More about H2 (and mentions H3: Pyramid of Shadows)

[Zaukrie]

I think modules linked to levels makes more sense than asking a DM to scale it across 10 levels. Also, as the 2nd module released for a new game, wouldn't you expect it to follow the first one in level? I would.

Player handouts, that's like quest cards or something, right?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm flabbergasted that they keep on targeting adventure modules to certain levels. There are 30 levels in the game and they release modules that target 10% of the audience - even before flavor concerns and other market dividers. It's astonishingly stupid, if you ask me. They had the chance to keep adventure modules heroic, paragon, or epic but instead they design stuff that makes the customer having to deal with both the tiers and the levels. I don't get it. Do you?

Yes. It's the second module released for the new edition. Most people are going to start at the beginning until they get their feet wet. There's already been mention that people are working on paragon modules. They'll get there. Don't freak out if module number one isn't for level 30 characters.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Blah blah blah, Underdark, fiends, trading with overworlders...

Seriously, can WotC come up with some new ideas instead of rehashing the same plots from a handful of other modules that have already been written?!

Yeah, because when bringing in new players -- the explicit purpose of 4E -- it would suck to have the classic tropes be updated for a new generation.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Yeah, because when bringing in new players -- the explicit purpose of 4E -- it would suck to have the classic tropes be updated for a new generation.

Fourth edition requires a lot more than polish on the rules to attract new players; it needs to reinvent the idea of fantasy adventure and bring new ideas to the table. Simply rehashing the same adventure hooks from 1970-whatever and onward isn't going to change anything.

 

[Sir Brennen]

it needs to reinvent the idea of fantasy adventure

It does?

Seriously, there are certain tropes which many people, even new players, sort of expect to be in a fantasy adventure. If you "reinvent" these, many will be turned off. Worse, some experienced players will decry it as "not D&D!" In fact, some of the fluff changes we've seen so far already have people doing this.

However, one thing that many authors do is take common themes and tweak them in unexpected directions. It's entirely possible that these first "H" series do just that despite the recognizable premise.

Also, I think 4E is going to "reinvent" fantasy adventures to lesser degrees based on what we've seen so far. Ditching the "15-minute workday" syndrome. Making hostile planes more open to some exploration. There's evidence of enough invention with an evolving, modern sensibility to interest older players and new players alike.

But "reinventing" fantasy adventuring as a primary goal? No, I don't think this is something the new edition needs to do.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Fourth edition requires a lot more than polish on the rules to attract new players; it needs to reinvent the idea of fantasy adventure and bring new ideas to the table. Simply rehashing the same adventure hooks from 1970-whatever and onward isn't going to change anything.

Joseph Campbell would disagree.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Joseph Campbell would disagree.

Without being entire too snarky regarding speaking with the opinion of dead people's voice, mythology has done anything but remain stagnant. The growth of mythology, ranging from Dungeons and Dragons, fiction and film are evidence enough of this.

 

[Rechan]

Fourth edition requires a lot more than polish on the rules to attract new players; it needs to reinvent the idea of fantasy adventure and bring new ideas to the table. Simply rehashing the same adventure hooks from 1970-whatever and onward isn't going to change anything.

Eberron reinvented some fantasy tropes, and boy did it garner some hatred.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Without being entire too snarky regarding speaking with the opinion of dead people's voice, mythology has done anything but remain stagnant. The growth of mythology, ranging from Dungeons and Dragons, fiction and film are evidence enough of this.

Who the hell is arguing in favor of stagnation?

And nearly all of the successful stuff still works off of the same outlines that it's used since the beginning. In fact, it's hard to think of something you'd use as D&D source material that doesn't fit Campbell's very roomy one-size-fits-most model.

In any case, if you're against the very Campbellian descent into the underworld, shouldn't you be playing a game that doesn't have "Dungeons" in its name?

 

[Frostmarrow]

Yes. It's the second module released for the new edition. Most people are going to start at the beginning until they get their feet wet. There's already been mention that people are working on paragon modules. They'll get there. Don't freak out if module number one isn't for level 30 characters.

No argument there. Although the point I'm trying to make is that designing a game in a way that divides the customer base is a big mistake.

Let's say you have 100 customers. They play the game spread over thirty levels. For simplicity's sake let's assume they are spread evenly. If you publish a module designed for three levels of play only 10% will feel the need to purchase the module. So you have 10 customers. Stupid?

Oh well then mister smarty-pants, what should they have done?

They should have designed the game around heroic, paragon, and epic levels. As in "This is a heroic adventure", "this is a paragon adventure", or "this is an epic adventure".

That way they would have 33 customers per published adventure.

For example: Heroic adventures lack flying, scrying, and planar travel. Paragon adventures lack scrying and flying. Epic adventures lack travel and interviews.