D&D 4E Is it me or are 4E modules just not...exciting?

[knightofround]

I agree with the OP's sentiment, and here's 2 reasons why:

-----

1. Writing adventures and writing supplements requires two completely different skillsets. Its the dichotomy between fluff and crunch. I would argue that because 4E is more "crunchy" than previous editions of D&D, it also means that its also more difficult to write good adventures for it.

For example, take the skill challenge system. In previous editions there was no formalized system to handle non combat encounters, so instead we got long, vague paragraphs about factions, goals, and motivations. That meant that you needed your author to be a good fictional writer.

But in 4E we do have a formal system for non combat encounters. Because we can establish set results for set DCs, there's no need to go into great detail about how the Count is more amicable to your request if you refer to him as "milord" instead of "sir". 4E intrinsically assumes that sort of detail (mechanically represented by the circumstantial bonus) is content added by DM, so it shouldn't be printed in the adventure anymore.

So now you don't need a fictional writer anymore, you need a statistical writer who can properly balance probabilities and expected outcomes in order to create a dynamic and balanced tactical encounter.

The skill challenge system is just one example of crunch constraints overwhelming the need for fluff. I would argue that the same applies to:
- 4E encounter design (more level appropiate encounters in exchange for less level inappropiate encounters)
- 4E power design (each power is categorized as At-Will / Encounter / Daily / 10 min ritual / 1 hour ritual)
- 4E dungeon design (every encounter has a two page spread)

-----

2. WotC has always had great statistical writers to write fantastic rulebooks, splatbooks, and supplements. But they've never really had great fictional writers designing great adventures and campaign settings. Now, I am not familiar with 4E's current list of big players, but if you look at WotC's former bigshots such as Keith Baker or Monte Cook, sure they've published some fiction, but it was a secondary thing for them. Instead, Baker's background was in computer design, and Cook's background was in editing. Now I know that neither Baker nor Cook were very much involved 4E, but I'm willing to bet that if you go through WotC's offices today you'll find very similar backgrounds. Whereas in 3PP, the writers often come from less technical backgrounds.

This problem was compounded by the GSL, which at 4E's release really shut down all the 3PP support that filled in WotC's weaknesses. Now that there's less uncertainty about the GSL it isn't as bad as it used to be. But there's still very little incentive for 3PP to switch to an edition where there is very little space for their strengths to shine within 4E's constraints. That results in 3PP sticking with 3E, and 4E's adventures and campaign settings suffers for it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except the WotC modules have good premises and encounter design. They don't read like a book/story is my issue with them but that's format, not a lack of actual quality.

Eh, yes and no. Have you read the Kingmaker AP? I haven't read all of it, but I did read the first installment.

My observations:

The writing around character development was stronger. In some cases it was considerably stronger. The BBEG (the Stag Lord IIRC) was fairly well developed. I think he gets about a full half page column detailing his background, personality, and motives. The people running the outpost have a decent sized writeup, and there are easily a dozen other NPCs with at least a paragraph. In fact I think EVERY individual bandit in the main lair, and several other bandits have these writeups.

The overall storyline was pretty well thought out. The PCs have a contract (this is a given at the start of the AP, but gaining this could in itself be a whole other adventure). They're supposed to survey/scout/clear an area of wilderness. They also get involved with several NPCs pretty quickly etc that establish a reinforcing parallel storyline. The rest of the adventure is basically a mini-sandbox/hexcrawl but the initial elements give the PCs a pretty good set of motivations and they can then wander around handling different encounter areas in various ways depending on what they feel like doing and how they interpret their goals.

The encounters design itself I thought was weak comparatively with what you normally get in 4e, but mostly on a par with older AD&D modules. WotC's modules have more developed encounter areas, encounter maps, etc generally.

Overall the thing is the Paizo adventure provides more real incentive to drive the story forward in an organic fashion, and knowing as much as we do about the NPCs unless the players go for total hack-n-slash they're likely to end up interacting with them as more than opponents to slay in a tactical encounter.

Frankly I would rather see a bit more attention to the details of encounters in the Paizo product, but I would like to see a LOT more attention to story and character in WotC products like H1 where the motivations of the PCs are relegated to a couple paragraphs of suggested quests that will give XP awards at the start, and I don't recall any of the NPCs being particularly fleshed out beyond a couple sentences. It was enough to quickly frame the adventure as a sequence of combats, but it left all the real motivation and color totally to the DM.

I don't know about knightofround's hypothesis. I don't think 4e is at all lacking in 'fluff' overall. Nor do I think that WotC's writers are particularly less skilled or creative than the ones Paizo employs. I just don't think they're all that interested in getting into the business of turning out adventures. So they churned out a minimalist set of them in 2008 and once in a while write another one to support something like the DM's Kit, but it just isn't a priority. This may be a strategic error on their part as I think good adventures in the long run do a lot to drive customer adoption and loyalty to your game system, but I have little doubt they're capable of doing it. They may need a bit of practice but I bet they can put out something as good as anything Paizo has done, except they're just not interested.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The writing around character development was stronger. In some cases it was considerably stronger. The BBEG (the Stag Lord IIRC) was fairly well developed. I think he gets about a full half page column detailing his background, personality, and motives. The people running the outpost have a decent sized writeup, and there are easily a dozen other NPCs with at least a paragraph. In fact I think EVERY individual bandit in the main lair, and several other bandits have these writeups.

But isn't this really a philosophical matter? Isn't the 4e mindset that writers do focus on the crunchy mechanical parts and leave (most of) the story context to individual DMs?

IMO both concepts have their disadvantages.

4e material - not only adventures, but most noticeable - is as exciting to read as a telephone directory. The information is in there. You can find it. You want to have fun reading? Better grab a mathematics textbook.

The copious detail in the character descriptions of the Kingmaker adventures, on the other hand, can easily become empty stuffing. How many players will learn of the Stag Lord's adolescence woes if not during leisurely after-adventure talks? Additionally, such detail makes the character less mutable. What if one of the contacts or family of the Stag Lord makes an appearance in a later adventure of the AP and you have made changes to the Stag Lord's context?

But yes, I would love to be able to read a 4e adventure just for the fun of it.

 

[Dannager]

The copious detail in the character descriptions of the Kingmaker adventures, on the other hand, can easily become empty stuffing. How many players will learn of the Stag Lord's adolescence woes if not during leisurely after-adventure talks?

I have to agree with this. I've run a lot of Pathfinder adventures (in 4e) and there's a lot of information in there that ends up having absolutely no bearing on play (and probably doesn't for 90% of the groups out there). The extra "stuffing" is nice, but I'd really prefer it if more design space were spent on encounter design, or on clearing up potential confusion when it comes to cartography, or making monster behavior more explicit.

 

[S'mon]

But isn't this really a philosophical matter? Isn't the 4e mindset that writers do focus on the crunchy mechanical parts and leave (most of) the story context to individual DMs?

IMO both concepts have their disadvantages.

4e material - not only adventures, but most noticeable - is as exciting to read as a telephone directory. The information is in there. You can find it. You want to have fun reading? Better grab a mathematics textbook.

The copious detail in the character descriptions of the Kingmaker adventures, on the other hand, can easily become empty stuffing. How many players will learn of the Stag Lord's adolescence woes if not during leisurely after-adventure talks? Additionally, such detail makes the character less mutable. What if one of the contacts or family of the Stag Lord makes an appearance in a later adventure of the AP and you have made changes to the Stag Lord's context?

But yes, I would love to be able to read a 4e adventure just for the fun of it.

It's possible to overdo NPC background description - I don't need a personality paragraph for every mook; far better to have a single sample mook personality paragraph I can use for the talkiest mook if the PCs capture some of them. But BBEGs definitely do need a personality & motivations section in order to bring an adventure to life. I need to know what they're doing when they're not fighting the PCs in Encounter #28. And NPCs the PCs will definitely interact with ABSOLUTELY do need a personality descriptor - this is why I far prefer the intro adventures in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, which makes use of multiple detailed NPCs in the Loudwater starter town, compared to eg HS1 The Slaying Stone where the quest-givers aren't detailed at all and their motivation appears to make no sense.

 

[S'mon]

I have to agree with this. I've run a lot of Pathfinder adventures (in 4e) and there's a lot of information in there that ends up having absolutely no bearing on play (and probably doesn't for 90% of the groups out there). The extra "stuffing" is nice, but I'd really prefer it if more design space were spent on encounter design, or on clearing up potential confusion when it comes to cartography, or making monster behavior more explicit.

I have 3 Pathfinder adventures - Kingmaker #1, Council of Thieves #1, and Crypt of the Everflame - and I agree they do seem a bit 'over stuffed' with background detail the DM has to wade through to get to the adventure. Whereas WoTC have the opposite problem. Striking the right balance can be hard; I think Necromancer Games was one publisher who used to get it right.

 

[vagabundo]

I have to agree with this. I've run a lot of Pathfinder adventures (in 4e) and there's a lot of information in there that ends up having absolutely no bearing on play (and probably doesn't for 90% of the groups out there). The extra "stuffing" is nice, but I'd really prefer it if more design space were spent on encounter design, or on clearing up potential confusion when it comes to cartography, or making monster behavior more explicit.

While on average the 90%* is probably right. I think different groups would use different parts of the "stuffing". So what to cut. And those little extras I'll use to had some extra to the scenes, even if I just tell the players outright after or whatever.

Reading through encounter after encounter in WotC products is a real chore. Yes some of the stuff needs to be there, but it is terribly dreary. The story is what matters to myself and the way I like to play and that's what drives me to read through the modules and play them. If they don't excite me, my eyes cross and it starts to become more like hard work.

Maybe there is a good balance between the two styles as S'mon says.

*probably not 90% but it's a good enough spitballin' figure.

 

[Jhaelen]

Sooo... are you saying that a creative/interesting premise, evocative writing, good encounter design, etc. have nothing to do with how exciting a module is? If so... I'm not buying it...

It doesn't have 'nothing' to do with it, but the decisive factor is ultimately the DM:

A great DM can turn a sucky adventure into something great, while a sucky DM cannot turn a great adventure into something great.

Of course it helps, if the adventure appeals to the DM, otherwise the DM will probably be inclined not to waste any effort improving the module.

Take 'The Temple of Elemental Evil': It's sucky, but many players had an excellent time playing it, because they had great DMs!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Maybe there is a good balance between the two styles as S'mon says.

There can be better balances, for a given audience, but no one will ever resolve this fully in a print medium. There is always a tension between evocative elements and good reference material. Even something as innocuous as a few footnotes can turn a non-fiction, historical narrative from fairly interesting to rather more bland. And on the other side, what could you possibly do to make a dictionary really interesting to browse through without compromising its main function? (I recall a Charlie Brown dictionary I had as a very young child, with many illustrations, and relatively few words for its size.)

And the real stinker for RPG source material is that "evocative" is so varied for different members of the audience. One person wants a half column of background material on an NPC, to get that spark. Another one wants no more than a handful of descriptive words.

Now if you had adventures with expandable fields, that would be another matter. Almost footnotes in reverse. You get the reference material in the main part of the document, and then you click on something to get short descriptors and something else to get the long version.

But then that would be annoying as all get out for the people that want to read straight through for enjoyment. They would insist that the background be the main texts, and all the stats be what you click to expand. This would almost make high level Pazio 3.5 adventures readable, with their NPC stats that take up a full column or more. Congratulations, we just compromised the usefulness of the material when running an adventure, to make it more fun to read!

Only real way out of this that satisfies everyone is electronic document with hideable pieces, customized by the reader.

Also, once you get into satisfaction levels for what are essentially meant to be evocative fiction, we all have different standards. Quite frankly, much of the longer background text that is lauded as particularly conducive to storytelling reminds me rather more of the puerile offerings of sophomores in a creative writing class--the kind that thinks that having your hero commit suicide at the end of your short story automatically makes it more edgy and dramatic.

 

[Herschel]

Eh, yes and no. Have you read the Kingmaker AP? I haven't read all of it, but I did read the first installment.

I find Paizo to be opposite in their issues. They have too much useless fluff and weaker encounter designs but they do present them in a better reading as a story format and their character write-ups make it more.....natural(?) to feel more focused on the NPCs because there's a whole lot of fluff in the expected place around them.

Some times I really like a lot of NPC info, but many times I want the minimal because I'm wanting to flesh it out my way anyway and too much gets in my way.