![]() Is that the right way to say this? Not dynamic? Not inspiring? I don’t know. The descriptions are boring because the writing style is just not exciting. There’s something else going on with the writing though and I’m having trouble really putting words to what the issue is. This kind of genericism is the opposite of ecovative writing that inspires the DM and/or players. Rather than describe the dagger, or bow, and letting the player draw a conclusion that they are well taken care of (and therefore special) or of great craftsmanship, instead the read-aloud makes that conclusion for the party. I can cite a couple of examples of abstracted descriptions, like a bow that is described as “amazing craftsmanship” or a dagger that is described as “particularly well taken care of.” These descriptions are abstracted. The writing is … technical? It’s very straightforward. I’ll cite a couple of specific examples of it being non-specific, but there’s something else going on and I’m not sure how to describe it. The biggest problem with this adventure is probably the writing. Combined with a few other elements, I just can’t get into this. I’m also VERY suspicious of the ring hallway layout. ![]() It has a lot of the elements that I would expect to find in an old school dungeon, but it is … plain? Boring? The writing here just doesn’t grip one very strongly. This adventure is in a fifty-two room dungeon with a largely ring layout, symmetrical. Inside is a dungeon with some psionic properties, if you are so inclined to use them. Individually they come to the party to relate rumors of an evil temple in the jungle. A lot of the villagers think she abandoned it in the jungle or a tiger got it. In a jungle village a complains that her baby has been taken.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |