running for the alarm or screaming for help or w/e (esp. if the PC isn't some crouching black-clad rogue with weapon-black on his shortsword going "Err.... um..." in front of some guard), I think this is well-argued. It doesn't necessarily support a broad catastrophist view but specifically re: stealth checks, it certainly supports the notion that stealth failure when you're potentially w/in sight of someone means simply "You've been seen" and all attendant consequences that flow from that (which will depend on the scenario, DM, and so on).Re: throwing the stone, I think you'd only roll Deception or w/e if there was a meaningful chance of failure (which for most PCs throwing a stone in a general direction I don't think there would be). I think most DMs would just apply Advantage to the Stealth check if you can up with something like that. In 3E, which was even more atomic than 5E, you'd probably have to make an attack roll amongst other things to throw the stone correctly.</blockquote>

Verification