Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SlyFlourish" data-source="post: 9358218" data-attributes="member: 54840">Sure. I don’t have to. I could just run a multi-month campaign adventure that takes all agency away from the players, reveal that all the work they did was for a bad guy they couldn’t ever reveal themselves, and then blame the book when they’re pissed off at never having a chance to change the story by their actions.I’m not arguing about the thinness of prosciutto. I would never recommend a GM put in a secret villain who leads the entire campaign with no chance they can be discovered. This is sort of the amateur mistake a completely new DM makes and realizes the second they look into the eyes of their players after the reveal. It’s also totally avoidable but WOtC wrote paragraphs of text trying to make this forced rug pull work.If I’m dropping $60 on an adventure, I shouldn’t have to rebuild the whole plot of the adventure so I don’t have to betray my players’ trust.This is also the third adventure in the past couple of years to do so. Planescape and Spelljammer have the same problem.But I get it. Some people don’t care and think it’s fun anyway. Ok, cool. We each get to choose what we like and want to run at the table. It’s the awesome feature of our hobby that separates it from so many others. Go with the gods. But I don’t think I’m being nitpicky here. The whole purpose of the adventure hinges on being bamboozled by a major NPC with no practical chance to discover the ruse because doing so shatters this brittle adventure structure.</blockquote>

Verification