4th ed's adventure layout: best thing it has brought to D&D?

[Hellzon]

Having the encounters on dedicated pages is okay, but shoving all of them to the end of the document is pretty bad for a PDF. I can't stick my thumb in the "encounter chapter" of a PDF, so it becomes a matter of reading the main adventure text and then having to remember the approximate page the encounters are at so I can flip forward when the main text says "see encounter X3". Probably works better in books.

It's not like the adventures in Dungeon Magazine are non-linear anyway. If free roaming was possible like in Temple of Elemental Evil, it would make more sense, but as it is now, why not put encounter descriptions where they actually appear in the text.

My 5 copper pieces.

 

[Stoat]

Having the encounters on dedicated pages is okay, but shoving all of them to the end of the document is pretty bad for a PDF. I can't stick my thumb in the "encounter chapter" of a PDF, so it becomes a matter of reading the main adventure text and then having to remember the approximate page the encounters are at so I can flip forward when the main text says "see encounter X3". Probably works better in books.

It's not like the adventures in Dungeon Magazine are non-linear anyway. If free roaming was possible like in Temple of Elemental Evil, it would make more sense, but as it is now, why not put encounter descriptions where they actually appear in the text.

My 5 copper pieces.

This is my biggest beef with the Delve format. Consider the most recent Dungeon adventure: Alliance at Nefelus. The adventure itself is 17 pages long, followed by another 31 pages of delve encounters. The first 17 pages are skeletal to the point that I have a hard time understanding what's supposed to be happening when I read them. The following delve encounters are isolated from each other to the point that I have a hard time getting the big picture when I read them.

I find the booklets in published adventures easier to follow, mostly because its easier to flip back and forth with the hard copy.

I think the delve format is aces for laying out an encounter, but WotC needs to find a better way to integrate the format into its adventures.

 

[Jhaelen]

Gone are the good times when Mike Mearls would write articles in Dragon magazine on how to make things in one dungeon room interact with things happening next door.
Gone are the good times when Dan Noonan wrote a module in which these things were a HUGE part of the challenge in exploring a dungeon.
Actually, gone are the good times when Dan Noonan WROTE stuff for WotC.

Well, I don't know at which modules you've been looking, but the ones I own (H2, P1) typically describe several rooms in a single encounter area and also tell you if there's a chance that monsters from nearby areas come as reinforcements or at least hear if there's fighting and prepare themselves for the arrival of the pcs.

In other words: The advice of Mearls & Noonan has been fully integrated into the delve format.

I quite like the format and actually think it's an advantage that you can treat an encounter as a single entity and remove it, replace it, or put it somewhere else without much hassle.

About the only thing I'd like WotC to add to their modules are some lists in the adventure overview: a list of encounter areas, monsters, their xp budgets, and treasure. Then it would be perfect.

 

[EP]

Having the encounters on dedicated pages is okay, but shoving all of them to the end of the document is pretty bad for a PDF. I can't stick my thumb in the "encounter chapter" of a PDF, so it becomes a matter of reading the main adventure text and then having to remember the approximate page the encounters are at so I can flip forward when the main text says "see encounter X3". Probably works better in books..

This is the biggest issue I'm having with this layout as far as a PDF adventure is concerned. Page flipping is almost mandatory to use that format exactly, but it does work in a sense for print (though I'm not fond of page arrangement still in print). Finding something that works on screen and in printable format is still being juggled with the option of a complete reformat for 4e PDF adventures likely to take over.

 

[Windjammer]

Well, I don't know at which modules you've been looking, but the ones I own (H2, P1) typically describe several rooms in a single encounter area and also tell you if there's a chance that monsters from nearby areas come as reinforcements or at least hear if there's fighting and prepare themselves for the arrival of the pcs.

In other words: The advice of Mearls & Noonan has been fully integrated into the delve format.

Sure, 4E includes such cases, but only cosmetically. Or can you cite a single instance where such cases affect the actual EL's? No? Because if they don't, then the mechanical impact of these things has been nullified. And if that's true, then single room encounters are just as mechanically self-enclosed as I claimed.

I totally understand your response, and I do stand corrected: these things make an appearance of some sort in 4E. But when Gygax said that 3E had removed alignments from the game, he didn't intend to say alignments weren't there any longer by name. He meant that the mechanical impact of alignments where no longer a significant enough element of the game mechanics as they used to in D&D. Of course, compared with 4E, the mechanical belittlement of alignments in 3E is minor.

 

[timbannock]

Honestly, I wish they'd go even further. Why have maps with only the initial positions of bad guys? Add in all the things you need to know about the room ON the map. If a fight in room X brings reinforcements from room Y in Z rounds, put that on the map. If there are lighting issues, or any sort of terrain issues, put that on the map.

I should be able to look at the map and get a very good overview of the entire adventure without even opening the module. The location of every enemy, every trap, every terrain feature, and probably more information, should be on the DM's map.

I agree with this. Very hard to do, though. Very hard.

I blew up the map from Lost City of Barakus (Necromancer Games) and wrote in the enemies in each room. It was great during the initial planning stages, but honestly I didn't return to that map later on. It was lacking so many details that you mention that it really didn't end up being useful enough. But if there was some way I could also put the lighting and traps and other things on there...

Anyway, I think the new delve format is almost there. Indeed, add the lighting effects and some other environmental info, cut the repetition of statblocks, and have a master map that replicates as much of this as possible, and you've got a winner. But that's a HELL of a lot of development work.

Another good example is the player and DM maps made for World's Largest Dungeon. You have maps with all the encounters listed, then separate maps showing color-coded arrangements to tell you which group holds what section of the dungeon, then a master map, then individual area maps...that's a lot of freakin' maps! But combining them would look uglier than sin, so how can you really pull this off?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally, I find that the 'delve' approach is great for running a series of combat encounters, but makes it harder for me to have a good overview of the adventure/dungeon, and thus harder for me to be both evocative of the current situation and link it in well to other situations.

So my personal preference is for the 1e style adventures which I loved so much - maps on the inside of the card cover (doubles as mini screen) and text in the adventure.

Mind you, the worst set-up for usability I've experienced was Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, with monsters all arranged alphabetically in a big appendix at the back. Ugh, was that a mess to use.

Cheers

 

[Simplicity]

I hated the delve format in 3.5, and I started to appreciate it in 4e... Then I started to run adventures and I realized the horrible, creeping effect that the format had upon the adventures.

I've been using minis for D&D since 2nd edition. I didn't need to know the exact square position for creatures back then. You're a DM. The players are in a room. YOU pick where the monsters are. We don't NEED a map on every page taking up what could have been valuable plot space. Sure, it's gorgeous, but there's a price.

In 2nd edition, a module could say: 6 kobolds (1/2 HD): Spd 30', AC 12, hp 4 each, Atk +1 (1d6). And that'd be enough for me to run the encounter combat-wise. D&D needs to get back to this terseness. You don't NEED to know where things are on a page when you don't take up a page to describe an encounter.

 

[Windjammer]

@Hussar and Neuronphaser

Have a look at the dungeon visuals in the R&D article I cited earlier,

Design & Development: The "Delve Format" for Adventures

Click on the image - I think that's your dreams come true.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/designdev_format1.jpg

 

[Pbartender]

Here the thing...

Back before the Delve format, I'd get a published adventure and I go through the whole adventure and take notes. For each encounter, I'd copy and paste together each monster's stats from the SRD, and do my best to keep each encounter to one or two pages. I would repeat stat blocks, if the monster appeared in multiple encounters. It was a lot of work. ahead of time, that saved a lot of time at the gaming table.

Now, with Delve format, it's all done for me, with the sometimes added benefits of a description of the area and how it might affect the combat, suggested tactics for the bad guys, details on how the combat may affect nearby encounters, and a small map of the encounter area.

Honestly, all I need is the monster stats and a map. If the plot outline of the adventure is documented well enough elsewhere in the adventure, I can figure the rest out on my own...

That said, I don't need extraneous maps of each encounter locations, or extensive round-by-round details of what actions the monsters should take, but neither do I need extraneous Monster Manual reprint illustrations of goblins, original illustrations of the generic countryside, or how the monster next door should react when the hear the sounds of battle.

Given the choice, however, I'd rather have the maps, tactics and well-written descriptions, than a pretty picture.

As a DM, I need what's on the paper to be useful. If the players are never going to see it, I don't care if it's pretty.