Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 5189006" data-attributes="member: 29398">Man it's become tough slogging in here, trying to plow through all the 3e and 4e examples while trying to approach all this from a 1e or non-e perspective. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And I am.A good encounter, a good adventure, is edition-neutral; in that once the mechanical conversions are done it's still good.&nbsp; Forge of Fury, for example: grand adventure in any edition you care to convert it to (though annoyingly laid out; and that sort of thing is also what I hope we're trying to fix here).&nbsp; So let's ignore all the edition-specific stuff and just figure out how to write good encounters.And though I think I've already said this I guess I'd better say it again: there is - or certainly should be - more to a monster's write-up than just the statblock.&nbsp; In any edition.&nbsp; So why all the concern about whether some non-combat or quasi-combat thing is or isn't specifically in the statblock?&nbsp; As long as it's in the write-up somewhere, preferably on the same page, then so what?The problem only arises when those non- or quasi-combat things are not mentioned in the encounter write-up at all, when the base assumption of the writer is that This Will Be A Combat Encounter* and no other options are taken into consideration.&nbsp; Hence my &quot;four-times writing&quot; suggestion.* - note the same problem arises when the writer assumes This Will Be A Stealth Encounter, or a Negotiation Encounter, or in fact makes assumptions of any kind as to how the players/PCs will handle it.&nbsp; And also note this problem is not restricted to 4e; I just got done reading what might be the worst-written module I've ever seen both for these reasons and others, and it was for 1e.Lan-&quot;Red Sonja Unconquered for the loss&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 5189006, member: 29398"] Man it's become tough slogging in here, trying to plow through all the 3e and 4e examples while trying to approach all this from a 1e or non-e perspective. :) And I am. A good encounter, a good adventure, is edition-neutral; in that once the mechanical conversions are done it's still good. Forge of Fury, for example: grand adventure in any edition you care to convert it to (though annoyingly laid out; and that sort of thing is also what I hope we're trying to fix here). So let's ignore all the edition-specific stuff and just figure out how to write good encounters. And though I think I've already said this I guess I'd better say it again: [B]there is[/B] - or certainly should be - [B]more to a monster's write-up than just the statblock.[/B] In any edition. So why all the concern about whether some non-combat or quasi-combat thing is or isn't specifically in the statblock? As long as it's in the write-up somewhere, preferably on the same page, then so what? The problem only arises when those non- or quasi-combat things are not mentioned in the encounter write-up [B]at all[/B], when the base assumption of the writer is that This Will Be A Combat Encounter* and no other options are taken into consideration. Hence my "four-times writing" suggestion. * - note the same problem arises when the writer assumes This Will Be A Stealth Encounter, or a Negotiation Encounter, or in fact makes assumptions of any kind as to how the players/PCs will handle it. And also note this problem is not restricted to 4e; I just got done reading what might be the worst-written module I've ever seen both for these reasons and others, and it was for 1e. Lan-"Red Sonja Unconquered for the loss"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification