Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3761598" data-attributes="member: 20239">I don't know if it was conscious or unconscious, but it was certainly the standard at the time.&nbsp; The point isn't to &quot;explain the wonkiness&quot; it's to show that &quot;wonky&quot; is an inapt description.&nbsp; &quot;Incomplete&quot; might be more accurate, but that depends upon your own personal preference for how much and what kind of detail such a product should contain.I didn't say anything about it being a &quot;good design choice&quot;.&nbsp; My assertion isn't that the dungeon is good, but that it is not &quot;wonky&quot;.&nbsp; It could be interpreted as irrational, but it takes very little effort to see rationality as well, especially if you aren't expecting rationality to be spelled out.I don't understand what you would have to come up with on your own in the middle of the game.&nbsp; If a Thief finds the trap and then makes his Remove Trap roll, what information would you need that isn't provided?&nbsp; All you need to do if the roll is successful is tell the Thief the trap is disarmed.&nbsp; If the roll fails, the consequences (acid and/or spears) are spelled out.&nbsp; The entry seems absolutely complete to me.Again, I made no assertions about the quality of the product.&nbsp; My point is that the &quot;wonkiness&quot; of the examples cited is questionable.&nbsp; There are reasonable explanations for all of the details laid out in those entries.&nbsp; An adventure module can be both rational and poorly designed.&nbsp; Based on the fact that Judges Guild was fairly successful with its old school products, I would say that &quot;most people&quot; were satisfied with what they were buying when they bought JG modules and believed that there was sufficient work and thought behind the product to continue to buy them.&nbsp; As other people have noted above, markets and consumer expectations change.&nbsp; That doesn't mean the JG modules weren't considered good products by the people they were being marketed to at the time.I think a better restatement would be that some people are too quick to see irrationality when what they are really experiencing is a lack of a prepackaged explanation.&nbsp; If I can invent a rational explanation within seconds of reading a criticism that the situation is irrational, it doesn't seem, to me, that the criticism is particularly valid.&nbsp; Old modules tend to be &quot;information sparse&quot;.&nbsp; That is a valid criticism.&nbsp; Some old dungeons had elements that were unquestionably weird (you can still explain the weirdness by assuming the mad wizard who designed the dungeon specifically designed the place to be weird, but that's still admitting that the design is weird).&nbsp; If you don't like weird, saying those dungeons are &quot;too weird&quot; is a valid criticism.&nbsp; Debating whether a particular criticism is valid or not isn't the same thing as saying all criticisms are invalid.I'm not sure how we got from &quot;these elements aren't wonky&quot; to &quot;wonky is good design&quot;.&nbsp; That's not a position I'm attempting to defend.&nbsp; If, after my post, you still feel the elements cited by der kluge are wonky, that's fine.&nbsp; IMO they are not and I've already pointed out why I think so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 3761598, member: 20239"] I don't know if it was conscious or unconscious, but it was certainly the standard at the time. The point isn't to "explain the wonkiness" it's to show that "wonky" is an inapt description. "Incomplete" might be more accurate, but that depends upon your own personal preference for how much and what kind of detail such a product should contain. I didn't say anything about it being a "good design choice". My assertion isn't that the dungeon is good, but that it is not "wonky". It [u]could[/u] be interpreted as irrational, but it takes very little effort to see rationality as well, especially if you aren't expecting rationality to be spelled out. I don't understand what you would have to come up with on your own in the middle of the game. If a Thief finds the trap and then makes his Remove Trap roll, what information would you need that isn't provided? All you need to do if the roll is successful is tell the Thief the trap is disarmed. If the roll fails, the consequences (acid and/or spears) are spelled out. The entry seems absolutely complete to me. Again, I made no assertions about the quality of the product. My point is that the "wonkiness" of the examples cited is questionable. There are reasonable explanations for all of the details laid out in those entries. An adventure module can be both rational and poorly designed. Based on the fact that Judges Guild was fairly successful with its old school products, I would say that "most people" were satisfied with what they were buying when they bought JG modules and believed that there was sufficient work and thought behind the product to continue to buy them. As other people have noted above, markets and consumer expectations change. That doesn't mean the JG modules weren't considered good products by the people they were being marketed to at the time. I think a better restatement would be that some people are too quick to see irrationality when what they are really experiencing is a lack of a prepackaged explanation. If I can invent a rational explanation within seconds of reading a criticism that the situation is irrational, it doesn't seem, to me, that the criticism is particularly valid. Old modules tend to be "information sparse". That is a valid criticism. Some old dungeons had elements that were unquestionably weird (you can still explain the weirdness by assuming the mad wizard who designed the dungeon specifically designed the place to be weird, but that's still admitting that the design is weird). If you don't like weird, saying those dungeons are "too weird" is a valid criticism. Debating whether a particular criticism is valid or not isn't the same thing as saying all criticisms are invalid. I'm not sure how we got from "these elements aren't wonky" to "wonky is good design". That's not a position I'm attempting to defend. If, after my post, you still feel the elements cited by der kluge are wonky, that's fine. IMO they are not and I've already pointed out why I think so. [/QUOTE]

Verification