NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 4979660" data-attributes="member: 66434">For me it isn't the sheer number of encounters that is the problem. The tone and  presentation of the adventures are what make them lame IMHO.Honestly, the original G series modules were mostly maps filled with keyed contents of the various areas including combat stats, traps, treasures and descriptive info. There was a little plot information linking the adventures but it wasn't a major part of the adventures strictly word count wise. Revenge has a lot more content devoted to story than the originals ever did. What made the originals fun classics isn't what they contained, rather it was what they didn't contain. The stage was set, and the PC's entered the action with whatever approach they could come up with. Combat stats were provided for the creatures that could be encountered but no assumptions were made regarding when, where, or if they would actually be fought. The players were not led by the nose through pre-constructed scenes. Unless there was an ambush situation combats were generally not set in stone. The 4E module format assumes and handholds far too much. Maybe new DM's might find this more helpful than annoying but should a paragon tier adventure assume the DM is running his/her first game? I think another part of the problem is the 4E harsh binary division of the in and out of combat state. That divide reminds me more of MMO play than powers actually. Every time I envision a character trying to perform an action in a time sensitive stressful action scene that has been made into a ritual I can't but see the message " You are in combat" pop up over the character's head. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /></blockquote>

Verification