FGU Sharing LOS and Light Definitions

[Ludd_G]

Personally I think I'd be much happier having to delete a few extra light sources I didn't want, than have to set them up just before a game, or even on the run during a session.

Cheers,

Simon

[LordEntrails]

My experience is that a lot (most?)GMs actually don't customize a module. And, based upon the feedback and questions on the forums, many GMs expect an FG module to be complete and ready to run as is, with no need for them to add anything (even when its missing in the printed product).

[Neovirtus]

... many GMs expect an FG module to be complete and ready to run as is, with no need for them to add anything (even when its missing in the printed product).

I have definitely seen that here, and agree that it is definitely the case.

[Moon Wizard]

However, there is also the counterpoint that people do not like things to be added that are not explicitly defined in a module, just because another person has subjectively decided that it is "better" with their own changes.

We usually err on the side of using what is specifically defined in the material, rather than guessing or "enhancing".

Regards,
JPG

[Curuthanir]

However, there is also the counterpoint that people do not like things to be added that are not explicitly defined in a module, just because another person has subjectively decided that it is "better" with their own changes.

We usually err on the side of using what is specifically defined in the material, rather than guessing or "enhancing".

Regards,
JPG

I've found a number of maps in modules that did not make sense, or worse, the map didn't even match the description in the module. I think a little interpretation is required, and is helpful for the whole reason that DMs buy these modules so that they don't have to spend a huge amount of time in game-prep.

Maybe the modules that have "enhanced" lighting have a note or disclaimer added?

[Moon Wizard]

I'm leaving this up to @ddavison and @Zacchaeus to work out what the best overall solution is; especially while respecting the publisher's wishes.

I just wanted to give a counterpoint that not all users appreciate "interpretation"; and prefer exactness and fidelity to source material.

Regards,
JPG

[Horus1216]

I'm leaving this up to @ddavison and @Zacchaeus to work out what the best overall solution is; especially while respecting the publisher's wishes.

I just wanted to give a counterpoint that not all users appreciate "interpretation"; and prefer exactness and fidelity to source material.

Regards,
JPG

I agree very much in the exactness. But my problem came about when editing the Tidewater Rock map which gave 0 info on lighting, my usual default is no lights. But that made no sense since it was a tower that was inhabited by humans, and humans need light to see where the stairs are. So when doing that map I unfortunately had to slip into interpretation and do what made the most sense for a building that humans lived in on a day to day basis.

[Grommit57]

I think that unless you are the Author of the material or in contact with that person you should stick to the source material as described.

Just my opinion

[Horus1216]

I think that unless you are the Author of the material or in contact with that person you should stick to the source material as described.

Just my opinion

I agree and I try to but if you look at my last example which is a map that I dealt with, what choice did I have?

Make a map with ambient light only through the windows, which wasn't enough for humans to safely navigate after testing that approach.

Or add a sensible amount of lanterns in the areas where people frequent the most, and expect them to carry a lantern in areas that aren't frequented often. I went with this option as it was the most sensible in my opinion and zero guidance was given on lights. No text saying there were lights and no text saying there weren't any.

[Moon Wizard]

One of the questions I always try to consider in these sorts of situations is whether my modern day bias is influencing what I think is "reasonable".

I would theorize that during medieval times that keeping torches lit at every stairwell and junction would require a whole team of full-time servants to be constantly changing out torches every hour. It seems unlikely that would happen; and it would be expected that unless the room is one where humans are sitting and working that there would probably be no light.

Now, we are talking about a fantasy world, not medieval times; but I think the same arguments still hold for lighting. It's just too labor-prohibitive to expect any place people are not working to be lit.

Regards,
JPG