D&D 5E Is it right for WoTC to moralize us in an adventure module?


log in or register to remove this ad

TheSword

Legend
What is "the point"? Maybe I missed your point, but you missed my point? Who gets to own or define "the point"? What if your "the point" is different than my "the point"?


This is a valid opinion. I am just not sure what are your intentions or conclusions here. Also who are you referring to when you wrote "not say ‘so it is written’ I will not budge" and what does that mean specifically?

Unlike those who simply advocate for their personal opinion, I started this poll because I was curious what people preferred from a 5E published adventure as written. I think there is a lot of value in diagnosing a problem and seeking the opinion of the wider community. Assuming I am not missing "the point"?
By ‘the point’ I mean the point of a module, the purpose, the benefit.

They save you some time in not having to make up everything about an adventure. The lack of flexibility because a module has been written down and committed to ink is not a criticism - it’s a feature of modules. It’s the inevitable consequence of deciding the BBEG is the bandit chief Marvin which means that the BBEG isn’t Guntharg the orc warlord your PCs fought in previous adventure.

But… and this is a big but. You can change it! Because you get to have 70-90% of preprepared and you get to change things to fit your party and campaign. You get the best of both worlds. You get to add Gruntharg and you get the rest of the story. So when people say lots of people say that adventures don’t fit their party I think yes, change it just as it was always intended you do. That is the feature of modules that make them good.

You referred a few times to things being that way because of the text of the module. The warden is X because it says Y. What people need to understand is that a module is a collection of suggestions not a bible. You aren’t buying the dummies guide to Undermountain or the script of Icewind Dale, the movie. You’re buying a recipe book. Which you get to make with the players. The book provides the ingredients and the order to add them/processes. But if you don’t like cinnamon don’t make the cinnamon banana loaf - or if it’s important then switch the cinnamon out for aniseed or lemon. Don’t complain that cinnamon doesn’t fit in recipe books.

Give feedback sure. But don’t complain that the module is telling you what to do and you don’t like it. I see that all too often with adversarial DMs who believe that as long as they do what the module ‘tells them’ they are fair and correct and it isn’t their fault if the module isn’t fun. That’s an abrogation of DM responsibility - to listen to the players and respond to them.
 

Emoshin

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
@TheSword I don't have an issue per se with what you stated above. Those are valid opinions for you to hold. I have an issue with what you omitted from this.

If your goal is to advocate for your approach, that's fine. You've done so. If your goal is reconcile your approach with my POV or the POVs of others who hoped for or expected a little or a lot more out of any published module, then I'm going to have to ask you to integrate into your argument what you omitted.

Just for example, in the edition wars, there have been people who complained and wanted to change something, and others who have retorted with just homebrew it. Ironically, after the next edition, one person in one camp may find themselves in the camp they had previously been criticizing. In any case, those arguments never went anywhere. If I had a similar debate with you about "You can change it!" it means I have learned absolutely nothing from endless arguments that are proven to fail and fail over and over again.
 
Last edited:

TheSword

Legend
@TheSword I don't have an issue per se with what you stated above. Those are valid opinions for you to hold. I have an issue with what you omitted from this.

If your goal is to advocate for your approach, that's fine. You've done so. If your goal is reconcile your approach with my POV or the POVs of others who hoped for or expected a little or a lot more out of any published module, then I'm going to have to ask you to integrate into your argument what you omitted.
What have I omitted? You’re being very ambiguous.
Just for example, in the edition wars, there have been people who complained and wanted to change something, and others who have retorted with just homebrew it. Ironically, after the next edition, one person in one camp may find themselves in the camp they had previously been criticizing. In any case, those arguments never went anywhere. If I had a similar debate with you about "You can change it!" it means I have learned absolutely nothing from endless arguments that are proven to fail and fail over and over again.
Yes that is the way of the world. Change is ineiveitable nobody really likes it unless they personally benefit from it and even if they do they often don’t see it that way. That’s human nature.
 

Emoshin

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
What have I omitted? You’re being very ambiguous.
For one thing, I don't have enough time in my day to prioritize to rewriting published adventures to my satisfaction. Similarly, I also don't want to make precious time to rewrite my thoughts just for you specifically, no offense!

If you wish to reconcile with my POV based on what you've omitted, you can re-read my posts on this thread and what everyone commented on this thread too. If you don't want to do that "homework" that's totally fine, but my intention wasn't to join Enworld to belabor my opinions on people who don't like to hear them.

Yes that is the way of the world. Change is ineiveitable nobody really likes it unless they personally benefit from it and even if they do they often don’t see it that way. That’s human nature.
The way of the world is also that online debates would be productive if more people were mindful of what is actually a productive conversation, and what is just an argument. If your next response seems non-productive to me, I will add a sad face emoji instead of blocking you follow the forum guidelines accordingly.
 
Last edited:

Judging by the conversation, it seems to. In another thread, @pemerton discusses the difference between design that makes you lean into the fiction versus design that makes you lean into the rules. For me, alignment is the epitome of the latter. Instead of focusing on what makes for a good story and believable character motivations, much of this conversation instead focuses on what counts as "good" or "lawful" or whether gold dragons have to be lawful good, etc.

Why?

Im playing a LG PC. I engage in genocide.

How does that change the fiction in any way, other than I'm being unfaithful to my alignment?
 

I don't think changing 10% or even 20% or 30% of a published adventure is a difficult ask for a DM. In fact, I do that very thing because it is fun for me and our table. As @TheSword indicates above, having 70 to 90% prepared for the DM is a boon IMO, especially if one has limited time to spend on this hobby we all presumably love. It's a matter of perspective - where some see scarcity, others see abundance.
 

Because the organization is run by metallic dragons. They undoubtedly consider themselves above petty humanoid laws, and they're all about the hoarding of wealth, even the "good" ones.
I agree with this. Dragons, like beholders, mind flayers, etc, I think SHOULD be alien intelligences who do not conform to normal good-humanoid thinking. They live for centuries and have the benefit of seeing that in the long term, not all questionable actions lead to bad results
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
If your next response seems non-productive to me, I will add a sad face emoji instead of blocking you.
Mod Note:

While we generally don’t moderate misuse of the emoji system, explicitly stating your intention to do just that ahead of time is one way to earn an exception.

If you’re not finding discussions with a particular poster productive, disengage from them. Use your ignore list if you want. Withdraw from the thread if you must.
 

Clint_L

Legend
Why?

Im playing a LG PC. I engage in genocide.

How does that change the fiction in any way, other than I'm being unfaithful to my alignment?
Gary Gygax argued that genocide was perfectly acceptable behaviour for a lawful good character, if it was genocide against an evil race. So are you being unfaithful to your alignment?

That's what I mean - alignment leads to all these dumb arguments about what counts as what. Instead of the story focusing on what behaviours make sense for the characters in that situation, players have to contort their motivations to fit these weird boxes. That's not how morality works in the real world. No one is actually "lawful good." It's just a strange game convention. Which is not a problem in itself, if it made the game better. For me, it does the opposite - it takes us out of the story.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top