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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 5112487" data-attributes="member: 158">1. I really dislike the delve format: The two-page spread with nothing but a blowup map, the list of monsters and blow-by-blow tactics just feels like a waste to me. It breaks the flow of a module for me, if that makes any sense. Perhaps it's the placement: In the modules I've looked at, they reference the combat afterwards, and so if I'm reading an adventure to get the flow of the module, I have to stop where I am, turn in the book to read the delve-piece, then turn back to where I was, see what's next, then turn BACK to the next delve-piece, etc. It's like if I were reading a D&D novel, and everytime the hero gets in a fight, I have to flip to an appendix to see what happened in the fight, and then flip back to the body of the story to continue - it's REALLY annoying to me.2. I do feel the more recent 4E modules are far too scarce on evocative flavor for the locales and NPCs they include. Examples like the Forge of Fury from 3E, or the Speaker in Dreams are what captured me back in 3E, and back in 1E, I3 through I5, the Desert of Desolation series, are good examples of flavor that was evocative. Those are NPCs that really breathed to me.3. I will say this on the repetitive creatures theme: I can completely understand the complaint, but at the same time it's more PLAUSIBLE, to me, to have a single threat instead of a menagerie of threats. the Menagerie is more fun, but makes no sense. Remember the old complaint, that the beholder was two rooms down from the platoon of orcs, who were both across the corridor from the 90-foot dragon in the 10' x 10' room? Too many monster types with shared goals tends to stretch plausibility for me. I think WotC's design of same creatures with different roles (kobold skirmishers, kobold archers, kobold solders, etc.) works pretty well to vary this up.</blockquote>

Verification