Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
Sure ... and publishers as well as non-publishers should be prepared to be called on their nerd rage rants, that's my philosophy.
/M
Goodman Games solicits input
- Thread starter Filcher
- Start date
Sure ... and publishers as well as non-publishers should be prepared to be called on their nerd rage rants, that's my philosophy.
/M
I have posted earlier, but that was before I remembered which modules GG has published for 4e earlier. I have browsed through 4-5 of them and read 1 of them and really, to me they were uninspiring.
I am running a straight forward hack-and-slash game on tuesdays so dungeon crawls should have been a perfect match. I found the encounters boring, the story really thin and I felt I could do a better job creating random encounters from the MM and rolling a dice to see what terrain they should be set in. Having 5 of the same monster type in a combat with no special terrain features is something I didn't even do while play testing 4e!
The one module I read through was from the "master" module series which had an ok story, but this time it looked much too complex without getting anything back for it. Complexity can be good if it is because of added depth and character, but this time it just looked like complexity for the sake of complexity. The encounters still looked boring. So to me this module series is one step forward (story is better), one step back (complexity) and nothing new about the encounters.
I think you might do better if you used the new encounter format with a map, tactics and monster stats right where you can see them. For a dungeon crawl it's the perfect format.
WotBS is the perfect example of a module series adding depth without any unneccesary complexity. Encounters are well designed and either ties in to the story, gives clues or choices the characters has to make, tying them npc's and the story. You could do well looking at the series to get some input.
GG might have done something about their modules with Death Dealer - Shadows of Mirahan. I am going to wait for a review, but if it looks good I will buy it.
I am running a straight forward hack-and-slash game on tuesdays so dungeon crawls should have been a perfect match. I found the encounters boring, the story really thin and I felt I could do a better job creating random encounters from the MM and rolling a dice to see what terrain they should be set in. Having 5 of the same monster type in a combat with no special terrain features is something I didn't even do while play testing 4e!
The one module I read through was from the "master" module series which had an ok story, but this time it looked much too complex without getting anything back for it. Complexity can be good if it is because of added depth and character, but this time it just looked like complexity for the sake of complexity. The encounters still looked boring. So to me this module series is one step forward (story is better), one step back (complexity) and nothing new about the encounters.
I think you might do better if you used the new encounter format with a map, tactics and monster stats right where you can see them. For a dungeon crawl it's the perfect format.
WotBS is the perfect example of a module series adding depth without any unneccesary complexity. Encounters are well designed and either ties in to the story, gives clues or choices the characters has to make, tying them npc's and the story. You could do well looking at the series to get some input.
GG might have done something about their modules with Death Dealer - Shadows of Mirahan. I am going to wait for a review, but if it looks good I will buy it.
Dannager
First Post
No, that's the opposite of what it would indicate.
Each different game you cater to is energy and resources expended on your part. Given that it probably takes about as much energy to produce an adventure in any one system as another, the smart thing to do would be to produce adventures for the largest available group of consumers willing to buy your products. Assuming that 4e consumers are willing to buy 3pp adventures (which the chart doesn't indicate either way on), catering to 4e is the smart way to go. If that audience cannot sustain your business model, you can consider expanding to a second game system as long as the effort put into that expansion is outweighed by the gain in business.
Dannager
First Post
This sort of thing really isn't terribly flattering behavior on your part, joethelawyer.
aboyd
Explorer
Leonard: Sheldon, don't make that noise, it's disrespectful.
Sheldon: I should hope so, it was a snort of derision!
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Joe, this is neither big nor clever. If the mods have deleted it, linking to it in this way is thumbing your nose at them.
Welcome to a six day ban
Hairfoot
First Post
Except that all those systems except 4E are open. None of them has a character builder that can't include third-party material, or a DDI that excludes non-WotC publishers.
The most popular game has an audience locked into a stream of products from the chief publisher, with outside publishers discriminated against, while the others are a free for all, and hence a wider market.
I found it as funny and accurate as it was the first time round. There's nothing abusive in it, and it pretty much sums up the tone that many of us perceived in Goodman's original post.
Is Joe Goodman above criticism now?
Last edited:
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Fifth Element
Legend
Didn't joethelawyer leave ENWorld of his own volition, and make quite a big deal about it as well? Or am I thinking of someone else?
jaerdaph
#UkraineStrong
Similar Threads
