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

Largely, this is self-inflicted in my case, because I've been presenting those kinds of worlds for awhile now. I layer on meaning over multiple arcs so that when a reveal happens, it's always been there, just not obvious. I also layer in lots of different things so I can adapt and make even sudden changes appear as if the rational has always been there. This comes from building a deep world with almost every NPC or major player not having a pre-written plot, but instead having a motivation and a set of goals. That way, no matter what happens, they react in a consistent fashion. Finding those motivations and goals is a big part of predicting what the bad guys are doing/going to do and stopping them. But, and, again, I'm dealing with SKT only here as the first module I've run in a decade, I find that this module just has things happen to the players that are out of the blue and has them react to it. I find, more than halfway through, that the core concept and many of the set pieces are good, but that I'd completely restructure the entire thing if I were to attempt it again because it has some glaring holes (the hill giants, btw, are nettlesome, not glaring). For one, the actual bad guys don't make an appearance until most of the way through the game. Boo. There should have been some color encounter early on where the players run into them, and learn to hate them, so that the emotional payoff in a later scene isn't 'weird cultists are the bad guys? Fine, whatever, let's kill them" it's "I KNEW it was those bastards, I have a bone to pick with them!"

SKT, instead, seems to just hide information until they give it to the players to start the next bit. Except for the Shrine of the All Father Oracle, though, there the players have to have been paying some decent attention and then guess which questions will result in the information they need to continue. Blargh. Works if they do, doesn't if they don't. My players, who usually close attention, fumbled here because of the lack of sufficient foreshadowing. They kept asking questions about things that had happened in the modules that didn't go with the main plot because they assumed that since it was impactful to them, it was important. But that's how my games run, and I failed to account for the change at the one point in the module where it doesn't just hand out the next job to do and the needed information to do it.

I picked up SKT because my group had an out-of-game major change and we switched to Roll20 instead of face to face for awhile. SKT had pretty maps and all of the fixings supposedly done and we were all learning the new interface so it seemed a good bet, especially since I had a change in duties at work and had less time for prep during the transition. But it's, so far, turned out to be more work as I get deeper into the game to change it into something that isn't just a string of connected combat encounters. The maps are pretty, though.
I do agree with you that the module, although excellent in many ways, is very poor when it comes to foreshadowing. After reading through it, I made three fairly minor adjustments to address this: I made Harshnag a matter of rumor and discussion in taverns and farmsteads ("My farm was being attacked by fire giants and this frost giant drove them off and was all friendly afterwards!") so he wouldn't be showing up out of the blue; I had Harshnag inform the party (when asked) about rumors he's heard about the storm giant court; and I made sure the party was invited to the gambling barge when they went through Yartar (which lead to a hugely satisfying "a-ha!" moment when Serissa gave them the coin). I found these three changes really enhanced the story and smoothed out the major rough points for the AP.

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So, imo, if you want better adventures published in general, and you want better adventures for your own use/group, take it as your own responsibility to do research, and relate your experience (after you run the adventure) with the community through product reviews.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/productforums.php

Yeah - I'm thinking that I need to start to do this, really as an excuse for a deeper prep for myself. :)
 


However, I, as DM, need to present a world that reacts believably to the players, and knowing why there are incongruous hill giants as the royal guards is something that I need to know, especially if the players do attempt to bluff them. Why they're there and what their motivations are is crucial to being able to run that scene believable and well, and even in a fun way. But, pointing out the complete failure to provide an explanation for this very incongruous setup makes me an unfun DM, I guess. I'll let my players know, they'll be disappointed in me.

I agree, if they are incongruous to you and your group. I also agree you knowing backstory and motivation is good for presenting the game to the players.

But, the encounter may not be incongruous to other groups, as the level of whats acceptable varies group to group.*

So if you run across it in a published module, develop what you need.

-----



*As a side note, most of my players are gun toting police/security. The incongruities we find in tactics and stories would be insurmountable for Wizards to fix without ruining it for everyone else.
 

*As a side note, most of my players are gun toting police/security. The incongruities we find in tactics and stories would be insurmountable for Wizards to fix without ruining it for everyone else.

I'm sure that's very true. I would argue that there's room for a happy medium but I think the response will be they've already reached that point! :)
 

I'm sure that's very true. I would argue that there's room for a happy medium but I think the response will be they've already reached that point! :)

Thing is, not really. Take the Evil Plant Critter in the bottom of the Cursed House in Curse of Strahd. To me, that made perfect sense. It's very much in keeping with genre conventions and it was a heck of a lot of fun and really creepy too. I though that was one of the best bits of module writing I've ever seen.

So, what's "illogical" really, really is a YMMV sort of thing.
 

I agree with the OP. WOTC having dumb hill giants guard a VIP would be like have Barney Fife guard the President. Its a bad idea that while may be good for a few laughs just wrecks immersion unless you are playing a slapstick kind of game.
 

Isn't the point of guards, any guards, simply to raise the alarm if something goes sideways? Don't you pretty much always put your most expendable resources in guard positions? That's pretty much SOP for a lot of places. There's a reason you don't have Navy Seals guarding banks.

Sure, you don't like it? Fair enough. Change it. But, it's not exactly bad or illogical to have a couple of door guards be more or less expendable mooks.
 

Isn't the point of guards, any guards, simply to raise the alarm if something goes sideways? Don't you pretty much always put your most expendable resources in guard positions? That's pretty much SOP for a lot of places. There's a reason you don't have Navy Seals guarding banks.

Sure, you don't like it? Fair enough. Change it. But, it's not exactly bad or illogical to have a couple of door guards be more or less expendable mooks.
No, you don't have SEALs guarding banks because there are very few SEALs, very many banks, and what's in banks is easily replaceable.

But look at who guards world leaders, and they start to look more like SEALs. But, no one's asking for Storm Giant SEALs; were just looking for competent.
 

I'd just like to give a big shout out to all those hard working Hill Giants trying their best to make ends meet, despite adversity. Forget these haters. You guys are aok.
 

Remove ads

Top