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.
Something our group was discussing the other day about the current 4e modules is wall to wall encounters - there are hardly any rooms or situations which are basically empty spaces. Know I know there are many exceptions but my best memories of earlier version modules included often as many empty (possibly visually interesting) rooms and areas, as inhabited ones. When we create our own adventures we tend to include a few encounters in largish areas which need to be explored. However in the most recent modules you almost know that behind every door is yet another hard fight within 2 levels of your party level.
I'm missing the element of suprise that you get when you are ambushed after passing through 6 or 7 empty caves, or spending 10 minutes messing about in a storeroom looking for stuff, or getting lost in a deserted maze (well...maybe not that one)
Do you prefer large scale adventure sites with a few select encounters such as undermountain, temple of elemental evil, maure castle. Or is the current compact nature of modules more to your liking such as shadowfell, spellgard, thunderspire. Or am I deluding myself and forgetting the rammed full of beasties Tsojcanth and its ilk
I prefer having planned out space for everything. Empty space areas are good for lowering the tension after a large fight, and it really helps get you mentally prepared as a DM for the next event. (As well as find that right time to stop playing and order that pizza.)
A lot of the actions play out like the highlights of a script, and where I think what many will end up doing is to, like you, assume that there are empty spaces available, just that it's not something the writers have been told to mention in the module.
It also maybe that because of this emphasis towards computer-game-like gaming, they might be assuming that players will want that kind of feel where you are either heading to your next battle or are in that next battle.
It also maybe that because of this emphasis towards computer-game-like gaming, they might be assuming that players will want that kind of feel where you are either heading to your next battle or are in that next battle.
I don't know if I'd classify the reason for the modules written the way they are as a desire for "computer-game-like" design. More likely, I'd say the modules were designed for simplicity over anything else. They seem to me meant for new players. Ones that perhaps have never run or have had little experience in creating/playing D&D and the gamut of D&D modules produced over the last 30 years.
Let's face facts... none of these first set of modules are overly elaborate or difficulty to understand. And that's probably because the designers figure that they don't need to create modules for the experienced players (yet), because they probably already have piles of modules and old Dungeon Magazines that they will just adapt and crib from when creating their new campaigns. But for the new players... this sort of Point A to B to C adventure design is a very good way to get their feet wet.
Let's not assume this first set of modules were written for us. I have a feeling that we're more likely to see more "advanced" adventure design concepts (including empty space that experienced DMs would know how to fill in or not fill in on their own as needed) in upcoming Dungeon Magazines and new "adventure campaigns" they might publish.
Possibly because empty spaces are a waste of time. It doesn't take 'experience' or 'skill' to piddle around in them, do a smackload of skill rolls to accomplish nothing, and then move on. That's not a hallmark of -good- story design, which is what roleplaying has become about. 4e is embracing that by focusing the player's time and energy on things that -actually make a difference- to the adventure.
Possibly because empty spaces are a waste of time. It doesn't take 'experience' or 'skill' to piddle around in them, do a smackload of skill rolls to accomplish nothing, and then move on. That's not a hallmark of -good- story design, which is what roleplaying has become about. 4e is embracing that by focusing the player's time and energy on things that -actually make a difference- to the adventure.
Also, thankfully, empty spaces are easy to design yourself. Behold:
"This room is dark and empty. It looks like there are splinters of what used to be furniture piled in the corner, but that's it."
That only took me, like, an hour to do.
Also, the players in my game tend to waste way too much time in empty rooms. They assume that all rooms have a purpose, so if you throw them an empty room, they'll spend an hour searching every part of it for a secret door or something. It's kinda funny, but it wastes ton of time.
Possibly because empty spaces are a waste of time. It doesn't take 'experience' or 'skill' to piddle around in them, do a smackload of skill rolls to accomplish nothing, and then move on. That's not a hallmark of -good- story design, which is what roleplaying has become about. 4e is embracing that by focusing the player's time and energy on things that -actually make a difference- to the adventure.
Hmm...I don't know if this is necessarily true. Good story design has down points, not just non-stop action after non-stop action from beginning to end. This downtime can actually help highlight the high points of an adventure or story, allow for inter-party roleplaying, for custmization, etc.. Otherwise the non-stop action can actually become a boring and ho hum run-on of the same thing over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEFCON 1
I don't know if I'd classify the reason for the modules written the way they are as a desire for "computer-game-like" design. More likely, I'd say the modules were designed for simplicity over anything else. They seem to me meant for new players. Ones that perhaps have never run or have had little experience in creating/playing D&D and the gamut of D&D modules produced over the last 30 years.
Let's face facts... none of these first set of modules are overly elaborate or difficulty to understand. And that's probably because the designers figure that they don't need to create modules for the experienced players (yet), because they probably already have piles of modules and old Dungeon Magazines that they will just adapt and crib from when creating their new campaigns. But for the new players... this sort of Point A to B to C adventure design is a very good way to get their feet wet.
Let's not assume this first set of modules were written for us. I have a feeling that we're more likely to see more "advanced" adventure design concepts (including empty space that experienced DMs would know how to fill in or not fill in on their own as needed) in upcoming Dungeon Magazines and new "adventure campaigns" they might publish.
If this is truly the reasoning behind the type of modules WotC has created...I will say right now I think it's just wrong. It's a new edition, experienced players are looking for adventures to familiarize and test run the system for themselves and their groups, and WotC will be judged by what they decide to put out. This just seems like an excuse for sub-par design. Besides that, this is what shapes how all those new players create and run their own adventures...I find the assumption that a new group of players and DM can only handle a very basic adventure structure...well kinda of silly. If most people can learn the rules then I think the designers or whoever at WotC make these decisions is underestimating their consumer base... Of course WotC may just favor the basic dungeoncrawl, and thus model their adventures on it.
Eh, maybe I'm giving people more credit than I should, but I thought the type of adventures you're describing are what the basic set and included DMG dungeoncrawl are for. At $25 to $30 a pop really, I think a consumer should be getting a little more than a basic dungeoncrawl. I think this is one of the reasons that Wotc doesn't have a good reputation as far as adventure design is concerned. YMMV of course.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Too much space gets boring, the lack of becomes predictable and kind of stale. I think an adventure, however, should have whatever it is the party is looking for, if they want the space and tension, go for it. If they get bored with it, don't bother.
I'm not sure what can be done with empty rooms. I think the reason that they have been left out is because they are mostly pointless.
As for general dungeon design, I think you'll find that there are more "empty rooms" in the 4e modules than you really think- its just that these empty rooms are grouped into larger multi-room "encounters."
It also maybe that because of this emphasis towards computer-game-like gaming, they might be assuming that players will want that kind of feel where you are either heading to your next battle or are in that next battle.
Also, the players in my game tend to waste way too much time in empty rooms. They assume that all rooms have a purpose, so if you throw them an empty room, they'll spend an hour searching every part of it for a secret door or something. It's kinda funny, but it wastes ton of time.
This.
Hell, players can even assume a dead end has something hidden somehow, and will take pickaxes to it.
Basically, I use wilderness encounter rules in the dungeon.
i.e. my dungeons still have open space, we just don't play in it. I can narrate something along the lines of "you descend through the catacombs for hours, poking through crates and finding numerous dead ends, when suddenly...", and break out an encounter map.
If a combat comes up that actually moves out of the encounter area, then I wing it. And sometimes, Passive Perception, Dungeoneering, Arcana, etc. checks are used to reveal any secrets or extra info.
Also, thankfully, empty spaces are easy to design yourself. Behold:
"This room is dark and empty. It looks like there are splinters of what used to be furniture piled in the corner, but that's it."
That only took me, like, an hour to do.
Also, the players in my game tend to waste way too much time in empty rooms. They assume that all rooms have a purpose, so if you throw them an empty room, they'll spend an hour searching every part of it for a secret door or something. It's kinda funny, but it wastes ton of time.
Only an hour, eh? You're, like, my hero. That description would've taken me all night and at least two thesauruses (Thesauri?).
Getting a bit more serious...
I think one of the reasons you can have that problem is that once you condition players to expect something in every room, when they find an empty one, they think they're missing something. This is a problem I myself often have, and I'm going to try to modify when I get working on my "non-linear dungeon" concept coming up (I'm swapping out the middle part of spelgard with something of my own making, because I think it sucks as written).
I know that, way back when, we'd find empty rooms with some dressing, and we'd explore them - even though "nothing happened", we still had a lot of fun. I remember one time we came into a room that was filled with statues, including one that lined a doorway. One of the PCs took a mace to that statue, knowing the DM had a penchant for Caratyid Columns (it was a deliberately light-hearted metagame dungeon, btw). It was just an empty room, but it really stuck in my head.
__________________ Current Campaign:The Shattered Isles Homebrew - Hammer (Minotaur Fighter 8), Kirra (Drow Rogue 8), Shedin (Dragonborn Paladin 8), Zahar (Half-Eladrin/Half Drow Bard 8), and Seahorse (Halfling Rogue 8). Currently the group is in the Feywild, trying to discover who is poisoning the drow.
Lack of empty space presents a problem when the DM runs intelligent creatures with slightly more thought and perception than the adventure writer anticipated, such that when they hear combat in an adjacent area they start to organise with their friends to defend themselves - that is, to combine encounters and alter starting locations. Three or four rooms of level-appropriate encounters can become one over-powered and over-long encounter in short order.
To me, it would be better to design the location as if they had already done what intelligent defenders would do - withdrawn themselves and their valuables from places they couldn't hold to gather their forces into a few proper defensive positions, with the loot safely behind them.
I think you are spot on here it at least for me - tension or lack of. As per the best horror films its often a great way of building tension to allow the party to discover hints and traces of the inhabitant(s) of an area before an encounter. Getting to explore creepy ruins and temples, or deserted towers is a good way of building up to the main encounter without always having to have the filler encounters before it. Of course, like you say, you don't always want this - sometimes kicking in a lair chock full of monsters is great fun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starglim
Lack of empty space presents a problem when the DM runs intelligent creatures with slightly more thought and perception than the adventure writer anticipated, such that when they hear combat in an adjacent area they start to organise with their friends to defend themselves - that is, to combine encounters and alter starting locations. Three or four rooms of level-appropriate encounters can become one over-powered and over-long encounter in short order
This is another good point. We often run very fluid encounters where the monsters often retreat/go and get their mates/patrol, and when the local area is so jammed with encounters this kind of approach can make the fights too hard too quickly. We are finding that in the modules if a creature runs, they can bring the next room into the battle within 2 rounds. This makes it too hard but you also have to question why wouldn't they when a simple door and about 20' separates them from reinforcments. When more space separates the encounter areas this is less likely to be as deadly
Possibly, the reason for lack of "empty spaces" is the 4e assumption of Dungeon Tiles or other types of gridded map rooms. While this can lead to slightly artificial encounters, it does mean that spaces are either "encounter" spaces, which are relatively small and expressly designed to host encounters, or "narrative" spaces, which do not need to be mapped, and can be described and designed by the DM.
For the most part, WOTC has done a good job with the quality of maps for their published adventures (I'm pretty unhappy with Trollhaunt). These maps can be scanned in, blown up to proper 1" scale, and tossed on the table, or recreated with Dungeon Tiles. However, throwing large caverns, halls, valleys, and other massive spaces into those maps would not allow them to be easily represented by Dungeon Tiles, or by color photocopies.
Of course, if such spaces were scenes for narrative, or even for skill encounters, you have no need for actual maps of them. Sure enough, such spaces are absent. I can see why the large "empty spaces" aren't included in their maps, but I still wonder why the writers don't spend more time on helping you with the description and narration of such areas. There's a bit of in in Thunderspire, where they tell you a bit about other areas, but you are left to flesh it out yourself. I think that these areas would have been excellent places (in the writing of the adventure) to talk about interesting skill challenges and give good examples of how to run them.
I think the issues here really are the style of game your players enjoy and the definition of empty.
If your players are a Dice Rolling, Combat Intensive, Kill the Not Us type of group than rooms without combats are a drag. If it is more of a Role Playing, Figure Out the Underlying Motive group than empty rooms add to the suspense and realism.
Also, I wouldn't define a room as empty just because it has a lack of creatures. It can contain clues, treasure, and other things relating to the storyline.
Just one quick example from my game. The group recently visited an ancient but well kept church. The Library Room's shelves were filled with blocks of wood painted to look like books. My group, after some puzzling, correctly figured out that the Church was more of a showcase for tourists than an active site.
So, I agree with the idea that empty rooms can be a waste of time but just because a room doesn't have a monster in it doesn't mean that it is empty.
If most people can learn the rules then I think the designers or whoever at WotC make these decisions is underestimating their consumer base...
Not at all. And here exactly is why I think you've missed my point. Their customer base is us. You and me. The ones who've played the D&D of old, or have played other rpgs, or are proficient with computerized rpgs and the like. We're their baseline customers... the ones who were going to pick up the game and have a much easier time with it because we already knew the baseline concepts of what this whole "roleplaying game" is about.
Which is why I said I don't think these first modules were written for us. Because of things like the lack of "empty space" that the DM would need to fill in, or the idea that each encounter area remains seperate and distinct and they don't all retreat to one central location to have a 5 on 50 fight all at once... these sort of "advanced" concepts that us baseline players have had to deal with before, but which new players haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imaro
Eh, maybe I'm giving people more credit than I should, but I thought the type of adventures you're describing are what the basic set and included DMG dungeoncrawl are for. At $25 to $30 a pop really, I think a consumer should be getting a little more than a basic dungeoncrawl. I think this is one of the reasons that Wotc doesn't have a good reputation as far as adventure design is concerned. YMMV of course.
I definitely think you are giving new players too much credit. Because we're not talking "casual" rpgers here... we're talking completely new players to the game of D&D that they are hoping to pick up and grab with these first introductory modules. THEY do not want/need to deal with way more advanced roleplaying concepts that us baseline customers know backwards and forewards... not when they are still figuring out whether or not to continue this hobby. Which is why I think WotC has made these first modules the way they have. To paraphrase a deodorant commercial... strong enough for the baseline, but made for the newb.
Not at all. And here exactly is why I think you've missed my point. Their customer base is us. You and me. The ones who've played the D&D of old, or have played other rpgs, or are proficient with computerized rpgs and the like. We're their baseline customers... the ones who were going to pick up the game and have a much easier time with it because we already knew the baseline concepts of what this whole "roleplaying game" is about.
Which is why I said I don't think these first modules were written for us. Because of things like the lack of "empty space" that the DM would need to fill in, or the idea that each encounter area remains seperate and distinct and they don't all retreat to one central location to have a 5 on 50 fight all at once... these sort of "advanced" concepts that us baseline players have had to deal with before, but which new players haven't.
I definitely think you are giving new players too much credit. Because we're not talking "casual" rpgers here... we're talking completely new players to the game of D&D that they are hoping to pick up and grab with these first introductory modules. THEY do not want/need to deal with way more advanced roleplaying concepts that us baseline customers know backwards and forewards... not when they are still figuring out whether or not to continue this hobby. Which is why I think WotC has made these first modules the way they have. To paraphrase a deodorant commercial... strong enough for the baseline, but made for the newb.
The only problem I have with your assumptions here is that WotC is using, (and someone correct me if I'm wrong here), the same simplistic design for their paragon level adventures as well...so when exactly have new players had enough experience running the game to be introduced to these more advanced concepts? I mean do they have to run simple style adventures all the way up to level 30 before they "graduate" to the level of competence that they can be trusted to really get a taste of what sets this hobby apart from boardgames and single-player CRPG's?
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
