Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8620768" data-attributes="member: 29398">To a point, yes; but I'd like the writers to at least anticipate some obvious alternative PC approaches and account for them.The one most commonly missed - as in, all the time! - is flight.&nbsp; It's a relatively low-level ability (and baked in from the start for some PC-playable species these days) yet writers of mid- and high-level modules almost invariably assume the PCs will approach on the ground.&nbsp; There's no mention of what happens should the PCs go in through the roof, or fly up the tower rather than climb the stairs, etc.; yet it's just so bloody obvious as a PC tactic!&nbsp; Grrrrrrr.....My bugaboo with missing details is where an author, probably writing sequentially, adds something in to a later part of the module that would have left clues in earlier parts - except the writer didn't go back and add those clues in.An example I've actually DMed: an adventure where the PCs are following a hidden forest path to the enemy's hideout; it's the only way in.&nbsp; The author writes the track-through-the-woods piece, then later writes the hideout piece - and in the hideout includes description of horses and wagons used to supply the place but doesn't go back and note that said horses and wagons would have left obvious tracks and marks on the path! (never mind the path would have had to be made wider and smoother to accomodate their passage)This is fine.&nbsp; The author lays out the adventure and the PCs approach it as they will.And this is also fine.&nbsp; Sometimes you really do need to go through B en route from A to C, even if it doesn't seem obvious at the time.Were I the DM here I wouldn't say it's the players/PCs' fault; instead I'd let them figure out on their own that maybe - just maybe - they'd missed something somewhere, and they had to go back and find it.I'm not a fan of the &quot;decoy&quot; idea here.&nbsp; I'd far rather let the players/PCs have this victory - I mean, hell, they earned it through smart play and risk - and then in the background as DM I'd have to think what would happen to that &quot;next adventure&quot; if the BBEG wasn't in it.&nbsp; Yes it's very possible this might see the next adventure turn out to be rather anti-climactic, but so be it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8620768, member: 29398"] To a point, yes; but I'd like the writers to at least anticipate some obvious alternative PC approaches and account for them. The one most commonly missed - as in, [B]all the time![/B] - is flight. It's a relatively low-level ability (and baked in from the start for some PC-playable species these days) yet writers of mid- and high-level modules almost invariably assume the PCs will approach on the ground. There's no mention of what happens should the PCs go in through the roof, or fly up the tower rather than climb the stairs, etc.; yet it's just so bloody obvious as a PC tactic! Grrrrrrr..... My bugaboo with missing details is where an author, probably writing sequentially, adds something in to a later part of the module that would have left clues in earlier parts - except the writer didn't go back and add those clues in. An example I've actually DMed: an adventure where the PCs are following a hidden forest path to the enemy's hideout; it's the only way in. The author writes the track-through-the-woods piece, then later writes the hideout piece - and in the hideout includes description of horses and wagons used to supply the place but doesn't go back and note that said horses and wagons would have left obvious tracks and marks on the path! (never mind the path would have had to be made wider and smoother to accomodate their passage) This is fine. The author lays out the adventure and the PCs approach it as they will. And this is also fine. Sometimes you really do need to go through B en route from A to C, even if it doesn't seem obvious at the time. Were I the DM here I wouldn't say it's the players/PCs' fault; instead I'd let them figure out on their own that maybe - just maybe - they'd missed something somewhere, and they had to go back and find it. I'm not a fan of the "decoy" idea here. I'd far rather let the players/PCs have this victory - I mean, hell, they earned it through smart play and risk - and then in the background as DM I'd have to think what would happen to that "next adventure" if the BBEG wasn't in it. Yes it's very possible this might see the next adventure turn out to be rather anti-climactic, but so be it. [/QUOTE]

Verification