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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="knightofround" data-source="post: 5587084" data-attributes="member: 27884">I agree with the OP's sentiment, and here's 2 reasons why:-----1. Writing adventures and writing supplements requires two completely different skillsets. Its the dichotomy between fluff and crunch. I would argue that because 4E is more "crunchy" than previous editions of D&D, it also means that its also more difficult to write good adventures for it.For example, take the skill challenge system. In previous editions there was no formalized system to handle non combat encounters, so instead we got long, vague paragraphs about factions, goals, and motivations. That meant that you needed your author to be a good fictional writer.But in 4E we do have a formal system for non combat encounters. Because we can establish set results for set DCs, there's no need to go into great detail about how the Count is more amicable to your request if you refer to him as "milord" instead of "sir". 4E intrinsically assumes that sort of detail (mechanically represented by the circumstantial bonus) is content added by DM, so it shouldn't be printed in the adventure anymore.So now you don't need a fictional writer anymore, you need a statistical writer who can properly balance probabilities and expected outcomes in order to create a dynamic and balanced tactical encounter.The skill challenge system is just one example of crunch constraints overwhelming the need for fluff. I would argue that the same applies to:- 4E encounter design (more level appropiate encounters in exchange for less level inappropiate encounters)- 4E power design (each power is categorized as At-Will / Encounter / Daily / 10 min ritual / 1 hour ritual)- 4E dungeon design (every encounter has a two page spread)-----2. WotC has always had great statistical writers to write fantastic rulebooks, splatbooks, and supplements. But they've never really had great fictional writers designing great adventures and campaign settings. Now, I am not familiar with 4E's current list of big players, but if you look at WotC's former bigshots such as Keith Baker or Monte Cook, sure they've published some fiction, but it was a secondary thing for them. Instead, Baker's background was in computer design, and Cook's background was in editing. Now I know that neither Baker nor Cook were very much involved 4E, but I'm willing to bet that if you go through WotC's offices today you'll find very similar backgrounds. Whereas in 3PP, the writers often come from less technical backgrounds.This problem was compounded by the GSL, which at 4E's release really shut down all the 3PP support that filled in WotC's weaknesses. Now that there's less uncertainty about the GSL it isn't as bad as it used to be. But there's still very little incentive for 3PP to switch to an edition where there is very little space for their strengths to shine within 4E's constraints. That results in 3PP sticking with 3E, and 4E's adventures and campaign settings suffers for it.</blockquote>

Verification