Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8059410" data-attributes="member: 18">So what products, specifically, are you saying are so inferior that they may 5E APs look like Shakespeare by comparison?Bad organisation, straight-up bad dialogue/description, TMI on totally meaningless stuff whilst barely describing core events, not understand their own timelines (often having impossible timelines), inconsistencies and contradictions, missing obvious approaches, and as I said actual massive logic-holes. Bad organisation and logic holes are pretty bad, because the former is very hard to fix, and the latter can ruin a part of the adventure to the point where it has to be re-written entirely (though more often requires minor re-writes). Missing obvious approaches goes to the heart the problem this thread is about too.Yes, that's correct, because that is all it supports. Something selling doesn't prove anything, especially if it's a low-competition market.I think you mean &quot;the same&quot; because otherwise you're agreeing with me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> But that's not true, and this was my point about not wanting to argue with people who treat &quot;vibes&quot; as equal to logic. Your response to criticism is simply to accuse the other person, rather than to engage with it.Making my point again! What you're describing is not &quot;running it as intended&quot;. It's &quot;running it the way Scott likes to run things&quot;. Almost none of that is &quot;intended&quot;. That's a giant bullet-point list of things you enjoy doing. Some of them are even the opposite of &quot;running it as intended&quot;, and are actual deviations (even if they improve your game). You literally can't claim you need to do almost any of that to &quot;run it as intended&quot;.Yes this is staggering sometimes. One DM I was talking to told me an AP he ran us through had most of a page of backstory for three minor NPCs it was unlikely the party would even talk to beyond &quot;Which way did the baddie go?&quot;, which wasn't relevant to the plot, and which they were unwilling to discuss anyway (!!!), but didn't even have maps for half the encounters and was extremely badly organised.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8059410, member: 18"] So what products, specifically, are you saying are so inferior that they may 5E APs look like Shakespeare by comparison? Bad organisation, straight-up bad dialogue/description, TMI on totally meaningless stuff whilst barely describing core events, not understand their own timelines (often having impossible timelines), inconsistencies and contradictions, missing obvious approaches, and as I said actual massive logic-holes. Bad organisation and logic holes are pretty bad, because the former is very hard to fix, and the latter can ruin a part of the adventure to the point where it has to be re-written entirely (though more often requires minor re-writes). Missing obvious approaches goes to the heart the problem this thread is about too. Yes, that's correct, because that is all it supports. Something selling doesn't prove anything, especially if it's a low-competition market. I think you mean "the same" because otherwise you're agreeing with me :) But that's not true, and this was my point about not wanting to argue with people who treat "vibes" as equal to logic. Your response to criticism is simply to accuse the other person, rather than to engage with it. Making my point again! What you're describing is not "running it as intended". It's "running it the way Scott likes to run things". Almost none of that is "intended". That's a giant bullet-point list of things you enjoy doing. Some of them are even the opposite of "running it as intended", and are actual deviations (even if they improve your game). You literally can't claim you need to do almost any of that to "run it [I]as intended[/I]". Yes this is staggering sometimes. One DM I was talking to told me an AP he ran us through had most of a page of backstory for three minor NPCs it was unlikely the party would even talk to beyond "Which way did the baddie go?", which wasn't relevant to the plot, and which they were unwilling to discuss anyway (!!!), but didn't even have maps for half the encounters and was extremely badly organised. [/QUOTE]

Verification