Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 5987545" data-attributes="member: 336">This is an interesting take.&nbsp; I had the exact opposite reaction to it exactly because I was so used to the non-explanatory nature of 1e.In 1e, the module didn't bother to tell you the &quot;plot hooks&quot; between the city of Highport Officials and the Slavers running a trafficking operation out of a local temple.&nbsp; It didn't bother telling you how the PC's might take over the &quot;fire cart&quot; and use it.&nbsp; It didn't bother giving you an explanation for how the Aspis are working with the Slavers.&nbsp; It didn't bother giving you rules for what would happen if the PCs released the basilisks to meander around the temple.&nbsp; It simply gave you combat encounters and treasure.&nbsp; If the DM wanted to make the story more interesting he was on his own, and the module didn't clearly tell the DM that he was on his own.&nbsp; That was the basic expectation, in the absence of rules make something up that works for you, and your group.I never had a problem with that and that is why I never had a problem with KotS doing the same.&nbsp; Could it have been better?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; But it was no worse than what 1e had done for it's entire run, and I had no problem with that.&nbsp; As a matter of fact that was what was expected in 1e, and was clearly assumed by all of the classic modules.Where 4e really shined for me was in the underlying rules framework.&nbsp; When I inevitably had to &quot;make something up&quot; the game provided a solid framework on which to hang the adjudication.&nbsp; It made it so much easier for me to make ad-hoc rulings that were not entirely arbitrary.&nbsp; I always felt the rulings were very appropriate (balanced) to the situation and provided a well-thought out result.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 5987545, member: 336"] This is an interesting take. I had the exact opposite reaction to it exactly because I was so used to the non-explanatory nature of 1e. In 1e, the module didn't bother to tell you the "plot hooks" between the city of Highport Officials and the Slavers running a trafficking operation out of a local temple. It didn't bother telling you how the PC's might take over the "fire cart" and use it. It didn't bother giving you an explanation for how the Aspis are working with the Slavers. It didn't bother giving you rules for what would happen if the PCs released the basilisks to meander around the temple. It simply gave you combat encounters and treasure. If the DM wanted to make the story more interesting he was on his own, and the module didn't clearly tell the DM that he was on his own. That was the basic expectation, in the absence of rules make something up that works for you, and your group. I never had a problem with that and that is why I never had a problem with KotS doing the same. Could it have been better? Yes. But it was no worse than what 1e had done for it's entire run, and I had no problem with that. As a matter of fact that was what was expected in 1e, and was clearly assumed by all of the classic modules. Where 4e really shined for me was in the underlying rules framework. When I inevitably had to "make something up" the game provided a solid framework on which to hang the adjudication. It made it so much easier for me to make ad-hoc rulings that were not entirely arbitrary. I always felt the rulings were very appropriate (balanced) to the situation and provided a well-thought out result. [/QUOTE]

Verification