I noticed with the release of Crypt of the Ever Flame that the module had no letter/number code. I just got Masks of the Living God yesterday and it is also missing a code even though it is the sequel to Crypt. Looking back a few modules: Carrion Hill also has no code. Is this being done away with? I really liked the code for a bunch of reasons but mostly so I would know if some had slipped past me. Although the code for Paizo modules really only distinguished what type of module it was (D modules were dungeons, W was wilderness, etc.) I would like to have sets of modules, at least, have codes that at a glance would mean they flow together.
Law
|
yeah, this was done away with for various reasons, mostly confusion with the players.
1.New players were confused with what the various letters meant, it was a FAQ question for a while
2.People thought that D1 ran into D2 ran into D3 and bought them with this assumption... which obviously isn't the case, since it just means that all 3 are dungeon-style adventures
3.It railroaded the designers, What is required to be considered a Journey(J) module? What percentage of the module must be in a dungeon to be considered a Dungeon(D) module? These expectations for the different letter designations forced writers/developers to write a certain way, which limited the creative-ness that could be put into the actual adventure.
The codes are not visible to human eyes.
The codes are not visible to human eyes.
I think you have to view them through the "Masks of the Living God"... :-D
|
They announced before the change the numbering was going away and while I didn't like it, I was glad when I got Crypts of Ever Flame. Why? Well in the subtitle on the title page, it says A Dungeon Adventure. So while the numbering was gone, it's still there.
HOWEVER, Carrion and Mask but dropped the subtitle identification and that did disappointment me.
I thought the coding was cool.
The original D&D module codes meant nothing as far as I know but definately helped me keep track of them. Most of the reasons given in the second post up there apply to the D&D codes as well.
For ease of aquiring and when a set of modules do go together, I would recommend some type of system be implemented. Even the Goodman Games model of straight numbering is preferable over nothing.
I will admit the the D for dungeon, J for journey code system didn't suit me. However, if I have J1 and J2 and see J4 in the game store one Saturday and buy it, I now know I am missing J3 and will look around for it before it becomes hard to find.
Just my 2 cps.
I will admit the the D for dungeon, J for journey code system didn't suit me. However, if I have J1 and J2 and see J4 in the game store one Saturday and buy it, I now know I am missing J3 and will look around for it before it becomes hard to find.Just my 2 cps.
Oddly enough, what you mention here tends to make sales LOWER in later modules within a series. People see J4, realize they don't have J1-3 and assume they NEED J1-3 to use J4, so they don't buy J4... even though J4 is a completely stand-alone adventure.