4e modules and lack of empty space

DonTadow · Dec 15, 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.

???

A good story has places that makes sense. Its very silly adventure design to have wall to wall encounters, and very unrealistic. At least in a table top role playinggame. Now, if i were playing a video game andf i went into the next room, yeah i expect another mob. But in a role playing game where tabletops are suppose to provide a slightly more natural feel, an adventure needs to have a natural design. Encounters should be where encounters should be and empty spaces should be here they should be. Horrible adventure design is throwing pcs in endless combat, not for story purposes, but to rack up the cr level of the module.

jensun · Dec 15, 2008

dangerous jack said:
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.

This is pretty much what I do as well.

wedgeski · Dec 15, 2008

I will say that I don't like the H-series very much. They encourage methodical gameplay (and I don't mean in a good way) and really are just one fight after another. *But* they're good value when considered as a foundation for other ideas. I have yet to see any Paragon-level stuff so I'll have to reserve judgement on that. Some might say that you pay for an adventure so that you *don't* have to do a load of extra prep, and that would be fair, but Keep on the Shadowfell, for example, is perfectly playable out of the box, if not a particularly memorable adventure for more jaded players.

I very much agree with the OP though. A group needs down-time, it needs time to think and talk about what has gone before, and time to worry about what is coming up. Empty rooms are basically a canvas for roleplaying and an opportunity to evoke the backdrop of the adventure. They are valuable, but shouldn't be over-used.

jensun · Dec 15, 2008

wedgeski said:
I will say that I don't like the H-series very much. They encourage methodical gameplay (and I don't mean in a good way) and really are just one fight after another.

I dont have H1 but H2 doesnt really do this. You can play H3 like that but you can very easily move to a more negotiation/diplomacy/intrigue route.

Baz King · Dec 15, 2008

Have you looked at H2? It's wide open! You basically have a city-state to play in, of which 3 parts are fully mapped out. what else could you need?

If you want somewhere to rest, then clear out some rooms. Lord knows there's enough empty barracks now my group have been through the dungeons like crap through a short goose...

WizarDru · Dec 15, 2008

MerricB said:
'm not so fond of rooms that are just empty and are there just to waste time. (Look at some old AD&D modules, such as Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. Although there are plenty of interesting "empty" rooms, there are also rooms that aren't even described!)

Hear, hear!

In my group, we use certain phrases as short-hand. Non-essential details that aren't worth valuable play time to enumerate are generally called 'torch issues'. Which is to say, "do we have enough torches?" or "who is carrying the torch" are questions only rarely asked because unless they are immediately relevant, they waste play time and have the opportunity cost of more engaging story or combat sequences. My group are not simulationists and care little for the minutia of that kind of play.

Similarly, we have a running gag taken from the "Forge of Fury", which we refer to as "1d4 pieces of broken furniture". Specifically that there are a bunch of rooms in FoF that feature that exact information...and they are boring and time-wasting. We now reference that phrase when using canned modules...."OK, this room looks like it might have been the sleeping quarters of those goblins you fought. There's only a couple of piles of hay and a make-shift privy. You check the room and find 1d4 pieces of broken furniture. Moving on...."

My point being that relatively featureless rooms may make sense, from a meta standpoint, but can be (though by no means have to be) wastes of a gaming group's time. It follows the same ideas as placing too many traps in a dungeon in otherwise non-noteworthy places; the classic example is that of the 10' pole and timid players now crawling by a snail's pace, checking for pit traps at every turn. It may be logical or realistic, but it's also a fun-killer, overall.

Empty rooms have a place...but a dungeon full of meaningful encounters does, as well. And it's generally easier to subtract content from a module than to inject it.

Zerakon · Dec 15, 2008

I totally disagree with the notion that rooms without combat are too complicated for new players. Even new players will intuitively get a sense of tension, dread, anticipation, etc. when they encounter an interesting room without combat.

I think the new module designs show that WotC severely underestimated the intelligence and sense of adventure in all players, both new and old. Or, as someone posted, they wanted to promote dungeon tiles. Either way, thumbs down.

Jhaelen · Dec 15, 2008

Cadfan said:
I like empty rooms when they have reasons for existing. Because in a way that makes them not truly empty. I mean, if a room has no enemies, but it does have an important statue or something that sets the scene for the rest of the adventure (like a throne room in a castle, it kind of has to be there for everything to make sense, even if you don't fight in it), then I'm cool with it.

Agreed.

Cadfan said:
I also totally resented having to repeatedly make decisions like, "do you go left or right?" when I really didn't care, I was just trying to move to the next plot relevant point.

Exactly. Decisions like this are meaningless. You have to provide additional detail to make them relevant. I.e. there need to be some hints what can be expected when going in a certain direction, e.g.
1) path one: an unworked tunnel, sloping downward, a strong smell of salt and a slightly weaker smell similar to brimstone
2) path two: a small staircase leading up, an almost unhearable eerie howling sound emanating from above.
3) path three: a broad winding passageway, a slightly warm breeze, patches of moss and tiny mushrooms

DonTadow said:
???

A good story has places that makes sense. Its very silly adventure design to have wall to wall encounters, and very unrealistic. At least in a table top role playinggame. Now, if i were playing a video game andf i went into the next room, yeah i expect another mob. But in a role playing game where tabletops are suppose to provide a slightly more natural feel, an adventure needs to have a natural design. Encounters should be where encounters should be and empty spaces should be here they should be. Horrible adventure design is throwing pcs in endless combat, not for story purposes, but to rack up the cr level of the module.

Umm, what?
A good story has places that make a good story and skips over places that are irrelevant for the story.

'Realistic' dungeons (which, to a certain degree is an oxymoron) are boring. You won't want to describe endless, identically looking passages for long. It's more worthwhile to think about what makes for an interesting encounter area and adapt it accordingly.

Likewise it's a waste of time to create a complicated 3d environment that is difficult to describe, impossible to map, requires dozens of skill checks to navigate and is in the end meaningless.

jensun · Dec 15, 2008

Zerakon said:
I think the new module designs show that WotC severely underestimated the intelligence and sense of adventure in all players, both new and old. Or, as someone posted, they wanted to promote dungeon tiles. Either way, thumbs down.

I think your comments suggest that you havent actually read the modules being discussed as both H2 and P1 contain plenty of open space. H3 contains less but that is to be expected given the set up.