4e modules and lack of empty space

[Rechan]

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.

This.

Hell, players can even assume a dead end has something hidden somehow, and will take pickaxes to it.

 

[dangerous jack]

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.

 

[Wik]

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.

Only an hour, eh? You're, like, my hero. That description would've taken me all night and at least two thesauruses (Thesauri?).

Getting a bit more serious...

I think one of the reasons you can have that problem is that once you condition players to expect something in every room, when they find an empty one, they think they're missing something. This is a problem I myself often have, and I'm going to try to modify when I get working on my "non-linear dungeon" concept coming up (I'm swapping out the middle part of spelgard with something of my own making, because I think it sucks as written).

I know that, way back when, we'd find empty rooms with some dressing, and we'd explore them - even though "nothing happened", we still had a lot of fun. I remember one time we came into a room that was filled with statues, including one that lined a doorway. One of the PCs took a mace to that statue, knowing the DM had a penchant for Caratyid Columns (it was a deliberately light-hearted metagame dungeon, btw). It was just an empty room, but it really stuck in my head.

 

[Starglim]

Lack of empty space presents a problem when the DM runs intelligent creatures with slightly more thought and perception than the adventure writer anticipated, such that when they hear combat in an adjacent area they start to organise with their friends to defend themselves - that is, to combine encounters and alter starting locations. Three or four rooms of level-appropriate encounters can become one over-powered and over-long encounter in short order.

To me, it would be better to design the location as if they had already done what intelligent defenders would do - withdrawn themselves and their valuables from places they couldn't hold to gather their forces into a few proper defensive positions, with the loot safely behind them.

 

[Prism]

if they want the space and tension, go for it.

I think you are spot on here it at least for me - tension or lack of. As per the best horror films its often a great way of building tension to allow the party to discover hints and traces of the inhabitant(s) of an area before an encounter. Getting to explore creepy ruins and temples, or deserted towers is a good way of building up to the main encounter without always having to have the filler encounters before it. Of course, like you say, you don't always want this - sometimes kicking in a lair chock full of monsters is great fun

Lack of empty space presents a problem when the DM runs intelligent creatures with slightly more thought and perception than the adventure writer anticipated, such that when they hear combat in an adjacent area they start to organise with their friends to defend themselves - that is, to combine encounters and alter starting locations. Three or four rooms of level-appropriate encounters can become one over-powered and over-long encounter in short order

This is another good point. We often run very fluid encounters where the monsters often retreat/go and get their mates/patrol, and when the local area is so jammed with encounters this kind of approach can make the fights too hard too quickly. We are finding that in the modules if a creature runs, they can bring the next room into the battle within 2 rounds. This makes it too hard but you also have to question why wouldn't they when a simple door and about 20' separates them from reinforcments. When more space separates the encounter areas this is less likely to be as deadly

 

[Skallgrim]

Possibly, the reason for lack of "empty spaces" is the 4e assumption of Dungeon Tiles or other types of gridded map rooms. While this can lead to slightly artificial encounters, it does mean that spaces are either "encounter" spaces, which are relatively small and expressly designed to host encounters, or "narrative" spaces, which do not need to be mapped, and can be described and designed by the DM.

For the most part, WOTC has done a good job with the quality of maps for their published adventures (I'm pretty unhappy with Trollhaunt). These maps can be scanned in, blown up to proper 1" scale, and tossed on the table, or recreated with Dungeon Tiles. However, throwing large caverns, halls, valleys, and other massive spaces into those maps would not allow them to be easily represented by Dungeon Tiles, or by color photocopies.

Of course, if such spaces were scenes for narrative, or even for skill encounters, you have no need for actual maps of them. Sure enough, such spaces are absent. I can see why the large "empty spaces" aren't included in their maps, but I still wonder why the writers don't spend more time on helping you with the description and narration of such areas. There's a bit of in in Thunderspire, where they tell you a bit about other areas, but you are left to flesh it out yourself. I think that these areas would have been excellent places (in the writing of the adventure) to talk about interesting skill challenges and give good examples of how to run them.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

Too Much space = World's Largest Dungeon.

Been there, done that.

 

[tomlib]

Empty != Useless

I think the issues here really are the style of game your players enjoy and the definition of empty.

If your players are a Dice Rolling, Combat Intensive, Kill the Not Us type of group than rooms without combats are a drag. If it is more of a Role Playing, Figure Out the Underlying Motive group than empty rooms add to the suspense and realism.

Also, I wouldn't define a room as empty just because it has a lack of creatures. It can contain clues, treasure, and other things relating to the storyline.

Just one quick example from my game. The group recently visited an ancient but well kept church. The Library Room's shelves were filled with blocks of wood painted to look like books. My group, after some puzzling, correctly figured out that the Church was more of a showcase for tourists than an active site.

So, I agree with the idea that empty rooms can be a waste of time but just because a room doesn't have a monster in it doesn't mean that it is empty.

Tom

 

[DEFCON 1]

If most people can learn the rules then I think the designers or whoever at WotC make these decisions is underestimating their consumer base...

Not at all. And here exactly is why I think you've missed my point. Their customer base is us. You and me. The ones who've played the D&D of old, or have played other rpgs, or are proficient with computerized rpgs and the like. We're their baseline customers... the ones who were going to pick up the game and have a much easier time with it because we already knew the baseline concepts of what this whole "roleplaying game" is about.

Which is why I said I don't think these first modules were written for us. Because of things like the lack of "empty space" that the DM would need to fill in, or the idea that each encounter area remains seperate and distinct and they don't all retreat to one central location to have a 5 on 50 fight all at once... these sort of "advanced" concepts that us baseline players have had to deal with before, but which new players haven't.

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.

I definitely think you are giving new players too much credit. Because we're not talking "casual" rpgers here... we're talking completely new players to the game of D&D that they are hoping to pick up and grab with these first introductory modules. THEY do not want/need to deal with way more advanced roleplaying concepts that us baseline customers know backwards and forewards... not when they are still figuring out whether or not to continue this hobby. Which is why I think WotC has made these first modules the way they have. To paraphrase a deodorant commercial... strong enough for the baseline, but made for the newb.

 

[Imaro]

Not at all. And here exactly is why I think you've missed my point. Their customer base is us. You and me. The ones who've played the D&D of old, or have played other rpgs, or are proficient with computerized rpgs and the like. We're their baseline customers... the ones who were going to pick up the game and have a much easier time with it because we already knew the baseline concepts of what this whole "roleplaying game" is about.

Which is why I said I don't think these first modules were written for us. Because of things like the lack of "empty space" that the DM would need to fill in, or the idea that each encounter area remains seperate and distinct and they don't all retreat to one central location to have a 5 on 50 fight all at once... these sort of "advanced" concepts that us baseline players have had to deal with before, but which new players haven't.


I definitely think you are giving new players too much credit. Because we're not talking "casual" rpgers here... we're talking completely new players to the game of D&D that they are hoping to pick up and grab with these first introductory modules. THEY do not want/need to deal with way more advanced roleplaying concepts that us baseline customers know backwards and forewards... not when they are still figuring out whether or not to continue this hobby. Which is why I think WotC has made these first modules the way they have. To paraphrase a deodorant commercial... strong enough for the baseline, but made for the newb.

The only problem I have with your assumptions here is that WotC is using, (and someone correct me if I'm wrong here), the same simplistic design for their paragon level adventures as well...so when exactly have new players had enough experience running the game to be introduced to these more advanced concepts? I mean do they have to run simple style adventures all the way up to level 30 before they "graduate" to the level of competence that they can be trusted to really get a taste of what sets this hobby apart from boardgames and single-player CRPG's?