Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3900852" data-attributes="member: 48965">Why should there be a choice between xp or gold.&nbsp; If the PC's have to fight and elude the Baron's men or figure out a way to smuggle his goods out of the barony they are doing just as much, if not more, adventuring as they would be if they returned the stuff.&nbsp; Yet they lost out on an easier way to grab bonus xp.I agree with the top part of your post, I think if anything these &quot;quests&quot; should be player made.&nbsp; The problem is most new players will go by the book.&nbsp; In all honesty I think this is more a ploy to increase the sales of adventures by WotC.&nbsp; A less organic game means that adventure modules are easier and more likely to be used in a campaign (I'd be willing to bet less &quot;sandbox&quot; games make use of pre-structured adventures than more linear games).&nbsp; So WotC gets you, from the beginning, into the mind set that this (pre-set quests) is the way to play. This is made especially effective if the person running the game has authority (and power through xp delienation) to decide what players should be doing.&nbsp; If you follow this adventure the way you're suppose to you get extra xp plain and simple.&nbsp; I don't know if this is the type of methodology I want a Dm to feel justified in using when I play under him... or the way I want new players to think is the norm when they play in my games.You totally missed my point.&nbsp; If I hand you a card for something and don't hand you one for something else...it really doesn't matter if the xp is on there or not, I know one offers it and one doesn't.So how far does this go...I mean what if they take the goodwill payment the baron gave them and make a run for it?&nbsp; Should the quest now have anything to do with obtaining the stolen goods.&nbsp; The things players come up with really make this an almost ludicrous argument.&nbsp; How about the &quot;quest &quot; being do what you want to have a fun game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 3900852, member: 48965"] Why should there be a choice between xp or gold. If the PC's have to fight and elude the Baron's men or figure out a way to smuggle his goods out of the barony they are doing just as much, if not more, adventuring as they would be if they returned the stuff. Yet they lost out on an easier way to grab bonus xp. I agree with the top part of your post, I think if anything these "quests" should be player made. The problem is most new players will go by the book. In all honesty I think this is more a ploy to increase the sales of adventures by WotC. A less organic game means that adventure modules are easier and more likely to be used in a campaign (I'd be willing to bet less "sandbox" games make use of pre-structured adventures than more linear games). So WotC gets you, from the beginning, into the mind set that this (pre-set quests) is the way to play. This is made especially effective if the person running the game has authority (and power through xp delienation) to decide what players should be doing. If you follow this adventure the way you're suppose to you get extra xp plain and simple. I don't know if this is the type of methodology I want a Dm to feel justified in using when I play under him... or the way I want new players to think is the norm when they play in my games. You totally missed my point. If I hand you a card for something and don't hand you one for something else...it really doesn't matter if the xp is on there or not, I know one offers it and one doesn't. So how far does this go...I mean what if they take the goodwill payment the baron gave them and make a run for it? Should the quest now have anything to do with obtaining the stolen goods. The things players come up with really make this an almost ludicrous argument. How about the "quest " being do what you want to have a fun game? [/QUOTE]

Verification