Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Byrons_Ghost" data-source="post: 2984452" data-attributes="member: 7396">Along with the question of whether or not to include a lot of details, I think there's going to be differences on what types of details do or do not need to be dictated out. Some people will want detailed maps & settings, but be fine with vague monster stats and NPC descriptions. Others might want very detailed descriptions of encounters, but done individually so that they can be dropped anywhere in a homebrew world. Each different type leaves out details, but the sprt of detail missing determines how the module is used.For example, I've run far more O/AD&D modules for 3.0 than I have contemporary products. Usually those modules were vague to begin with, and switching systems meant that I really couldn't use the monster or NPC stats, either. I didn't mind, so long as the module was flavorful and inspirational enough to give me some ideas to work with. It was a simple matter to look at the monsters and items in the module and then go to the new books for the 3.0 equivalents.So I think that labelling modules by how they're used by the DM, rather than just by level or theme, would be very helpful. I don't think it'll be a clean dichotomy like details vs. big picture, though. Really, I don't think we have the classifications yet to describe all the different ways people use modules, and what they get out of them.</blockquote>