Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 5845400" data-attributes="member: 336">One of the things I noticed when 4e came out was that it &quot;played&quot; in any way I wanted to mold it to.&nbsp; If I was in the mood for Gonzo High Fantasy I could easily do it.&nbsp; If I was in the mood for gritty low fantasy I could take it there.&nbsp; It very plainly showed its design assumptions and with that in mind I could tweak to taste.&nbsp; But every WotC adventure I saw for it seemed to be designed with the late 3e paradigm in mind.&nbsp; Every adventure &quot;felt&quot; stagnant in its design.&nbsp; I think it also had to do with the delve format for encounters.&nbsp; It gave the impression that everything was a series of combat encounters.I remember mentioning to one of my groups that the DMG and DMG 2 were fantastic books for DMs because they really gave a lot of insight about how things within the system would work.&nbsp; The presentation on many things sucked and was confusing (skill challenges) but the information was there.&nbsp; They were also the books that seemed like nobody read because they already &quot;knew&quot; how to DM.&nbsp; This seemed obvious in the WotC adventures which seemed to completely miss the point and not use the advice given in either book.One of my friends came up with a dungeon crawl format which we've used to great effect to convert old adventures for use with 4e and preserve the &quot;feel&quot; of a dungeon crawl.&nbsp; He's done conversion of Tamoachan, Ghost Tower, The Giants Series, which we are playing right now, and others.&nbsp; I remember him saying that when he was working on the system he redesigned the way traps worked because the ones in the published adventures just &quot;felt&quot; wrong.&nbsp; Then he compared his system to what was on the DMG and found out that his system was very similar to what the traps in the book were.&nbsp; The book had the &quot;right&quot; system.&nbsp; It was never well implemented in the published adventures.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 5845400, member: 336"] One of the things I noticed when 4e came out was that it "played" in any way I wanted to mold it to. If I was in the mood for Gonzo High Fantasy I could easily do it. If I was in the mood for gritty low fantasy I could take it there. It very plainly showed its design assumptions and with that in mind I could tweak to taste. But every WotC adventure I saw for it seemed to be designed with the late 3e paradigm in mind. Every adventure "felt" stagnant in its design. I think it also had to do with the delve format for encounters. It gave the impression that everything was a series of combat encounters. I remember mentioning to one of my groups that the DMG and DMG 2 were fantastic books for DMs because they really gave a lot of insight about how things within the system would work. The presentation on many things sucked and was confusing (skill challenges) but the information was there. They were also the books that seemed like nobody read because they already "knew" how to DM. This seemed obvious in the WotC adventures which seemed to completely miss the point and not use the advice given in either book. One of my friends came up with a dungeon crawl format which we've used to great effect to convert old adventures for use with 4e and preserve the "feel" of a dungeon crawl. He's done conversion of Tamoachan, Ghost Tower, The Giants Series, which we are playing right now, and others. I remember him saying that when he was working on the system he redesigned the way traps worked because the ones in the published adventures just "felt" wrong. Then he compared his system to what was on the DMG and found out that his system was very similar to what the traps in the book were. The book had the "right" system. It was never well implemented in the published adventures. [/QUOTE]

Verification