Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackbrrd" data-source="post: 5049394" data-attributes="member: 63962">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification