Any help the DM gets when it comes to troubleshooting problems is well received, in my books. I've seen some adventures that take the time out to do this, but not many.Again, genuinely curious. How does an author create multiple sections that can be completed in any order and have a timeline. Wouldn't the timeline effect the sections, which in turn, make those sections incredibly lengthy?
I always like these. I also think there are many players that like to write their own backgrounds, and incorporating those seems to be more work than hooks. But, that is a part B to this part A. (Sorry for the side rant.)
I am all for incorporating interesting and unique features into combat. I really like it when they do this. That said, sometimes I think it is like salt: use too much and it overwhelms the senses. Use just enough and the food tastes just right. But we all have different salt levels.
The only thing I disagree with you. The troubleshooting is so different, table by table, I feel like the DM should handle it. But that's just me. I think I am in the minority here.
I disagree. The whole point of published modules is to have situations. Whether those situations are "fun" or not is going to vary widely from one table - or even one player - to the next, no matter how they are presented.
The main variables the author does have control over are a) how unique or unusual or different those situations are from what's been done before, and b) how clearly and succinctly the material is presented to the DM such that she can run it without hedaches.
Of these, a) comes down to random guess whether any given players will find any of these odd situations fun or not, while getting b) right will always make a DM's job easier regardless of any other considerations.
Does no one listen to Dragon Talk? Perkins has repeatedly said when any gap in logic shows up that it was done on purpose, to provide space for the DM and players to imagine their own game. You might not like it, but that’s how it is.
It was precisely this kind of thing that inspired the original Ravenloft module. The Hickmans were playing in someone else's campaign where they randomly encountered a vampire in a dungeon. Why was he there? They didn't think it made any sense and believed a vampire shouldn't be a random encounter but instead an epic villain in his own right. But, a lot of early D&D was more of a beer & pretzels kind of game. A lot of people didn't care that it didn't make sense. But then some people, some of my favorite Dragon Magazine articles were "The Ecology of..." series where they explained how various creatures fit into their environment.I mean consider the early D&D adventure I mentioned earlier, The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. It's very existence makes no sense whatsoever. Who built it? Why? What do the creatures who live there eat? Why do they never leave their rooms? How do they avoid triggering the traps?
Perkins was joking, right? This is tantamount to saying, "A wizard did it," which isn't satisfactory either.Does no one listen to Dragon Talk? Perkins has repeatedly said when any gap in logic shows up that it was done on purpose, to provide space for the DM and players to imagine their own game. You might not like it, but that’s how it is.
This can't be real. I refuse to believe this. It would be a tacit admission that they were aware of the flaws in their material, knew that said flaws could be ameliorated, and just... didn't.Does no one listen to Dragon Talk? Perkins has repeatedly said when any gap in logic shows up that it was done on purpose, to provide space for the DM and players to imagine their own game. You might not like it, but that’s how it is.
That's not so reasonable if he said that, others already addressed the glaring logic flaws there, but there's a huge difference between backporting an excuse & not bothering to draw attention to problems deliberately inserted for the GM to solve after crashing into them. Despite the difference neither is reasonable.
That's a really weird perspective. Yes, "fun" is going to vary from table to table because tastes differ from table to table. That's why a DM should be judicious in the published modules they choose.I disagree. The whole point of published modules is to have situations. Whether those situations are "fun" or not is going to vary widely from one table - or even one player - to the next, no matter how they are presented.
This is actually pretty simple...If they want to play by the rules...role the damage from the fall...20d6...this is from them hitting the side of the pit...but they aren't finished...every round they take 1d6 to 20d6 as they continue to fall...they are falling down a slope of the pit...when it finally finishes...they are dumped in an underground stream...start the drowning rules...with no end in sight...as the river goes miles and miles...That just isn't how 4E or 5E work. Period. I dunno what else to tell you.
Particularly if, say, looking at 5E to keep it simple, in this case you fell 1000ft or whatever and Urriak sez "You're dead, they'll never find the body because even I have no idea where it is as I'm not keeping track, please roll another character", and then few months later, someone falls off an airship 2000ft, and you actually use the falling rules, and they're just reduced to 0 HP, and someone manages to drop down and help them before they're out of Death Saves (or they otherwise self-stablize), I think the players are going to have some awkward questions for you about why Throknar got auto-killed but Xixor The Magnificent got to actually use the rules?
Now maybe in your group that is totally fine and consensual and they're all totally into the DM using fiat to kill off PCs. I've seen stranger things. But that just you describing how it would work in your group. It is most assuredly not extensible to all groups, or even most, I would suspect.