General RPG DiscussionDiscuss any RPG except for D&D or Pathfinder, both of which have their own forums below. Also for non-system based discussions, plots & places, and GM/player issues.
All the latest EN World
official reviews, columns, and subscriber articles here.
Don't have your subscription yet? It's only $3 a month and you can grab
it right
here!
Of particular note (and sounding really good) to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Youngs
Starting with issue #171, we're launching a new series of adventures, each of which will be between one and three encounters. They will start at 1st level and climb through the heroic tier over the first few months. All of the adventures are set in and around a single, geographic feature: an immense, cave-riddled valley. If this sounds familiar, it might be because the concept was first explored in the classic Keep on the Borderlands adventure. The adventures in this series typically, but not always, have a dungeon focus. The real kicker is that the deeper one travels into the valley, the tougher the caves get. In effect, the players get to decide how hard they want their adventure to be on a given night.
We're excited about this because if you have the list of adventures at hand, all you need to do is show the ever-evolving map of the valley to the players and ask them to pick a cave. We'll be running at least two of these adventures each month for some time, until we have several caves detailed at each heroic tier level. Even if you're not using the adventures as written, you'll be able to port them easily into your own campaign. The valley is easily adaptable.
that does sound cool - will be interesting to see how it works out*.
At the bare minimum, it sounds like a good source to mine for ideas. and at best it will do all the work for the dm (save rolling dice and listening to players tell bad jokes ). thus, this can't be a bad thing any way it gets sliced
(*of course, at the moment i am not a ddi subscriber so i won't know )
__________________ If you're bored and like to follow links provided by random strangers, check out my ENWorld Blog http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/fba827/
It will have campaign logs and random thoughts...
I think this is where the future of the subscription model lies.
Build sandboxes. Not adventure paths. It is a built in excuse to provide lots of stuff, stuff that may never get used, but should be cool to read and use when/if the PC's wonder over yonder. Not to mention it's probably a more sustainable business model, cause I might run more than a single set of parities or campaigns in a given sandbox. An adventure path could be worn out much more easily.
The pieces and parts could be moved around, re-purposed, and modified much more easily than a full adventure or even an adventure path.
Edit: to add that I don't think the path will go away. nor do I want it to. but the subscription sandbox needs more support and I think it will get it.
Last edited by darjr; 2nd September 2009 at 08:11 AM..
I think this is where future of the subscription model lies.
Build sandboxes. Not adventure paths. It is a built in excuse to provide lots of stuff, stuff that may never get used, but should be cool to read and use when/if the PC's wonder over yonder. Not to mention it's probably a more sustainable business model, cause I might run more than a single set of parities or campaigns in a given sandbox. An adventure path could be worn out much more easily.
The pieces and parts could be moved around, re-purposed, and modified much more easily than a full adventure or even an adventure path.
I don't agree. I think all of those types can and should be supported. Different groups run D&D in different ways: some in sandbox designs where player choice of where to go is important, some in more DM-controlled designs which have a more tightly controlled story. Consider the GDQ series: that's not a sandbox storyline.
Keep on the Borderlands is sandbox.
Having both enriches us. Having only one? Not good.
I don't agree. I think all of those types can and should be supported. Different groups run D&D in different ways: some in sandbox designs where player choice of where to go is important, some in more DM-controlled designs which have a more tightly controlled story. Consider the GDQ series: that's not a sandbox storyline.
Keep on the Borderlands is sandbox.
Having both enriches us. Having only one? Not good.
You are right of course, but I could do without the AP's by now
I really like APs, but I think the Scales of War AP has been diminishing the value of Dungeon significantly: the individual episodes are just too big and taking up too much of the word count.
I'm glad to hear that this is changing.
I think doing a full 30-level AP in Dungeon magazine takes up a huge amount of time and space.
I have to agree with darjr. APs are okay, but I find they eat up too much space, and that they're a "you're in, or you're out" sort of deal. If you run them, cool, but if you don't, they're just a place to mine ideas from. Which can be cool...
...but I think if you're going to do that, it's much easier to take from something like this, where it was BUILT for quick insertion. Same thing as Dungeon Delve - you can take the adventure, and mess with it, a lot easier than taking something out of an AP.
__________________ Wik: Solving internet arguments since 1983.
This sounds like a good approach. I just ordered Dungeon Delve with an eye to using it for sandboxing, similarly. My current 4e sandbox (converted Vault of Larin Karr) has been going 4 sessions and seems to be working fine.
I think 4e is actually a lot more robust and able to cope with the sandbox approach much better than you'd think from reading the 4e DMG, which advises that if you do run a sandbox (called there a mega-adventure) you constantly tweak the locales' toughness to fit current party level. It also advises that each adventure locale in the sandbox have 8-10 encounters so the PCs level each time. I think those are both poor advice, much better to have smaller locales (ca 3, or 1-5, encounters each), and tweaking them only in extremis. And there should be a noticeable threat gradient, eg in Larin Karr the Underdark beneath the valley is significantly nastier than the overground locales.
Well, not to derail things, but the few times I've "gone sandbox" in 4e, I've simply put places in the setting, and in my notes said "Lighthouse Dungeon - Level 6". If PCs want to go there, I have the basics figured out, and I stick to my guns.
Treasure, of course, was also 6th level, so if three 4th level PCs tried to tackle that area, they'd hit big rewards.
Of course, when those PCs actually DID try to tackle that dungeon, it didn't really give them big rewards. It got them kicked out of their home city when they unleashed devils upon the town.
__________________ Wik: Solving internet arguments since 1983.
I don't know, but isn't "adventure" a bit much of a word for a series of one to three encounters in a cave? It's basically Dungeon Delve with caves, right? I'm sure some folks will find it useful to have such encounter areas worked out, but if I pay money for an adventure, I very well expect it to have a story and encounters that tie together and not just a bunch of monsters thrown into a room, that I can also think up in about 10 seconds (or less).
Sorry, but that just doesn't sound exciting to me at all.
Hopefully, those encounters will at least be clever in some way.
Bye
Thanee
__________________
“In our world, immortality is not for the living. The legend lives on!”
In Memoriam Dave Arneson († April 7th, 2009) & Gary Gygax († March 4th, 2008).
Wondering what the Dungeon Tiles are like? Take a look here.
if I pay money for an adventure, I very well expect it to have a story and encounters that tie together
One of the good things about Vault of Larin Karr is the way the different locales/adventures are tied in to each other through multiple threads. I hope this takes the same approach, with connections between the caves.
Well, it's possible that they actually manage to get a better story vs combat number ratio with this approach, assuming that each "cave exploration" has a story attached to it.
Generally, I'd like for them to have more "focused" adventurers. Allow the story, including twists and turns, unfold in less encounters. If they'd try to get something like a 3 act structure, each act should have no more than 2 encounters.
From a story perspective, fighting three encounters of undead to get to the evil cultists doesn't really add much. It is really just there to get you some XP and exercise your combat muscles.
Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy combats. But I would enjoy them more if there was a stronger narrative binding them together. Each combat has its own purpose in the story. If I need to find 4 McGuffins to achieve my next goal, don't give me 4 dungeons filled with monsters. Give me 4 encounters, one for each McGuffin. Or give me 4 adventures, with multiple NPCs and factions working together or against each other (or needed to change from doing the first to the former or vice versa, a mystery to be solved and so on), one for each McGuffin.
To go back to the first published 4E adventure, Keep on the Shadowfell.
Spoiler:
I might give them the 4 Kobold Encounters. They migh thave their purpose, because you have your Quest of stopping the Kobold Raids. The story isn't really that exciting and lacks a twist in the middle. The twist comes at the end, when we figure out that the Kobolds work for a Goblin who works for someone else.
The Dragon Burial encounter is pretty much inconsequential. Okay, you might fulfill a quest, but again, no real twists happening during that story.
Then, there is the Keep itself. Several encounters against Goblins, Undead and Hobgoblins and a few local monsters until you get to Kalarel. None of them really advance or twist the story, it is pretty straightforward. The adventure itself would be the same if you boil it down to an encounter against some Goblins at the start and some Hobgoblins at the end before reaching Kalarel.
The story of the slave traders has its appeal, but - it doesn't really lead to much into the adventure. The dungeon is essentially too big and too small at the same time - too many encounters, too little story advancement.
Mind you, I have my own problems with getting this right when homebrewing. I have to work more on that, too.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
One of the good things about Vault of Larin Karr is the way the different locales/adventures are tied in to each other through multiple threads. I hope this takes the same approach, with connections between the caves.
Well, it sure does not sound like that in the quoted snippet in the first post.
But maybe (hopefully ) it will be more than just that.
Bye
Thanee
__________________
“In our world, immortality is not for the living. The legend lives on!”
In Memoriam Dave Arneson († April 7th, 2009) & Gary Gygax († March 4th, 2008).
Wondering what the Dungeon Tiles are like? Take a look here.
but if I pay money for an adventure, I very well expect it to have a story
I'm neither a 4E guy nor a DDI subscriber, but this is the opposite of what I want out of published material.
The only sense in which my gaming has anything to do with "story" is that you could tell a story about the session if you wanted to. I much prefer simply to have sites / situations that the PCs can intervene in or not as they choose.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
Recent News
). thus, this can't be a bad thing any way it gets sliced 
)
Linear Mode
