Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5581220" data-attributes="member: 177">I don't think that answers the question at all.&nbsp; It looks to me completely orthogonal to the question.&nbsp;Yes.&nbsp; But then we come to the choice of obstacles, the actual content in the adventure.&nbsp; Why is the content in these supposedly classic modules so much like an engineer trying to trick fellow engineers into making a mistake, and so little like the obstacles Conan, Fafhrd, and Grey Mouser face?A player can have as much freedom of choice in trying to figure out how to search a stack of moldy bags as dealing with a Thulsa Doom's guards.&nbsp; The question isn't about how much freedom the players are given to devise their own solutions to problems, as what their problems are in the first place.I think the answer to that question is, as you say, quite simple, but not anywhere near the direction you put it:The authors were more like people who fiddle with rules and puzzles, and less like people who write stories.&nbsp; If you figure the authors (wisely) went by the &quot;write what you know&quot; philosophy, then it is not odd that the classic modules are a lot about tinkering with fiddly bits.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5581220, member: 177"] I don't think that answers the question at all. It looks to me completely orthogonal to the question. Yes. But then we come to the choice of obstacles, the actual content in the adventure. Why is the content in these supposedly classic modules so much like an engineer trying to trick fellow engineers into making a mistake, and so little like the obstacles Conan, Fafhrd, and Grey Mouser face? A player can have as much freedom of choice in trying to figure out how to search a stack of moldy bags as dealing with a Thulsa Doom's guards. The question isn't about how much freedom the players are given to devise their own solutions to problems, as what their problems are in the first place. I think the answer to that question is, as you say, quite simple, but not anywhere near the direction you put it: The authors were more like people who fiddle with rules and puzzles, and less like people who write stories. If you figure the authors (wisely) went by the "write what you know" philosophy, then it is not odd that the classic modules are a lot about tinkering with fiddly bits. [/QUOTE]

Verification