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

[Ovinomancer]

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

Slow down there, you didn't just say logical and well thought out = railroad, did you? Because, that's... not even wrong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Good for you? I'm not a fan of bad plot devices dressed up in silly clothes to try and disguise it, but, hey, there's room for everyone at the table.

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.

I thought a bit more about what you said, and, honestly, it kinda boils down to pointing out it's a preference thing and then, kinda, suggesting that since it is a preference thing we shouldn't talk about it because there are, you know, different preferences out there. Did I miss a bit?

 

[LordEntrails]

...
I thought a bit more about what you said, and, honestly, it kinda boils down to pointing out it's a preference thing and then, kinda, suggesting that since it is a preference thing we shouldn't talk about it because there are, you know, different preferences out there. Did I miss a bit?

Yes

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes

Okay, help, then, because I'm not seeing it. You pretty much said you were frustrated because robus (and others, I guess) are refusing to accept that their positions are just opinions, and other people also have opinions, so yours (ambiguity intentional) might be wrong. But, that's a strange argument, because why would I ever stop arguing my opinion just because I was faced with a different one? As I said, I thought there might be more to this argument pattern that I missed, but you've, so far, left it out. You continue to do so.

So, then, again, why should I not strongly present my preferences for adventures, especially in the realm of having more tightly constructed scenarios and less nonsense?

 

[LordEntrails]

Okay, help, then, ...

I've tried. And it seems that several of you are more interested in absolutes and argument than comprehension. I can't help with that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've tried. And it seems that several of you are more interested in absolutes and argument than comprehension. I can't help with that.

So, me asking you to help understand your point gets a dismissal and an accusation of being unwilling to comprehend? There's some irony, here.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I've tried. And it seems that several of you are more interested in absolutes and argument than comprehension. I can't help with that.

You really haven't. And your snide dismissals are a good indicator that you don't really have a good argument in the first place because if you did, you would resort to it instead of borderline ad hominems.

 

[Azzy]

 

[LordEntrails]

You really haven't. And your snide dismissals are a good indicator that you don't really have a good argument in the first place because if you did, you would resort to it instead of borderline ad hominems.

The only answer this deserve is an inappropriate one.

 

[LordEntrails]

So, me asking you to help understand your point gets a dismissal and an accusation of being unwilling to comprehend? There's some irony, here.

Yes I recognized the irony before I came to the decision.

You really want to know and are willing to have an open mind? You actually will have to read what I write with out a preconceived answer? Then I will try.

Give me a few.