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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5440637" data-attributes="member: 42582">I may have been unclear. I agree that 4e is a big departure from previous D&D. My point was that, to me, later 4e doesn't seem to be a big departure from the first 3 core of 4e (with the exception of Essentials, which is somewhat different in tone, I find).I started with Moldvay Basic - I don't know quite how richer (if at all) it is than Holmes Basic. But I also had, very early on, two volumes of Best of White Dwarf, plus the Puffin Book "What is Dungeons and Dragons?" (I don't know if this came to North America, nor if you have Puffin Books - the junior imprint of Penguin -there). These were consistent with Moldvay Basic, but I think helped me see the potential that was there better than otherwise I might have.Difference, I don't disupte. Different focus doesn't on its own entail narrower focus. I don't know KotS, so can't comment on it's inadequacies (if any) - but being a WotC module I assume it has some.As I'm writing this, I'm recalling that my reading of the 4e DMG was heavily influenced by my earlier reading of Worlds and Monsters. I suspect that the latter does a better job of presenting the 4e gameworld and the range of play it supports than does the DMG. A much-underrated book, in my view, and (unlike Races and Classes) not at all a pay-to-preview. 4e would benefit from having more frankness of that sort in its rulebooks, explaining how different game elements were designed to be used.Some of the adventure ideas and scenarios sketched in Underdark, The Plane Above, The Plane Below and Demonicon are really very compelling (in my view). Much better than what has been executed in the 4e modules I'm familiar with.</blockquote>

Verification