Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SoldierBlue" data-source="post: 5953484" data-attributes="member: 57440">That is so cool that you cited &quot;Night's Dark Terror&quot; - I remember that module as one that really advanced the sophistication of exactly what you and I are talking about - making D&amp;D feel more like &quot;Fellowship of the Ring&quot; and less like a boardgame. About 25 years ago, my friend took the huge fort map from the module and put it on his wall (it came down in time for the girlfriend years, I think...)&nbsp;Same with Rolemaster - I never played it (I have it, and can't understand it), but I did GM MERP, which was really Rolemaster-lite (which still means it was incredibly complicated). In the few times I GM'd it, though, it seemed to give GMs the ability to run a more narrative adventure (and less &quot;gamist&quot;, I suppose, to use the lingo) while still being sophisticated. I'm always a little alarmed at those who equate a more narrative, dynamic game with a simpler game - not so.&nbsp;I really believed in the promise of 4e to do those sorts of things; DMG p. 42 seemed ideal for me to the do sorts of things I wanted to do. But the encounter powers (amongst other things) meant the game tended (but not necessarily ensured, as you've eloquently indicated) towards a paradigm of encounter-after-encounter play.&nbsp;And, to reiterate, I don't see the same problem with at-wills or dailies.&nbsp;As I've said elsewhere, if Han and Luke had encounter powers, they could have cleared the Death Star one room at a time...&nbsp;Anyway, anytime you're in Western Canada, we're dragging you in to DM for us. I like your style.&nbsp;Cheers!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;And as always, Play What You Want, Gamer Nation!<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses&nbsp; &nbsp; B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="SoldierBlue, post: 5953484, member: 57440"] That is so cool that you cited "[I]Night's Dark Terror[/I]" - I remember that module as one that really advanced the sophistication of exactly what you and I are talking about - making D&D feel more like "[I]Fellowship of the Ring[/I]" and less like a boardgame. About 25 years ago, my friend took the huge fort map from the module and put it on his wall (it came down in time for the girlfriend years, I think...) Same with [I]Rolemaster[/I] - I never played it (I have it, and can't understand it), but I did GM [I]MERP[/I], which was really Rolemaster-lite (which still means it was incredibly complicated). In the few times I GM'd it, though, it seemed to give GMs the ability to run a more narrative adventure (and less "gamist", I suppose, to use the lingo) while still being sophisticated. I'm always a little alarmed at those who equate a more narrative, dynamic game with a simpler game - not so. I really believed in the promise of 4e to do those sorts of things; DMG p. 42 seemed ideal for me to the do sorts of things I wanted to do. But the encounter powers (amongst other things) meant the game [I]tended ([/I]but not necessarily ensured, as you've eloquently indicated) towards a paradigm of encounter-after-encounter play. And, to reiterate, I don't see the same problem with at-wills or dailies. As I've said elsewhere, if Han and Luke had encounter powers, they could have cleared the Death Star one room at a time... Anyway, anytime you're in Western Canada, we're dragging you in to DM for us. I like your style. Cheers!;) And as always, Play What You Want, Gamer Nation!B-) [/QUOTE]

Verification