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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheFindus" data-source="post: 4785954" data-attributes="member: 75791">haakon1 wrote:"Old modules with 4e rules, but no more old materials with original text? Yes, I would be pissed about that. It would be like selling only the "Greedo shot first" versions of Star Wars, not the original intent of the artist -- only worse, since it's not just an artist changing his mind and retouching his own work, but a hack messing up the work of an earlier artist (Gygax, for example)."Why will you be angry about that? The fluff and setting would be almost the same, you just get the rules info for 4e with it and won't have to translate the old rules into 4e. That means less work for you and me as DMs. And that always sounds great to me.I really feel no emotional attachment to the artistic qualities of 25 year+ old adventure and campaign roleplaying books. Not even for the Drangonlance modules and I have played them a total of 3 times: once as a player, once as a DM in the 80s and again as a DM using 3.5 rules. And IMHO - from a design point of view - these modules are very well done, even by today's standard. But that does not mean that I would not have liked to have Dragonlance already translated into 3.5 for me. I would have paid for that, because it would have saved me a lot of prep time.Selling old stuff in a 4e cloak on a subscription basis seems to make a lot of sense to me. This is a good thing, because you can have the best of both worlds: The old setting that you like and the new rules that you prefer.</blockquote>

Verification