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

[Hriston]

Nice move of the goalposts! You went from 'the hill giants are inspired by the reduction of Lear's retinue by his daughters', which has no evidence, to 'the authors said the were inspired and you haven't proven they weren't!' Touche, I have failed to prove a negative. Still, your initial assertion appears not only bunk, but abandoned.

Let's examine my initial assertion, shall we?

I haven't read (or played) the adventure, but wasn't it supposed to be based in part on the story of King Leir? Part of that story is that, through the machinations of two of his daughters, Leir's bodyguard is diminished until he's left with only a single knight to protect him. In Shakespeare's version, Lear has only two companions at this point in the story, the Earl of Kent (the knight) and a Fool. Perhaps the adventure writers intended the appearance of the foolish Hill Giants as a sort of homage to the source material. When that source material is a fairy tale, I think it's reasonable to expect the tone of an adventure to be somewhat nonsensical, and when that doesn't suit your group's play-style, to expect to make adjustments accordingly.

Notice the word perhaps, bolded for your convenience. I put it there to express uncertainty and that it was simply one possibility of many that I was expressing. I further clarified in subsequent posts that it was mere speculation on my part. Your tactic seems to have been to ignore all that, prop up a strawman to argue against, and then to accuse me of shifting the goalposts when I disown your strawman.

I stand by my initial assertion. There have been other materials besides SKT published for D&D that were inspired by fairy tales that have met with similar reactions from consumers. It just isn't to everyone's liking, but the great thing about D&D is you're free to change or not use anything that doesn't fit with your group's aesthetic of play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Let's examine my initial assertion, shall we?



Notice the word perhaps, bolded for your convenience. I put it there to express uncertainty and that it was simply one possibility of many that I was expressing. I further clarified in subsequent posts that it was mere speculation on my part. Your tactic seems to have been to ignore all that, prop up a strawman to argue against, and then to accuse me of shifting the goalposts when I disown your strawman.

I stand by my initial assertion. There have been other materials besides SKT published for D&D that were inspired by fairy tales that have met with similar reactions from consumers. It just isn't to everyone's liking, but the great thing about D&D is you're free to change or not use anything that doesn't fit with your group's aesthetic of play.

As, so your new last word is that you never really asserted what you asserted? That you left enough weasel word room that, in the end, if it didn't work out, that you could deny you really asserted it an argued it for multiple posts? Touche, sir, well done, I accept that you didn't really mean it.

 

[cmad1977]

Some prima donnas up in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ovinomancer]

Some prima donnas up in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think you're using that correctly.

 

[Hriston]

As, so your new last word is that you never really asserted what you asserted? That you left enough weasel word room that, in the end, if it didn't work out, that you could deny you really asserted it an argued it for multiple posts?

No, I asserted precisely what I asserted, no more no less. Most of the rest of the conversation has been about your counter-assertions that:

1) SKT bears little resemblance to King Lear, which is debatable. It bears enough resemblance for me to notice the resemblance through the comments in this thread, but not enough for you.

and 2) SKT was not inspired by King Lear and "Lear the Giant-King", for which you require textual evidence while I am satisfied by the statements of its promoters and developers.

Since we don't seem to be reading the same words I doubt further conversation will result in anything productive.