Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6051780" data-attributes="member: 82106">Indeed they are nothing all that surprising or unique. OTOH if and when people complain about what a SYSTEM does or doesn't do then they of course are talking about what the rules of that system do and don't include. Honestly I don't think previous editions of D&D were any more incapable in creating OO-combat 'encounters' than in-combat ones. In both cases there wasn't really a system (before 3e who's system is a bit wonky). In AD&D you just made stuff up and it was mostly a guess on the DM's part as to how to run it or how tough it was, combat or not. To be fair I don't recall GENERALLY having some horrible problem with doing that, the rules were pretty swingy anyhow so it was probably of dubious value. 4e has its tighter encounter design, which makes the whole thing both more appealing and useful. I think the extension to non-combat encounters of a formal system was a logical evolution. It isn't exactly perfectly executed in early 4e, but it has gotten pretty good over the last 4 years. I think a lot of DMs just haven't really adapted, maybe they don't need to. A lot of them didn't seem to adapt in terms of combat encounters either.4e's DMG's only one real flaw was in terms of not providing a vision of what happens when you pull it all together. I think that WotC actually has lacked that vision for most of 4e's life and that's a major reason they're failing with the product now. It took a year probably of DMing it to fully grasp all the dimensions, but when you start combining the various elements in certain ways you do get some very cool results. People just really need that demonstrated. A much better sample adventure would have been the ticket I think. Kobold Hall is actually pretty good for early 4e adventures, but it doesn't even scratch the surface of the game and demonstrates some bad ideas too.</blockquote>

Verification