General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
My experience with 4E is extremely limited (about an hour spent reviewing the PHB and DMG before deciding I was happier sticking with OD&D) so I'm probably going to get a lot of terminology and details wrong, but I like to think I have a little more insight on the topic of megadungeons (as one of the guys named in the OP...).
From my understanding, the way 4E is set up, a party is expected to gain enough XP to level up every 8-10 encounters (which can include combat, traps, and skill challenges), by which time they're expected to have acquired the 10 treasure packets for that level. In a megadungeon-oriented game, I think you'd need to slow that progression down a bit to allow for more encounters and treasure packets per level -- reduce the BTB XP awards across the board by 1/3 (so that 8-10 encounters becomes 12-15) and increase the treasure packets from 10 per level to 15, but make the extra 5 some combination of non-quantified "treasure" (e.g. maps, hints/information, mundane equipment (oil flasks, holy water, extra food, extra arrows, etc.), prisoners who will help the PCs for the duration of the delve if given a weapon) and "booby" treasures (e.g. huge piles of copper pieces that aren't worth carrying out of the dungeon, fake gems and jewelry worth 1% or less of their perceived value, and that old-school favorite, cursed magic items).
The upper levels of the dungeon (the first 3 or 4) should probably be "double-stocked" -- 24 to 30 encounters and 30 treasure packets, or even triple-stocked if you're feeling really ambitious and anticipate a lot of activity (multiple player-groups exploring the dungeon in the same continuity). This means that, generally speaking, the PCs will level up before they've "cleared" the level. If they choose to continue on rather than move to the appropriate level they should be penalized XP by the ratio of their level to the level they're operating on (i.e. 2nd level characters gain 1/2 XP from encounters on dungeon level 1, 3rd level characters gain 2/3 XP from encounters on dungeon level 2, etc.). There is an issue that, with double the number of treasure packets, characters are likely to end up either a bit too rich or a bit too poor compared to the BTB guidelines. This shouldn't be too big of a problem (and if it is, the DM is of course free to move treasure packets around on the fly to make sure the party is getting the proper stuff).
Another important factor in megadungeons is having lots of empty space. This runs counter to modern design sensibilities (even modern-retro design sensibilities, like Castle Zagyg) but is, I think, pretty crucially important to the proper pacing and feel of a megadungeon. If you've got 30 encounters (divided into 6 5-room sub-dungeons) you don't make a 30-room level with each encounter directly adjacent to all the other encounters, you make a 75-room level with empty space separating all of them from each other. The "most obvious paths" should generally lead to empty areas (the idea is that the dungeon is a living environment and that both the monsters within it and other NPC adventuring groups are regularly exploring it, so all the obvious areas will have been previously cleared by adventurers and now avoided by monsters) and the PCs should have to explore around in order to find the actual lair-areas where the monsters are living (and storing their treasures). The players shouldn't just feel a sense of accomplishment when they finish a 5-room dungeon, they should feel a sense of accomplishment when they find one -- "aha! an area that hasn't been explored before!"
It helps, perhaps, to think of the level conceptually as a wheel and spokes -- the "central" area of well-traveled passageways and empty rooms and chambers (the main entrance to the dungeon, and the transitways to lower levels, should generally be located here) and the more remote/hidden lair-areas (5-room dungeons) where all the toughest monsters and traps and best treasures are. When mapping the dungeon you shouldn't follow this pattern literally, the whole thing should be more of a maze where two rooms might be adjacent to one another but (without something like a passwall spell or armor of ethereality) you can't get directly from one to the other and instead must wander halway across the level and back. Navigational nuissances like one-way doors, sliding walls, rotating rooms, and teleporters, and minor obstacles like pits and portcullises can help create this dynamic without having to draw your level map as a literal maze (though at least a bit of that is probably warranted too -- just be sure not to overdo it; a big maze that looks great on paper is almost certainly going to be a huge bore at the table unless you've only got 1 player and he's really into mazes).
Wandering monsters are important in a megadungeon, especially in that central "empty" area, representing both actual wandering monsters (patrols from the lair-areas, monsters out looking for food or investigating strange noises or lights (i.e. the PCs), other groups of adventurers) and "minor" lairs of weak or unintelligent nuissance monsters who don't have treasure, aren't key to any theme or plot, and thus aren't worth marking on the actual level key (nests of rats, centipedes, spiders, etc.). The primary point of such encounters is to keep the PCs moving -- to discourage them from being too meticulous or spending too much time resting or arguing/planning out in the open. If the PCs do end up fighting them (either because they were too stubborn to run away or because they got caught by surprise and couldn't) such encounters should net the party zero XP but still use up their daily and encounter abilities (some house-ruling regarding how an encounter is defined is probably needed here -- the megadungeon experience is too closely tied to strategic resource management and gradual attrition to really work if the party can simply rest for 5 minutes and regain most of their resources).
The last issue is the amount of time taken up by combat, especially with wandering or nuissance monsters. You don't want to spend 30-45 minutes resolving something that is, by design, a nuissance and distraction. In OD&D such combats could generally be resolved in 5-10 minutes, and that's probably a good target for 4E as well. Two ways to accomplish would be to treat all wandering and nuissance monsters as minions, and to re-introduce the idea of morale, either systemically or on an ad-hoc basis -- monsters, especially wandering monsters, shouldn't normally fight to the death once it becomes clear they're overmatched. A group of wandering bandits or goblins should generally fire missiles for a couple rounds and then when they get hit by a spell or two and see that the PCs aren't dropping with a single hit (but they are) either run away or surrender. In the former case the PCs can try to chase them down, which is a good way to get lost or led into an ambush. In the latter they can either keep the prisoners (interrogate them, perhaps ransom them or take them back to town and turn them in to the lawful authorities (or sell them into slavery)) or slay them anyway (which can both cause alignment issues and, if evidence of it gets back, cause reaction penalties with other monsters).
Hope my understanding of 4E isn't so woefully incorrect that there's at least a couple of useful suggestions in here
__________________ "AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously." - Gary Gygax (DMG, 1979)
"There are people who regard the RPG as something more than an amusing game, more than a most entertaining hobby. They really do need to get a life" - Gary Gygax (EN World, 2004)
The wandering monster issue is a sticky one. My guess is that there exist several ways to manifest it in 4e that are all suboptimal in one form or the other, and no perfect form exists. That said, let me take a stab!
Skill Challenge: While navigating the dungeon, the players are attempting to evade drawing the attention of wandering packs using skills like stealth or dungeoneering, possibly bluff if the monsters are listening through a door. Failures indicate being pounced upon, success is either evasion or the opportunity to set up an ambush. XP is therefore given out as part of the skill challenge. Pros: creates a system by which the PCs can work to succeed or fail. Cons: doesn't address the issue of XP budgeting, PCs may feel like there is incentive to fail if they think it's worth XP.
Out of the frying pan: PCs rarely stumble into wandering monster packs. Instead, the clever monsters are made aware of the bumbling PCs and use their superior knowledge of the dungeon to stalk them. The next time the PCs enter a static encounter, the wandering monsters jump in to join the fray, significantly upping the difficulty! Alternatively, if enough wandering monster packs start following the PCs to be equal to approximately one normal encounter, they may just jump the PCs normally. Pros: the penalty for catching wandering monsters becomes larger encounters that, while worth more XP, are more likely to turn deadly and cost more resources. Cons: may be difficult to convey that these are due to wandering monsters, doesn't have an immediate impact when wandering through rooms.
It was all part of my plan: Simply assume that the party will run into a number of wandering monsters in the course of exploring and count that as part of the 8-10 encounters for a level. This goes back to an earlier point of broadening your idea of a "level". In the old days, you might create a floor with 12 encounters with the assumption the PCs will level up by the time they go downstairs to the harder floor. Instead, just go with it. As long as the PCs have the option to descend into harder fights, they can determine how difficult a challenge they take.
On to a broader issue: XP. It's been stated that some of you have a desire to reduce the XP reward for wandering monsters. I think that would work, but I would generally recommend instead cutting XP for all encounters, based on an average number of wandering monsters you expect the players to run into. Of course, since it's random it will vary from the average, but that will be ok. As long as you stick to the 10 parcels per level, the players would merely spend more time being at each level and would be using the 10 items for longer before finally replacing them. To me, this is easier than trying to figure out an acceptable conversion rate for the special case of wandering monsters.
Last edited by Badwe; 30th October 2008 at 08:04 PM..
The idea you propose seems pretty much like a dungeon version of the west marches. I would recommend an earlier poster's advice and throw balance away. Design your dungeon for theme, with each level being fixed with fixed monsters and wandering monsters, and do not adjust for player level. I would also strongly suggest eliminating XP awards and moving towards milestone or quest reward leveling. The PC's level as they accomplish things, not kill things. This may help stave off the Diablo syndrome, where if you don't clean the entire floor you end up underpowered. Level them when they solve the puzzle that opens the ancient library, or decend past the catacombs. They should be aware of this out of game. Equipment should be plentiful, and give them access to the rituals to disenchant and enchant what they want.
I like the idea of them staying underground for months, with only their magic sustaining them (everlasting rations and the like). Have you played/read about the World's Largest Dungeon? I read an Actual Play here where they went through the top part of it. It seems sort of like your idea, only in 3e.
We are attempting some sandboxy type ideas in our current game, but it is not an easy thing to go from a mostly module running DM to a sandbox style rotating DM game. Does your group understand what you are trying to do? Are they willing to not just chase what they think is the hook you have prepared and truly do what comes naturally? Our game is not moving in that direction yet, but I still have high hopes. Good luck to you, it sounds like a fun concept!
These stories remind me of a humorous, gamist campaign that an old acquantance of mine had planned for his group. As he described it, the PCs were locked inside a dungeon with 20 floors (3.5e). At the locked entrance sat a "dungeon master" who could answer basic questions as well as sell them adventuring gear or an inn. Each floor would be equivalent to a level of the PCs, and would follow the 3.5 DMG exactly in what range of encounters would exist (including a single encounter that was ostensibly impossible for a party of that level). To add tension, the players only had one in-game month to reach the bottom and rescue the princess or some such.
Certainly a very contrived and surreal (even by D&D standards) setting, but interesting in that with everything laid on the table, the PCs have to use every advantage to make good time.
Re: balance. You can _always_ throw out balance as it suits you, and of course should. However, don't have any illusions: when you throw out the balance as written in the book, you are creating MORE work for yourself, not less. What is written in the DMG, especially by modern design standards, is intended to enable DMing as much as possible. After all, more DMs means more players and more sales! You can break from it to suit your need, but then it's up to you to calculate what is, in fact, balanced.
I've run keep on the shadowfell and cooked up adventuring from levels 4-7 following that. The only problem I ran into, doing things effectively "by the book" is that my PCs are far too crafty and created a very synergistic team, so I have to throw encounters a minimum of 1 level higher than them to have a hope of giving them a real challenge.
My long term goals, somewhere around mid-paragon tier, are a series of elemental temples that are effectively mega-dungeons, where the PCs can delve as deep as they want, even after they've gotten what they quested for, or move on to a different element.
I have a bit to add to this converstion, however I don't have the time at this moment, so I thought I would just ask for one thing and then add my two cents later, I'm a sandbox DM since the day I started playing.
Quote:
Mike Mearls' blog post on Keep on the Borderlands got me thinking why B2 is still so charming; a unique story emerges each time you play it, through a mixture of rumors, hooks, and the player's choices. There's no linear plot to it. I DM plenty of Adventure Paths, and once in a while you just want to punt the baggage, the McGuffins, the Mary Sues, the railroads.
I've wasted plenty of time searching wizards, enworld, and google and have not found this blog. I have found many people talking about this blog, but I can't find the blog. Can you help me with a link to this? I'm always looking for more stuff to read when it comes to KotB. Thanks.
Re: balance. You can _always_ throw out balance as it suits you, and of course should. However, don't have any illusions: when you throw out the balance as written in the book, you are creating MORE work for yourself, not less.
Let me restate my position, then.
"Balance" is something the players have to worry about. Does this make more work for the DM? In some ways:
(1) The DM has to have sufficient clues in his setting to allow the PCs to make rational choices about balance.
(2) Actually, there is no (2).
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Hope my understanding of 4E isn't so woefully incorrect that there's at least a couple of useful suggestions in here
So I want to take a moment and think about how the TFoster suggestions play out in a 4E environment. If I summarize the key points they involve:
Slowing down the XP progression...
Double-stocked upper levels
Empty Spaces
Wheel and Spokes design
Concern about Wandering Monsters & Combat times
Slowing down the XP progression...
In the 4E world, combat is intricate and takes time (way more time than the older editions). We were playing 1E as late as this past spring and it would be nothing for my players to kick in a door, see a horde of humanoids, and sleep them (a 10-second encounter). Or, as they called it "Morpheus, we need to hit the EMP button!". There are no light 4E combats... we average 3 fights per evening (range is usually 2-4) and the group has a chance to level every 4-6 weeks or so - we play weekly.
In an old-school megadungeon, the scope could easily involve 20-30 stocked rooms to clear before leveling; the 4E paradigm cuts that in half or to a third. I think the issue is to make sure the 4E megadungeon maintains a relative size.
In OD&D if I expected the group to clear 15-20 rooms before leveling, first off that would add an equal number of empty rooms (now we're at a 30-40 room level) and then you increase that by a factor to make it seem even bigger - maybe a 60-80 room level. I think the 4E equivalent is to plan for the 8-10 encounters + another 10 "empty" rooms, and then increase the size a factor beyond that so the characters never quite feel like they cleared everything when they move on. Maybe my model will be a 40-room level?
I want to keep the encounter/XP ratio in the 8-10 range per level so it never devolves into a literal grind, while creating that illusion of unknowable size in the rest of the dungeon.
Double-stocked upper levels
Hmmm... good point! Is this necessary in the 4E realm? Background (for the non-grognards). OD&D characters die. Like flies. They die in droves. And each time they do, they take a portion of the party's hard-earned experience with them. So the first-second levels of the dungeon end up being fairly well-traveled terrain, as the new party members join the survivors and delve deeper horizontally to try and season the replacements before heading down.
Wow - so I'm finding 4E is far less lethal. PC's drop in combat all the time, but I've only had a few "deaths" in the campaign. And death in 4E can be a speed-bump; the rules assume that PC's are the chosen Real Ultimate Heroes™, meaning that the Raise Dead rituals and whatnot that just don't flat out work on 99.997% of the population, actually do work on player characters. Because of their super-awesome specialness and all. Does this jive with everyone else's experience of their 4E game?
Okay, despite my bagging on 4E's Raise Dead approach (tongue in cheek, at least) it has worked well in our current campaign, and one of the PC's brought back has become an unwitting messianic figure, a Lazarus of sorts... it's been very funny...
In addition, 4E "advice" is not to penalize dead/missing characters via the experience mechanic. Real life already punishes you when a miss a day of work, gaming should be fun... I think as I get older my personal views have softened on these points too. My group of 40-year olders have been appreciating the change in mind-set.
So this might be one area where 4E and old-school part ways and sign the divorce papers... 4E characters are certainly fairly easy to roll-up, but we're talking 20-30 minutes vs the 5-10 minutes for the golden age guys.
I still agree the upper levels should be bigger, and even if they don't serve as Darwinian proving grounds for our 4E Real Ultimate Heroes™, that's not to say they won't be littered with the corpses of all the rival NPC groups and wannabes.
Empty Spaces / Wheel and Spokes design / Wandering Monsters
I agree with all the points brought up here, timeless advice for any megadungeon setting!
The only thing I'm still mulling is taking a creative approach to wandering monsters... some will be set pieces (part of the expected 8-10 encounters) and some might be handled in alternate manners as skill challenges. Either way, the investment in time required by combat in 4E, and the fact that attrition isn't usually the same kind of an issue for 4E characters, means you can't throw wandering monsters at the party willy-nilly in the 4E world.
Okay - so this does raise a question about attrition which some of the posters have brought up...
What role should resource management and attrition play in a 4E megadungeon?
How do you reconcile the 4E manifesto that book-keeping things like spellcomponents, encumbrance weights, etc is fairly dull for 99% of gamers and still create some tension around resource management? (Sure, I have some ideas, but I'll throw the questions out there first).
Last edited by crash_beedo; 31st October 2008 at 04:11 PM..
Reason: Yog Sothoth commanded...
I think the 4E equivalent is to plan for the 8-10 encounters + another 10 "empty" rooms, and then increase the size a factor beyond that so the characters never quite feel like they cleared everything when they move on. Maybe my model will be a 40-room level?
Perhaps. You are correct in thinking that the combat pace in 4e, as in 3e before it, is the most serious problem you face in trying to avoid making the game a "grind".
OTOH, not every encounter should lead to combat. You should give some serious thought to including some areas upfront where the PCs are seriously outclassed and need to negotiate with the monsters. Or where the monsters want to negotiate with the PCs to their mutual benefit. These don't need to be "screw the PCs" encounters.....the PCs and the monsters should both get something out of it. It helps the environment seem real.
Quote:
In addition, 4E "advice" is not to penalize dead/missing characters via the experience mechanic. Real life already punishes you when a miss a day of work, gaming should be fun... I think as I get older my personal views have softened on these points too. My group of 40-year olders have been appreciating the change in mind-set.
Penalize death, and (1) it will become meaningful, and (2) it will increase the total XP needed to gain levels. Even just a serious XP cost (back to the begining of current level) will do the trick here.
Quote:
The only thing I'm still mulling is taking a creative approach to wandering monsters... some will be set pieces (part of the expected 8-10 encounters) and some might be handled in alternate manners as skill challenges. Either way, the investment in time required by combat in 4E, and the fact that attrition isn't usually the same kind of an issue for 4E characters, means you can't throw wandering monsters at the party willy-nilly in the 4E world.
You are right that not everything that seems like a wandering encounter should be. Moreover, some wandering encounters can be more signifcant than others.
If you want a lot of little quick-n-dirty skirmishes, you can use minion wanderers, but the party will have little reason to flee from anything unless some of the wanderers are tougher. That way, every encounter can have some level of tension.
Also, I recommend rolling a wandering monster check at the end of each fight, and considering the result, if any, as part of the same encounter. This will change the "encounter resource" dynamic of 4e to something more in line with an OS Megadungeaon.
Quote:
Okay - so this does raise a question about attrition which some of the posters have brought up...
What role should resource management and attrition play in a 4E megadungeon?
This is tough, because 4e excised much of the "resource management" game. I would suggest that you track food and ammo, at the very least. You may also want to introduce a houserule that every encounter power has a % chance of being expended for that day when used. You might also allow a % chance that the dailies are not expended to balance this.
Check only after the encounter, as part of mop-up.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Raven: It's my belief that, while the PCs are smart enough to choose the challenge level that works best for them, going too far above or below item progression can create strange effects. Absolutely you can deviate a good deal, you're deviating every time you don't give out a parcel in one encounter and give out 3 the next. It's just possible that you risk trivializing encounters, and trivial encounters can destroy the illusion of meaningful challenge/danger, which is the key to the fun "tension" that makes a delve exciting. That being said, I'm willing to bet you can get away with a LOT of deviation. Heck, I usually end up giving away an extra parcel in gold every level by all the small things my PCs do (haggling, pick-pocketing, etc.)
Crash: regarding creating a sense of attrition. The overarching goal is you must be gradual. When you are going somewhere with the idea, the PCs need to be able to see that it's escalating so they can make a decision on when the cutoff is.
For resources, nearly all encounter powers will be used as quickly as possible (ie: maxing advantage) each encounter because they recharge. When those run out, the players will have to decide weather the remaining monsters are easy enough to slam down with at-wills or if they need to dip into their dailies. Alternatively, when players have decided they will definitely rest, they will usually burn as many dailies as possible to end the combat quickly. Healing surges will, however, be used periodically as damage is taken. In many ways, actual healing surges function like the HP of old, in that they run down over the course of the day. The actual HP, however, is like a threshold, wherein the PCs can refill it many times over, yet need to be cautious not to take too much at once without healing or risk getting knocked out.
So, dailies and healing surges. If you don't use up any of these (a rare situation except if the group is clever), you've effectively created a speedbump. In order to force the use of these, a single encounter must become more difficult. Easy enough encounters can be handled entirely with encounter powers and incidental healing (a warlock's temp-HP, inspiring warlord's giving HP on use of an action point, etc.).
This goes back to my suggestion earlier in the thread of wandering monsters effectively tacking themselves onto an existing combat (ala munchkin, actually :-P ). Mike mearls also suggested that, rather than having monsters show up as an extra encounter, roll 1d20 and on 19+, have the wandering monster group show up while the players are looting the bodies, not enough time to recover encounter powers. This is a particularly clever implementation because it destroys the illusion that encounter powers are "use-em or lose em" and also can potentially eat up some daily powers until the lesson is learned. Also, for anyone who has experienced a double encounter like the two wave kobold fight in Keep on the shadowfell, It's interesting in that while it's MORE difficult than facing two encounters cleanly, it tends to be slightly LESS difficult than facing all of the monsters in a single wave, as the XP will indicate a hefty encounter level.
That's all I have for now. Liking where this discussion is going :-D
Edit: missed raven's most recent response. Death is already slightly penalized, but it's more like World of Warcraft's "Have to walk back to your corpse" than it is like Diablo's "Lose all of your stuff". The party already has to pay 5,000 gold per tier, a nontrivial sum, and if I recall correctly the raised person takes a -1 to all rolls he (and the party, really) gains a level. If that's something that's not in the rules and that I made up (work would not take kindly to me pulling out the PHB when they think i'm doing something useful) I suggest you do that as a way to penalize death. If you need it to be more severe, raise the penalty to -2, decaying to -1 at the first level up and back to normal after the second. If you want a stiffer penalty that decays quicker, use gaining of action points from milestones instead of levels as a time for the penalty to shrink.
Last edited by Badwe; 31st October 2008 at 04:55 PM..
This is something I picked up on and put into effect far more in PARANOIA than D&D, but maybe it applies to the point of Random Encounters:
Instead of having random encounters be totally separate -- i.e., having them happen in-between other fights -- add them to already planned encounters. Not always, but sometimes.
A couple examples:
- just as a pre-planned fight is winding down, toss in a random encounter that is investigating the noise. It still counts as the same encounter...hope the PCs have resources left!
- add in just 1 or 2 monsters from a random encounter into an alread existing encounter. Especially if the monsters are very different from the established encounter, forcing the players to rethink all of their tactics when these monsters show up.
- make some random encounters non-combat things, but that might effect a combat. Maybe an earthquake rolls through, dropping dust and making the terrain difficult while it goes on, or forcing Acrobatics rolls to keep moving. This changes up the tactics for both sides of the fight.
- String 2 or 3 encounters, one right after the other, as soon as the PCs make camp. Sure they (might) have their encounter powers recharged each time, but their dailies are gone, and their healing surges are dwindling...
- if the dungeon setting is dangerous in its own right, force skill challenges for survival things like finding food and water and upkeep of gear. Excessive moisture, heat from lava, steam from vents in the earth, extreme cold, extreme dryness...all of this could affect the players and their gear. Failured rolls on the challenges cost healing surges, and may mean that extended rest is not possible in some areas or doesn't fully recharge everything each time (you recharge only X% of your healing surges; you don't get your action point for the day until you hit that milestone). Maybe the environment breaks down the groups equipment, requiring them to leave and requip...but as they're leaving with less equipment, badguys attack!
- magic dead zones and the like could cancel out magic item resources.
http://dungeon-crawl.blogspot.com
Tools & tips you can apply immediately to your D&D game! Encounters inspired by the movies, suggestions to speed up your game and reduce bookkeeping, and more!
Raven: It's my belief that, while the PCs are smart enough to choose the challenge level that works best for them, going too far above or below item progression can create strange effects. Absolutely you can deviate a good deal, you're deviating every time you don't give out a parcel in one encounter and give out 3 the next. It's just possible that you risk trivializing encounters, and trivial encounters can destroy the illusion of meaningful challenge/danger, which is the key to the fun "tension" that makes a delve exciting. That being said, I'm willing to bet you can get away with a LOT of deviation. Heck, I usually end up giving away an extra parcel in gold every level by all the small things my PCs do (haggling, pick-pocketing, etc.)
Tension in an Old School Megadungeon, IME, comes from the players trying to push as far as they can (to get greater rewards). The minute you allow sandbox play, you risk that players will engage only in trivial encounters. However, since trivial encounters tend to grant trivial rewards, it is my experience that players almost universally find their way out of this trap with little or no input from the DM being required. YMMV, of course.
4e, like 3e before it, isn't realy designed for sandbox play, and it shows. The concern with grinding away at encounters which should have been easily resolved is a real problem in both systems. The biggest problem in both systems, IMHO. This is very much (again, IMHO) an artifact of grid-reliant combat systems, which in turn (again, IMHO) is the direct result of WotC market research when 3e was being developed, that showed that gamers who buy minis spend many more times the amount that gamers who do not buy minis spend.
If you could speed up combat resolution, it wouldn't matter if the PCs engaged in some trivial encounters. They would be over quickly. How you fix this in 4e, without rewriting the whole system, is beyond me. I could fix it in 3e. I have recently begun to create RCFG, intended to bridge some of the complexity of 2e/3e with the fast play and sandbox style of OD&D/1e, so needless to say this is the aspect of WotC-D&D that I am least enchanted with.
That said, running a sandbox means that, if the players wish to do nothing, then they do nothing while the world moves around them. A good world -- or a good megadungeon -- should offer sufficient "hooks" to make the players ever hungry to try their hands at challenges beyond their current means.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
I think you somewhat confuse good market practice: using customer feedback to generate products players will want to buy, with greed: finding ways to force people to buy as much as possible. It should be clear at this point that people uninterested in new, grid-heavy editions would reject the books even if they came free with enough miniatures to plan out basic combat.
Further, I'm personally a fan of tactical grid-based battles. The alternative is the old Final Fantasy style of one party standing on either side of the screen and simply casting whatever they want. Grids give manifest to ideas like searching for cover, sneaking around, setting up flanks, and abusing chokepoints. Opinions will differ, of course, but I am a major fan of grid based combat.
People often ask "why not just play a wargame like WH40K?" but to me it's just not the same. When two or more people sit down to create an adversarial match, they generate armies with equal points and then only generate terrain that is accepted as neutral. With a DM creating tactical situations, he has the opportunity to scale up or down the advantage for one side or the other, as well as allow things leading up to the combat to manifest as advantage. This is far more appealing to me, and even if I am a relatively light roleplayer (out of combat, at least) when I am a PC, to me playing a series of combats in that fashion is more appealing than just playing wargames.
Tension in an Old School Megadungeon, IME, comes from the players trying to push as far as they can (to get greater rewards). The minute you allow sandbox play, you risk that players will engage only in trivial encounters. However, since trivial encounters tend to grant trivial rewards, it is my experience that players almost universally find their way out of this trap with little or no input from the DM being required. YMMV, of course.
RC
Yes, I was struggling with this issue a little bit too, with the thought of making the dungeon levels too horizontal - extending the number of encounters and parcels past the 8-10 would encourage "grinding".
I think there are lots of different ways I can handle it... first, there will be plot hooks / story reasons for the players to keep going deeper when they've hit the appropriate level of XP.
I can ensure that past a certain point, the parcels just aren't that attractive... ie, I can keep giving out magic +1 daggers all day (or the equivalents for that level item). But if you want a shot at a +2 Flaming Maul, you'll need to take on appropriate challenges.
And the Deus Ex is to have (dangerous) rival NPC groups or whatnot also operating in the same area, or dangerous wandering monsters or some other heavy-handed way to steer the group away from too much horizontal grinding; it needs to be their sandbox too but the dungeon environment is dynamic and other forces will be at work.
I like all of the suggestions around using wandering monsters as ways to string along multiple encounters, or have some guys jump in for the dog pile.
I'd love a situation like this to be able to unfold... as the PC's arrive at the dungeon, they see one of the rival groups they met in town (the Black Hats) also dropping ropes to descend the shaft into the great hall. Assume a fight doesn't break out, they agree to go separate ways... our Heroes know there are kobolds in the south wing and have decided to take on the kobold "delve".
The Black Hats circle back and attack the group as they're either finishing the kobolds, or at some other opportune time. It seems like a wandering monster, but it's been planned all along. (And depending on how the encounter with them went top-side, maybe there are no Black Hats left, or they're too intimidated, or whatever). It's going to be fun to pull together.
One would wonder the best way to stat out a rival party. It may be too dangerous to actually roll up 5 PCs, but it should be obvious by now that even a group 3 or 4 levels higher can't really hope to match the PCs perfectly. I guess if you're planning on using them as a pile-on that's ok, but if you want them to be a persistent threat they need to be tough.
The initial guess at how to build a party would be to take the HP values of a party and try to find the monster level that roughly matches that, but don't forget that the PCs have healing surges to take advantage of. Perhaps a group of 5 elite "monsters" or 5 regular monsters with templates applied would give a good indication of what a party could be.
Imagine a band of shadar-kai against a level 5-7 party, and each shadar-kai has templates like bodyguard, champion, demagogue, or master of frost applied. This might be interesting. A fellow DM proposed this idea to me a while ago and I was somewhat washed by the idea that a party of adventurer's was common enough for them to bump into each other, but this is turning my gears.
I think you somewhat confuse good market practice: using customer feedback to generate products players will want to buy, with greed: finding ways to force people to buy as much as possible.
If you remove the word "force" I think that you have 3e on the bare bodkin. The game was designed to encourage minis use, and the 3.5 version of the game encourages minis use even more. 4e, of course, beats both versions of 3.x in terms of mini-focus. Not only that, but the focus of WotC adventures changed to an encounter-based setup that is essentially map/mini placement/tactics for the DM to use with minis.
Do you need minis to play any of these games? No, but if you want to have fun with them, then (once you have invested in the system) minis are strongly encouraged by the system itself. However, at the same time, you will be hard pressed to find anything from WotC suggesting that 4e is a "grid-heavy edition". You might, OTOH, be able to find some suggestions that it is not.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that WotC wants to make a profit, or that selling minis is the route to the largest potential profit. I want to make the most money I can at work, too. You might call that greed, but I call that normal.
But there is little doubt that WotC did the market survey. There is little doubt that the market survey showed that those who buy minis spend many more times on rpg material what those who do not buy minis spend. And there is little doubt that each successive edition of WotC-D&D is more minicentric than the last. I don't think that the math is so hard to do here, regardless of whether one personally prefers a grid or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crash_beedo
Yes, I was struggling with this issue a little bit too, with the thought of making the dungeon levels too horizontal - extending the number of encounters and parcels past the 8-10 would encourage "grinding".
Your idea with the Black Hats sounds good, and truly Old School.
Not knowing if an encounter will be extended (with more monsters) when it begins helps remove some of the tedious nature of 4e combat as well (use best encounter powers first, then grind, grind, grind for 20 more minutes....or, if there is no reason not to rest, use dailies, followed by best encounter powers first, then grind, grind, grind for 15 more minutes....).
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
My first game experience was with Keep on the Borderlands and its “sandbox” style. I ran that game like crazy, I can’t remember how many times my players were remaking new characters and playing the “same” game all over again getting a different experience each time.
When I discovered other modules and adventures I couldn’t conform to the strict rules set by them. I couldn’t figure out why anyone would waste time playing the game any other way than the sandbox version. (I might still have this problem today, but it’s nowhere near as bad, oh and it I didn’t have the fancy sandbox name at that time or I might have realized why I was having this problem).
I’m currently working on converting KotB to 4e for my homebrewed campaign. Some of these issues I had encountered while doing so. This is what I have done.
FIRST: The original adventure was set for 6-9 players levels 1-3. My idea was to recreate every encounter as a first level encounter then label them, easy, standard, hard, and Irontooth. The plan is to allow players to go to any “level” of the caves. When the players level up, I modify the encounter for a level 2 party sticking with my easy, standard, etc.
Quote:
One of my (minor) quibbles with 4e is the idea that challenges will always scale... when you go into the woods at level 1, you fight level 1 orcs. 4E philosophy says , suddenly the woods are full of level 10 threats when the guys are level 10! My approach would be to have two sets of woods, and they pick where to go...
4e isn’t the first to come up with scaling encounters to the players, here’s a couple pages from the 1977 Basic game. HERE The second paragraph tells us to keep the dangers appropriate to level. Then the third paragraph says to make sure that knight talk in flowery phrases like “thou” instead of “you” and that characters should swear to Zeus, Crom, or Cthulhu!
SECOND: Forget the parcel thing. I still keep the balance but I’m not tied to parcels. Level one treasure parcel for five characters gives you 4 magic items and a Total Monetary Treasure worth 720gp. In a sandbox game you don’t know where your players are going so instead of throwing 10 parcels out there you don’t use parcels. If the characters pick-pocket someone and gains 20gp, I subtract that from their Total Monetary Treasure. If they kill a goblin and he has 3 cp, I subtract that as well. When building encounters I indicate the places I would like to have magic items. When the players reaches one of those spots I mark off a magic item. If they don’t have any magic items or gold left in their Total Monetary Treasure then they get nothing, but part of my job is to make sure I spread the TMT evenly and realistically throughout their level. By the end of their level they should be getting the last pieces of gold and magic items from their TMT.
Using the Total Monetary Treasure number instead of parcels. Potion of healing cost 50gp, potion of vitality cost 1000gp, a potion of recovery cost 250pp, and a potion of life cost 1250pp. Just like it is in the player’s handbook, you could also use other consumable items by subtracting their cost from the TMT.
THIRD: Experience Points: While I still use actual numbers on page 121 of the DMG gives an alternative to handing out experience points. Simpler Experience Points says that you tell the players that they gain a level after they complete eight to ten encounters. Don’t count really easy encounters, count really hard encounters as two, and don’t worry about precise XP totals. If you use this method and the players continue to stay on a weaker level, just lower the difficulty of the encounter a notch (standard becomes easy) in addition on page 123 of the DMG says you are well within your right to tell a player that an encounter doesn’t count towards a milestone. Very easy encounters shouldn’t contribute towards a milestone. These two things could help motivate players to change levels.
FINALLY: Wandering Monsters: I use two different types of Wandering Monsters. The first is the randomly determined kind. These are either standard or hard premade generic (in some cases not so generic) encounters. You still gain XP and Treasure from them just subtract it from the TMT. The other kind are penalty wandering monsters, characters are not being careful, making bunch of noise, etc. These are easy premade generic encounters that do not count towards milestones, have no treasure, and if you are using the experience suggestion above they won’t count towards gaining levels either. Player’s shouldn’t want these type of encounters and should take steps to avoid them. They just get in the way and use up resources.
your TMT is somewhat similar to something I was proposing earlier, although I recommended still counting by parcel than by individual GP. It's true that if you have a good handle on how much you want each encounter to be worth then you can simple subtract gold as the PCs gain it. Similarly, once they increase in level you could add the gold and items from the next level into your pool. I still think parcels are a time saving device, but your method is easily the best alternative I've heard yet. Kudos!
your TMT is somewhat similar to something I was proposing earlier, although I recommended still counting by parcel than by individual GP. It's true that if you have a good handle on how much you want each encounter to be worth then you can simple subtract gold as the PCs gain it. Similarly, once they increase in level you could add the gold and items from the next level into your pool. I still think parcels are a time saving device, but your method is easily the best alternative I've heard yet. Kudos!
Thanks. I just want to point out that if you do the TMT correctly you won't have any pool left to add to at the next level. You need to keep an eye on the character's experience to make sure you just don't dump everything on them in their last encounter before gaining a level. I can see it now from an inexperienced DM...That swarm of rats (wandering monster) that you just killed gave you three magic items and 400gp...more than everything you have found in this dungeon so far!
Sorry for double posting but, there's one other thing I forgot to mention.
If you play player's level = floor level, smart players will realize that after the 10th parcel that there isn't any more treasure on that floor. Too unrealistic for me.
I also don't like the idea that players will kill something and find nothing, kill something and find nothing, then kill something and find 200 gp, or two 100 gp gems, or two potions of healing + 100 gp. In dungeon design you can use parcels to place items easily but in a sandbox game you don't know exactly who your players will choose to fight and then you find suddenly you must give the players parcels before they level up. This could lead to unrealistic placement of treasure. Using TMT you can slowly hand out teasure without it seeming unrealistic that the last few kobolds you killed didn't carry anything on them yet the next one was loaded with treasure!
" - Gary Gygax (EN World, 2004)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
