Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 5481151" data-attributes="member: 66434">I find that many reviews of B2 do not adequately acknowledge what is plainly printed on the front cover within a highlighted stamp that draws the eye:&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Special Instructional Module&nbsp;B1 and B2 were both designed primarily as an aid to new DMs. B1 was a fully fleshed out dungeon environment awaiting monsters and treasures to be placed. The DM was expected to practice the placement of things. Lists of creatures and treasures in the back of the module showed the new DM what sorts of threats and rewards were about right for the setting and scope of play. The &quot;fluff&quot; as it were, was fully detailed and very rich letting the new DM concentrate on designing the meat and potatos of the module. &nbsp;B2 was different. In a way it was a great companion to B1 as an instructional module. B2 was overflowing with meat and potatos. The &quot;fluff&quot; was sparse to allow new DMs to generate as they wished. This module was a lesson in setting design. The people in the keep? Name them yourself, make the place your own. I don't understand how a module that does all the thinking and detailing for a new DM is supposedly helping him/her out. If the objective is teaching, then the student must be allowed to grasp the subject matter and work with it a bit. Modules that detail everything are great time savers but they don't teach anything. &nbsp;An instructional module should be sparse in those areas that a DM is supposed to gain strength in. Teaching is supposedly going to make the DM better at the role. Remember that modules like this, and the rules-light systems for them produced some strong DMs. If anything kids have gotten smarter over the years. Why wouldn't they benefit from adventures that require more DM input?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 5481151, member: 66434"] I find that many reviews of B2 do not adequately acknowledge what is plainly printed on the front cover within a highlighted stamp that draws the eye: [B]Special Instructional Module[/B] B1 and B2 were both designed primarily as an aid to new DMs. B1 was a fully fleshed out dungeon environment awaiting monsters and treasures to be placed. The DM was expected to practice the placement of things. Lists of creatures and treasures in the back of the module showed the new DM what sorts of threats and rewards were about right for the setting and scope of play. The "fluff" as it were, was fully detailed and very rich letting the new DM concentrate on designing the meat and potatos of the module. B2 was different. In a way it was a great companion to B1 as an instructional module. B2 was overflowing with meat and potatos. The "fluff" was sparse to allow new DMs to generate as they wished. This module was a lesson in setting design. The people in the keep? Name them yourself, make the place your own. I don't understand how a module that does all the thinking and detailing for a new DM is supposedly helping him/her out. If the objective is teaching, then the student must be allowed to grasp the subject matter and work with it a bit. Modules that detail everything are great time savers but they don't [I]teach [/I]anything. An instructional module should be sparse in those areas that a DM is supposed to gain strength in. Teaching is supposedly going to make the DM better at the role. Remember that modules like this, and the rules-light systems for them produced some strong DMs. If anything kids have gotten smarter over the years. Why wouldn't they benefit from adventures that require more DM input? [/QUOTE]

Verification