Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5419657" data-attributes="member: 61155">Now, that I can't really argue with. There are some solid 4E adventures and scenarios, but many of them are really poorly done. But it has also been commented on that those written this way are often counter to the actual advice given in the DMGs - I don't think that is a failing of the system itself, as much as the adventure writers.   Well, it doesn't describe my 4E game, or the 4E game as presented in the rulebooks themselves. I can't claim to speak on behalf of 4E adventures, though, so there may be some that fall into this sort of description.  I think part of the problem here, though, is skill challenges (the 'random Dice Challenge' mentioned above). On the one hand, we've got concerns such as those of Ariosto, where having rules for this sort of thing means it replaces problem solving and NPC interaction. At the same time, we've got Dausuul who is specifically looking for a rules system for these non-combat encounters. Which we do have in the form of skill challenges - except they are a lot harder to balance and run than actual combat encounters. And that's half the problem.  But even if they got skill challenges perfectly right, we still see this disconnect here, where what one side is looking for is completely counter to what others are looking for. And some of that could be addressed by having optional rules for one approach or the other, so DMs can choose whatever works for them. And we've seen bits and pieces of that, in the form of rules for quest XP, or later, the guidelines for giving out XP based on RP accomplishment alone.  But even then, a lot of this seems to focus on wanting WotC to 'encourage' certain approaches or styles of play, and figuring out how to accomplish that can be very hard to actually pin down - how do you present something for PCs to 'want'? By having actual rules for strongholds? Or just by having adventures where PCs have opportunities to gain titles or land?  Anyway, I may be coming across as Devil's Advocate here, but both the elements mentioned thus far (better scenarios, and a more robust framework for non-combat scenes) are ideas I can get behind. At the same time, I still see complaints ("4E removed the story") that don't seem actually rooted in 4E itself, but instead simply in someone's vague perception of 4E that has little to no actual connection to the game itself.</blockquote>

Verification