Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 2973693" data-attributes="member: 20239">IMO a &quot;well designed&quot; adventure module maximizes &quot;bang for your buck&quot;.&nbsp; A module full of explanations about the every-day workings of the complex, the exact reasoning behind the wandering monsters table, the most-used routes for moving slaves back and forth, etc. might help provide the verisimilitude you and Quasqueton are looking for in a read through (I emphasize &quot;read through&quot; because in actual play the verisimilitude or lack thereof isn't going to impact on most players, IME).&nbsp; However such a module would also be significantly longer (and, in turn, significantly more costly) and require a great deal more effort to absorb and use the information contained within it.&nbsp; It would not, however, provide significantly more play potential.&nbsp; All of that exposition isn't adding additional encounter areas or providing more adventuring opportunities.&nbsp; Yes, some of it may be useful to the DM in certain situations, but it's certainly not something a competent DM can't come up with on their own and it doesn't require any more effort to make that stuff up yourself than it does to memorize the exposition of the author (were it included) to the point where it's easily accessible to you during play.IMO, adding that level of detail to a module increases the price and the work required to use it without a significant benefit (other than making the nitpickers happy that &quot;verisimilitude&quot; has been maintained through some arbirtrary explanations by the author).&nbsp; In other words, it reduces the module's &quot;bang for your buck&quot; and is actually a sign of poor design.&nbsp; YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 2973693, member: 20239"] IMO a "well designed" adventure module maximizes "bang for your buck". A module full of explanations about the every-day workings of the complex, the exact reasoning behind the wandering monsters table, the most-used routes for moving slaves back and forth, etc. might help provide the verisimilitude you and Quasqueton are looking for in a [u]read through[/u] (I emphasize "read through" because in actual play the verisimilitude or lack thereof isn't going to impact on most players, IME). However such a module would also be significantly longer (and, in turn, significantly more costly) and require a great deal more effort to absorb and use the information contained within it. It would not, however, provide significantly more play potential. All of that exposition isn't adding additional encounter areas or providing more adventuring opportunities. Yes, some of it may be useful to the DM in certain situations, but it's certainly not something a competent DM can't come up with on their own and it doesn't require any more effort to make that stuff up yourself than it does to memorize the exposition of the author (were it included) to the point where it's easily accessible to you during play. IMO, adding that level of detail to a module increases the price and the work required to use it without a significant benefit (other than making the nitpickers happy that "verisimilitude" has been maintained through some arbirtrary explanations by the author). In other words, it reduces the module's "bang for your buck" and is actually a sign of poor design. YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification