Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5186742" data-attributes="member: 55271">I would say:(1) PCs running through Burnt Offerings will learn a lot about the villain without particularly trying to learn those things. The same is not true of PCs running through Keep on the Shadowfell. This doesn't mean, of course, that the module is going to "make them care"; but nothing and nobody can "make them care" about anything. All you can do is give them the opportunity to do so: Burnt Offerings does; Keep on the Shadowfell doesn't.(2) In addition to the personal details of the villains, there's also the importance of what you talk about: The palpable impact of the villain's actions on the world and the people around the PCs. In Burnt Offerings, the villain's plan has a major impact on the world and the people around the PCs. If the PCs care about anything in their environment, the villain's plan is going to have an impact on things they care about.OTOH, the villain in Keep on the Shadowfell has virtually no impact on the world around him. The local village doesn't even realize there's a problem unless the PCs bring it to their attention.Personally, I don't think Burnt Offerings is an instant classic or a perfect module (nor does anyone seem to be saying that except for Rechan). It's not a masterpiece, IMO. Although compared to Keep on the Shadowfell it certainly looks like one.Theoretically that's true.But the point is that 4th Edition's monsters were explicitly designed to support 5 rounds of combat and nothing more. (We know that because the designers told us it was true.) Those same designers who said "monsters are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more" are the same designers working on WotC's modules.Shockingly, the opponents in these modules are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more.This isn't really a matter of connecting the dots. It's a matter of looking at the huge, blazing neon signs.To reiterate: The problem here is not that Premise A gave us Stat Block B and then Stat Block B gave us Problem C. It's that Premise A results directly in Problem C. The fact that Premise A also results in a flawed stat block which contributes to Problem C is practically irrelevant: The faulty premise, and every conclusion resulting from it, needs to be re-analyzed before ANY of the problems can be solved.</blockquote>

Verification