Sept 2nd News - I wont be doing Scales of War

[Uzzy]

Given that there is nothing stopping players, who really want to go get spoilers for the adventures, actually downloading the adventures themselves and having a look through them, the idea that they aren't releasing an overview to avoid spoiling the player and DM base is silly.

A basic, high level overview of the forthcoming adventures is just common sense, in order to let DM's know if this is the path for them. Failure to deliver one is quite silly.

 

[Fenes]

Given that there is nothing stopping players, who really want to go get spoilers for the adventures, actually downloading the adventures themselves and having a look through them, the idea that they aren't releasing an overview to avoid spoiling the player and DM base is silly.

A basic, high level overview of the forthcoming adventures is just common sense, in order to let DM's know if this is the path for them. Failure to deliver one is quite silly.

And for all those Star War fans: I think you're confusing director and actor/audience.

DMS are not the audience of a movie. DMS are not even the actors of a movie. DMs are the directors of a movie, altering the script to better suit the task when needed. The very least we need to work is an outline of the script.

 

[Serendipity]

If they say, the BBEG of SoW is _____________, a 33rd level primordial (see Manual of the Planes) that rides an acient wyrm brown dragon (see Draconomicon I) and is surrounded by hordes of ___________ (see MM2)...., well, not only does that spoil the adventure path, but it also spoils parts of those products.

Actually, wouldn't doing just that be good marketing? Providing instant incentive for GMs to go out and actually *buy* said extra books.

 

[TheFindus]

I find the angle in wich WotC is looking at the AP-overview-issue quite disturbing. This is not a movie or a book we are talking about, in wich the author can only reveal the secrets at a certain point, because there would otherwise be no suspense.

The AP from a DMs point of view is rather like a holiday trip that needs to planned ahead. And I would like to know if my players need to pack warm clothes or a swimsuit.
This is so easy to see, I cannot understand how WotC fails to see this point. Which they obviously do, because of how they answered the question.

I mean, they market the AP as one product (consisting of 18 parts), with its own logo and stuff. It is one of the main reasons why I, and I guess a lot of gamers like me, would be willing to pay $4.95 for a downscaled version of DnDInsider. It would be awesome to play an entire campaign that I like for the most part with much less preparation between job, family and other hobbies. But I have to know the "that I like for the most part" part. Otherwise I might not buy the AP. And there would be less reason for me to pay for DnDInsider at this point.

So, clearly, they cannot give an overview, because they have not planned out the entire campaign yet. That really is the only reason that makes sense.
But why do thy not just give us what they have at this point? I mean, it would be much easier for me to plan ahead knowing what would be coming in the heroic tier. Because 10 levels is still a way to go. I would be pleased to have an overview for every tier. Planningwise, I do not need the entire overview.

It seems to me that WotC does not really trust me or my players. To think that players have to be kept from spoiling their fun through reading the content of the adventures they are going to play is very absurd. If somebody wants to do that, that is indeed their problem. Not the problem of WotC. But, to be honest, I have never met a player that does that (we are not stupid, you know?). And I do not play with people like that.

Ach, this discussion bugs me to no end. It really spoils my fun.

 

[Goumindong]

Given that there is nothing stopping players, who really want to go get spoilers for the adventures, actually downloading the adventures themselves and having a look through them, the idea that they aren't releasing an overview to avoid spoiling the player and DM base is silly.

A basic, high level overview of the forthcoming adventures is just common sense, in order to let DM's know if this is the path for them. Failure to deliver one is quite silly.

Given that there is a very significant difference between a spoiler one month in advance when there is likely to already be foreshadowing in play and and a spoiler months[or years in advance when players need to be acting under an entirely different set of assumptions your argument that their reasoning is silly is thoroughly refuted

And for all those Star War fans: I think you're confusing director and actor/audience.

DMS are not the audience of a movie. DMS are not even the actors of a movie. DMs are the directors of a movie, altering the script to better suit the task when needed. The very least we need to work is an outline of the script.

DMs are the directors, but WotC cannot release the information to DMs without possibly releasing the information to players. And, like any spoiler, once you learn it, you can't unlearn it.

Players are like actors, except in our play, the actors do not take direction from the director. The director is the guy in the audience of an improv skill that is yelling out places and settings the players have to deal with.

Even though there is a narrative to these places and situations, the players are acting in their own best interest and not in the interest of the narrative.

It is a valid judgment that the value of the information to the DM's[who have the power to change what they need] may not be outweighed by the costs imposed by the information possibly being known by the players.

 

[Fenes]

Given that there is a very significant difference between a spoiler one month in advance when there is likely to already be foreshadowing in play and and a spoiler months[or years in advance when players need to be acting under an entirely different set of assumptions your argument that their reasoning is silly is thoroughly refuted

You forgot that you cannot have foreshadowing in play if you do not know what to foreshadow, and what can be cut for better playability or taste of the group. Without an outline, the DM is likely to skip some of this foreshadowing (if there is any), making the AP more of a compilation of loosely linked adventures for the players.

DMs are the directors, but WotC cannot release the information to DMs without possibly releasing the information to players. And, like any spoiler, once you learn it, you can't unlearn it.

A player wouldn't get the spoilers unless he wanted it.

Players are like actors, except in our play, the actors do not take direction from the director. The director is the guy in the audience of an improv skill that is yelling out places and settings the players have to deal with.

Even though there is a narrative to these places and situations, the players are acting in their own best interest and not in the interest of the narrative.

It is a valid judgment that the value of the information to the DM's[who have the power to change what they need] may not be outweighed by the costs imposed by the information possibly being known by the players.

Have you ever DMed? Your arguments sound as if you have no experience with DMing, at least not with DMing a campaign that's not just verbatim reading of a bought adventure. You really sound like you think all a DM has to (and can) do is read the adventure text.

 

[Wonka]

As i said earlier, there is a big difference watching "The Empire Strikes Back" and knowing from the outset that Vader is Luke's father and watching "A New Hope" and knowing that Vader is Luke's father, Princess Lea is his sister, Vader built C-3PO, and R2-D2 was his mothers droid.

By not releasing an overview you can keep the spoiling, intentional or unintentional to a minimum.

Once again, you are missing the point entirely. This analogy is simply not valid! Its not PLAYERS who need the overview, its the DMs. In your example of the star wars movies, the players would be the viewers. In which case, yes, your example would be a valid one. However, most of us making our points are NOT players, but DMs. In your example, DMs wouldnt be the viewers of Star Wars, they would be the DIRECTOR(s). Are you telling me Star Wars would have been better if the director had NO idea what was going on in the movie? Just shooting the scenes as they were written in order to "keep the spoiling, intentional or unintentional, to a minimum"? How can he know which scences are the most important? Which characters would come back for bigger roles later? Say the director didnt know leia was lukes sister, and decides he didnt like the character, and as such drops the character. Only to find out in a later scene how big of a role she was to play in the movie. Whoops! Would have been nice to know that before hand. Ill say it again: The directors (DMs in this case) NEED to have the "movie" spoiled. Please, please, please stop using this argument, as it just doesn't work for the situation.

DMs are the directors, but WotC cannot release the information to DMs without possibly releasing the information to players. And, like any spoiler, once you learn it, you can't unlearn it.

Whats to stop a player from walking into any FLGS, picking up the adventure they are currently running, and flipping through it? What about players who also DM, and just have happened to run the adventure before for another group? We should stop printing modules, lest the players read them and know whats going to happen! This is a problem with a PLAYER. Its up to them to show restraint and not spoil it, not WoTC. Whats to stop the players from downloading the modules from Dungeon magazine and reading them? There is NO difference between spoiling the current adventure, and spoiling the entire one, so saying that argument is not valid is perposterous. Should WoTC not make those available lest the players download them and read them and spoil the adventure? Once you have WoTC start withholding information the DMs need, JUST so players cant read it, they are entering the territory of a government. They are not my government, they make the table top RPG that I play.

Basically my conclusion comes down to this. You do not DM.

 

[Goumindong]

You forgot that you cannot have foreshadowing in play if you do not know what to foreshadow, and what can be cut for better playability or taste of the group.

This is untrue. There is foreshadowing in the first SoW module.[the note, the portal, the information on the Rivenroars]

A player wouldn't get the spoilers unless he wanted it.

This is a terribly naive view of the situation. I have neither played nor read Keep on the Shadowfell, but i know enough about the module just from off hand comments from people who have to get a good enough idea of what I can expect

Have you ever DMed? Your arguments sound as if you have no experience with DMing, at least not with DMing a campaign that's not just verbatim reading of a bought adventure. You really sound like you think all a DM has to (and can) do is read the adventure text.

I am DMing RoR quite successfully right now. Before that i DM'd a 4e adventure of my own making. Before that multiple 3e adventures of my own design. I've both directed and acted in amature productions.

Now that we have corrected the ad hominem there are a number of ways that things can be DM'd. Just as there are a number of ways that things can be directed. You can indeed direct while only knowing what has happened and not what will happen. Its actually easier to DM not knowing where things are going than it is to direct. Since a director needs to know the motivations for his actors and a DM needs to know the motivations of his actors. But both of these things are still rooted in the past and not the future. But a director needs to know what the actors characters want to do, and a DM doesn't. Or he can just ask.

What is happening here is a desire from many DMs to be both the director and the writer. And well, if you're using the plot of pre-made adventures then that boat has sailed, you've defeated the point already.

Are you telling me Star Wars would have been better if the director had NO idea what was going on in the movie?

When the audience is the actors it can actually have a huge effect. Especially if your actors accidentally get your hands on parts of the script they should not. As someone who has DM'd, directed, and acted you certainly can direct and act without knowing where the action is going just as you can act without knowing where the action is going.

I can absolutely tell you that episodes 1-3 would have been better if no one had seen Episodes 4-6 before. Skywalker would have been a much more compelling figure if "you're going to become Darth Vader" was not hanging over the directors and actors head. The fall might have been striking and poignant instead a "Frodo, get on the boat already" moment prolonged for 3 movies.

Whats to stop a player from walking into any FLGS, picking up the adventure they are currently running, and flipping through it?

This complaint has been answered at least twice in the last page, stop bringing it up like its some revelation. It was even mentioned directly above the section you quoted in your discussion!

There is NO difference between spoiling the current adventure, and spoiling the entire one, so saying that argument is not valid is perposterous

Yes there is. Spoiling the entire part reveals more information than would be revealed by spoiling each and every adventure before it was played but after the previous one was. This is because the following adventures reveal information about previous adventures which would not be revealed otherwise.

edit: Note, if there was no difference between spoiling the current and entire set then there would be no reason to want the information. Since there is, as you said, no difference between knowing and not knowing.

 

[Fenes]

edit: Note, if there was no difference between spoiling the current and entire set then there would be no reason to want the information. Since there is, as you said, no difference between knowing and not knowing.

You show a rather obvious lack of understanding what DMs need, despite your claims of experience. You also ignore that WotC itself advices DMs to get an outline of a campaign. The rest of your arguments show the sadly usual confusing of D&D for Star Wars.

 

[Wonka]

This complaint has been answered at least twice in the last page, stop bringing it up like its some revelation. It was even mentioned directly above the section you quoted in your discussion!

No, it hasn't actualy. At least not with any satisfaction for me. You merely state

Given that there is a very significant difference between a spoiler one month in advance when there is likely to already be foreshadowing in play and and a spoiler months[or years in advance when players need to be acting under an entirely different set of assumptions your argument that their reasoning is silly is thoroughly refuted

That tells me NOTHING. You give no justification to your reasoning, you just say its correct, and as such the other argument is wrong. And Im not bringing it up because its a revolutionary point, but because its a good point that hadn't been answered to my satisfaction.

I repeat, a player can walk into a FLGS, pick up Red Hand of Doom, and know exactly whats going on. And again, that is the PLAYERS fault. And yes, i read the part above the section I quoted. You give an example of being spoiled. An example that once again, has your players going out of their way to spoil the adventure for themselves. This is a problem with your PLAYERS, not the fact that the information is available.

Yes there is. Spoiling the entire part reveals more information than would be revealed by spoiling each and every adventure before it was played but after the previous one was. This is because the following adventures reveal information about previous adventures which would not be revealed otherwise.

edit: Note, if there was no difference between spoiling the current and entire set then there would be no reason to want the information. Since there is, as you said, no difference between knowing and not knowing.

Ah now you FINALLY tell me the logic behind your reason. I dont agree, but at this point it is painfully obvious we are just on oppisite sides of this argument, so Im not going to bother to refute where I disagree. Im going to leave it at agree to disagree, because it comes down to this:

You dont want the information because it can spoil it for your players. I want the information because I need to know how to shape the adventure to my players and my personal tastes. We are on oppisite sides, and we are not going to convince each other differently.

Now that this is established, Im going to not worry about this anymore and go play Spore.