4e modules and lack of empty space

Prism · Dec 13, 2008

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

Miyaa · Dec 13, 2008

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.

DEFCON 1 · Dec 13, 2008

Miyaa said:
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.

DracoSuave · Dec 13, 2008

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.

themilkman · Dec 13, 2008

DracoSuave said:
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.

Imaro · Dec 13, 2008

DracoSuave said:
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.

DEFCON 1 said:
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.

Wootz · Dec 13, 2008

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.

Dice4Hire · Dec 13, 2008

Too Much space = World's Largest Dungeon.

Cadfan · Dec 14, 2008

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."

Rechan · Dec 14, 2008

Miyaa said:
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.

The Caves of Chaos, so video-gamey.