Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3544728" data-attributes="member: 30001">This doesn't make any sense to me at all.&nbsp; What can you possibly mean by &quot;adventure&quot;?&nbsp; For example - Arriving on the backs of rocs would probably attract a lot of attention, meaning that the initial encounters would be different than if the PCs snuck onto the island invisibly.&nbsp; DnD doesn't work by just reading sections of a written module outloud and rolling dice.&nbsp; It works by interpreting information and presenting it to the players in ways the module doesn't cover.&nbsp; Isn't that part of the adventure?It's not about making what you call &quot;significant changes&quot;.&nbsp; Those &quot;changes&quot; are actually the required additions to the material that it was assumed DMs would make (I refer to the advice in the intro to the KotB).We were close to some sort of agreement with your &quot;spectrum&quot; analogy - where did that go?&nbsp; The Five Shires information is less likely to be useful than details on encounter area 2B - at least that's how I understand your &quot;spectrum&quot; theory.&nbsp; And yet that goes completely out the window when you revert back to the extremist black-and-white language of Five Shires info being totally irrelevant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3544728, member: 30001"] This doesn't make any sense to me at all. What can you possibly mean by "adventure"? For example - Arriving on the backs of rocs would probably attract a lot of attention, meaning that the initial encounters would be different than if the PCs snuck onto the island invisibly. DnD doesn't work by just reading sections of a written module outloud and rolling dice. It works by interpreting information and presenting it to the players in ways the module doesn't cover. Isn't that part of the adventure? It's not about making what you call "significant changes". Those "changes" are actually the required additions to the material that it was assumed DMs would make (I refer to the advice in the intro to the KotB). We were close to some sort of agreement with your "spectrum" analogy - where did that go? The Five Shires information is [i]less likely[/i] to be useful than details on encounter area 2B - at least that's how I understand your "spectrum" theory. And yet that goes completely out the window when you revert back to the extremist black-and-white language of Five Shires info being totally irrelevant. [/QUOTE]

Verification