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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6072830" data-attributes="member: 7635">NC, I'm going be a civil as possible here.I didn't design this adventure to fail. Now I realize that *GASP* I ran 4e and didn't like might shock your senses, but when I did I did it in good faith. Perhaps I didn't understand the Magic of 4e from its Holy Text in the DMG, but I designed a dungeon in the style I was familiar with. Small encounters, dungeons, etc. As the author of the work, I can say its honestly no worse than what WotC and Goodman was putting out at the same time, and that's a lot to say for an amateur. It wasn't my greatest work, but it was the one I typed up in full in an attempt to get a good handle on 4e. And this module wasn't the reason I hated 4e. I played it until after PHB2 came out. I continued to use Dungeon adventures and homebrews until then. It got nominally better. We did have some good sessions. Honestly, people LOVED the story of this, but complained out the combat. We had the same complaint after running Spellgard in 4e Realms. The DM of that started cutting encounters left and right. That was "professionals" creating the same effect as my little amateur attempt. When WotC's modules fail to give us the experience we wanted and we found we couldn't do it ourselves, is it REALLY a stretch that we blame the system?You know, I'm glad your a better DM than I am. Your understanding of 4e is so good that you can fix this. We tried, we disliked it. I don't fault you enjoying that system, there are people who ardently defend Rifts and Synnibar too. And the 4e found in Essentials might have worked for us. But not the 4e in the 2008 core books. So we rediscovered an RPG that cleaved closer to our style, and we enjoy it.</blockquote>

Verification