Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4523221" data-attributes="member: 22779">I responded to this already, and Psion hit it on the head.&nbsp; It wasn't a conspiracy theory in that I thought anything nefarious going on.&nbsp; It was a conspiracy theory because I didn't have any supporting evidence.&nbsp; I was going with my gut and stringing together a number of observations.&nbsp; But, nope, don't have anything concrete.But, thanks for giving concrete evidence to me.&nbsp; It's nice when a hunch bears fruit.KM, do you run modules?&nbsp; Do you read modules with any frequency.&nbsp; If you did, you would see that pretty much every module ever produced for any edition (although there are exceptions of course) are nothing but combats chained together through dialogue.&nbsp; Adventure design has followed this paradigm for decades and is nothing new.&nbsp; The resolution mechanics might be new, but, the basic form is exactly the same.Sort of.&nbsp; What you have now is a lot more blurring between those &quot;dungeon exploration&quot; roles so that you aren't forcing players to play certain classes.&nbsp; &quot;Oh, no thief/rogue, guess you're going to get screwed by this adventure.&nbsp; Who has to play the cleric this time around? Etc&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; Combat was never the ultimate point?&nbsp; There were no &quot;boss monsters&quot; in adventures?&nbsp; The end point was almost always combat.&nbsp; I'd say always, but some pedantic bastard would come and make an issue out of it.&nbsp; Considering how easy it is to do conversions for modules, according to those who have been doing the converstions, and those conversions are now far closer to the earlier edition adventures, I'm going to say that the parts of the game you really liked, like exploration, are every bit as alive in 4e as they were earlier.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4523221, member: 22779"] I responded to this already, and Psion hit it on the head. It wasn't a conspiracy theory in that I thought anything nefarious going on. It was a conspiracy theory because I didn't have any supporting evidence. I was going with my gut and stringing together a number of observations. But, nope, don't have anything concrete. But, thanks for giving concrete evidence to me. It's nice when a hunch bears fruit. KM, do you run modules? Do you read modules with any frequency. If you did, you would see that pretty much every module ever produced for any edition (although there are exceptions of course) are nothing but combats chained together through dialogue. Adventure design has followed this paradigm for decades and is nothing new. The resolution mechanics might be new, but, the basic form is exactly the same. Sort of. What you have now is a lot more blurring between those "dungeon exploration" roles so that you aren't forcing players to play certain classes. "Oh, no thief/rogue, guess you're going to get screwed by this adventure. Who has to play the cleric this time around? Etc". Really? Combat was never the ultimate point? There were no "boss monsters" in adventures? The end point was almost always combat. I'd say always, but some pedantic bastard would come and make an issue out of it. Considering how easy it is to do conversions for modules, according to those who have been doing the converstions, and those conversions are now far closer to the earlier edition adventures, I'm going to say that the parts of the game you really liked, like exploration, are every bit as alive in 4e as they were earlier. [/QUOTE]

Verification