Quote from: daniel_ream;904659I guess what I was looking for was a drop-in module or adventure path that is structured the way you've described: a small number of climactic encounters. When it features a lot of narrative and role-play between combats, and makes combat the exclamation points of the adventure.

Like, that sounds like how Adventure Paths work.  And it's much easier to structure things that way, I would think, if everybody knows the plot is on rails and runs with it.  Do you think any of the Paizo APs would play to 4E's strengths?

I'm afraid nothing comes to mind. I've only read a few Paizo APs, and they included a lot of grinding to keep the XP distribution on track. You'd have to strip out a lot of the trash encounters - which may be the best way to go. I should mention that WotC adventures improved with the latter (Essentials) releases. The Reavers of Harkenwold from the DM's Kit could meet your needs.

Quote from: kosmos1214;904662i did get the impression that wotc never under stood or figured out 4e was good at

I feel WotC figured it out with Gamma World, but by then it was too late. Also, they made too many mistakes with Gamma World (the cards, the overt silliness), that they could not capitalize on how 4e GW did a great job bridging the "Let's Explore" talky-talk part of D&D with the "Hack & Slash with Minis" part of D&D.

And quite smartly, Paizo delivered almost exactly what 3.5 fans wanted and WotC continued to flop about.

In a couple years, somebody is gonna retro-whatever 4e. Hopefully, they will do a good job.

Quote from: Spinachcat;904669I feel WotC figured it out with Gamma World, but by then it was too late. Also, they made too many mistakes with Gamma World (the cards, the overt silliness), that they could not capitalize on how 4e GW did a great job bridging the "Let's Explore" talky-talk part of D&D with the "Hack & Slash with Minis" part of D&D.

And quite smartly, Paizo delivered almost exactly what 3.5 fans wanted and WotC continued to flop about.

In a couple years, somebody is gonna retro-whatever 4e. Hopefully, they will do a good job.

yahn its not a bad system it just needs some streamlining and some more control of its hp inflation

Quote from: daniel_ream;904608God's Teeth, I love that module series to death.

My nephews are into Scooby Doo and Pirates, so it went over pretty well.

Quote from: Ravenswing;904663You think this started with 3E?  Gamers who swore by the OD&D supplements clashed with those who just wanted to run the White Box.  AD&D gamers clashed with OD&D gamers.  2nd edition AD&D players clashed with Expert and Basic D&D players.  We just hadn't had the Internet yet to make a lot of the screaming real time.

That's exactly what I've been saying, the vitriol has ALWAYS been there, the Internet just makes it more obvious now.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904709That's exactly what I've been saying, the vitriol has ALWAYS been there, the Internet just makes it more obvious now.

yep i cant remember what thread it was on this very site where some one brought up seeing 2 guys come just short of blows over how to pronounce thac0
some time in the late 80s if i remember right

Quote from: kosmos1214;904712yep i cant remember what thread it was on this very site where some one brought up seeing 2 guys come just short of blows over how to pronounce thac0
some time in the late 80s if i remember right

Man, you want gaming vitriol, you should have seen the grognards playing Star Fleet Battles in the back of the FLGS I went to in the early '80s. One of my earliest gaming memories was those guys waving their three ring binders of rules at each other and having screaming arguments. That is when they weren't being of the dismissive of the damn kids with these newfangled RPGs that were ruining the purity of the wargaming scene.

Quote from: Baulderstone;904717Man, you want gaming vitriol, you should have seen the grognards playing Star Fleet Battles in the back of the FLGS I went to in the early '80s. One of my earliest gaming memories was those guys waving their three ring binders of rules at each other and having screaming arguments. That is when they weren't being of the dismissive of the damn kids with these newfangled RPGs that were ruining the purity of the wargaming scene.

ill buy it sounds legit

Quote from: Baulderstone;904717Man, you want gaming vitriol, you should have seen the grognards playing Star Fleet Battles in the back of the FLGS I went to in the early '80s. One of my earliest gaming memories was those guys waving their three ring binders of rules at each other and having screaming arguments. That is when they weren't being of the dismissive of the damn kids with these newfangled RPGs that were ruining the purity of the wargaming scene.

Have you ever heard one of them talk about Federation Commander?  It does things like getting rid of the energy allocation tax form in favor of on the fly allocation and has simpler SSDs for larger battles.  It's the end of the world.

All starship combat systems are Trafalgar, Jutland or Midway.  SFB is Trafalgar and it works great in that niche, one on one duels between capital ships.  I've seen attempts at middling sized taks force actions - never mind fleets.  The system can't handle it.  Fed Commander is just midway between SFB and F&E.

*Backs away slowly...*

Quote from: daniel_ream;904722All starship combat systems are Trafalgar, Jutland or Midway.  SFB is Trafalgar and it works great in that niche, one on one duels between capital ships.  I've seen attempts at middling sized taks force actions - never mind fleets.  The system can't handle it.  Fed Commander is just midway between SFB and F&E.

I was big into SFB back in the day.  Everyone wanted to do these huge games all the time.  We would play all damn day and not get anywhere close to finishing.  I and some others proposed several small games instead but everyone had to be together in one huge game that progressed at a glacial pace and was just getting interesting after eight hours of play when everyone had to leave.

Ever had anyone try the "F&E as a campaign game for SFB" model?  I think everybody had that idea in college.  My gaming club tried it once.  Once.

Quote from: daniel_ream;904729Ever had anyone try the "F&E as a campaign game for SFB" model?  I think everybody had that idea in college.  My gaming club tried it once.  Once.

Yeah.  We did that too.  Someone figured how long it would take playing SFB once a week and that was that.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;904636When they were running the magazines, Paizo appeared to have a tremendous focus on delving into all the obscure lore of D&D and bringing it together. 4th Edition's whole approach was doing a fresh start and taking a new look at all the old D&D tropes and sacred cows, and not being afraid to change or slaughter them if they didn't seem to work.

[...] I think the conclusion is that any 4th Edition that was launched when it was would have had an uphill struggle in the market, but making the game so overtly different, and not realizing how different it was in some ways (marketing, adventure design) further handicapped it. One other thing that I think hurt the game's reception, and that seems to be neglected, is how investment-heavy it felt combined with the timing. The game gave the impression of needing not only the massive core but D&D Insider and expensive miniatures and battlemaps as well, along with a continued string of prestige format supplements. If they'd launched it with books formatted like the Essentials line, it might have done better. And then, only a few months after launch of this prestige game, the bottom drops out of the world economy ...

Quote from: Haffrung;904642No doubt mini-maxing has always been around. But it seems to me that the expectations of carefully calibrated balance was fostered in the 3E era. The notion that a party should have X number of encounters in and adventuring day, and they should present Y amount of challenge, and use Z amount of resources became orthodoxy in the 3E era, and then became foundation on which 4E was built. And 4E completed the transition from the dungeon being the core unit of design to the encounter being the core unit of design.

Basically, 4E took several design elements that were popular in 3E (though not ubiquitous) and made a game that made those elements mandatory and essential. What was not apparent to WotC was how many people who played 3.x weren't onboard with all those elements. How many played theatre of the mind, or didn't optimize characters, or wanted a lot of support of out-of-combat play. For old-schoolers who regarded 3.x. as a tolerable compromise, 4E was a bridge too far. For players who loved 3.x, it felt like a slap in the face (as all transitions to new editions feel to those who like the old edition - only now they had the internet as a forum for their displeasure). 4E really does offer a different experience from other editions. [...]

Quote from: tenbones;904646That's the thing about 4e that I appreciate - they honestly tried to do something different. I just don't agree with what they came up with, it's not my thing. I will always tip my hat at the balls it took to go that route.

That kind of fearlessness is what I want in 5e. And I fully admit - it could still happen. I just don't think it's there yet. The vestigial 4e stuff in 5e holds it back, imo. It just sort of dangles out there as this obvious thing that doesn't belong. [...]

This goes back to my (now quite old) contestation that 4e was wholly mislabeled and all of this could have been avoided by better labeling for expectations, e.g. "D&D Tactics."

Now, there's plenty of design things I still don't like in 4e as a tactics game, particularly the combat time length and the assumed overhead of play-aids to best accomodate the widget pyrotechnics. But!, it was a brave -- and in my view, overdue -- direction for the game to explore narrative squad tactics gaming. So much could have been avoided if it was not passed off as the new updating substitution for what previous came before. And make no mistake with WotC's (Hasbro's?) marketing strategy -- defenestration of Dungeon and Dragon magazine, cutting off access to legacy .pdfs (even the free ones), misguided advertisement targeting, etc. -- it was geared up to be the new updating substitution. Actions do speak louder than words.

If I did "D&D Tactics" the 4e AEDU chassis would only show up during "boss fights" and that game would otherwise be pared down to almost BX levels for the rest of the adventure's sandbox dungeon exploration. (I also had issues with 4e's handling of Skills, Skill Challenges, Item Mathematical Dependence, Half Level Bonus Induced Challenge Inflation, and more. So let's just say most of the game wouldn't survive contact with my editing marker.)

The initial design sentiment was good, but that's as far as I can give that game.