Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9637800" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I'm not sure I played it. I did play a Dark Sun adventure, but I don't know if it was this one--but I can say that the way the adventure I played used skill challenges was particularly tedious. From what I've heard, it is also considered a somewhat controversial one (among 4e players, I should say) because it was published midway through the shift in monster math, and used skill challenges particularly badly. It was also disliked by a good portion of fans of Dark Sun because it conflicts with the setting in a number of ways, e.g. too much treasure, there's a relatively pure fresh water source, there's a written note when most people in Athas can't read, cover shows metallic weapons which should be INSANELY valuable on Athas, an Urikite templar in the city of Tyr, etc.Having looked up some reviews of it, it is also ranked among the worst adventures for 4e by several people whom I have interacted with in the past and whose preferences I found reasonable. Frequently-cited issues include: extreme linearity/borderline-to-outright railroading, near-zero opportunity for roleplay outside of intra-party interaction, and encounters which almost exclusively trend "stupidly, overwhelmingly difficult" but which you're required to slog through in order to get anywhere. In other words, it...isn't really using any of 4th edition's strengths, and is actively front-and-centering worst practices for 4e.It was sometimes called the Pyramid of Sh%t, because of how poorly-received it was. Not surprised you haven't heard of it. It was meant as the conclusion of the adventure begun in Keep on the Shadowfell, and as an homage to old-school ways of doing things...but playing through it comes across as a meaningless assemblage of random stuff inside the titular Pyramid. There are reasons for things to be there, but noen of them really cohere with any others.If you would like examples of highly-regarded 4e adventures, consider checking out Cairn of the Winter King, Orcs of Stonefang Pass, and The Slaying Stone. Madness at Gardmore Abbey (the adventure connected to the Deck of Many Things) is also consistently rated among the best adventures published for 4e--and possibly among the best adventures for D&D generally. I am also partial to a somewhat-forgotten but really interesting (in principle) adventure called Remains of the Empire, which features a damaged floating citadel once used by the ancient dragonborn empire of Arkhosia. (If the PCs do particularly well on certain segments, they can acquire flying drake mount buddies!)"Most people do not want X" =/= "no one wants X". It shouldn't be surprising that you've built a group that shares your preferences and thus can stick around for that long. What I am saying is: systems today are not designed to support such a slow levelling pace because...a lot of people, certainly a majority of current users, see such a pace as too slow. Taking multiple months to ever make mechanical progress does not feel, to most folks, like well-earned reward; to most folks, it feels like "so...nothing actually gets better? And when it does, it's just a +1 here, 3 HP there? Really?"This is a huge part of why I want to see novice levels and "incremental advance" rules in my hypothetical 6e. Such things would directly support your preferences. You would no longer be "left out" of the design of current-era D&D. Folks like you, who want a very slow, measured, methodical advancement over very very long periods of time would have rules that actually make that WORK, indeed, ways that make it work and which would give even some non-OSR-fan players reason to think "hey, this is actually alright, not my usual cup of tea but it works." So long as such rules are placed clearly where both DMs and players can see them in the first core books, not ungraciously hidden in a late supplement covered with caution tape, they would level the playing field--the majority can get the snappier pace of once-every-month-ish, and folks who want levels to take three to six months are just as supported as the previous group. Nobody gets left out--except the people who demand that their way be the only way, and I'm not interested in giving them an inch, so I'm fine with that.Having only ~50% retention out of the very first adventure is precisely what I would call extremely high lethality. If this is meant as an average/typical result, then merely slightly bad luck produces a TPK on an almost-raw player's very first experience. I know you don't think it should, but it is a demonstrable fact that many prospective players will have that experience and say, 'Oh. D&D is a game where you just die a lot and never make progress. Okay. Not really interested in that. Bye." If, instead, we focus on getting someone hooked to start with, and then allow them to explore higher difficulties if that interests them (or if they have a DM that persuades them to roll with it), then they're much, MUCH more likely to actually stick around--to WANT that difficulty, rather than merely enduring it in the (often vain...) hope that something else, something actually engaging, might eventually happen.And yes, I know you're going to take umbrage with my phrasing there. The emotional response from the typical prospective player remains, whether or not you like it. Character death is not considered engaging by most people. It is considered disengaging--especially when it feels like there's nothing you could have done about it...which OSR games are supremely good at inflicting that exact feeling. I would know. I have played some.If the system gives you no useful information about whether a particular fight is rough or not, how can you make some fights that "should" be rough, and others that "should" be easy? My experience with OSR-type content is that even fights intended to be easy and where chance isn't conspiring against the players can still be EXTREMELY tough, while the reverse is also true (fights intended to be rough, dice are not unfavorable to the players, fight is still a breeze). When you have so little understanding, AND the dice can swing it even further, how can there even be a "should be rough(/easy)" about anything?</blockquote>

Verification