Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 4958434" data-attributes="member: 813">The more detail you add to a forest, the more likely it contains elements that don't mesh with the forests the party has already encountered. The DM can't drop a new forest into an existing campaign willy-nilly. If his forests are bugbear infested your adventure with formians controlling vast forest areas will be out of place. Now, granted, in 4e, you could easily run the adventure using the formian statblocks but calling the monsters bugbears, but I don't think that is why the DM bought the adventure.You missed the point of this sentence. In the front of the sentence you said you don't need a whole new setting to make your adventures diverse. In the end of the sentence you suggest that creating a mini-setting helps with diversity. This was a WTF moment for me. Which is it? Make a setting or don't make a setting?Also, please don't take my stance as an absolute. I get the sense that you feel I think it is impossible not to create a whole setting in order to create an adventure. That's obviously false. It is entirely possible to write hundreds of adventures with no implied setting. I just say that doing so would be (potentially) boring, that it would be hard to differentiate them in the market.The point is that 3pps are not flocking to 4e and writing a lot of adventures. Why? Ultimately they've decided to either do something more appealing (where appealing could range from monetarily more valuable to intellectually more valuable) or do nothing at all. Writing 4e adventures puts has restrictions that other RPG writing does not have. Apparently these restrictions are significant enough to impact the number of adventures being written for 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmucchiello, post: 4958434, member: 813"] The more detail you add to a forest, the more likely it contains elements that don't mesh with the forests the party has already encountered. The DM can't drop a new forest into an existing campaign willy-nilly. If his forests are bugbear infested your adventure with formians controlling vast forest areas will be out of place. Now, granted, in 4e, you could easily run the adventure using the formian statblocks but calling the monsters bugbears, but I don't think that is why the DM bought the adventure. You missed the point of this sentence. In the front of the sentence you said you don't need a whole new setting to make your adventures diverse. In the end of the sentence you suggest that creating a mini-setting helps with diversity. This was a WTF moment for me. Which is it? Make a setting or don't make a setting? Also, please don't take my stance as an absolute. I get the sense that you feel I think it is impossible not to create a whole setting in order to create an adventure. That's obviously false. It is entirely possible to write hundreds of adventures with no implied setting. I just say that doing so would be (potentially) boring, that it would be hard to differentiate them in the market. The point is that 3pps are not flocking to 4e and writing a lot of adventures. Why? Ultimately they've decided to either do something more appealing (where appealing could range from monetarily more valuable to intellectually more valuable) or do nothing at all. Writing 4e adventures puts has restrictions that other RPG writing does not have. Apparently these restrictions are significant enough to impact the number of adventures being written for 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification