Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 5191304" data-attributes="member: 60075">I bought &quot;Gates of Firestorm Peak&quot; just last week (because of PHB 3 referencing the Far Realm, which in turn cropped up in an article in Dragon 330...referencing that module) and I was struck by how very similar &quot;Gates&quot; actually is to a 4E module. You get a folder with two battle maps working on 1 inch squares (even a sheet with paper minis), and the adventure itself is an extra booklet inside the folder. Beyond product presentation, I also noticed occasional, though less pronounced, similarities in layout (e.g. font choice) and content - for instance, I was surprised how strongly the module sometimes has the DM think in terms of encounters and encounter pacing (I distinctly thought that type of thing was what 3.5/4E brought to D&amp;D). Even the introductory &quot;background&quot; info doesn't really span more than a couple of pages, and the module doesn't really end in a section explaining what happens now that everything is done... it breaks off rather sudden. These are characteristics I strongly associate with 4E modules by WotC and wouldn't have thought would occur in 2e stuff. So there. And yet there's a world of difference here - from the get go I felt the module didn't place heavy assumptions on player behaviour. It's a site-based adventure with a time line of events that will unfold regardless of what the PCs do. That's the antithesis of 4E modules, all of which are premised on the idea that nothing is really interesting unless the module author predicts the PCs come in direct contact with it. Given module authors' limits to predict player behaviour, I find the end point of that &quot;premise&quot; rather unsatisfactory. I either end up writing missing bits to fill in stuff for my players to interact with, or modify heavily stuff that the author thinks the players will interact with very specifically. Obviously, most modules suffer from this problem, but a simple look at &quot;Gates&quot; will tell anyone that there are various (and variously successful) ways to address the issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Windjammer, post: 5191304, member: 60075"] I bought "Gates of Firestorm Peak" just last week (because of PHB 3 referencing the Far Realm, which in turn cropped up in an article in Dragon 330...referencing that module) and I was struck by how very [I]similar [/I]"Gates" actually is to a 4E module. You get a folder with two battle maps working on 1 inch squares (even a sheet with paper minis), and the adventure itself is an extra booklet inside the folder. Beyond product presentation, I also noticed occasional, though less pronounced, similarities in layout (e.g. font choice) and content - for instance, I was surprised how strongly the module sometimes has the DM think in terms of encounters and encounter pacing (I distinctly thought that type of thing was what 3.5/4E brought to D&D). Even the introductory "background" info doesn't really span more than a couple of pages, and the module doesn't really end in a section explaining what happens now that everything is done... it breaks off rather sudden. These are characteristics I strongly associate with 4E modules by WotC and wouldn't have thought would occur in 2e stuff. So there. And yet there's a world of difference here - from the get go I felt the module didn't place heavy assumptions on player behaviour. It's a site-based adventure with a time line of events that will unfold regardless of what the PCs do. That's the antithesis of 4E modules, all of which are premised on the idea that nothing is really interesting unless the module author predicts the PCs come in direct contact with it. Given module authors' limits to predict player behaviour, I find the end point of that "premise" rather unsatisfactory. I either end up writing missing bits to fill in stuff for my players to interact with, or modify heavily stuff that the author thinks the players will interact with very specifically. Obviously, most modules suffer from this problem, but a simple look at "Gates" will tell anyone that there are various (and variously successful) ways to address the issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification