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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6271343" data-attributes="member: 20323">That's an assumption. For example, the dragon cult and it's environs could be a site-based adventure the PCs could approach any number of ways. All the quest-giver does is provide the DM with an easy direct method of getting players hooked. It's optional, but it's a quick effective option.For example, a quest-giver could be provided alongside a list of PC Hooks by Race/Class that let the players/DM come up with why the PCs are involved with investigating the dragon cult. If the DM doesn't like quest givers he/she can use these hooks instead. Anyhow, that's off-topic...So this gets back to my question about level of detail. In this model, you've got a periphery NPC totally pinned down and described. Should all NPCs - no matter how central they are to the adventure - get similar coverage? Or would you make some other argument, like there should be no periphery named NPCs in an adventure?And...where do you stop? Does the King who Dacarde serves need to be detailed? And then all knight/men-at-arms who serve the King (because they're potential recruitable NPCs)?For my example, you can just assume the example adventure begins like most 1e modules: "There's a Cult of the Dragon. You're investigating it. Do you seriously need more details? Work it out with your DM." <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification