Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4951551" data-attributes="member: 80487">As I recall from reading, the DL modules had some pretty good dungeon design. The &quot;overarching linear framework&quot; and other aspects turned off my gang before we got through much actual play.As I mentioned above, some of the technical issues were present in RuneQuest (and other games) going back to the 1970s -- yet scenario designers often enough went for more open situations.I think the key difference is one of attitude or &quot;philosophy&quot;. I don't think the rises of linearity (in scenarios) and complexity (in mechanics) are accidental, or that one necessarily follows from the other. Designers appear to have prioritized both, based on different answers to fundamental questions as to what the RPG is or is &quot;about&quot;.There may be (or to me are) built-in factors that make it more difficult to do some things with 4e, and/or the audience may have less interest in doing those things. The second factor is probably more telling in the long run, unless designers are not responsive to demand.With Griffin Mountain, one can get a lot of mileage from named NPCs (in their own rights as well as with stats serving under other names), and more from the likes of &quot;young smilodon number three&quot; and &quot;broo number nine&quot;.Personalities bring perhaps the most to play, yet are least relevant to design based on the premise that creatures exist only to get slaughtered the first time players encounter them.That touches perhaps on a more general disdain for anything that's not game-mechanical. &quot;Fluff&quot; is where the real chewy bits of an RPG come in, IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4951551, member: 80487"] As I recall from reading, the DL modules had some pretty good dungeon design. The "overarching linear framework" and other aspects turned off my gang before we got through much actual play. As I mentioned above, some of the technical issues were present in RuneQuest (and other games) going back to the 1970s -- yet scenario designers often enough went for more open situations. I think the key difference is one of attitude or "philosophy". I don't think the rises of linearity (in scenarios) and complexity (in mechanics) are accidental, or that one necessarily follows from the other. Designers appear to have prioritized both, based on different answers to fundamental questions as to what the RPG is or is "about". There may be (or to me [i]are[/i]) built-in factors that make it more difficult to do some things with 4e, and/or the audience may have less interest in doing those things. The second factor is probably more telling in the long run, unless designers are not responsive to demand. With [i]Griffin Mountain[/i], one can get a lot of mileage from named NPCs (in their own rights as well as with stats serving under other names), and more from the likes of "young smilodon number three" and "broo number nine". [b]Personalities[/b] bring perhaps the most to play, yet are least relevant to design based on the premise that creatures exist only to get slaughtered the first time players encounter them. That touches perhaps on a more general disdain for anything that's not game-mechanical. "Fluff" is where the real chewy bits of an RPG come in, IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification