What do you think of WotC's new combat encounter or "Delve" format?

[Hussar]

Something I would like to see in modules is more use made of the adventure maps. Right now, all you usually get is a room number, perhaps some furniture and a secret door or trap location. Why not, for the DM's map, write on what is in the room? Put the monsters in each room right on the map itself. That way, I can reference the map, which is likely right in front of me, to see if another room might be responding to things that are happening in the current room.

For an example, take a look at this map I did up for the World's Largest Dungeon. I have found these Master Maps to be absolutely invaluable.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I love the new format. But then, I sit firmly on one side of a debate that's been raging among RPG consumers for decades.

One side holds that RPGs are bought and sold on a cash-per-word basis. If Product X delivers 50,000 words for $20, while Product Y is only 40,000 words for the same price, then Product X is empirically a better deal than Product Y. (Or, as it's more often expressed, Product Y is clearly a rip-off by a cheap, money-grubbing, corporate publisher.) If Monster Book A contains 200 monsters, and Monster Book B contains only 180, then clearly Monster Book B is, to put it most charitably, a worse deal than Monster Book A.

The other side values RPGs by the experience provided. If Product X is more fun and interesting and useful than Product Y, for the same money, then it's a better deal--no matter what the page or word count. If Monster Book A delivers a reasonable number of monsters that are really useful and make the GM's life easier, it's a better deal than Monster Book B, even if the latter has twice the number of monsters.

Gamers have been arguing this point since the advent of desktop publishing. I remember Usenet discussions about whether Product Z had "too much white space" in the page layout, and whether players were getting ripped off because the publisher went with an "artsy" design when a couple more square inches per page could have been filled with additional text.

I adhere firmly to the second camp. Thus, an encounter format that makes the game easier and faster to run and prep for--or a graphic design that's evocative and establishes the game's atmosphere--is far more important to me than issues of space efficiency. If I get a little less content (or have to pay a little more for the same content in a larger book), it's well worth it.

If you're counting the words, or worried about publishers "padding" their products, your mileage may, of course, vary.

 

[Hussar]

CharlesRyan - that's about the best way I've seen it put for the two camps of the discussion. Put me in the second camp as well. Perhaps the reaction to the MMIV shows this divide particularly well.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I remember Usenet discussions about whether Product Z had "too much white space" in the page layout, and whether players were getting ripped off because the publisher went with an "artsy" design when a couple more square inches per page could have been filled with additional text.

While I agree with you -- that is, I judge the worth of a product by its usefulness, and not by its word-count -- I think the above is a little misleading.

There's a big difference between "repeating a stat-block to reduce page-flipping" and "large amounts of white-space filled with nothing." Some people may claim that the two things are equivalent, and you seem to implicitly recognize that claim, but it's just not so.

I'll bitch up a storm if I think a product's page-count has been padded with white-space or font-size increases or recycled artwork, but if that "wasted" space is actually used for something that makes my job as GM easier, I'm content.

All of this is my wordy way of saying that I took part in those Usenet discussions about the shortcomings of Product Z ... and I think the discussion about the new delve format is a different animal.

 

[Justin Cray]

Neat idea, but I bet this gets messy at higher levels.

 

[satori01]

I like the two page format. It is nice to have everything in one encounter. WOTC decided a long time ago that stats for encounters would be consolidated in the back of the module, which I hate.
It wrecks the flow for me when reading the module, and makes it harder for me to envision the space.

The Two Page format of EtCR, while it still is stats in the back, at least lets me get the feel for encounter, and when you have something as massive and 3 dimensional as Castle Ravenloft helps you out.

I like the reviews that John Cooper has done. Intellectually anyone that points out that more rigor is needed is doing good works in my book. However you have to keep in mind John came to prominence by being critical, and many of his critiques can be called nit picks.

There are stat block errors of course in Ravenloft. There are in every product, there are often, as John himself will admit, stat block errors in Johns own reviews, which I think shows the ease of missing a plus or two here or there. I will not, however, call the omission of such trivial things like the stat modifier to the Survival skill or the Synergy Bonus to Bluff: Acting to be considered a Stat Block error. The monster is not going to use those skills, their inclusion adds nothing, and if WOTC did include those entries it truly would be worse page padding than reprinting a piece of artwork.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I like the reviews that John Cooper has done. Intellectually anyone that points out that more rigor is needed is doing good works in my book. However you have to keep in mind John came to prominence by being critical, and many of his critiques can be called nit picks.

That last part is why I actively ignore the bulk of his reviews. I appreciate the effort, but I'm not his core audience for that sort of anal retentiveness (which is not an insult by the way).

 

[Zaukrie]

Why not, for the DM's map, write on what is in the room? Put the monsters in each room right on the map itself.

That is pretty much how the delve format works. The maps in the tactical sections show the starting positions of creatures, along with other terrain as needed. The words describe the tactics of the creatures.

 

[rowport]

I'll have to agree with Mouse... I just started running EtCR, and so far, I've never needed to reference another book for any information regarding what's on the two page spread. I've referenced other books for other, unrelated rules, but never for anything that's contained on the two pages.

Seconded, on all counts. The new format rocks.

 

[rowport]

That last part is why I actively ignore the bulk of his reviews. I appreciate the effort, but I'm not his core audience for that sort of anal retentiveness (which is not an insult by the way).

[regarding John Cooper reviews]
I really admire John's dillegence and attention to detail, and appreciate his reviews. It does bother me quite a bit that WOTC's editing remains terrible. I wish WOTC would just hire John, if nothing else.

That said, when I started running RtCR, I planned to use his review errata. Then, I saw the immense number of changes, thought about the complexity to use it, and just decided to ignore it all and run the module as-written. My approach worked fine. Sure, there are some math errors on skills, damage bonus, etc. but in the big picture those errors do not really affect the encounter outcomes in any significant way. YMMV, of course.