Real tale of Old School feel?

[Numion]

You forget that, as with any kind of entertainment, calling it "bad design" or a "feature" is always a matter of taste. And D&D is primarily a kind of entertainment. So what's there to admit to? That your taste differs from that of others? Since when is that news?

Shall we shut down the adventures section of ENWorld reviews page? Because that's what your argument boils down. Only thing left for the reviewer would be to summarize the plot and comment on the correctness of the mechanics. Everything else is down to taste? Let's take movies for example. By your statement, it's down to taste because it's entertainment. There's is no bad filmmaking (film design, if you will). A mic boom showing at the top? Down to taste. Actors changing for the same character during the movie (because original died)? Down to taste. Camera crew seen in a mirror? Down to taste.

Your argument just doesn't wash. Some adventures are lacking in design, in areas other than NPC stats.

By the way, I'd much prefer it if people qualified their declaration of taste a little better as their own opinion. It's a bit annoying when somebody comes up and states "This [insert here] sucks dead weasels" with the voice of non-existant authority. We're discussing taste here, people, not facts. And no, I never smoked crack, but I had a blast with this one.

No can do, because the whole point of my argument is that everything is not down to taste. And besides, it's the internet: I acknowledge that my opinion holds little weight anyway, and same goes for everyone else

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Shall we shut down the adventures section of ENWorld reviews page? Because that's what your argument boils down.

Don't see where. Or why the review section should be shut down either. Last time I checked it, reviewers were giving a summary of the contents of an adventure, and then were giving their opinion about it. Just that, contrary to some posts here, reviews are acknowledged as the reviewer's opinion on the matter, and not the "ultimate truth" on matters of adventure design.

Your argument just doesn't wash. Some adventures are lacking in design, in areas other than NPC stats.

Yeah, but the points where they lack, or not, are still up to personal opinion, apart from being highly dependent on the outlook on adventures and roleplaying 20 years ago, which probably differs a little from todays.

No can do, because the whole point of my argument is that everything is not down to taste. And besides, it's the internet: I acknowledge that my opinion holds little weight anyway, and same goes for everyone else

And that's wrong. Your opinion holds as little or as much weight as others grant to it. Otherwise, we could simply close down the review section of ENWorld, because nobody cares about what those whacky reviewers write anyway. It's just grating on my nerves that some people waltz around, sounding like they are the last authority on adventuring design while backhandedly insulting other people's tastes.

 

[gizmo33]

Do you think that Monte Cook's "Orc and Pie" adventure makes a lot of sense too? I agree, in D&D you can rationalize anything by 'everything really has an explanation, however unlikely, becooz it's magic', but that doesn't make it good design.

In my campaign, Chaos and Law are both fairly strongly represented - and the way that I do Chaos is very much like Castle Amber, Dungeonland, and such. It makes sense to me, and thus Castle Amber probably seems less out of place than it does to other folks. But that points out IMO an important point - it really seems sort of pompus to start talking about "good design" as if we're talking about building a bridge or something. We're talking about a DnD module! What is probably happening here is that the module is just not suited to your campaign and playing style.

I never said "because it's magic" and just left it at that, and I don't think anyone else has. There's more to it - and too many other posts for me to reconstruct the arguments.

I don't know anything about the "orc and pie" thing. I wasn't trying to "rationalize anything" and I think you must have missed most of the points I tried to make earlier. I'd never waste my time saying that "orc and pie" were a bad design - I tend to reserve the phrase for feats, character classes, and things that are more mechanical. Or perhaps I might say "bad design" if the module did a poor job of using some created work upon which it was based (in this case, the CAS stories). So "Uninteresting" is probably what I would call something like "orc and pie".

 

[gizmo33]

Shall we shut down the adventures section of ENWorld reviews page? Because that's what your argument boils down.

Even if we did have a formalized language for analyzing the value of a DnD module I'm pretty sure you guys are not using it. If all the ENWorld reviews page did was say "sucked" or "great" then I think it would be shut down out of a lack of interest. IMO a good review is a review that I can get some information out of, even if I don't have same opinion as the reviewer. That's not happening so far with Quasquenton's critique of X2/I3-5, which has so far been more informative about my drug-using habits than it has been about what makes a good/bad module.

 

[Quasqueton]

That's not happening so far with Quasquenton's critique of X2/I3-5, which has so far been more informative about my drug-using habits than it has been about what makes a good/bad module.

Oh, so you missed my detailed critique of I3? I can understand, it was only 355 words. And the "drug-using habits" comment was a whole 4 words.

Monsters in the random monster charts don't have hit points listed. Just HD.

There is a group of about a dozen bandits with 2 HD. Half have only 2-4 hit points.

There is a maze with only one way in -- jumping into a burning brazier in the temple. The worshippers at the temple haven't figured out the brazier is a teleporter. But there are a couple dozen folks (non-worshippers) in the maze who had to come through the brazier.

There are wondering wizards, bandits, dopplegangers, etc. in this maze, but no explanation on how long they've been there, how they got there (past all the worshippers), or how they survive there. There are monsters in rooms in the maze, with no explanation of how they survive. There are areas in the maze where treasure is just sitting in the middle of the floor, apparently just abandoned and not found by anyone else.

In one area, a +1 warhammer just is lying in the middle of the floor. No monster, no trap, nothing but the warhammer on the floor. Another area has a +3 ring of protection, just lying there. Another has a bag of 510gp. Etc., etc., etc. WTF?! Just walk through the maze and pick up the treasure.

In many areas, there is ancient writing with hints and clues for the PCs. But for most all of them, there is a 30% to decipher the writing. Just a flat 30% chance, regardless of being a wizard with 18 Int or a dumb fighter. And it doesn't even say this is 30% for the whole party as a group, or for each individual trying to read it.

There's a +3 ring of protection lying on the floor of a vacant area; there is a sphinx sitting in a 30'x30' room; there is a dozen bandits holed up in the room right next door -- with no explanation what-so-ever as to how, why, or when.

There's a freakin' gnome digging tunnels with a *spoon* [literally!] deep in the heart of a 1,000-year-old tomb (with not so much as a single sentence on how or why).

Quasqueton

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Oh, so you missed my detailed critique of I3? I can understand, it was only 355 words. And the "drug-using habits" comment was a whole 4 words.
Quasqueton

Yeah, but you see...your 355 words essentially said "I don't see how anybody could play this and have fun", while those 4 words essentialy said "Everybody who really liked this, and posted it here, must have used highly addictive hallucinogens of a most illegal nature to like it"...to say it nicely.

Your criticism is all fine and dandy, but I simply don't like being called a crackpot because my tastes differ from yours.

 

[rogueattorney]

Is this the "Old School Feel" with D&D3 everyone wants?

No that's a DM who doesn't like "old school" with players who don't like "old school" running a game with the specific intentions of making fun of "old school" games.

I think the bigger question is whether you ever start threads that aren't edition wars bait anymore.

R.A.

 

[Quasqueton]

Yeah, but you see...your 355 words essentially said "I don't see how anybody could play this and have fun", while those 4 words essentialy said "Everybody who really liked this, and posted it here, must have used highly addictive hallucinogens of a most illegal nature to like it"...to say it nicely.

Your criticism is all fine and dandy, but I simply don't like being called a crackpot because my tastes differ from yours.

I never, in that whole thread said anything about anyone having or not having *fun* with the adventure. And the fact that y'all have to rewrite my words (in this case making my 355 words into 11, and my 4 words into 23) to make them say something absurd is my evidence that y'all are just trolling me.

I will not explain myself anymore on this subject. My words are quite clear, and anyone who isn't looking for a flamewar can understand them as I wrote them regardless of y'all's attempts to misrepresent them.

That's the good thing about message boards: my real words are always there as evidence against what others want to misrepresent.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

I think the bigger question is whether you ever start threads that aren't edition wars bait anymore.

Show me these threads that started as edition wars. Also or alternatively, show me where I have started an edition war in someone else's thread.

Edit:
The month of July:

Threads started: 24
Opening posts that in some way reference D&D editions: 5
Opening posts that say one edition is in any way better than another edition: 0*
Opening posts that are bait for an edition war: ?**

*If you think different, show me the exact thread where I've started with such a claim.

**Apparently, some of you consider this thread an edition war. But why? How is this an edition war thread, but the "Official Nostalgia Thread" is not? I post a reference to a thread having fun with "old school" styles, and I'm an ass. Someone else posts a reference to a thread having fun with "old school" styles, and that is great. Explain to me the difference.

Quasqueton

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That's the good thing about message boards: my real words are always there as evidence against what others want to misrepresent.

Quasqueton

I've "always" owned the first two in this series, but never played them. A few days ago, I got the third module. I decided to reread the whole series. It's been years since I originally read anything in them.

I've only read about half of the first module so far, but oh my god, it is horrible. So much about this module is horrible. Just some examples I can remember without it in my hands right now:

[insert critique of I3 here]

I don't think I ever read these modules cover to cover, because I never ran them in a game. I had only previously spot-read here and there. This first module at least, is absurd. All those of you who say this is a great module, are you smoking crack? Or just looking back through rose-colored glasses. I mean, this thing is outrageously bad. And I'm only half-way through the first module.

Edit: that "smoking crack" comment reads much harsher and in-your-face than I intended. Take it as surprise, not as confrontational.

Quasqueton

You're correct, that's the nice part about message boards. No need to misrepresent you here, when your words are still available.
And your "apology" for the crack comment is accepted. Peace.