I will add this. When essentials came out it's re-think of the existing classes went a long way to addressing this concern. I sometimes wonder with essentials that wotc wasn't thinking the same thing because the way the martial class's got a work over was so damned close to what I was thinking was needed.
My bigger complaint is that powers essentially make all classes mechanically the same. All the sudden, besides Vancian magic, we have Vancian fighters and rogues! Sure the scope and nature of the powers may differ from class to class, but all the classes essentially use the same play mechanics. Some may argue that this standardizes classes so one doesn't have to switch mechanics from class to class - that's true, but I always liked for classes to really "feel different", not just have different selections of powers.
And then?Encounter powers seemed great to us, at first.
I think you've misunderstood me.
Of course encounter powers are about an encounter-focused game. My point is that, in good encounter-focused RPGing, the content and consequences of the encounters aren't known in advance. And that GMs who plan them out in advance are bad GMs (because railroading).
To reiterate: crucial to a good encounter-based game is that a given encounter/scene is framed in response to, and in light of, what came before (ie not in advance - because what came before can't be known in advance of actual play).
I haven't got my copy of HeroQuest revised in front of me, but look for the discussion of the pass/fail cycle. Each episode in the cycle is an encounter/scene/situation. HeroQuest revised is based around the scene at least as tightly as 4e D&D (apart from other features, the unfolding of the pass/fail cycle directly sets DCs).
As for obscurity, HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel aren't especially obscure. They're some of the leading examples of contemporary RPG design. And Robin Laws cut and pasted whole chunks of the HeroQuest revised rulebook into 4e's DMG2. (Including the discussion of the pass/fail cycle.)
That's very kind of you to say so.by all evidence, you're a great DM
<snip>
your descriptions make me want to play at your table.
I'n not going to defend WotC's published modules. They're bad - and they're doubly made because they have elements that could make them good (here is a link to the changes I made to two parts of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, to take better advantage of its nice maps and interesting NPCs).You suggest that a good DM would make PC choices and actions in previous encounters affect subsequent encounters. Again, my earlier argument stands - this is fine for great DMs who can overcome the tendency for the resolution of prior encounters not to affect subsequent ones, but not for most DMs most of the time.
<snip>
Certainly published adventure modules have done little to dissuade me of this.
<snip>
You might avoid that because, , but that doesn't mean the tendency of the game to push most DMs most of the time in that direction isn't there.
Why?Became disillusioned.
That's very kind of you to say so.
I'n not going to defend WotC's published modules. They're bad - and they're doubly made because they have elements that could make them good (here is a link to the changes I made to two parts of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, to take better advantage of its nice maps and interesting NPCs).
But I think running dynamic and responsive encounters is not as hard as the D&D approach sometimes makes it. I tend to find it's all about the right tools and techniques. The first book that really taught me how to do this was the original Oriental Adventures when it came out - because with its rules for family, and honour, it created links and relationships connecting the PCs into the gameworld on which encounters could be fairly easily hung. They didn't have to be very heavy and detailed in their upfront engineering, becasue the PCs own hooks made it comparatively easy for me, as a GM, to come up with interesting and relevant and responsive stuff on the fly.
The other approach I've found helfpful is one found in modules ranging from the old B module Night's Dark Terror to most of the ICE Rolemaster modules to Eden Odyssey's d20 module Wonders Out of Time - modules that focus on setting and character that are laden with situation, but don't prescribe the precise situation and sequence for play. Combined with strong PC hooks, these tend to allow a more dynamic approach.
I think it would be good if WotC tried harder in contemporary D&D material to put forward these sorts of approaches to adventure/scenario design. (Caves of Chaos doesn't have sequence, but I don't think it's pregnant with situation. The medusa, I think, is a bit underdeveloped, for example.)