Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7673167" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f635.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="o_O" title="Er... what?    o_O"  data-smilie="12"data-shortname="o_O" />Umm...it's the lack of guidance that is the point. To put it another way, newer adventures hold the PC's and the DM's hands *far* too much for my liking. If the PC's join the Giants in the G series...I can still use it quite easily. The Good Guys would/may hear of their betrayal. Then, fearing "insider knowledge" about the Good Guys defenses, leaders, magical capabilities, etc, make a hasty decision and gather a small army and hire mercenaries in order to assult the Steading of the Hill Giant. I could use that entire module as-is for the PC's. They could shore up defenses, make plans for defence and offence, try and infiltrate the Good Guys army for recon, etc. I then grab ye' old War Machine (my go-to D&D mass combat system; the one from basic D&D...works fine with 1e/2e) and stat up some of the good guys forces. Then we play out a large Siege of the Steading, with the PC's as the 'leaders'...or at least significant generals.It's *because* there is a "lack of guidance" throughout the entire module that allows it so much freedom. The "story" of G1? : "Giants are up to something in the nearby hills. Check it out". In a nutshell. What exactly are they up to? That's 'semi-spelled out', but easily ignored. Nothing in the module hinges upon something that happened before it. Could it be important that the PC's did something (or didn't do something)? Sure, but that's up to the DM to decide. He doesn't have to "ignore" something later on or otherwise "rewrite" an entire 'chapter' of the adventure because the PC's did something unexpected. At most he makes a few notes about likely outcomes and then rolls with it.That is why I feel older style adventure modules are superior. Plain and simple. They fit my preferred DM'ing style, and I think they fit the "purpose" of D&D much better. Looking back at OLD D&D, like really early 1e, or 0e, the point of the game was basically "Heres a deadly underground dungeon filled with traps, treasure and monsters! See if you can live long enough to gain power and prestige, and enough riches to retire on! Ready? GO!". All the "extra stuff" (story, campaign time line, character development, etc), all came about *through play*. It wasn't presented as "Here's the dungeon, and here is a 4 page story script to try and stick to".By *not* having all that extra, in-depth story stuff it made the "story" that came about through play unique. It made each campaign and each individual DM's running of the module different and interesting. As I said...I've ran Dwellers of the Forbidden City a half dozen times or more. Each different, some radically so. I didn't have to "ignore" much of anything, nor did I have to re-write anything. I just used it as is, filled in the blanks throughout play, and bingo-bongo-bango... it's like a "new adventure path" each time.Newer adventures are just too much work for too little gain if the PC's do something unusual... or if the DM wants to use the module differently. Bare-bones skeleton upon which I can hang my own dressing...easy. Fully fleshed out story-structure which I have to strip, dismantle, reassign and then hang my own dressing on? Much more work intensive.Sorry, Hussar, I think our preferred play styles are just too different for us to really come to any sort of middle ground on this. That's not a bad thing, just a different one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> As long as we both have fun playing what we like, all's good, right? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification