Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheSword" data-source="post: 8931372" data-attributes="member: 6879661">It’s ok for for modules to not be for you. I don’t really like heavy metal but I accept that other people do and me not liking it is not a statement about the quality of the song.In other words you not liking modules doesn’t have any impact on whether a module is good or not in the context of other modules. Too often a comment on how a module could be improved turns into a diatribe for why modules are awful. It kinda misses the point.This is the problem. It’s not defending WotC it’s defending the premise of a module.By definition a module is one persons interpretation of a scenario, and while there is room for some precognition and forward planning there has to be a balance between more stuff and more explanation of stuff that is already in there and might not be needed anyway. I don’t want authors filling pages with what might happen. Fill it with stuff and I’ll work the rest out. Just give me a heads up on the worst pitfalls.All too often folks approach a module thinking about&nbsp; the things they don’t like. As if they were personally insulted by the author telling their story that way. It is absolutely optimal that you be able to fix the issues you don’t like. Because there will be 5 million people all with their own opinions and you getting what you want means I&nbsp; have to fix the things I don’t like and so on and so forth. Modules have to be adapted because the game is designed to be flexible and not every party will have a brand new group of one fight, one cleric, one rogue and one wizard. Neither will they all have the same stats or approaches. You have to ride the wave where it leads you - not say ‘so it is written’ I will not budge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheSword, post: 8931372, member: 6879661"] It’s ok for for modules to not be for you. I don’t really like heavy metal but I accept that other people do and me not liking it is not a statement about the quality of the song. In other words you not liking modules doesn’t have any impact on whether a module is good or not in the context of other modules. Too often a comment on how a module could be improved turns into a diatribe for why modules are awful. It kinda misses the point. This is the problem. It’s not defending WotC it’s defending the premise of a module. By definition a module is one persons interpretation of a scenario, and while there is room for some precognition and forward planning there has to be a balance between more stuff and more explanation of stuff that is already in there and might not be needed anyway. I don’t want authors filling pages with what might happen. Fill it with stuff and I’ll work the rest out. Just give me a heads up on the worst pitfalls. All too often folks approach a module thinking about the things they don’t like. As if they were personally insulted by the author telling their story that way. It is absolutely optimal that you be able to fix the issues you don’t like. Because there will be 5 million people all with their own opinions and you getting what you want means I have to fix the things I don’t like and so on and so forth. Modules have to be adapted because the game is designed to be flexible and not every party will have a brand new group of one fight, one cleric, one rogue and one wizard. Neither will they all have the same stats or approaches. You have to ride the wave where it leads you - not say ‘so it is written’ I will not budge. [/QUOTE]

Verification