|
I posted this in the Dungeon General also, as I wasn't sure where to put this.
So we finally have an answer from WotC about the overview of this AP:
Q: Can we get a copy of the Scales of War overview?
--AsmodeusLore
A: From Randy's latest Digital Insider:
The short answer to this question is “no.” The problem is that we’ve mapped out an elaborate plot that covers level 1 all the way through level 30 and there are a number of surprises along the way. Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the Path is going. I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!
This is from the D&D Q&A for the day.
Honestly...why not publish a rough outline like Pazio did for the STAP, just a quick paragraph about where it is going to take place or a villians name. A serious mistake on WotC part, and I am sure this will piss ALOT of people off. I myself was considering running it in time, but now there is a 0% chance I will, and I don't plan on subscribing if this is the crap we get.
I am a fan of 4e, and was excited to see the first AP, but now, not at all.
Oh well. Just thought I would share and see how you feel about it.
This philosophy of 'hiding' things from the DM just perplexes me. It really makes no sense at all.
|
|
Exactly my thoughts Jeremy. This was a good way for WotC to get people to play and subscribe...ok that part was sarcasm. Oh well, you never know, maybe in the future they will learn from their/this mistake(s).
EDIT: I found this on the WotC forums in the same topic and it seems very reasonable given what we have seen:
Providing us with an overview would require them to have an overview in the first place.
At this point from the adventures given and the errors everyone else has mentioned from the setting I'm begining to think that these are just adventures they are calling an adventure path
-Rhianni32
I posted this in the Dungeon General also, as I wasn't sure where to put this.
So we finally have an answer from WotC about the overview of this AP:
Q: Can we get a copy of the Scales of War overview?
--AsmodeusLoreA: From Randy's latest Digital Insider:
The short answer to this question is “no.” The problem is that we’ve mapped out an elaborate plot that covers level 1 all the way through level 30 and there are a number of surprises along the way. Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the Path is going. I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!
What crap. Seriously, it sounds like they are afraid that the players will read it and AP will be spoiled. What a croc. The fact that they've already stated that they are leaving the development of the world outside of the specific module encounters makes this even worse.
"We have a plan, we just can't tell you. But wait...we need you to provide the fluff on a module by module basis. We are sure that what you do won't conflict with our ultra-top secret plans. By the way, if you have any suggestions, send them our way...not that it matters, because we have a plan...really...it's secret"
|
I've been one of the most vocal in several threads at Wizards of the Coast's boards regarding this issue. Sure, Scales of War can be done without a campaign overview. We did it back in the day with Shackled City. But, that was a long time ago and adventure paths have evolved (for the better) since then.
Somehow, it's "misguided" for a DM to want to plan ahead in his or her Scales of War campaign. It's "misguided" to want information for future adventures to help DMs foreshadow and prepare to execute a theme, mood and long-range plot.
The lack of campaign overview has made it difficult to establish internal logic and continuity. We get generica like "Characters of War", but not a simple campaign overview? What?
Those of us trying to DM Scales of War don't need detailed information about every single installment in the adventure path. We don't need a "grand reveal." We just want a small document so we can steer this ship, establish some continuity, and develop an understanding of the long-range plan.
Very frustrating and disappointing. I guess this is what happens when ya stay loyal to 4E and the 'new' Dungeon. My mistake, I see.
I am sorry to see that they seem to screwing this up so much for you guys that want to believe in them and 4E.
Without an overview, I have no confidence that this 'AP' is for me. While I always loved Dungeon (under Paizo's control), Dungeon was only an occasional purchase. That is, until the Age of Worms AP. This grabbed me and it was my first foray into the world of DMing.
I work full time and my wife and I have 2 young children. The AP allowed me to DM a full story with little prep work.
Dungeon, under WoTC, offers no incentive for me. With the onus now on me to flesh out the background of each module, I would now have more work than before. With no road map available, there is no guarantee that, if I do this work, that what I come up with isn't going to conflict with a future module. (Actually, I am wrong. There is a guarantee. If they fail to actually have a plan, then anything I come up with will have nothing to conflict with)
That being said, I think it is really unlikely that I will subscribe to D&D Insider. They had me under the assumption that I would get both Dragon (Which I admit I am pretty impressed with) and Dungeon with an ongoing AP. This isn't the AP I was expecting, and it is certainly not the one I want to run.
I am sorry to see that they seem to screwing this up so much for you guys that want to believe in them and 4E.
I still like 4e (and 3.5 :) ).
I still like the Dragon articles.I still like the Dungeon articles.
It's just the damn AP that is ticking me off. Honestly, if these modules had been released with no mention of a supposed AP, they would have been fine adventures. It is WoTC insistence that a plan exists and that they just don't want to spoil it by telling. I call shenanigans! Shenanigans I say!
C'mon, guys. Calm down. You're making a big deal out of something that really doesn't matter a great deal.
Worried that the AP wouldn't be "for you"? That probably won't be resolved with a short overview. The quality of the adventure won't be apparent from a one-paragraph snippet.
Worried that you'll come up with fluff that contradicts stuff down the line? Unlikely, and even if you do, you're the DM. It's not going to be unresolvable with a bit of creativity.
Worried that Wizards doesn't actually have a plan? You need to polish that tinfoil hat of yours.
I especially like the through-the-ceiling knee-jerk the OP exhibits, declaring that there is a 0% chance he will run the adventure, ever. Even though what he is complaining about is the lack of an overview that would be completely obviated by the release of the other adventures. In other words, he's declaring that he's not going to run the adventure even when the overview is unnecessary, presumably out of nothing but spite.
Really, this isn't a terribly mature way to act.
I've been one of the most vocal in several threads at Wizards of the Coast's boards regarding this issue. Sure, Scales of War can be done without a campaign overview. We did it back in the day with Shackled City. But, that was a long time ago and adventure paths have evolved (for the better) since then.
Somehow, it's "misguided" for a DM to want to plan ahead in his or her Scales of War campaign. It's "misguided" to want information for future adventures to help DMs foreshadow and prepare to execute a theme, mood and long-range plot.
This is completely unnecessary. If you're going to put words in people's mouths, at least be subtle enough about it that no one notices. Randy was reassuring people that their fears regarding the structure of the AP are misguided. Nothing you said has anything to do with what he called "misguided". That's the sort of nonsense I expect out of a political smear campaign, not a gamer interested in honest criticism.
|
C'mon, guys. Calm down. You're making a big deal out of something that really doesn't matter a great deal.
Worried that the AP wouldn't be "for you"? That probably won't be resolved with a short overview. The quality of the adventure won't be apparent from a one-paragraph snippet.
... actually that short overview is at least for me the thing that influences whether I'll subscribe to get that AP. Subscribed to Dungeon after reading the overview for STAP and subscribed to Pathfinder after reading the Crimson Throne overview. The overview isn't going to tell you the quality of the adventure (as was the case with CoCT) agreed but it does give you the direction of the campaign (as with STAP, city adventure, sea voyage, pirates, isle of dread, dinosaurs, demogorgon oh and then they go to the abyss. This sounds promising). If you're going to pay a subscription it would be nice to know what you're getting (as opposed to finding out the big villians later in the AP are lizardfolk riding dragon turtles selling their services to the highest bidder who happen to be flumphs).
Have to say I agree here. It's just absurd not to give an overview. On a smaller scale, just imagine - ooh, module 10 which contains one of their 'surprises' - on the back cover it says...
"A great adventure. Buy it. Can't tell you anything about it though."
Bizarre. Perhaps they'll set a trend? Perhaps we'll all end up buying books with no blurb on the back.
"Aw, sh*t - another romance".
:)
|
|
The short answer to this question is “no.” The problem is that we’ve mapped out an elaborate plot that covers level 1 all the way through level 30 and there are a number of surprises along the way.
Cool, DMs love big surprises in Mid-Campaign. Imagine playing in the midst of large plain and suddenly you need an ocean or a large chain of mountains.
Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the Path is going.
As I said before DMs just love grand reveals in mid-campaign. It is fun if the NPC the players killed in adventure 5 turns out to be a mayor plothook for adventure 7.
I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!
Yup! I am instantly reassured. the quality of the first few SoW adventures is a sound foreshadowing for the elaborate Plot that will be revealed as time progresses.
They really must be joking!
This is not a NOVEL but an adventure!
I just don't understand why WotC doesn't understand that WotC and DMs are partners in running an adventure path. This isn't a novel or TV series that the consumers just passively ingest. This is an interactive industry! DMs kinda need to know what's going on if they are buying into a massive 30 level campaign. That is a massive amount of gaming, and having no idea what will happen next makes it much more difficult to adapt to suit your needs.
Sure, I know they are excited about the AP and probably have some awesome ideas. But this isn't fiction that they are entertaining us with. It's like trying to direct a play where the writer only gives a few pages at a time to the director, so that the grand reveal moments are more impactful. The director is not the main audience!!
Sure, it's perfectly possible to run a great AP without an overview. It's just what irks me the most is the attitude that leads to this sort hiding an overview. Not only is it annoying (and reeks of maximizing marketing potential at the loss of consumers), but it makes the DMs job more difficult rather than less.
While I understand that they don't want to give too much away, the least they could do would be to reveal "the big bad" so that we have some idea of where it is going. What's the theme?
The name "Scales of War" would suggest Tiamat to me, but I really shouldn't have to guess.
|
Read between the lines. Actually, just read another line.
The reason they do not have an overview is that the adventure is being written on an ad hoc basis from month to month.
A casual look at the answer about why they cannot guarantee which articles will come out when, and the comment with it about how they have been mostly on time, well except when something else comes up, because the authors have other projects to work on, makes the reason very clear.
They may have some grand intentions, but the actual work is far from complete. While you could, barely, give them some credit for not having the last parts, due over a year from now, prepared, they should have been able to put up a very clear overview for the Heroic Tier adventures at the start, an overview for the Paragon Tier adventures in another month, and the overview for the Epic Tier adventures in another 4-6 months.
They are trying to publish a magazine but they are unable to ensure their authors meet their deadlines.
Guh. I hope you are wrong. That makes me sad. :(
|
|
I think it's closer to what Ken suggested - WotC is treating everyone as its audience rather than working with DMs to make sure the campaign flows smoothly. I do find it funny that they're withholding information so that the surprises have more of an impact, but the effect is that a lot of people will just wait until the entire AP is published and all of the surprises are out anyway before starting it.
As to Samuel's point, I don't know for sure as I'm not on staff at WotC, but Greg Vaughan has said in another thread that there is an internal campaign overview like the ones Paizo uses and that he got his installment in several months early.
I find it interesting that they say they don't want surprises ruined when the RPGA now allows players to play through their modules multiple times (albeit with different characters) and for DMs to play the modules after they have already run them. I'm not saying that either approach is wrong (in fact I like the idea of not having to eat a module to run it for my players), just that they are two different mindsets.
It seems like if they were able, WOTC would just post the overview. It seems like they are alienating a lot of people who want it (I don't care either way, as I'll likely not be running it), and I don't hear anyone crying that they will not run the AP if a summary were to be published.
Chad
|
Well, if you need to know what the whole path holds just run it once the whole thing has been released.
Its 18 frikkin parts, a whole year and a half. Its not paizo's six. If this was pathfinder, fine, you have a viable option. But now, im not subscribing to insider anymore. I wanted the AP, but i don't know where it is going.
|
|
As to Samuel's point, I don't know for sure as I'm not on staff at WotC, but Greg Vaughan has said in another thread that there is an internal campaign overview like the ones Paizo uses and that he got his installment in several months early.
I would expect he would.
And so I should clarify:They are unable to get their staff members who write articles to meet their deadlines for those articles.
This is due primarily to having those staff members also have other deadlines which are given a higher priority.
I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!
Why wouldn't I lay my doubts aside, after this very convincing response? Is it just me, or does this sound like a grade schooler covering up the unpleasant truth?
C'mon, guys. Calm down.
We might have, but...
You're making a big deal out of something that really doesn't matter a great deal.
It does to them.
Worried that the AP wouldn't be "for you"? That probably won't be resolved with a short overview. The quality of the adventure won't be apparent from a one-paragraph snippet.
But a complete lack of evidence that there's a plan doesn't improve already-shaky confidence.
Well, admittedly, your confidence isn't shaky. To be fair, they did tell us there's a plan -- I can't imagine why doubts would remain.
Worried that Wizards doesn't actually have a plan? You need to polish that tinfoil hat of yours... Really, this isn't a terribly mature way to act.
Thank you. Insults are an excellent way to encourage people to calm down.
|
|
Also unlike 3rd and 3.5 4E dosent really have a lot of modules to tide people over till the entire adventure path comes out.
Yeah, I wonder why there are so few moduls from 3PPs...oops, GSL, I forgot you for a moment.
To be fair, Goodman Games is now publishing modules. I have no doubt that they will outshine the Woc products (which is not hard, given the mediocre quality of everything not containg rules that WoC has produced for 4th so far).
Disclaimer: My whol rant has nothing to do with the quality of the 4th edition ruleset. But it has everything to do with WoC not being able to create cool adventures for 4th.
I agree with Scott. Some of you are overreacting.
But that is not to say that we cannot discuss the lack of overview, which I personally find slightly annoying.
Their reasons for not giving us an outline are simply not valid (IMO).
But I hope that Wizards will see the light. Paizo have a lot of experience in this, and Wizards should learn from them.
As it is, we have no idea if the AP turns into a large scale war with the PC's acting as generals... if they instead track down the masterminds behind the war and confront them in the abyss (sorry Shadowfell) or whatever...
This makes it hard to know, if the AP is for you!
It does seem to be a bit of an error on their behalf. I get that they don't neccesarily have figured out every last twist of the plot but it couldn't hurt to give an overview of what they think will happen. Its not like they can't alter some of the details as they go along. If memory serves the overview of STAP included a couple of things that didn't end up in the final adventure path. I think there was mention of a betrayal during "here be monsters" that never materialised in the final draft. Again it didn't matter that much and I don't remeber anyone being up in arms over it.
What really kinda bothers me is when individauls claim not to be WOTC employees but when you read every post they make its just that transparent...
On the one hand, I don't really think we have WotC employees sneaking in and pushing propaganda on us. But IMO we do have some posters here that that embrace WotC's propaganda with reckless abandon, and zealously attack those that disagree.
There have been lots of debates here. I'm not a huge fan of WotC at this moment, and 4e disappoints me on several levels, but I would say that a lot of the bashing is excessive and nothing more than personal opinion -- not valid critiques of the system.
But Scales of War is different.
The lackluster peformance on Scales of War is a widely-held (almost certainly the large majority) opinion, among WotC supporters and detractors alike. No one has to agree with such criticisms, but indignant and abusive disagreement is completely inappropriate -- especially when there is such consensus on the topic.
We have a plan, we just can't tell you. But wait...we need you to provide the fluff on a module by module basis...
Yeah, well... still waiting for some of that fluff :P
Good post, BTW.
We have a plan, we just can't tell you. But wait...we need you to provide the fluff on a module by module basis...Yeah, well... still waiting for some of that fluff :P
Good post, BTW.
Thanks!
Don't get me wrong...I am a fan of both Paizo and WoTC. I like both 3.5 and 4e...2 completely different animals, but I enjoy them both.
As for the adventures, I even like them (for the most part). I understand why they keep the fluff to a minimum when it comes to the stand-alone adventures. Very easy to drop these adventures into pretty much any setting.
But as many have already stated...an Adventure Path is a different matter. This is supposed to be more fleshed out. Really, as it stands now, what is the difference between Scales of War and the current print modules being released? KoTS contained a note that linked to Thunderspire. Thunderspire contains a note or treasure (can't remember exactly) that links it to Pyramid. I am assuming that there will be something in Pyramid that links it to King of the Trollhaunt Warrens. This same linkage is all they have given us so far in SOW. That and a promise that it will all make sense later.
I really am willing to take their word that their is a plan.
And if I was a PC in SOW, I wouldn't want to know the plan. So I wouldn't read the overview, or the modules, or anything else not player focused.
But as a DM, I want to know where I am taking the PCs. As stated before (either above, or in a different post), WoTC should consider the DM as co-authors of the SOW, not simply as an audience.
|
Also unlike 3rd and 3.5 4E dosent really have a lot of modules to tide people over till the entire adventure path comes out.
True, but that is starting to change. Goodman just released some mods and more are on the way. I don't plan on running SoW until more material is released anyway. I don't want to run out because WotC missed a month.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Also unlike 3rd and 3.5 4E dosent really have a lot of modules to tide people over till the entire adventure path comes out.True, but that is starting to change. Goodman just released some mods and more are on the way. I don't plan on running SoW until more material is released anyway. I don't want to run out because WotC missed a month.
But surely their dedication to the DDI has shown that it's a high enough priority that they won't ever miss a month. Plus, with the time saving aspects of adventure design built into 4e, it should be no problem for them to throw something together at the last minute if they forget. It looks to me like that's what they've done thus far, anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Another benefit of an overview is that the DM can work with his players.
"Ok, I've hit a new level, I want to take that daily that allows me to jump 300' into the air, and give me a bonus as long as I see the stars."
*DM looks at overview, sees next 4 adventures are focused on tight tunnels deep underground.* "Lets talk about that over the week..."
4.x was created by Hasbro
3.x gamers rebelled
4.x Evolved
There are many House rules
And they have a plan.
;-)
C'mon, guys. Calm down. You're making a big deal out of something that really doesn't matter a great deal.
Clearly it does matter to some people - and that's what counts. Certainly not some internet nobody trying to tell others what is supposed to matter to them. (A piece of advice - I recommend not doing that, especially not on a regular basis - as it could make you come across as a sycophant. *ahem*)
Worried that Wizards doesn't actually have a plan? You need to polish that tinfoil hat of yours.
Really, this isn't a terribly mature way to act.
Yet another gem of irony from Scott Betts. Color. Me. Shocked.
I posted this in the Dungeon General also, as I wasn't sure where to put this.
So we finally have an answer from WotC about the overview of this AP:
Q: Can we get a copy of the Scales of War overview?
--AsmodeusLoreA: From Randy's latest Digital Insider:
The short answer to this question is “no.” The problem is that we’ve mapped out an elaborate plot that covers level 1 all the way through level 30 and there are a number of surprises along the way. Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the Path is going. I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!
I'll admit up front to not being a 4e supporter, so take my response with a grain of salt...
But when I read this, I see nothing but contempt for the customer. Ever since the 4e announcement, WotC's policy has been "we've got something new, we aren't going to tell you anything about it, but trust me, it's the greatest thing ever. Oh, and did I mention it's the greatest thing ever?"
Just compare how WotC deals with its customers with how Paizo deals with its customers. The two are completely opposite. And that's why I read this board daily now and almost never go to WotC's board anymore (well, one of *many* reasons).
I'm not slagging 4e here, by the way, or this particular product (although I would be happy to do so). I'm strictly talking about how WotC interacts (or doesn't) with their customers.
What really kinda bothers me is when individauls claim not to be WOTC employees but when you read every post they make its just that transparent...On the one hand, I don't really think we have WotC employees sneaking in and pushing propaganda on us. But IMO we do have some posters here that that embrace WotC's propaganda with reckless abandon, and zealously attack those that disagree.
I don't think their are any WotC employees with enough time to make more then the occasional post over here (I'm thinking Rodny Thompson). One gets the impression they are being worked to the bone over there and are permanently behind schedule.
In any case I don't think any of the regular supporters qualify. Logos and CP4evil are doubtful based on their writing styles and they are much to confrontational in any case to make very good propaganda mouth pieces unless the goal is starting flame wars with 3.5 supporters. I'm on record, repeatedly, as feeling that they have not been able to write a truly excellent adventure that was not essentially done by a freelancers since 2nd edition - I doubt thats the company line. Scott Betts spends most of his time writing a conversion for a competitors product, CWM has had second thoughts about playing in any game system that even includes classes. Really who does that leave as the secret WotC mole?
Clearly it does matter to some people - and that's what counts. Certainly not some internet nobody trying to tell others what is supposed to matter to them. (A piece of advice - I recommend not doing that, especially not on a regular basis - as it could make you come across as a sycophant. *ahem*)
We'll have to disagree, then. My whole point was that it really should not matter nearly as much as people are making it out to - and others here have agreed with me. While I appreciate the fact that you have your own opinion, don't couch insults in the appearance of advice. It's not really a civil way to hold a discussion.
Yet another gem of irony from Scott Betts. Color. Me. Shocked.
Again, civil discussion is really appreciated. If you don't think that's something you can manage, you probably want to consider thinking twice about posting.
Erik and James...care to weigh in on the subject? (The decision to not publish some sort of overview to avoid spoiling plot twists and surprises)
From your point of view, why did you decide to publish overviews for your Adventure Paths?
|
|
Again, civil discussion is really appreciated. If you don't think that's something you can manage, you probably want to consider thinking twice about posting.
Mr. Betts, you should take your own advice.
Back to the topic at hand:
It is disappointing that they do not have an overview. It is also shocking that they feel surprises would be 'leaked' and use that as their rationale for not giving an overview.
I am currently running RoR. I have seen the second offering in the AP and have found little to tie them together. The only hook is that since the PCs gained fame from RoR, the townsfolk 'volunteer' them to help the dwarves.
At the least the background for SoBW is a bit more intriguing.
Problem is, how do I map out the direction I want to PCs to go? The summary would help the GM to guide PCs along and not let them get too far off the rails. I have a mind to just drop the AP, and try out modules...
Anyone have any suggestions where Punjar should be in Golarion?
|
|
I agree with Scott. Some of you are overreacting.
My primary motivation at this point is pure schadenfreude. I am deriving immense amused pleasure from WotC's missteps, but I have absolutely no motive for or against the or their products at this point.
That said, as for overreacting, I would cross-post a variety of comments I made about the DDI Insider #5, including the extended translation of the announcement of the change in the virtual minis that I posted on the WotC forums here, but I expect they would violate the forum rules of being polite.If you just read precisely what was written in the Q&A there is no need to overreact if you just take them at their literal word.
That was your "plan". Get him?GET HIM!It's me!
Nice! Bonus points for the Ghostbusters reference!
C'mon, guys. Calm down. You're making a big deal out of something that really doesn't matter a great deal.
Are you running Scales of War, Mr. Betts? I am. A group of players asked me to run it and to get started immediately. So, in the 4E spirit of "have fun," we got started early and I had faith that something would eventually show up to help me plan and execute a published campaign scheduled to run 18 months and go to 30th-level. We're six weeks into playing it now and I worry about what's gonna come down the Scales of War pipe.
I can't accurately foreshadow any potential bad guys, because I don't know who they are. I can't plan for important NPC appearances. I cannot plan for major campaign events. I can't tell a great story with a strong sense of continuity. Since the Game System License has 3rd party publishers in a choke hold, we're limping along with a mediocre story from the only people with any significant amount of 4E adventures to offer. Our goal was to support 4E. Yet, Dungeon is intent on keeping a simple campaign management tool out of the hands of capable DMs that rely on its adventures because they don't have time to make or convert their own games.
All of that said, perhaps YOUR campaign is not worth "making a big deal out of". And, maybe in YOUR campaign this "really doesn't matter a great deal." To MY campaign it is a big deal and it does matter. So, while I appreciate you acting the part of thought police, I indeed have players and a campaign to worry about.
If you can help us persuade Dungeon to share their Scales of War campaign overview with us busy DMs, that'd be great.
In the words of Jeff from Richmond, "GOOD NIGHT NOW!"
I think I'll add my voice here to, although I've kind of moved on from SoW.
I was fully planning on playing SoW as soon as I heard about it. I was excited - the first 4e AP! Then the first adventure came out and was pretty lame. The second one came out and was much better, but there wasn't a whole lot of connection with the first one. Now I know that I'm not going to see the full path of the adventure for 16 more months. I just can't care without seeing a general overview. Frankly, they'd have to pretty much wow me over with the next few free adventures for me to decide to describe.
I was fully planning on describing, but a poor beginning and a lack of some idea where this is all going has me wavering. Dragon has been pretty good, so I may still describe for that and some of the other Insider stuff. We'll see. But if they could have had an easy sale here with a decent (not even a great) AP. So far, I'm unconvinced.
How much of the lack of story in WotC's 4e adventures is due to the Delve format? 4e is a resource hog on page count: breakable environments, mobs of monsters, and the subsequent need for multiple dungeon rooms in every encounter can't leave much space for anything else in something the size of a Pathfinder AP volume--let alone a Dungeon article!
Heck, I can't imagine the game designer who'd have much creative energy left to think of story after dealing with all of the elements listed above on top of his having to cook up new and improved monster role recipes for every encounter.
WotC can claim all it wants that the DM's role has never been easier---but I think their own adventures and editorial direction belie their words.
So, while I appreciate you acting the part of thought police, I indeed have players and a campaign to worry about.
Some one suggests that you calm down and avoid overreacting and you call them the "thought police"?
Nice.
And still no response on why you chose to so grossly distort what Randy had said regarding people's fears being misguided.