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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alphastream" data-source="post: 5876073" data-attributes="member: 11365">I disagree with that statement. Rules were a huge part of the feel of prior editions. Look at the difference between a spell in AD&D and a spell power in 4E. There are benefits to both, but they have very different feel, create entirely different gaming approaches, and lead to different experiences. Look at the amount of pre-casting in 3E (Bull's Strength, etc.) and compare to how little of that happened in AD&D (or even in 4E). The rules shaped that experience. Or, how magic item crafting in AD&D was different than 3E and different than 4E. I do think the initial adventure design was lacking. It was a shame and continues to be a shame that so many use those store-published adventures to judge the game when so many excellent adventures have been published since that time. I don't know why Wizards has this problem. I think they confuse "approachable" with a requirement to be boring and plain, when the reality is new players want to be swept away (just not confused). On the other hand, I started my D&D play back in the day with KotB and found it to be a terrible adventure. It's a boring cave/dungeon crawl unless your DM breathes life into it. It lacks a good overarching story, any plot development, real antagonists, real PC development, real role-playing, etc. It's actually all possible to do (I had a blast with the story I used for Caves of Chaos playtest players) but the original doesn't actually provide these bits. The 4E Encounters season is far better at this, even if limited by the format (having to be weekly encounter-heavy sessions). I would actually much rather see something like Rahasia or Saltmarsh as the model. These can be improved upon as well, but they have both a classic feel and have story elements that drive a great experience.</blockquote>

Verification