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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 442414" data-attributes="member: 94">Not at all. I admit to setting up a moral quandry, but I don't expect that most PCs would fail-- we differ on that assessment, so let's get that out of the way first and foremost.My adventures don't typically run A --> B. They present situation A, and whether the PCs end up at B, C, D, or E isn't important, it's how and why they ended up at B, C, D, or E. The scenario A as presented stands on its own; the "home" DM can figure out what further scenarios may be presented at B, C, D, or E  with ease. (Far easier than tying together the original 6 ingredients, at any rate...)Not within the 3-4 paragraph attention span of incognito, no. (Hey, he said it, not me!)You are proceeding along the assumption that there is something "wrong" with the scenario if it stands alone. You see B, C, D, and E as just more branches along a flowchart that leads inexorably to Z-- with Z being the denouement, the "moment of success" of the hypothetical "longer adventure." My opinion is that there need not necessarily be any "success;" learn from the experience and move on to the next.Again, this is totally a matter of style. I readily accept that there are folks out there who prefer a light-hearted march from A --> B through a faerie wonderland, as opposed to a dark, morally ambiguous scenario that stands a good chance of leaving the PCs feeling like the bad guys. Neither style is better than the other; but my own personal preference lulled me into a false sense of security about my entry. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Wulf</blockquote>

Verification