Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6323330" data-attributes="member: 20323">To be fair, your plot outline was about on par with many of the PS mini adventures from the boxed sets <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Actually, you reminded me to pose a question here that I also posed on Dragonsfoot:What makes a good adventure uniquely Planescape?My thinking was option 3) the threat/dilemma introduced in the first adventure is so great, and the answers are only on the planes, that of course the players go after it. But maybe that's a bit too close to the DM dragging the players in, as you point out.I guess my thoughts are also colored by the sorts of gamers I've played with...they are the sorts when I ask &quot;what sort of D&amp;D game do you want to play?&quot; typically answer &quot;D&amp;D you know, a little bit of everything.&quot; And also the same type of gamers who don't put a lot of thought into party creation from a story standpoint.&nbsp; Perhaps that is in part because I usually don't force the issue and tend to be very laid back when running games.I'm actually curious what sort of anti-Planescape adventure feedback you've gotten in the past? Is it of the &quot;don't get Mieville in my Tolkien!&quot; sort of complaining?See the sidebar on page 89. What you notice compared to the 2e source material, which had the Blood War all over the place - Hellbound, Faces of Sigil, Fiends, the Monstrous Compendium, mini-adventures, etc - 4e relegated the Blood War to a sidebar in one book and didn't really pursue it (even in the Cold War style) in any of their adventures or other releases. Definitely a missed opportunity IMHO. Maybe what is more technically accurate to say is: &quot;4e provided no support for a DM wanting to run a game featuring the Blood War, even in its current Cold War-esque variety. 4e only set the general stage, but provided no real detail.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 6323330, member: 20323"] To be fair, your plot outline was about on par with many of the PS mini adventures from the boxed sets :) Actually, you reminded me to pose a question here that I also posed on Dragonsfoot: What makes a good adventure uniquely Planescape? My thinking was option 3) the threat/dilemma introduced in the first adventure is so great, and the answers are only on the planes, that of course the players go after it. But maybe that's a bit too close to the DM dragging the players in, as you point out. I guess my thoughts are also colored by the sorts of gamers I've played with...they are the sorts when I ask "what sort of D&D game do you want to play?" typically answer "D&D you know, a little bit of everything." And also the same type of gamers who don't put a lot of thought into party creation from a story standpoint. Perhaps that is in part because I usually don't force the issue and tend to be very laid back when running games. I'm actually curious what sort of anti-Planescape adventure feedback you've gotten in the past? Is it of the "don't get Mieville in my Tolkien!" sort of complaining? See the sidebar on page 89. What you notice compared to the 2e source material, which had the Blood War all over the place - Hellbound, Faces of Sigil, Fiends, the Monstrous Compendium, mini-adventures, etc - 4e relegated the Blood War to a sidebar in one book and didn't really pursue it (even in the Cold War style) in any of their adventures or other releases. Definitely a missed opportunity IMHO. Maybe what is more technically accurate to say is: "4e provided no support for a DM wanting to run a game featuring the Blood War, even in its current Cold War-esque variety. 4e only set the general stage, but provided no real detail." [/QUOTE]

Verification