Redefining the Dungeon

[The Human Target]

I like the general idea but I think it would work best when combined with other ideas for getting some of the mechanics out of the way. For example, getting daily powers back after a 6 hour rest almost forces a DM to put a bunch of encounters in one day. Wandering monsters while traveling are either obscenely difficult (if designed such that the PCs have to use all their dailies to survive) or laughably easy (if the PCs use their dailies "knowing" that nothing more is likely to attack them that day). I like the idea of limiting dailies based on level - you can use any daily power twice per level but only once per encounter.

Another option is that you get one daily power (and some surges) back per milestone you reach, with the restriction that you can't get the same daily back twice in a row. This method would have no mechanical benefits to an extended rest. Figuring out surges is a little more complicated because not everyone has the same amount so their "recharge" rate would vary from PC to PC.

Final thought from the article: Prince Humperdink was the bad guy...let the Ogre have him.

I agree the extended rest scenario makes random encounters wonky in regards to dailies. My problem with linking it to level though is that different groups prefer different leveling speeds. So if anyone uses non-standard XP systems it throws a wrench into that idea IMO.

Milestone linked dailies are cool.

We've just been using the "you need x many encounters before you can extended rest variant."

 

[Mr Baron]

good article

Good article on the dungeon environment. A couple of comments:

1. I think one of the weak points in the WotC adventure designs is that it is totally based on individual encounters, and the plot, sneaking, role play, and exploration is left at the curb side. It is as if we are missing half the adventure. WotC's designs come across as a series of miniature battles. While miniature battles are fine, I think it misses out on the role play experience.

2. Resting in the dungeon. The 5 minute adventuring days followed by 8 hours of rest to regain powers feels a bit artificial. I know that this has been brought up time and time again, but I think this becomes more of an issue with poor dungeon design. If all the encounters are meant to require the PC's to use up all their abilities, they are forced to rest between the encounters. I like the ideas of "mini" rests between sections with a full rest coming at natural break points.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I guess I'm wondering how much different 4e really is than say 1e. You had the same consumables. Hit points were in even more short supply, even if the healing was available to all a bit more flexibly. The party had a nova power at least as substantial as any 4e party does.

Practically the same considerations applied. If the party expended some HP and thus probably burned a good bit of their limited healing then they stopped. If they were NOT going to go on to another encounter that day, they novaed. The effect was pretty similar. One encounter in a day was likely a pushover, OR it had to be jacked up to high difficulty to make it interesting. In either case keeping the party in doubt about the possibility of another encounter in the same day would act as a bit of a deterrent.

Honestly the standard mode for most dungeon crawling parties would be to hit a room, heal, and if they were down a decent amount on resources to go hole up and heal. If they KNEW they could get away with that, then they would sure enough dust whatever they DID encounter with every spell in their repertoire. Sounds pretty much like the 4e version.

I guess the question in my mind would be more about how to make sure that each encounter you have gets the players deep into their encounter resources and make them think about whether using a daily or two would be less costly overall than duking it out with the lesser stuff. At least it IS better than the old days where if a magic user used even some trivial low level spells he'd be motivated to rest.

 

[Mengu]

I think this approach is more feasible for a party of 2-3 PC's, than for a party of 6. 1 standard creature and 3-4 minions make a good sectional encounter for this group, and they can easily go through 3-4 such encounters without taking a short rest. However such a sectional encounter for a party of 6 is extremely easy. They can walk through it without spending hardly any resources. So the excitement simply wouldn't be there I'm afraid. And the moment you increase the difficulty, the PC's will assume they are seeing the encounter in its entirety, and use resources accordingly.

It could be fun to perhaps find the way to break a party of 5-6 into 2-3 groups and have them secure a dungeon region by spreading out. But short of railroading them with some sort of NPC commander who tells them to split up, it's rather difficult to get PC's to agree to split the party.

I've actually been through an encounter which had 4 or so areas, and it was one big encounter. It took about 20 rounds to wrap up the whole thing. After round 7, I was out of encounter and daily powers. So it was a lot of movement and at-will spamming after that, sometimes switching between melee and range. However the DM kept good tempo and the creatures we were facing used interesting enough tactics, and there was interesting terrain so it wasn't a boring encounter.

Sectionalization a good idea for setting up the occasional encounter area, but I'd stick with it as the spice rather than the meat and bones of all encounters.

 

[LostSoul]

And the moment you increase the difficulty, the PC's will assume they are seeing the encounter in its entirety, and use resources accordingly.

Isn't that a bad call on the part of the players? If they think they're facing the whole encounter, burn their encounters, then another wave hits them - I think they should be thinking about running or facing a TPK.

Maybe Level + 2 is too soft for the entire section.

 

[Mengu]

Isn't that a bad call on the part of the players? If they think they're facing the whole encounter, burn their encounters, then another wave hits them - I think they should be thinking about running or facing a TPK.

Maybe Level + 2 is too soft for the entire section.

It's a question of expectations really. If a party of 6 sees 5 non-minion enemies, they are likely to assume this is all they are fighting. They don't typically expect another wave. But it's possible to set the expectations right. For instance during the fight, make it clear that another wave is pounding on a door that will likely bust open in a matter of few rounds. Then they know they won't be getting a short rest before the second wave, but you can give them a chance to reposition to some place more advantageous perhaps for the second leg of a fight.

As for difficulty, a wave/section probably should not be any less than level-1 or level-2. If there are going to be 3 sections of level-1, that comes out to a level+5 budget. Strangely enough, 3 encounters at level-1 without short rest is I think rather manageable. I must admit though I haven't tried it beyond 2 encounter areas without short rest. After this discussion however, I'll give 3 areas a shot for the next leg of my game, there are some pretty perfect opportunities for it. I'll likely compensate for the shortage of encounter powers in the third section with terrain encounter powers.

 

[LostSoul]

It's a question of expectations really. If a party of 6 sees 5 non-minion enemies, they are likely to assume this is all they are fighting. They don't typically expect another wave. But it's possible to set the expectations right. For instance during the fight, make it clear that another wave is pounding on a door that will likely bust open in a matter of few rounds. Then they know they won't be getting a short rest before the second wave, but you can give them a chance to reposition to some place more advantageous perhaps for the second leg of a fight.

Why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make the choice to spend all their encounter powers at the drop of a hat meaningless? I think you can set their expectations right by saying, "This is a dungeon, there are lots of monsters here," then not revealing the entire dungeon to them.

 

[Mengu]

Why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make the choice to spend all their encounter powers at the drop of a hat meaningless? I think you can set their expectations right by saying, "This is a dungeon, there are lots of monsters here," then not revealing the entire dungeon to them.

The PC's have no way of knowing the strength or difficulty of a given encounter. When they see 4 orcs, they don't know if these are 50 HP orcs, or 100 HP orcs. They can't judge what a good resource expenditure is vs a poor one. That's why an early indication of things to come will lead to more tactically sound decisions from the PC's. Also knowing that he has to fight two or three fights in a row without rest will lead to dailies getting used a bit more efficiently, like a fighter may use Rain of Steel or an Avenger may use Aspect of Might right away to get good bang throughout the various sections.

For the DM efficient use of dailies means the DM can increase the difficulty of the sections a bit making them feel more like fuller encounters.

Some prior knowledge of what the PC's are getting into is a win-win for both sides really.

The opposite expectation is also pretty awful. There is nothing worse than the PC's assuming they won't get a short rest after an encounter, when they actually will. This leads to them conserving encounter powers and dragging out the encounter with at-wills (while the DM keeps thinking "come on guys hurry up and finish this"), only to waste an extra half hour that could have been saved had they realized they didn't have to save encounter powers.

Encounter design is really a pretty sophisticated task. The PC's need to know something about their environment, have certain expectations, be able to feel out the difficulty of an encounter quickly, and yet surprises that increase the difficulty should not be so infrequent that they feel safe every encounter. The knowledge of whether a short or extended rest is coming or not is a double edged sword. Reveal too much to the PC's and an interesting encounter at the end of the day can become boring. Reveal too little and all sorts of other complications may arise, from over expenditure of resources, to the overly cautious grinding approach.

 

[bert1000]

Great design points. Combining this approach, and getting rid of combat xp altogether would be a winner I think. Quest XP only is something I do most of the time in my home games, and it really opens up player creativity.

A little late to elaborate here LostSoul, but I think Quest XP only will help with a lot of the issues around player expectations.

In several games I have DMed, I decided to do away with combat XP, skill challenge XP, etc. and only award XP for the completion of "quests". The party may have several major quests (should take several sessions to complete) and one minor quest (should be obtainable by the end of a single session) "active". The minor quest agreed upon at the begining of every session is directly related to furthering the goal of a major quest. All quests are agreed upon jointly by players and DM, and can be changed if interests change.

You might think that this creates an artificial atmosphere, but it has done just the opposite -- the players/PCs seem to act in a much more believably motivated fashion!

Players/PCs are now pursuing a goal and not an activity. For example, major quest = discover who poisoned the duke, minor quest = question the duke's uncle who has locked himself inside his castle grounds.

The Players/PCs will get XP when /if they question the duke regardless of whether they fight their way through, sneak in, lure him out in the open, etc. This promotes player creativity and doesn’t preference one solution over another.

Also, directly related to the posts above, this allows the DM to "fairly" have situations where the PCs will likely fail if they take the straight up fighting route.

Combining this XP system with more open ended "dungeon" design like the OP referenced should create some interesting sessions.

 

[BobTheNob]

A little late to elaborate here LostSoul, but I think Quest XP only will help with a lot of the issues around player expectations.

In several games I have DMed, I decided to do away with combat XP, skill challenge XP, etc. and only award XP for the completion of "quests".

Since we picked up 4e, I havent handed out a single point of XP (been playing since Nov 2008)...not one.

Party gets levels at major goal completion. Its made things a hell of a lot easier (as I remember the old days of counting up XP...its like playing "Fun with Accounting!") and hasnt harmed the game experience one iota.

To me, XP is just one way of handling things, and frankly one that we cling to as a sacred cow of role playing. The point is not that XP is handed out, its that a mechanism for advancement exists.