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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5636779" data-attributes="member: 2067">Depends kind of on your adventure. The Tomb of Horrors was not basically involved with fighting things. You might get in fights, but there were so many impossible traps and tricks that mostly it was about avoiding your enemies, rather than engaging them. The 2e Planescape module Faction War was not basically involved with fighting things. There are combats, but the central issue of the adventure is defining what your character believes in a changing landscape, as true villains and heroes emerge that may cast a new light on your old convictions. The 3e Indomitable Forest of Innenotdar had plenty of fights, but the adventure ultimately revolved around a question of whether you would kill to end suffering in the world, or change the world first. An adventure I'm currently writing for 4e is mostly about investigation, unveiling a mystery slowly. Combat is an important part of all of those, but it is not the dominant defining feature of any of them. Survival, NPC interaction, moral choice, investigation....these are all much more dominant elements. I'm sure they try to do that as often as possible. What I think they've found, though, is that when groups conflict, you can't just serve one and expect to do well. You can't just serve the detailed minis combat crowd and expect the more casual crowd to come along for the ride. The casual crowd will do something else, and then not buy your books. Even if the minis crowd is slightly bigger (or just slightly more profitable), you might be loosing more than you're gaining by sticking to the One Design To Rule Them All philosophy. Better to serve a broad base, in that case, even if it means making modular rules.</blockquote>

Verification