Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8620246" data-attributes="member: 18">Yeah I'm fine with those scenarios, but the issue is when it's just extremely likely the players will go &quot;Uh this seems messed up&quot; when the adventure is written as if they'll be like &quot;THIS IS FINE&quot;, and doesn't work if they don't react that way. This was actually more common in the past than now. I know some Shadowrun adventures that absolutely rely on you just going along with your dodgy orders and being in no way suspicious of the incredibly suspicious person who gave you them in a setting where you're supposed to be suspicious of your employer (and indeed just about everyone).Yeah I'm talking about when there is no &quot;rationale&quot;, it's just &quot;the adventure writer didn't think this through&quot;. I know Keep on the Shadowlands specifically has multiple instances of this and H2 does as well, though thankfully enough time has passed that I no longer remember specifics lol. I suspect a lot of DMs do weird stuff with no rationale so routinely their players stop asking questions, but I always have a rationale, and I tend to prefer that it can be discerned with sufficient effort, so it's been 30 years and my players never stopped asking questions.(Indeed I think this goes back to the very first adventure I read - which was written by my older cousin - she'd given careful rationales for every weird thing that was happening, and it made the whole thing way more engaging. So the first adventure I wrote I followed suit.)Yeah that's a good example. I ended up changing the entire end-bit of H1 because of that, luckily I caught it before I ran it.H1 is one of the most shoddily put-together adventures I've come across from a higher-end RPG company. Pretty bad that it was the introduction to 4E.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8620246, member: 18"] Yeah I'm fine with those scenarios, but the issue is when it's just extremely likely the players will go "Uh this seems messed up" when the adventure is written as if they'll be like "THIS IS FINE", and doesn't work if they don't react that way. This was actually more common in the past than now. I know some Shadowrun adventures that absolutely rely on you just going along with your dodgy orders and being in no way suspicious of the incredibly suspicious person who gave you them in a setting where you're supposed to be suspicious of your employer (and indeed just about everyone). Yeah I'm talking about when there is no "rationale", it's just "the adventure writer didn't think this through". I know Keep on the Shadowlands specifically has multiple instances of this and H2 does as well, though thankfully enough time has passed that I no longer remember specifics lol. I suspect a lot of DMs do weird stuff with no rationale so routinely their players stop asking questions, but I always have a rationale, and I tend to prefer that it can be discerned with sufficient effort, so it's been 30 years and my players never stopped asking questions. (Indeed I think this goes back to the very first adventure I read - which was written by my older cousin - she'd given careful rationales for every weird thing that was happening, and it made the whole thing way more engaging. So the first adventure I wrote I followed suit.) Yeah that's a good example. I ended up changing the entire end-bit of H1 because of that, luckily I caught it before I ran it. H1 is one of the most shoddily put-together adventures I've come across from a higher-end RPG company. Pretty bad that it was the introduction to 4E. [/QUOTE]

Verification