Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8059518" data-attributes="member: 18">Some of this isn't even opinion. It's demonstrable fact. So all this stuff about &quot;groups differ&quot; is irrelevant with that. &quot;Groups differ&quot; doesn't explain bad organisation. &quot;Groups differ&quot; doesn't explain missing material or massive plot holes. &quot;Groups differ&quot; doesn't explain inconsistencies, lore errors or impossible timelines. &quot;Groups differ&quot; doesn't explain AP writers just straight-up getting rules wrong or ignoring rules (I have no issue with an AP overriding rules if it acknowledges that is what it is doing, of course).Groups differ does explain a few things, of course - for example the FR AP we started which involved actual World of Warcraft-style sidequests (of the most hilariously dumb kind), which were completely bizarre the in scenario (an emergency evacuation). Maybe some people want World of Warcraft-style sidequests in their D&amp;D? But this is in one of these &quot;professional&quot; APs you're comparing to Shakespeare, and it read like it had been written by a twelve-year-old (speaking as someone who was once twelve and a DM).No, actually that's exactly part of the problem. There are plenty of APs with forced/expected encounters which don't actually have them &quot;fully described&quot;, or even dungeons/quasi-dungeons which have most of the flaws I've described. For example, the early WotC APs for 4E were basically all dungeon crawls (with some linking elements). The non-dungeon-crawl bits weren't actually that bad, but the dungeon crawls were terrible and bizarre, and full of inexplicable, lazy-seeming stuff, nonsensical scenarios, self-contradictory lore and plot points, confused writing, misunderstandings of 4E mechanics, and so on (I'm talking about the series that starts with Keep on the Shadowfell). And don't even get me started on railroading, that's so prevalent I've barely mentioned it.And what's sad is it's not always the case. Sometimes stuff is really well put-together and makes a lot of sense. Or it has a lot of flaws, but they're not the kind I've listed above, i.e. not ones that are objectively or close-to-objectively bad, but rather ones that are a matter of taste (2E Dragon Mountain for example, has a lot of taste flaws, far fewer in the way of the other kind of flaws).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8059518, member: 18"] Some of this isn't even opinion. It's demonstrable fact. So all this stuff about "groups differ" is irrelevant with that. "Groups differ" doesn't explain bad organisation. "Groups differ" doesn't explain missing material or massive plot holes. "Groups differ" doesn't explain inconsistencies, lore errors or impossible timelines. "Groups differ" doesn't explain AP writers just straight-up getting rules wrong or ignoring rules (I have no issue with an AP overriding rules if it acknowledges that is what it is doing, of course). Groups differ does explain a few things, of course - for example the FR AP we started which involved actual World of Warcraft-style sidequests (of the most hilariously dumb kind), which were completely bizarre the in scenario (an emergency evacuation). Maybe some people want World of Warcraft-style sidequests in their D&D? But this is in one of these "professional" APs you're comparing to Shakespeare, and it read like it had been written by a twelve-year-old (speaking as someone who was once twelve and a DM). No, actually that's exactly part of the problem. There are plenty of APs with forced/expected encounters which don't actually have them "fully described", or even dungeons/quasi-dungeons which have most of the flaws I've described. For example, the early WotC APs for 4E were basically all dungeon crawls (with some linking elements). The non-dungeon-crawl bits weren't actually that bad, but the dungeon crawls were terrible and bizarre, and full of inexplicable, lazy-seeming stuff, nonsensical scenarios, self-contradictory lore and plot points, confused writing, misunderstandings of 4E mechanics, and so on (I'm talking about the series that starts with Keep on the Shadowfell). And don't even get me started on railroading, that's so prevalent I've barely mentioned it. And what's sad is it's not always the case. Sometimes stuff is really well put-together and makes a lot of sense. Or it has a lot of flaws, but they're not the kind I've listed above, i.e. not ones that are objectively or close-to-objectively bad, but rather ones that are a matter of taste (2E Dragon Mountain for example, has a lot of taste flaws, far fewer in the way of the other kind of flaws). [/QUOTE]

Verification