I can see how the delve format is useful when you are running the game, but personally I don't find it useful for determining whether the adventure is one I want to run or not. YMMV of course, but I suspect that the delve format is one of the reasons a lot of people don't rate published WotC adventures very highly. No concrete evidence to back up this opinion, but from various forum comments I get the impression that they rate better from those that have actually played them than from those who have just read them.
Yes, precisely. It's also hard to explain, but the format makes it appear that it's just about crawling and hack & slash. I prefer Paizo's style, which is a lot more appealing for those of us (and I know I'm not alone), who also likes to simply read adventures, not play them. I have two Adventure Paths I have no intention of playing, but I did enjoy reading them. I can see that we are in the minority though, and understand that Wizards don't want to cater to them.
I never liked the delve format, and would prefer they have a section dedicated to stat blocks, maps, player handouts, and storyline and some type of legend format with symbols to tie the three together.
As to quality of product, that may be a hit or miss, depending on who they expect as the target audience.
I also think they could do a better job of incorporating NPCs as actually representations of player classes and levels.
It would be great to have a tool to generate a normal play characters via DDI, then pick and choose to create a NPC stat block format.
Whe I starting adding characters generated from the DDI to my normal campaign as NPCs, it definitely kept things interesting.
I look for details in maps and specific encounters in any module I buy, since it is fairly easy to integrate into existing campaigns, unless it is something completely foreign like planar travel.
I prefer Paizo's style, which is a lot more appealing for those of us (and I know I'm not alone), who also likes to simply read adventures, not play them. I have two Adventure Paths I have no intention of playing, but I did enjoy reading them. I can see that we are in the minority though, and understand that Wizards don't want to cater to them.In some ways, Paizo's adventure path books have functionally become a better produced version of Dungeon Magazine, without any ads and better printing. Since I don't have a DDI subscription, the Paizo APs have functionally replaced for me what use to be Dungeon Magazine. I don't think I'll ever run most of the APs as written. I'll take a few encounters here and there, along with some storylines for my ongoing 4E game.
I just find that if I can't sit back and enjoy reading the adventure then I simply never get around to reading it - and if I never get around to reading it then, of course, I never run it.
Reading through the monster manual is certainly useful, but when I'm actually assembling encounters for game day, it is more useful for me to cut and paste the stat blocks I need from the compendium (along with any encounter notes) into a word document. That way everything I need is in one place. The next thing I do is take a sheet of paper and quickly jot down the defenses and hit points of each monster. That way when the players make attacks against the monster all the info I need to monitor this is on a single page, which is convenient since sometimes the various monster and encounter info I use takes more than a single page in Word document and flipping back and forth between pages can be annoying and slow the fight down. This strategy has served me very well in keeping my encounters organized. The final trick I use is to put a small sticker on the base of each mini with number on it. That way if I have 5 orcs in a fight they are all numbered and the sheet with their hit points has a number that matches with each mini. This way I never get mixed up about which hit points go with which monster. This goes a long way to help keep combat running smooth and keep my brain free to focus on tactics and narration.
I think running a 4E game without access to the DDI is a mistake. Even if you aren't a fan of the Dungeon and Dragon online mags, it's still worth it for access to the compendium, character builder and monster builder.
...
I love using the compendium to search for monsters when building encounters, then I cut and paste stat blocks into a word document, make any tweaks I want and I'm ready to go.
I still do things the old way. I actually force myself to read through the rulebooks and modules, and write down a lot of notes on paper. I suppose old habits die hard sometimes.
One of my players has a DDI account. Basically I allow in my game, almost any player character which the character builder allows.
The final trick I use is to put a small sticker on the base of each mini with number on it. That way if I have 5 orcs in a fight they are all numbered and the sheet with their hit points has a number that matches with each mini. This way I never get mixed up about which hit points go with which monster. This goes a long way to help keep combat running smooth and keep my brain free to focus on tactics and narration.
Another way of handling this is 'make the players do it'. We generally write the amount of damage we have done to each creature beside its mini. Also making the player track initiative is a good plan as well. Really unloading as much as possible from the DM to the players is often an excellent plan because the DM is always busy picking out mini's for the bad guys or looking at notes or one of a dozen other things that distract DMs. Taking as much work off the DMs shoulders as possible will speed play.
The final trick I use is to put a small sticker on the base of each mini with number on it. That way if I have 5 orcs in a fight they are all numbered and the sheet with their hit points has a number that matches with each mini. This way I never get mixed up about which hit points go with which monster. This goes a long way to help keep combat running smooth and keep my brain free to focus on tactics and narration.Another way of handling this is 'make the players do it'. We generally write the amount of damage we have done to each creature beside its mini. Also making the player track initiative is a good plan as well. Really unloading as much as possible from the DM to the players is often an excellent plan because the DM is always busy picking out mini's for the bad guys or looking at notes or one of a dozen other things that distract DMs. Taking as much work off the DMs shoulders as possible will speed play.
This thread is really off-track now, but...
I don't use minis. (They never look like how I picture the character anyway, and all blend together to me -- I keep having to ask, "Wait, who's the guy with the two swords again?") Instead, I have every player put out a d12 to represent their character: there's very little other use for d12s, and I can always remember which color dice is whose. The extra bonus is that I use d12s for the bad guys too, and if there are, say, 8 orcs, I turn the d12s to 1 through 8. That way, even if the minis move around the battlemap, I know which one has taken what damage.
That will certainly keep your game affordable. We've been going on miniature market and looking for minis that really fit the PCs and then giving them custom paint jobs, so knowing which mini is which is never a problem. Plus I have tons of dnd minis. I only buy singles of what I want from miniature market and never the random packs because I think those are a waste of money.
So what do you do for large and huge sized monsters? Do you have some oversize d12s? ; )
The final trick I use is to put a small sticker on the base of each mini with number on it. That way if I have 5 orcs in a fight they are all numbered and the sheet with their hit points has a number that matches with each mini. This way I never get mixed up about which hit points go with which monster. This goes a long way to help keep combat running smooth and keep my brain free to focus on tactics and narration.Another way of handling this is 'make the players do it'. We generally write the amount of damage we have done to each creature beside its mini. Also making the player track initiative is a good plan as well. Really unloading as much as possible from the DM to the players is often an excellent plan because the DM is always busy picking out mini's for the bad guys or looking at notes or one of a dozen other things that distract DMs. Taking as much work off the DMs shoulders as possible will speed play.This thread is really off-track now, but...
I don't use minis. (They never look like how I picture the character anyway, and all blend together to me -- I keep having to ask, "Wait, who's the guy with the two swords again?") Instead, I have every player put out a d12 to represent their character: there's very little other use for d12s, and I can always remember which color dice is whose. The extra bonus is that I use d12s for the bad guys too, and if there are, say, 8 orcs, I turn the d12s to 1 through 8. That way, even if the minis move around the battlemap, I know which one has taken what damage.
That will certainly keep your game affordable. We've been going on miniature market and looking for minis that really fit the PCs and then giving them custom paint jobs, so knowing which mini is which is never a problem. Plus I have tons of dnd minis. I only buy singles of what I want from miniature market and never the random packs because I think those are a waste of money.
So what do you do for large and huge sized monsters? Do you have some oversize d12s? ; )
Heh. Actually, one of the players does have a set of jumbo dice. Whenever I ask him for one of those, everyone says, "Oh, crap, it's something big!" ;)
I removed some posts. Please don't advocate IP theft on our messageboards.
Back on topic...
Have anyone tried the War of the Burning Sky for 4th Edition? I have the first module, and it seems a lot more interesting than WOTC's adventures. Interesting to read at least, as I haven't tried it out.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I can't speak to the 4th Edition version, but I've been running the 3rd Edition WotBS, and I've been generally happy with it.
From my perspective, the strengths of the campaign are (1) the deliberate use of dramatic and, if I might say, awe-inspiring settings and backdrops, the well-designed NPCs, and (3) the attention to crunch detail.
Also from my perspective, the weaknesses of the campaign are (1) the amount of the story that goes on outside the player characters' field of vision. (I began the campaign with about a dozen "flashback" vignettes, providing enough background to allow the characters to understand the storyline.) and (2) the rail-roady nature of the plot.
I can't speak to the 4th Edition version, but I've been running the 3rd Edition WotBS, and I've been generally happy with it.
From my perspective, the strengths of the campaign are (1) the deliberate use of dramatic and, if I might say, awe-inspiring settings and backdrops, the well-designed NPCs, and (3) the attention to crunch detail.
Also from my perspective, the weaknesses of the campaign are (1) the amount of the story that goes on outside the player characters' field of vision. (I began the campaign with about a dozen "flashback" vignettes, providing enough background to allow the characters to understand the storyline.) and (2) the rail-roady nature of the plot.
Yes, but is it any more rail-roady than any other Adventure Path? Does it offer alternative solutions to problems? I remember arguing with a player in my group over whether or not Red Hand of Doom was rail-roady. He thought it was, I disagreed. Of course the players were expected to save the vale, but that's the synopsis of the campaign, and if the players don't agree to that, there will be no campaign. For me, it becomes rail-roading when there is only one correct solution to a given problem and/or that event unfolds the same no matter what the PC's do.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Trellian, if your player considers "Red Hand of Doom" a railroad --"The bad guy army is coming. It'll be here in a month. Do whatever you please in the interim"-- then I'm not sure what would make him happy.
Is "War of the Burning Sun" a railroad? Yes. (In fact, the underlying issue for the first to-thirds of the adventure path has to do with the game world hosing anybody who tries to teleport around and take short-cuts through the storyline.
"War of the Burning Sun" offers multiple solutions to certain problems ("How will we escape the city?"), but not multiple paths through the series of encounters ("Where do we go next?"). It also leads PCs into situations that appear to be morally or tactically ambiguous, but which force a particular resolution.
"War of the Burning Sun" offers multiple solutions to certain problems ("How will we escape the city?"), but not multiple paths through the series of encounters ("Where do we go next?"). It also leads PCs into situations that appear to be morally or tactically ambiguous, but which force a particular resolution.
Hi Chris.
Well, one player felt that RHoD was railroady, but when I told him my perspective of things, he sort of agreed with me. I'm almost through the first adventure now (4th ed version), and it looks awesome. Several ways out of the city, moral dilemmas, intriguing NPCs and cool scenes and combats. I definetely want to run this, IMHO this is at least three notches above anything I've read from Wizards since RHoD. The only problem I see, is that it is quite plot-heavy and introduces like a dozen NPCs in the first adventure. My current players can never remember any names, and I don't know if this campaign will appeal to them. I'll try to get them on board though :) Oh, and convince them to play 4th ed in the first place...