D&D 5E Why does WotC put obviously bad or illogical elements in their adventures?

[Nagol]

I think we stray into a more objective realm when discussing the intentional silly that makes it into these games. Getting a ride from a crazy cloud giant wizard flying in a tower that looks like a silly wizard hat (who wears those?) who seems to exist only to the the adventurers into the plotline from the hastily tacked on rush to 5th level that is Chapter 1 is verging on objectively silly and bad. Well, it is objectively silly, bad is more subjective as many seem to like silly. It does clunk hard, though.

Yes, though thankfully the writers have not yet stooped to the lows seen in Castle Greyhawk.

Many of the OP points were more to the types of omissions that occur from single author creation with limited proof-reading and no dedicated editor review stage that happens because of time/cost constraints. Objectively silly bits often get pressed into the works for their own sakes -- the silliness is treated as a selling feature. It works sometimes; more occasionally for some groups than others.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, though thankfully the writers have not yet stooped to the lows seen in Castle Greyhawk.

Many of the OP points were more to the types of omissions that occur from single author creation with limited proof-reading and no dedicated editor review stage that happens because of time/cost constraints. Objectively silly bits often get pressed into the works for their own sakes -- the silliness is treated as a selling feature. It works sometimes; more occasionally for some groups than others.

I understand that, but I see the silliness as similarly illogical. That it's intentional cuts for my argument, not against.

And I don't have a problem with silly on its own. I like Castle Greyhawk, but it doesn't pretend to be anything other than a farce. I like Paranoia, a similarly unapologetic farce. What I don't like is farce thrown into otherwise serious modules.

Again, I don't mind farce, but my players are going to bring that in spades -- I don't need whatever the author thinks is farcical where I'm then supposed to play out the author's farce. It rarely works because tastes differ and I apparently am not the kind to find jauntily tilted wizard hats (again, who wears those?) as wizard towers endearing.

 

[robus]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - well put!

 

[neq.the.glockenspiel]

Yes, though thankfully the writers have not yet stooped to the lows seen in Castle Greyhawk.

Many of the OP points were more to the types of omissions that occur from single author creation with limited proof-reading and no dedicated editor review stage that happens because of time/cost constraints. Objectively silly bits often get pressed into the works for their own sakes -- the silliness is treated as a selling feature. It works sometimes; more occasionally for some groups than others.

A bit of proofreading surely wouldn't be all that hard, especially if the proofreader were also a plattester who gets a chance to run through the whole thing once or twice to understand kind of what the author is aiming at.

I really don't see silliness as a bad thing. Listen to the tome show appendix n series sometime (or just get the books and see for yourself) - D&D was based on a lot of seriously camp and often massively illogical stuff.

The video gaming era seriously impacted D&D player expectations I think, the idea that a module should be designed as if the DM were just a black box that spits out info as you the player put in your input just doesn't work for me. If you design your adventures to make perfect sense like a pick your own adventure story (those could be seriously suspect too!) you're setting yourself up for a railroad session or total improvisation.

I think WotC made it pretty clear in the DM's guide that story comes first. For me there's even perhaps a bit too much crunch in there, although I've yet to run a totally DMG generated adventure, I have a feeling it would be incredible. It's so vague and open that it would be a great balance of DM and player improvisation....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Corpsetaker]

To the OP:

Two initials: CP

Enough said.

 

[Nagol]

A bit of proofreading surely wouldn't be all that hard, especially if the proofreader were also a plattester who gets a chance to run through the whole thing once or twice to understand kind of what the author is aiming at.

At best, it adds a moderate amount of time and cost since another human is involved and thus in addition to the actual reading interpretation and feedback we need to add communication and coordination. At worst it can add substantial delay cost as the iterative nature of quality assurance becomes key: now that X has been identified, the writer needs to repair it and resubmit for review and the reviewer has to check the whole again for unintended consequence or unintended alteration. Much like development, a mature shop can construct reasonable processes to guide the flow.

I really don't see silliness as a bad thing. Listen to the tome show appendix n series sometime (or just get the books and see for yourself) - D&D was based on a lot of seriously camp and often massively illogical stuff.

The problem with silliness is not only is humour an individual taste, but each table has different expectations regarding how much and what sort is appropriate.

The video gaming era seriously impacted D&D player expectations I think, the idea that a module should be designed as if the DM were just a black box that spits out info as you the player put in your input just doesn't work for me. If you design your adventures to make perfect sense like a pick your own adventure story (those could be seriously suspect too!) you're setting yourself up for a railroad session or total improvisation.

I think WotC made it pretty clear in the DM's guide that story comes first. For me there's even perhaps a bit too much crunch in there, although I've yet to run a totally DMG generated adventure, I have a feeling it would be incredible. It's so vague and open that it would be a great balance of DM and player improvisation....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Appendix N doesn't contain a lot of overt silliness: it has some humour, sure, but most of the works listed try to be at least moderately self-consistent at the story level and most manage it at the world level.

My DMing started before home video games were really a thing. Well-designed adventures neither need to be railroads nor need heavy improvisation. Good design can lead to easy improvisation as the world responses flow naturally from events and consequences in the rule set, but heavy improvisation is not a necessity.

It's relatively easy to design adventures that make sense within the domain of a particular setting and genre conceits some long as you are willing to create adventures that conform to the game expectations. Things go sideways when the designer either wants a trope the rules don't or only poorly support (i.e. "With his dying breath.. Wait! I cast CLW!!!!!!") or the designer wants to include a pop culture reference because he thinks its cute ("I know! Let's have the PCs fight the Pillsbury Dough Boy!" ).

I have more tolerance for whimsy than pop-culture reference. If a NPC has decided to ride around in a giant version of clothing stereotypical for his class then that informs the personality of the NPC for me. It's not like real people don't make similarly outrageous style choices when given sufficient wealth and latitude. It only becomes a problem when the whimsy specifically goes against the personality presented and I have to reconcile the one with the other or the whimsy goes against how the rules work for the rest of the universe and I want a justification as to why this exception exists.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I think we stray into a more objective realm when discussing the intentional silly that makes it into these games. Getting a ride from a crazy cloud giant wizard flying in a tower that looks like a silly wizard hat (who wears those?) who seems to exist only to the the adventurers into the plotline from the hastily tacked on rush to 5th level that is Chapter 1 is verging on objectively silly and bad. Well, it is objectively silly, bad is more subjective as many seem to like silly. It does clunk hard, though.

Both my players and myself (running the adventure) loved that part.

 

[LordEntrails]

I'd call it criticism - it's done all the time with music, movies, books etc. I'm just applying it to D&D adventures. It's not that unusual. but sure, if you think they're perfectly fine then I doubt you'll find much to engage with.

Interesting response. I think I am now convinced that not only do you know what you are talking about, but obviously you actually refuse to comprehend what I am trying to say.

 

[robus]

Interesting response. I think I am now convinced that not only do you know what you are talking about, but obviously you actually refuse to comprehend what I am trying to say.

As I've had other respondents post in a sympathetic manner to most OP I think we should just agree to disagree.

Your position: suck it up. Mine: I would like WotC to make things more logical. They're both valid points of view.

 

[LordEntrails]

As I've had other respondents post in a sympathetic manner to most OP I think we should just agree to disagree.

Your position: suck it up. Mine: I would like WotC to make things more logical. They're both valid points of view.

No, that is not my position.

I accepted days ago that we disagree. I had not accepted that you refused to understand what I was saying. Now I've given up on trying to educate you.