Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 3761738" data-attributes="member: 3854">Sorry, but I just can't go on reading your post when you start with this strawman argument.To use some generic examples:If there's a squad of orc warriors in a 10' room, there's probably no explanatory information necessary (unless the room is in the middle of an elven tree fort, for example).If there's an ancient red dragon in a 10' room, with only one way in (through a normal door), then there should be some explanation about the how and why. The lack of explanation is bad design. (Or is the existence of a dragon in a 10' room at all the bad design?)A bunch of goblins in a goblin cave complex doesn't need an explanation. But a nest of ghouls in the middle does need to be explained -- why haven't they wiped out the goblins?If the BBEG is in a room with the only entrance guarded by a severe trap, there should be some mention at least of how the BBEG gets by it. A single sentence could suffice. The author of the adventure should at least acknowledge that he made the setup, rather than just leave it as an exercise for the DM to figure out.The idea of sensical dungeon ecologies does not mean that everything must be explicitly spelled out and explained down to backstories and future goals for all the monsters. The idea of a sensical dungeon means that the dungeon doesn't look and feel (and play out) like just a random collection of monsters dropped in from the MM -- OR -- the designer that the designer gives the DM some explanation and guidance on using the random collection of monsters.If the random collection of monsters with no explanation or plot was best, then why did some adventures put in the effort to explain the dungeon "ecology"?To take one common classic module as an example: Gygax put in some explanation about how the monsters in the Caves of Chaos were aligned with each other, and who would team up with whom in response to adventurer successes. That's good. But why did he not give any mention to the plot of the evil temple in the caves? Either leaving out all explanation is better, in which case why did he give explanation about tribe alliances, or giving explanation is better, in which case why did he leave out an explanation for the evil temple?The Caves of Chaos is a decent adventure despite the omission of an explanation for the evil temple. It could have been a better adventure *with* an explanation.In the Keep itself, Gygax mentions that the barkeep dislikes beer but is keen on mead. But he didn't give the barkeep a name. Gygax mentions that the Captain of the Guard likes pretty ladies. But he didn't give the Captain a name. The mention of personality is good, the lack of any name is bad. Or, to judge from what some are saying about unnecessary explanation, maybe EGG should have left out the personality bits, because if the DM can come up with names for the men, surely the DM can come up with personalities, too. So maybe the personality explanations are bad, and the lack of names is good?Quasqueton</blockquote>

Verification