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

[Fenes]

The only problem is I (as DM) can't point out whether any of these are significant. Whilst the note's obviously important, and the players have a copy, the Rivenroars and the funny portal-place might be totally meaningless, and I don't know whether to stress it or leave it as interesting backround. Unless I'm told in advance that the Rivenroars are going to be important, I can't really make a big deal of them!

Which is just about the biggest problem there is. Without advance info we don't know what to cut, what to replace, and so on. We're forced to run the adventure verbatim, losing a lot of what makes pen and paper games enjoyable - the way to customise a adventure to your group's taste.

 

[Fenes]

Sigh, i guess you still don't get it. I am not the one making the judgment. The choice is not mine. You, and others, have been saying that WotC is wrong to not release them, and this is false. Its objectively false because its a value judgment on their part based on the research they have done. Unless there are no valid reasons to withhold, which we have established now that there are then your objections are invalid.

Pretentious much? If a reason to withhold the info is utterly invalid as "We don't want to give you spoilers" since we do get spoilers anyway once the adventure is out, and is also insulting us by assuming we can't handle spoilers in a mature way, then no, there is no reason not to release the info.

 

[El Mahdi]

Its objectively false because its a value judgment on their part based on the research they have done.

Not "objectively false", this is a subjective assumption. It could just as likely be a mistake, inexperience, or oversight on WoTC part. No one here, unless they work for WoTC, and is familiar with the decision process that was followed for these products, can make such statements.

 

[El Mahdi]

You keep missing the point about being a DM. A DM means we need that outline to run a campaign, as everyone who ever DMed should understand.

The point that we don't need an outline is true. The DMG doesn't say you need one, it advises that it's advantageous to have one.

The real point is WoTC is not providing that which they advise using, in their own material.

 

[El Mahdi]

Personally I'm happy (in a way) there's no synopsis, as I'm sharing DM duties with someone else, and we're doing an adventure each in turn. If there was a synopsis, I'd have to read it, and I might know what was coming!

I don't understand why you would have to read it. Could you explain this better? (i.e. is it personal taste; or is it, like me, that we can't resist our WoTC masters).

 

[Wonka]

Unless there are no valid reasons to withhold, which we have established now that there are then your objections are invalid.

WE haven't established this, you have. You say not wanting to spoil is a valid reason to withhold, and as such its ok that they are not releasing the synopsis, and that our objections are invalid. I do NOT think that is a valid reason, and as such i think my objections are perfectly valid. You can't win this, I cant win this, as this is obviously a philosphical difference between us. No one is wrong, all of these opinions are valid. My issue with you now is how you are telling me that we are wrong, and you are right. I can totally see where you are coming from on this, and while I dont agree, you are entilted to feel that way. You seem to not recognize that our argumet is valid. This now seems to be the cause of the argumentivness that is forming.

 

[Goumindong]

You keep missing the point about being a DM. A DM means we need that outline to run a campaign, as everyone who ever DMed should understand.

No it doesn't, reasons for this and examples have been given on this very page. take your ad hominem elsewhere.

Pretentious much? If a reason to withhold the info is utterly invalid as "We don't want to give you spoilers" since we do get spoilers anyway once the adventure is out, and is also insulting us by assuming we can't handle spoilers in a mature way, then no, there is no reason not to release the info.

Why is it invalid? Certainly not just because you say so?

Yes its advantageous for a DM to have an adventure synopsis. Yes most DM's would like one. Yes, its very clear you want one. No, that does not make the opposing reasons invalid. It simply means that there are benefits and costs to be weighed. They weighed them and decided in a manner you would not.

Sometimes there can be no reason why a decision could be rationally made. This is not one of those times.

Not "objectively false", this is a subjective assumption. It could just as likely be a mistake, inexperience, or oversight on WoTC part. No one here, unless they work for WoTC, and is familiar with the decision process that was followed for these products, can make such statements.

No, it is objectively false. No one here has been making a subjective assumption. If they were, they would be saying "we made a subjective assumption and we regret that WotC did not make the same subjective assumption that we did". Instead they are saying that WotC is in the wrong for making a subjective assumption that has very little to do with them, because they made a different subjective assumption.

 

[Goumindong]

WE haven't established this, you have. You say not wanting to spoil is a valid reason to withhold, and as such its ok that they are not releasing the synopsis, and that our objections are invalid. I do NOT think that is a valid reason, and as such i think my objections are perfectly valid.

You have no argument for as to why an argument is not valid. You have only your opinion. Your objection cannot be valid.

 

[El Mahdi]

. . . Its objectively false because its a value judgment on their part based on the research they have done. . .

Okay, we'll try this one more time.

Unless you work for WoTC, and are specifically involved in, or privy to, the decision process used or not used, or the research done or not done, you are not qualified to make a statement about what decisions were made and how they were reached. Therefore, any statement made by anyone here, that doesn't meet the aforementioned qualifications, is by definition a subjective statement, not grounded in fact. Your statement may be true or may not be true. You, however, are not qualified to make this statement.

 

[Wonka]

You have no argument for as to why an argument is not valid. You have only your opinion. Your objection cannot be valid.

And your arguments consist of "you have no argument, you are wrong." Once again, Ive gone over why I consider the reason for not wanting to spoil the AP to be not valid. Perhaps if you've read the thread like you claim you'd find it. Ive given my reasons, as such my opinion is valid. Its not my fault you cant find them. All Im getting from you is you ffer your OPINIONS (not facts) for your arguments and they are valid, but I offer my OPINIONS (not facts) for my argument and my opinion isn't valid? How does that work anyway?