|
No offense too Sam, but you've strayed so far from your original points that I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore. If you reread your first few posts about the editorial, they seem to be about how you don't like the direction stated in the "editorial" and then you turn around and say there are no Dungeon adventures that fit the design flaws you propose are problematic with "roleplaying" advenutres.
That's because I was never critiquing any Dungeon adventures, specifically or in general, I was just critquing the editorial.
And what I said was the evidence presented in the article as proof was flawed, relying as it does on the preferences of the editors. Yes indeed, if that is all they publish, that is all people will be able to like. That doesn't prove what the readers like, just what the editors like.
As it goes, you have pointed out a further problem with the "proof," that of there being little, if any, substantial difference in the hack factor and background content of adventures such as yours compared to say Castle Maure. I'm willing to take your word that no such difference as suggested by the articles exists between the adventures.
Wow! I stop checking this thread for a day and it blows up with vitriol. It's like that old light beer commercial. "Hack n' slash!" "Roleplay!" "Hack n' slash!!!" "Role play!!!!!!" Grrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!
If you can combine hack and slash and roleplaying, you can combine anything!!
"Taste great, less filling" Miller Lite Commercials 'ca late 80's early 90's.....
Remember that Tejano music guy with the accordion body surfing the hard rock concert crowd commercial for Miller lite? I loved that one...
(F2K's vain attempt at distraction)
P.S. Hygiene is your friend.
Hey, you all know you've sat next to that guy in a game.
Umm. Yes. I recall the DM had to discreetly ask him to bathe before coming to game. ::shudder - bad memory::
No offense too Sam, but you've strayed so far from your original points that I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore. If you reread your first few posts about the editorial, they seem to be about how you don't like the direction stated in the "editorial" and then you turn around and say there are no Dungeon adventures that fit the design flaws you propose are problematic with "roleplaying" advenutres.That's because I was never critiquing any Dungeon adventures, specifically or in general, I was just critquing the editorial.
And what I said was the evidence presented in the article as proof was flawed, relying as it does on the preferences of the editors. Yes indeed, if that is all they publish, that is all people will be able to like. That doesn't prove what the readers like, just what the editors like.
Your objections to the editorial are pretty meaningless. James was talking about younger gamers...who do like the adventures that focus on strong story, good fluff, interesting NPCs. You are not a young gamer. You are old. You have said this.
I know I have a slew of young gamers (ages 16-22) under my tutelage at University of Hawai'i and Mid Pacific High. So if your critique of the editorial is that it's untrue...you are wrong...because the whole point of James' editorial was focused on the next generation of roleplayers...not even me truth be told...I'm older than I let on, but I can speak with expert credentials on what the youngins like cause they tell me about their adventures at lunch, between classes, after school. And it's not just me. Several of my good friends (including some troglodytes) are also educators all across the nation, and when they talk to me about their kids playing D&D (and many many of their kids do...they aren't talking about hack'n'slash dungeon crawling with no story or social encounters written into the adventures. They are talking about what has been branded "roleplaying" adventures in this thread. A lot of them dig on Dungeon, and dig on the adventures with ultra-cool stories. Sorry my man, but it's true.
As it goes, you have pointed out a further problem with the "proof," that of there being little, if any, substantial difference in the hack factor and background content of adventures such as yours compared to say Castle Maure. I'm willing to take your word that no such difference as suggested by the articles exists between the adventures.
There is a lot of difference...but as Jeremy pointed out - a spectrum with roleplay one end - hack the other, and we are all in between somewhere. Maure Castle is fairly hack. Chimes at Midnight is fairly roleplay. Prince of Redhand even more so. I was saying your suggested "flaws" of social encounters don't really exist. There are no unstatted NPCs who have the power to destroy an adventure's progress if the PCs don't "do the thing the author wanted" - no one writes adventures like this.
To sum up: Hack is not going anywhere, but more "roleplaying" written into adventures is definitely on the rise if, for no other reason, cause younger up-and-coming gamers dig on it. And for me: cause the two are two great tastes that taste great together...and roleplaying encounters aren't weak design...they just cater to a different taste than yours, a younger one. This is what I think.
...
...
...
I still get to be an ivory tower twit though I hope. :-)
I completely think gamers are their own oppressors. Stop wearing so much black, growing strange beards and weirding out to death metal. Okay okay it's an identity thing and I did it as well once upon a time, but it's a hell of a stereotype that's difficult to shake.
See this is the thing: I think the revolution is now. Of the dozens of young gamers I know only a couple fit the above description. Most of them look like clean-cut normal young kids...and they love the D&D. I have one whole drama class where every single one of the fifteen students play...it's awesome. When we cover stage combat stuff, sometimes they even pick races and classes for the characters in their scenes and it's hilarious.
D&D is not a fringe subculture anymore in my experience.
|
I completely think gamers are their own oppressors. Stop wearing so much black, growing strange beards and weirding out to death metal. Okay okay it's an identity thing and I did it as well once upon a time, but it's a hell of a stereotype that's difficult to shake.
It comes across strongly in the "What's on your CD thread". Am I the only one who doesn't listen to obscure German heavy metal bands? Try playing to a bit of Pat Metheny, or Steely Dan.
|
|
First of all - this thread was the funniest read I had in times!!! Thank you all! ;)
Second - I play D&D since I was 13, more than 22 years now, and as I as a DM prefer story instead of combat, I (and my players, too) love to have some hack'n'slash (H&S) parts from time to time. It's nothing wrong with bashing monsters, but as we grew up, the interest in RPG shifted to the story-side, rather than the H&S part of D&D.
Maybe that's what James meant. There will always be H&S in D&D, and there will always be the other side. Only nowadays, modules are far from room after room full of monsters. The new modules are more like scripts of movies (some bad, some great) and you can always have enough combat in a game as well as role-stuff!
Aubrey the Malformed said:
Am I the only one who doesn't listen to obscure German heavy metal bands?
/quote
They're Finnish. Or Netherlandish. Or maybe some Japanese.
It comes across strongly in the "What's on your CD thread". Am I the only one who doesn't listen to obscure German heavy metal bands? Try playing to a bit of Pat Metheny, or Steely Dan.
What's so darn funny about this particular post is that just today I listened to Steely Dan as well as Rammstein, LOL!!! "Hey 19..."
My affinity for German music (not just the heavy metal stuff, but also Jazz-rock stuff like Herbert Groenemeyer and regular old rock and roll like BAP) is the fact that I'm a bit homesick sometimes.
Never wore black. No piercings, no tattoos, shower daily, pay taxes, sometimes vote Republican (I said sometimes, don't shoot me ;)
Gaming is not very mainstream in my hometown, though. We're very conservative Catholics around here mostly, even though we're one of the few Counties in Texas that Bush didn't carry in '00 and '04.
It's all those damn burritos.
I can Accept that.
Boooo! That one gets you beheaded by the Kreator.
I've noticed an anti-social pattern constancy in the behavior of young gamers in my county. Perhaps it isn't really gamers as a whole; rather, those that fit the immutable mold that has been discussed here.
I find that when I'm walking through a mall or a parking lot from time to time a group of Satanic Quakers-in-training (bearded young men wearing the greasy sheen of the unbathed as proudly as they wear their black death shirts) will gawk at me and clam up whenever I get nearby. For all the good it does me I'm all smiles, doing my best to come across as warm and inviting so they'll invite me to talk or at least smile back. Invariably they simply stop talking. When I walk toward them it's lighthearted NPCs and Reflex saves jabber, and when I walk away it's either silence and stares or hushed whispers behind my back, sometimes sounding like under-the-breath tittering and, "Check him out." I'm tall, not busted, dressed in color, with groomed hair down to my ass... for some reason that doesn't fit the modern gamer mold and so I seem to vaguely threaten (or arouuuuse) them.
I was in a bookstore and my casheir was a high school senior who commented on the stack of D&D harcovers I'd picked up. When I said, "know of a game I can into," he started stuttering nervously and rushed his words, and as he gave me his number he promised that there were many games I could get in on. It was as if I'd asked a beastly girl with a limp to the prom. His girlfriend, also working behind the counter, stared at him and laughed at what seemed to be an overeager social misstep.
Back when I was cutting my teeth young gamers didn't have such a tribal insecurity--probably because there wasn't enough of us to consitute a community. Modern gamers around these parts seem to have turned into their own exclusory clique. I've never been so deliberately shunned by any other group of enthusiasts. Not hip hop b-boyz, not even bald white punks... no one. The world has been pretty nice to me, I must say. Gamers, around here at least, are absolutely the chilliest. I feel like the day I get their respect will be the day I wear a Mudvayne shirt and walk around in pants I just crapped in. I'm totally kidding, I bear them no disrespect and the unbathed part was a bit of an add-in for humor's sake, I'm sure they're all clean. Maybe they're just staring at me because of that third ear on my neck. I've been meaning to get that looked at.
Maybe they're just staring at me because of that third ear on my neck. I've been meaning to get that looked at.
Or maybe your fly was down, and they just didn't know how to tell you...
Maybe they're just staring at me because of that third ear on my neck. I've been meaning to get that looked at.Or maybe your fly was down, and they just didn't know how to tell you...
When my fly is down the locals shriek and flee en masse while Godzeera theme plays. Fighter planes with missile armament are scrambled to intercept me on the way to the frozen foods aisle. Sigh. It's all such a to-do.
Maybe they're just staring at me because of that third ear on my neck. I've been meaning to get that looked at.I wanna look at it.
Careful... when I cough aloud earwax mist shoots out.
I completely think gamers are their own oppressors. Stop wearing so much black, growing strange beards and weirding out to death metal. Okay okay it's an identity thing and I did it as well once upon a time, but it's a hell of a stereotype that's difficult to shake.
Hey now, let's not get crazy... I'm all for gamers rejecting stereotypes they don't agree with, but let's not get down on death metal and beards! Those are still good times for everyone!
|
|
Your objections to the editorial are pretty meaningless. James was talking about younger gamers...who do like the adventures that focus on strong story, good fluff, interesting NPCs. You are not a young gamer. You are old. You have said this.
So what?
Unless Dungeon has suddenly adopted an age bias, I am still a customer, and entitled to just as much consideration as people who object to demons with ripped abs on the cover.On that account, I think us older gamers are entitled to some significant equal time, and a full blown rebuttal suggesting that perhaps Dungeon needs more of the hack so it can appeal to us.
I know I have a slew of young gamers (ages 16-22) under my tutelage at University of Hawai'i and Mid Pacific High. So if your critique of the editorial is that it's untrue...you are wrong...
That would be relevant if you addressed any of the criticisms I levied. Since you haven't, it is your rebuttal that is wrong.
they aren't talking about hack'n'slash dungeon crawling with no story or social encounters written into the adventures. They are talking about what has been branded "roleplaying" adventures in this thread.
Except the article made it clear that Dungeon contains hack-and-slash dungeon crawls, and you said that I couldn't show any such in its pages, and that you consider all the adventures there to have such role-playing.
So either:1. You were wrong when you said that.
2. The article was wrong when it said such adventures exist.
3. I am right when I said that presenting Dungeon as "proof" that people like the change is circular logic as that is all Dungeon prints so they don't have a choice.
There is a lot of difference...but as Jeremy pointed out - a spectrum with roleplay one end - hack the other, and we are all in between somewhere.
So then I was right and the editorial does contain the seeds of phasing out those with less role-play, and thus justifying the preferences of the editors as the preferences of the consumers.
There are no unstatted NPCs who have the power to destroy an adventure's progress if the PCs don't "do the thing the author wanted" - no one writes adventures like this.
Yes they do. If you would like a recent example from the page of Dungeon:
For an older example, take Vecna Lives! The PCs must call on Iuz to save them despite the existence of several other non-evil deities that meet the criteria for showing up.
It exists, in both old and new products. Every now and then an author decides it would be easier to shortcut an encounter, and simply chooses the resolution he prefers for the players.
To sum up: Hack is not going anywhere, but more "roleplaying" written into adventures is definitely on the rise if, for no other reason, cause younger up-and-coming gamers dig on it.
1. So my analysis of that shift was correct, despite your taking exception to it.
2. Prove it, beyond anecdotal evidence and circulation numbers based on a closed sample. (That is, show me that Dungeon magazine is selling more than some total dungeon crawl based magazine or product line. Granted, comparing Dungeon sales to Goodman Games sales is hardly going to be all that precise, but you need an actual comparison instead of just pointing to Dungeon not going folding.)And for me: cause the two are two great tastes that taste great together...and roleplaying encounters aren't weak design...they just cater to a different taste than yours, a younger one. This is what I think.
And I think again you are jumping to a conclusion that my gaming style preference is based on age. It is based on many things, with my experiences and background up to when I began playing being much more significant.
And I think you are making a very overt statement that Dungeon, and possibly by extension all of D&D, has developed a very pronounced age bias. I'm sure you will make it clear that isn't what you meant, but consider this:"And for me: cause the two are two great tastes that taste great together...and combat encounters aren't weak design...they just cater to a different taste than yours, a mature adult one. This is what I think."
Or, to focus on why I have those preferences:
"And for me: cause the two are two great tastes that taste great together...and combat encounters aren't weak design...they just cater to a different taste than yours, a well read, creative, tactically oriented, abstract thinking one. This is what I think."
You don't have to tell me the impression that gives, I am well aware of it. It is presented as an example only. That's why I gave up making any sort of judgement calls on style preference years ago, and would rather not even categorize them. I'm a gamer, he's a gamer, those people over there are gamers. That's the only category that really matters. That is why I think, and why I didn't like the editorial, or agree with its premises or conclusion.
Burritos...
Need to get those!
*feels like 12 years old again* ;)
Don't even bother trying to find a decent burrito in Germany. Es ist nicht moeglich!!!
I love on the U.S./Mexico border and I love Mexican food!!!! More than German food, I'm afraid to admit.
Back on topic though--I like hack and slash and I like role-playing. I like puppies. I don't like kittens. I like German death metal. I like Simon & Garfunkel. Someone help me!!!!
So Samuel, how did you like the updated version of Mud Sorcerer's Tomb?
Most of the Dungeon adventures I enjoy are a good mix of story with PLENTY of combat. It's not like there is a dearth of good tactical fights on the market for the sake of all that's holy. It takes so freaking long to play out a tactical encounter anyways, how many do you need?
I agree with Mr Logue. I didn't vote for him as my favorite Dungeon writer but he does give me a lot to work with as a DM. I really appreciate that. Crunch and fluff are both requested in future issues of Dungeon. Go too much one way or the other and sound beatings with pasta will commence.
If anyone needs a burrito fix let me know, I Live in Albuquerque and regularly ship green chile to sw Germany for an old roommate.
I completely think gamers are their own oppressors. Stop wearing so much black, growing strange beards and weirding out to death metal. Okay okay it's an identity thing and I did it as well once upon a time, but it's a hell of a stereotype that's difficult to shake.Hey now, let's not get crazy... I'm all for gamers rejecting stereotypes they don't agree with, but let's not get down on death metal and beards! Those are still good times for everyone!
Considering the topic title, I can go as off-topic as I like if I bring it around to an apology to Jimmy Suts. (That's your new mob name, James)
I have absolutely no problem with death metal beardies, and I actually like to lift to death metal. Then again I could seriously lift to chipper early era Chicago pop songs as well. I guess I'm easy. I do have a problem with death metal beardies who don't wanna play reindeer games with me because I stray from black sometimes and favor a smoove shave.
I never abided by the stricture of a given scene. Even when I was a young metalhead I didn't listen soley to metal or only wear Chee-Z metal fashions of the day. You'd find me listening to Cat Stevens or as Aubrey said, Steely Dan, or scoring tickets to see Sammy Davis jr. Good music is good music. But when we're young we find that aligning ourselves with a myopically specific look for a particular music clique is a fast track catalyst for winding up in bed with scores of beautiful women. That is why we do that, right?
Don't all speak up at once now.
::waits::
Oh, right. It's just me.
::waits::
How embarassing. What's left to say? Oh yeah, sorry Mr. Sutter. ;)
I ain't Samuel, but I loved the Mud Sorcerers Tomb. It spawned a new contry with a historical element the players learned about prior to going there and getting pantsed.
If anyone needs a burrito fix let me know, I Live in Albuquerque and regularly ship green chile to sw Germany for an old roommate.
I'm in El Paso, Kirwyn...considering the distances in the southwest you and I are practically neighbors. It's only a five hour drive!! LOL
Considering the topic title, I can go as off-topic as I like if I bring it around to an apology to Jimmy Suts. (That's your new mob name, James)
Perfect mob name! Jimmy "the Noob" Suts. I love it!
Perfect mob name! Jimmy "the Noob" Suts. I love it!
Considering the topic title, I can go as off-topic as I like if I bring it around to an apology to Jimmy Suts. (That's your new mob name, James)
"The Noob" lol! Ding, ding. I think we have a winner.
No, seriously. Just say the full name aloud. It's like laughing gas over here. I must need to open a door and get some better ventilation.
So Samuel, how did you like the updated version of Mud Sorcerer's Tomb?I never read or played the original, so I can't make a comparison.
Or do you mean just in general?And of course that depends on why my previous post suddenly disappeared.
Just in general, not as a comparison.
If the previous post your referring to was your long response to Nick where you referenced The Lightless Depths, it is still there, but you might not be able to see it (that is one of the more tenacious bugs that has been frustrating Gary to no end). Try restarting your web browser and looking again.
If this is helpful: I can't see your post either Sam. Nor B.Vic's for that matter (he told me he posted).
If anyone needs a burrito fix let me know, I Live in Albuquerque and regularly ship green chile to sw Germany for an old roommate.
Oh dear, another one of us 'burquites. Fighting the good fight, I see, spreading that chopped and roasted green crack across the world...
I love on the U.S./Mexico border and I love Mexican food!!!!Just what kinda' "love" are you doing there on the border, F2K?
Tain't nothin' wrong with voting Reppy.
Love....such a strong word, especially when I forget to type the word "it". Most of the Democrats in my County would be called Republicans everywhere else....LOL.....we're so out of whack here that the National Rifle Association endorses all Democrats in our local races. Power....so addictive...what's a party title anyway?
>> they just cater to a different taste than yours, a well read, creative, tactically oriented, abstract thinking one
But that's not hack & slash - that's a tactical gamer.
If you're going to complain about Noob's statement that "hack & slash is dead", then you need to be using his definition of hack & slash which he laid out pretty clearly: "grinding, looting and leveling" and "wade through a tide of skeletons".
With that definition, I think his conclusion is dead on: hack & slash is dead in D&D. A person that wants only hack & slash is much better off playing Diablo, Halo or World of Warcraft. To chase that type of gamer is pointless as he has much better choices.
I do think Sam has a point though: Noob moves to the conclusion that "distinct flavors and interesting NPCs" are what people want. I'd agree that this is certainly a large part of it but we also shouldn't over look tactical gamers (which D&D caters to very well) and probably some other areas we haven't though of yet.
With that definition, I think his conclusion is dead on: hack & slash is dead in D&D. A person that wants only hack & slash is much better off playing Diablo, Halo or World of Warcraft. To chase that type of gamer is pointless as he has much better choices.
Oh, I disagree. Hacking and slashing is very satisfying therapy, even at the tabletop, especially as you watch the DMs face as you mow down another row of one of his carefully thought out encounters, as you have a little orc killing contest with your fellow players sitting right there across from you...as you roll another critical and listen with glee as the DM describes the horrific death throes of yet another faceless dungeon grunt.
These are things a computer can't deliver...as you and your fellow players high five each other as the DM sits down behind his screen and mutters "F*@%" as you just overpowered another encounter using just your muscle and the right application of skills/feats/spells the DM just didn't anticipate.....love that part of pen & paper gaming, even when I'm the DM!!!!
Personally I don't understand the conflict that developed on this thread. It seems there are far more presumptions being proposed by the "Enemies of James Sutter" than his editorial brings up. You are tossing some pretty inflammatory presumptions out yourselves. Like these:
A) People who like to get into character need therapy. C'mon Allen, this is totally baseless, unkind and lacking compassion for those people out there who really do need therapy (equating this fun game we play to serious mental health issues...bad idea)...Now me, I figured you were kidding, but with Sam taking so much offense to my troglodytes comment, maybe I should be all bent out of sorts about this therapy thing. Nah. I won't be. :-)
I leave my thread alone for a day or two and I can barely recognize it now...
Yes, Mr. Logue, it is my opinion (albeit somewhat light hearted and less severe than it might sound--and it was said for humor) that SERIOUS "roleplayers" often need therapy. I am a psychologist by profession and I would say that probably close to half of the 'gamers' (specifically of non-computer RPG's)that I have met, played with, observed, etc in my time are fairly eccentric, neurotic, and would probably qualify for a mental health diagnosis or label of 'emotional disturbance' of some sort. I can tell you (because I'm not naming names) that about 33-40% of my players have bonafide mental health diagnoses and take meds for them. This has been my observation of many gamers I have known in the past as well. The "Roleplayers" tend to make up the largest demographic of these gamers. The majority of my fellow 'Hack n' Slashers are jocks, preps, and others who played D&D in the 80's and view D&D as a 'Beer and Pretzels' game that only the strange kids really get into and role play. That being said, I said it in jest.In response to some previous postings, I don't think that "Back story or Traps" are incompatible with Hack & Slash. On the contrary, they're absolutely compatible. Every 1st edition adventure module published that I've ever owned, had both.
Regarding 'Role-playing', I was once told by a GM I only played with ONCE, that I had to "respond in character" I refused. My concern is not with "roleplayers", but rather with the notion that "role-playing" D&D games are better and preferable than hack n' slash, and therefore deserving of more publication. That was my ultimate reason for the thread. James Sutter is in a position to determine what adventures get published, and when he makes a statement that Hack n' Slash is dead, I need to speak up, or accept it when I get the next D&D version of Shakespeare In Love in Dungeon 155. Thus, I spoke up.
I don't give XP rewards for role-playing in my games. If the players want to do it, I don't punish them for it, but neither do I reward them. I personally can't fathom how a Level-based system where a barbaric warrior kills people with a sword suddenly becomes better at killing people with a sword, by negotiating a truce between a tribe of orcs and a human town.
So please folks, role-play to your hearts content. Just please don't suggest we stop printing Dungeon Crawls and Hack n' Slash adventures (preferably set in Greyhawk, and by Greg Vaughaun, Pett, Baur, and Rob Kuntz:) in favor of something else. Do that and I'll close my pie hole:)
|
|
Just in general, not as a comparison.
In general, I'd have to reread it in detail before answering. I do prefer to read something carefully before offering significant comments.
(that is one of the more tenacious bugs that has been frustrating Gary to no end). Try restarting your web browser and looking again.
I kind of figured. So give me a few hours and I'll let you know.
But that's not hack & slash - that's a tactical gamer
That drifts into another topic, but;
"You'd be surprised."I started as a board wargamer, and developed a preference for strategic level games. Sending corps and armies representing thousands to millions of cardboard men to horrific deaths is the original hack-and-slash that the most egregious game of D&D can't even scratch.
Tactical gamers just do it with a veneer of efficiency.
And, in case it isn't obvious, we are also atrocious power gamers. Sword vs Sword? Feh!
Gun vs Sword? Double Feh!
Nukes vs Pointy Sticks? Yeah Baby!
Oh, I disagree. Hacking and slashing is very satisfying therapy, even at the tabletop, especially as you watch the DMs face as you mow down another row of one of his carefully thought out encounters, as you have a little orc killing contest with your fellow players sitting right there across from you...as you roll another critical and listen with glee as the DM describes the horrific death throes of yet another faceless dungeon grunt.
Exactly!
And double for the rest of what you said!Yes, firing up Fallout 2 or a low difficulty game of Civilization 3 has its points. Watching the flamethrower dance and enslaving a whole civilization gets your right . . . right . . . there.
But danged if the best of that doesn't pale in comparison to about a month ago when a player in my online game popped off 3 crits in one round while full power attacking with his axe with his 15th level dwarven fighter/myrmidon (from the Player's Guide to Arcanis), and made "trail of bodies" anything but a poetic figure of speech.
That's why I play RPGs and not just wargames. You never get that in any computer game.
|
|
So Samuel, how did you like the updated version of Mud Sorcerer's Tomb?
Ahh, now I understand why you picked that one.
/pontifcates
To begin with, I must address the concept and base tropes of the adventure, and make it clear that I dislike them.
Tomb of Horrors is based on the premise of DM vs Player gaming instead of DM + Player gaming. If I am playing face to face and I want an adversarial game, I want it to be fair. For that I'll play a wargame. I see no "challenge" in a DM proving he can kill the players, or the players proving they can outweasel trick the DM. I don't even consider that "legitimate" hack-and-slash. It is something else altogether, and one of the few "styles" of play I do still condemn. (The other being extreme anti-social indulgence. And I mean extreme. Snarky evil is one thing, pure sociopath is another.)
I can understand the desire to step outside and "test" yourselves every now and then, but I don't consider this an RPG. It is just a stacked deck wargame, and to me is outside the hobby.
So what then of The Mud Sorcerer's Tomb?
Well, with such a basis it is doomed to fall flat. This does achieve a near total absence of interaction and alternative. I'd have to analyze the encounters way too closely to decide if there is any way out of any of them other than fighting, but I suspect there isn't. No negotiation. No bpassing. Nothing. That's cutting off player options, and that's not good.
The background is decent. It has pretty much all the elements I consider essential:
1. It is generic enough to be placed anywhere. That sounds minor, but that can be a major killer. Red Hand of Doom is awesome - except for the maps. Hardwired into a specific location in the Forgotten Realms. Bleah. This however requires what? A civilized area that had ancient cults and now has lost tombs. Oh, and an NPC who likes an obscure pseudo-deity. There's nowhere I can't put that.
2. Expandability. Hey, more tombs exist. And there was a secret conspiracy about them. That's pure development fodder, and so a major plus.
3. Reuse. This is only a weak favorable, as the maps are a pretty unique, suggesting difficulty in reusing them with the same group. Still, they are pretty cool, and restocking the whole place could be interesting.
The dungeon features I am not as thrilled with. There are a few too many rules sidestepping issues in this for me to be satisfied. Yes, I do understand the design requirements of controlling PC knowledge, but this treads a bit too close to the downside of making up new rules items as needed.
The content is pretty well locked in to what it is by the above. Since it is a "test" the encounters must be shown to not allow that, and it accomplishes that.
The DCs for most of the traps look to be automatic for a properly maxed trap rogue to deal with, so I think those are no threat.
The creatures mostly leave the rogue useless, so that looks reasonably balanced.
Still, a few situations seem on the edge of altered rules by fiat, and that is not that good an idea.
Overall, I'd have to say it is a fairly decent example of what it is supposed to be. Still, I'm not a fant of what it is supposed to be, and would likely find myself fighting my players (not their characters) through this every step of the way.
And I still dislike the theoretical premise anything heavily based on Tomb of Horrors. As I've said many times, the art of DMing lies not in killing PCs, but in making the players believe, even knowing this, that the total loss of their characters is imminent. Achieve that suspension of disbelief, and everyone has won.
So whatever good qualities the adventure might have had, overall I would not be displeased if you didn't repeat it. There's just too little there for me to work with, and it think it's content way too specialized.
/chills
Additional Caveat: I wrote that between 2:30 and 3:00 AM. I expect I should have let it keep until I had woken up, but I think we all know that would be totally out of character. So if I babbled too much, or explained too little, just ask and I'll try to summarize or elaborate as needed. Hopefully I conveyed the main concepts well enough.
I'm a gamer, he's a gamer, those people over there are gamers. That's the only category that really matters.
Yeah, but most importantly, do I still get to be an ivory tower twit, or do I now get to be a gamer just like you?
I love how you're suddenly the love-power-flower-child of gaming after all the attacks you made on "New Era" gamers (your term), and calling me an ivory tower twit.
I'm not buying it Sam. You got hate in your heart, probably cause you have encountered a lot of static from people on the WotC boards (though after this experience I'm thinking you thrive on it and provoke it when you can get away with it). Nothing wrong with that man. I dig the hate coming off ya...makes for bizarre discussions, but don't pretend you're all "Peace Love and Gaming for All!" if you really don't feel that way. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but the transformation you went through on this thread seemed to happen right after the editors laid a smack down on personal attacks. You don't have to call me twit to disagree vehemently with me and hate everything I stand for (not saying that you do, I just don't want to see you kowtow to some sort of outside imposed self-control if you don't want to).
Or if I'm completely wrong on this, and you stand by your words I quoted right there above, you could man-up and say "Gee Nick, sorry for calling you an ivory tower twit...I didn't get what you were talking about with the troglodytes thing and jumped to the conclusion you were a flaming a*##@%* who was shit-talking my friends." I'm happy to say: Sam, I'm sorry if I caused you and your friends disparagement with my troglodytes comment. I didn't mean to and I sincerely apologize.
Oh and thank you (sincerely!) for finally providing me with an example of the design flaw you were talking about, man I had to work to get you to show me what you mean, but that's okay, I like the work. Now I see what you are saying, and you have a point. Still, a dozen side quests to kill off the hibernating aboleths...not so...a simple deus ex machina does the trick my man. Let's not exaggerate.
As to your other points all you said was I was wrong a lot. Which is fine. But you just shift the topic every time I respond so you can somehow twist what I say to "WRONG" on the dial. And that doesn't really bother me, but it is a huge waste of my time to keep responding. And to be honest, I may be responsible for the very same thing in my own responses so let's kill the cycle.
In closing - my last point I will make on this staggering limping thread is that you are misinterpreting the editorial completely. James isn't attacking you. He's saying what the young kids like. So don't worry about it. You ain't one of the young kids. You do have a right to your opinion, but no one is attacking your old skewl stylins, they are just pointing out it is not what up and coming generations prefer (though I can see why you raised your banner and armored-up "Hack is Dead" is definitely an inflammatory way of saying what the editorial said).
The trend will probably change again in a few years time, so don't sweat it. After awhile the next group of young gamers will be all about the kind of design you like. Cycles and circles.
I think today's up and comers like their hack in video format, and like a different twist to their pen-n-paper...a twist with more emphasis on backstory, NPCs and interaction based encounters. Don't worry, no one is going to do away with the kind of design you like (dungeon crawls with less emphasis on fluff), and you'll still get plenty of it is my prediction.
Yes, Mr. Logue, it is my opinion (albeit somewhat light hearted and less severe than it might sound--and it was said for humor) that SERIOUS "roleplayers" often need therapy. I am a psychologist by profession and I would say that probably close to half of the 'gamers' (specifically of non-computer RPG's)that I have met, played with, observed, etc in my time are fairly eccentric, neurotic, and would probably qualify for a mental health diagnosis or label of 'emotional disturbance' of some sort. I can tell you (because I'm not naming names) that about 33-40% of my players have bonafide mental health diagnoses and take meds for them. This has been my observation of many gamers I have known in the past as well. The "Roleplayers" tend to make up the largest demographic of these gamers. The majority of my fellow 'Hack n' Slashers are jocks, preps, and others who played D&D in the 80's and view D&D as a 'Beer and Pretzels' game that only the strange kids really get into and role play. That being said, I said it in jest.
LOL! Like jocks and preps don't need therapy...Puuuuleeeeeaaazze! ;-)
C'mon, really Allen? Just to clarify, are you saying the ONLY explanation for really enjoying getting into character is that you need therapy? I'm sure some people see "roleplaying" as therapy...hell some people see sports cars as therapy and bird watching...but you don't really believe that those of us (and I'm definitely one of them) who like to "get into character" are crazy do you? There are lot of reasons to want to get into character around the gaming table besides "therapeutic catharsis." I'm not pissed here, just curious as to what you're expert thoughts on this subject are.
Considering the topic title, I can go as off-topic as I like if I bring it around to an apology to Jimmy Suts. (That's your new mob name, James)
I have absolutely no problem with death metal beardies, and I actually like to lift to death metal. Then again I could seriously lift to chipper early era Chicago pop songs as well. I guess I'm easy. I do have a problem with death metal beardies who don't wanna play reindeer games with me because I stray from black sometimes and favor a smoove shave.
Yeah, I'm the same way - I listen to a bunch of different stuff, but metal's where my heart is these days when it comes to performing. I've actually got a hardcore metal band myself - www.myspace.com/shadowatmorning. I'd be the one with the beard. : P
And thanks for the mob name, but I've already got people quailing at the mention of Jimmy the Face...
Setting aside your point about DM vs. Player mentality (which is a good one, but not relevant to this discussion) I am having a hard time figuring out exactly what you are looking for in encounter design. Let me go back to something you said early in this thread:
If the encounter is just some monsters in a hack situation, the resolution actually remains completely open ended. You can hack them, bypass them, fast talk them, or anything else you might come up with, because the encounter is exclusively predicated on simply resolving the situation.
Conversely, if the encounter is based on interacting with them, then it carries with it an obvious consequence of significant loss if you don't do so. You lose a clue, you have an unwinnable fight, or whatever other consequence is now hardwired into the adventure by virtue of establishing the encounter in that manner.
Furthermore, many interaction based encounters are directed at one type of interaction only. The player must guess just how the DM/author intends for them to deal with a particular situation.
The difference is not that a hack-based adventure requires only hacking. It is that a hack-based adventure presents the encounters as just obstacles and leaves the creation of options for resolving it to the players. Compared to that, I find your case of the DM/author presenting them with specific types of encounters where alternate resolutions are not encouraged by the presentation to be a very weak case. If you really want to tell me how to deal with this encounter, why don't I just hand you my character sheet and you can play my character for me?
Looking at that quote as your preferred encounter type (just some monsters in a hack situation) I thought back over the adventures we had published recently looking for an adventure that followed up on that premise, and yes till had some background and hooks to make it an interesting adventure. This one ("Mud Sorcerer's Tomb") came to mind immediately.
But your point about "only" being able to resolve the encounters through combat:
Well, with such a basis it is doomed to fall flat. This does achieve a near total absence of interaction and alternative. I'd have to analyze the encounters way too closely to decide if there is any way out of any of them other than fighting, but I suspect there isn't. No negotiation. No bpassing. Nothing. That's cutting off player options, and that's not good.
Is probably true so far as what the adventure supports directly, but isn't that what you said you preferred when you wrote:
And no, making up crunch on the spot is a lot harder than improvising fluff. I'm always amused that people who support immersion role-playing don't see the value in actually tailoring that role-play to the group, or expecting the DM will do it better.
Given that you seem to prefer fully detailed "crunch" but largely open-ended "fluff" I would think you would prefer an adventure like "Mud Sorcerer's Tomb" for the simple reason that all the "crunch" you could ever want has already been provided, but there is plenty of room to modify the adventure and add some "fluff" if you want.
I think you have made it pretty clear (at least to me) that you prefer adventures that contain support for multiple routes to bypassing obstacles (or encounters) whether that means fighting, talking, or both. That is why I am surprised that you took issue with the encounter with the kopru in "The Lightless Depths." Because its pretty clear to the PCs that the situation is not "we must destroy the artifact" (although that is probably the "easiest" solution in terms of difficulty for the PCs) the problem is "we must overcome or bypass the kopru guarding the temple." And we actually took some care during the development process that you could enter the temple without destroying the artifact. It would be more difficult, but with some solid tactical decisions, a good plain, and/or creative use of magic its not that hard to beat or fool the guardians, even without destroying the artifact. The encounter you chose to criticize actually encourages the style of play you seem to prefer! That is why I was confused.
That being said, there are going to be some encounters in savage tide that are going to force the PCs to make some tough decisions. They may have to choose between accepting the help of some evil creatures to combat an even greater evil, or trying to do without their help and face a more difficult situation. But, I don't consider that to be flawed adventure design, I think that interesting moral decisions make D&D as a whole a richer experience. And sometimes there is no "right" answer, just an "easy" answer and a "hard" answer.